pop morality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The "gay gene" arguments are being used to counter the Christians (and related religions) who argue, "Well it's a choice so why don't you just choose to be straight like the rest of us?"

You can continue to ignore my entire reply to your slippery-slope argument, which is indeed a syllogism, but it is not hypothetical unless you can demonstrate a potential scenario in which it could happen. I demonstrated such a scenario, while you did not; all you did was assert that because gay people are driven to their attractions by genetics/neurochemistry, it must mean that anyone with any predilection must be accommodated for the same reason. Several of us showed you why that is not so, and demonstrated the conditions that must be met (and, as I have asserted, seem to be unable to be met), for making your conditions even potentially hypothetical.

In the colloquial sense, we could call any "Well what if ______?" an hypothetical, but it doesn't make it a legitimate point in a debate. To understand why this is so, why don't I give you the hypothetical "What would you do if Smaug the Dragon ate your wife?" To make your hypothetical situation legitimate, you must assert more than a lame syllogism. You must assert a way in which it would be possible, so we could discuss why that is or is not a legitimate hypothetical. Your syllogism doesn't cut it. You failed.

My straight (is that a deliberate pun?) answer is simple: as long as there is a harm-element, it is immoral, and will continue to be banned. Whether or not there is a gene, and whether or not science "gives its blessing", are irrelevant in terms of the morality of a thing. I even showed you an example of the Supreme Court's analysis of such a question, which you continue to ignore, thinking you can hide that fact behind your wall of hatred, prejudice, scorn, and derision.

The only reason you say "it is a sin" is because your stupid religious book from which you cherry-pick says so... and it says so in the places where it also says to stone children for disrespecting their parents, to execute people who are of other faiths in your city, and a lot of other truly horrifyingly immoral stuff by modern standards. So if we exclude the barbaric bits (as so many Christers like to do), we're left with a few tidbits on what is sexual sin by the Pharisee you worship, Paul, who also had an issue with people even getting married and preferred we all be celibate (issues, indeed!), which I hardly consider to be a standard for considering post-Enlightenment moral principles.