Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Due_Example5177 t1_j76jxet wrote

Reply to comment by Purely_Theoretical in There Are No Natural Rights (without Natural Law): Addressing what rights are, how we create rights, and where rights come from by contractualist

This. I would argue that, as I don’t consent, and as my existence was a crime at birth and until 2003, with the Lawrence V Texas ruling, thus breaking the social contract, the onus is on the State to establish legitimacy by earning consent…or fail at doing so and remain illegitimate.

2

WhittlingDan t1_j78ke1f wrote

Your existence wasn't a crime the action was because straight could and had been charged with sodomy. The law definitely was used to target gay people though and was wrong. No victim, no crime.

1

Due_Example5177 t1_j78omay wrote

No, my existence was criminalized. That’s how we are intimate with our partners.

2

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.

1

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.

2

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.

1

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

1