Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who encourage a change in a culture's mores?
|
No. Why should it? I don't have to prove my actions don't cause harm in order to engage in those actions, it has to be proven that they will cause harm in order for me to not engage in them.
Because we're innocent until proven guilty.
The only reason I can think of that could be claimed that homosexuality is a threat to society is because it has no means of direct reproduction (though even that will change as science advances). But if we're not going to worry about people that conciously choose to not reproduce even if they are able, this is a non-threat.
If you can't prove something is harmful - there's no reason to prohibit millions of people from doing it.