> There are many things that are (practically) immutable that aren't rooted in genetics, so no, the distinction isn't unimportant.
Yet in this case it’s used for the same purpose, building an argument saying that people should not be punished for it because they can’t change it. It’s moving the goalposts and it is not productive in the long run. There are much better reasons to accept homosexuality.
> "As long as both parties consent" is a particular view of human sexuality that is not even fully embraced in the west, and is largely rejected everywhere else.
Indeed, if you believe in human rights and that having pleasure does not give someone the right to harm someone else. The fact that there are some horrible people or repressive societies does not make that any less true.
> It's perfectly legitimate for societies to enforce what libertines might regard as "narrow" and "reactionary" sexual norms--so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes.
That is very US-specific. Protected classes in itself is a device to afford protection to some people whilst keeping the moral right to be arbitrarily repressive in any other way. Discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the reason is in a list of things politicians feel like protecting.
> A society could decide, for example, that the destructive effect of adultery on families and children warrants its prohibition. That's a choice a society can make, or not make. We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not make.
Yes, and the loss of freedom is balanced against the gains. If serious studies show evidence of harm from adultery, you have a point. Otherwise it is as sensible as forbidding video games or kitchen knives.
> We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not require a society to accept the values of the western sexual revolution.
Not being punished for something that is not wrong or for a victimless act is not a concept born during the sexual revolution. It has a long tradition from antiquity, and was quite popular during the enlightenment, and is part of the bedrock of the democratic ideal.
If you accept the concept of human rights, it implies that you accept not to punish people for their choice of sex partners (again, as long as that choice does not violate the human rights of said partners).
> The story is quite different when it comes to immutable sexual characteristics. That elevates it into the realm of issues such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity--into a human rights issue. We regard those very differently.
I know you like to say you do (collectively; there are many examples in this thread), but it does not make it right. It’s also, again, a very US-specific concept.
Yet in this case it’s used for the same purpose, building an argument saying that people should not be punished for it because they can’t change it. It’s moving the goalposts and it is not productive in the long run. There are much better reasons to accept homosexuality.
> "As long as both parties consent" is a particular view of human sexuality that is not even fully embraced in the west, and is largely rejected everywhere else.
Indeed, if you believe in human rights and that having pleasure does not give someone the right to harm someone else. The fact that there are some horrible people or repressive societies does not make that any less true.
> It's perfectly legitimate for societies to enforce what libertines might regard as "narrow" and "reactionary" sexual norms--so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes.
That is very US-specific. Protected classes in itself is a device to afford protection to some people whilst keeping the moral right to be arbitrarily repressive in any other way. Discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the reason is in a list of things politicians feel like protecting.
> A society could decide, for example, that the destructive effect of adultery on families and children warrants its prohibition. That's a choice a society can make, or not make. We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not make.
Yes, and the loss of freedom is balanced against the gains. If serious studies show evidence of harm from adultery, you have a point. Otherwise it is as sensible as forbidding video games or kitchen knives.
> We can debate the merits of it, but human rights does not require a society to accept the values of the western sexual revolution.
Not being punished for something that is not wrong or for a victimless act is not a concept born during the sexual revolution. It has a long tradition from antiquity, and was quite popular during the enlightenment, and is part of the bedrock of the democratic ideal.
If you accept the concept of human rights, it implies that you accept not to punish people for their choice of sex partners (again, as long as that choice does not violate the human rights of said partners).
> The story is quite different when it comes to immutable sexual characteristics. That elevates it into the realm of issues such as discrimination based on race or ethnicity--into a human rights issue. We regard those very differently.
I know you like to say you do (collectively; there are many examples in this thread), but it does not make it right. It’s also, again, a very US-specific concept.