you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You can't ban people's sexualities anymore than you can define them out of existence. This is such an incredibly dumb hill for them to die on.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's the goal though.

"Progress," today, can't happen if there are things that are involitional. So this sets up a cognitive dissonance. If there are things that are innate... Because innateness does not conform to social constructionism. If you've got some sort of halcyon future in mind, then anything that's biologically essential stands in opposition that, and it must be attacked. Halcyon futures can only come about if the entirety of reality is mutable to one's wishes.

Better to see things as they are, and mind that up is up and down is down, and if you drop a hammer on your bare foot, it's going to hurt. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"