6 ms·

Because if homosexual behavior is genetically-determined (or inalterably biologically determined) the gays can argue that they are being discriminated for what

Because if homosexual behavior is genetically-determined (or inalterably biologically determined) the gays can argue that they are being discriminated for what they ARE, rather than for what they CHOSE to be. There's a large number of laws which prohibit voluntary behavior of one sort or another even if there are no direct victims (drug use would be one example) so the proponents of restricting homosexuality would have it easier to argue that there's an overriding societal concern which justifies this voluntary behavior. (The existence of laws creating "victimless crimes" is an accepted part of modern legal systems, sadly, but no one other than hard-core libertarians actually oppose the concept.)

scarface74 7y ago
If we use that as a reason, shouldn’t we study why some people are attracted to people of another race since there are many religious people who still think interracial marriage is wrong and it was illegal in certain states as late as the 60s. We decided as a society to ignore those people because they were wrong. We shouldn’t need “studies” to get the hell out of people’s bedroom. Slowly we are changing as society. But studies won’t convince people who believe that not only are “the gays” going to hell but they are the cause of all of society’s ills and natural disasters.
- averros 7y ago
  Well, once there's a concept that a society should have laws restricting behaviors which don't actively hurt other people or their property (drug laws, morality laws like anti-gay, hate speech laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc) in the "interests of the society" (as defined by the politically more powerful groups), then it's very hard to argue against this kind of laws being applied against some minority groups (after all, democracy is the rule of majority). The only logically consistent way to deal with these issues is to drop the whole concept of victimless crimes, and accept that (negative) individual rights are more important than whatever (positive) vision of social good is prevalent. But, of course, both sides of mainstream political spectrum in US are hell-bent on using the legal bludgeon to force the other side to conform to their idea of utopia. I'm wondering what happened to "live and let live".

scarface74 7y ago

If we use that as a reason, shouldn’t we study why some people are attracted to people of another race since there are many religious people who still think interracial marriage is wrong and it was illegal in certain states as late as the 60s. We decided as a society to ignore those people because they were wrong. We shouldn’t need “studies” to get the hell out of people’s bedroom. Slowly we are changing as society. But studies won’t convince people who believe that not only are “the gays” going to hell but they are the cause of all of society’s ills and natural disasters.

averros 7y ago
Well, once there's a concept that a society should have laws restricting behaviors which don't actively hurt other people or their property (drug laws, morality laws like anti-gay, hate speech laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc) in the "interests of the society" (as defined by the politically more powerful groups), then it's very hard to argue against this kind of laws being applied against some minority groups (after all, democracy is the rule of majority). The only logically consistent way to deal with these issues is to drop the whole concept of victimless crimes, and accept that (negative) individual rights are more important than whatever (positive) vision of social good is prevalent. But, of course, both sides of mainstream political spectrum in US are hell-bent on using the legal bludgeon to force the other side to conform to their idea of utopia. I'm wondering what happened to "live and let live".