Due_Example5177 t1_j78omay wrote
Reply to comment by WhittlingDan in There Are No Natural Rights (without Natural Law): Addressing what rights are, how we create rights, and where rights come from by contractualist
No, my existence was criminalized. That’s how we are intimate with our partners.
WhittlingDan t1_j79vez9 wrote
Then the intimacy was criminalized still not the existence. That case was talking specifically about a sodomy law. If you do not have sex is your existence causing a crime? No. Now was the law intended to target gay people? Absolutely that was the case and it criminalized an important part of intimate relationships. You do not need to have sex to be gay and those people were not "criminalized.". It was bigoted and meant to target gay people by targeting an act that people can do. This really feels like an argument about semantics. Im not against anything relating to gay, straight or sodomy but am a stickler for meaning and clarity.
Due_Example5177 t1_j79vo1v wrote
Right. So it criminalized our existence. It’s the same thing. Every gay person has sex at some point. There’s no difference here. Our existence was illegal. It was a soft genocide.
Accurate_Mango9661 t1_j7cr6a4 wrote
Actually plenty of gay people have no interest in sex. "Existence" is not equal to "intimacy", not even remotely. It's the same childish argument Trans activists use.
Due_Example5177 t1_j7cshhe wrote
False. What you describe is homoromantic asexual. And yet another excuse for fascistic genocide. Gay, aka homoSEXUAL is about sexual attraction
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments