Quote:
|
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
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.
|
hmm... call me crazy, but since changing the fundamental makeup of the basic unit of all culture and society (the family) is at stake... i'd want to know the implications first.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|