Originally Posted by KSig RC
(Post 1850078)
UGA, here's the thing ... not too long ago (as late as the '50s, even, in some places) folks were placed into mental institutions (or, even worse, the seminary) for being gay. It was viewed as a possibly-curable mental imbalance, a sort of psychosis, and the "societal/moral repercussions" were drastic and real. Yet, today, nobody would claim that there "must be something wrong with that boy" if he likes other boys, at least not in polite and educated company.
The fact of the matter is ethics, and especially morals, are temporal. It's the most natural and beautiful thing in the world to marry the person you love, right? Unless it's your brother. Or you have power of attorney over a disputed estate that they are involved with. Or whatever - we could go down the line with similar examples.
You can argue that the societal repercussions are so real and so drastic that this individual SIMPLY MUST have some issues in order to cultivate or subject herself to those repercussions - but that's a value assumption based entirely on your experiences and value set, your own desires (both sexual desires, and desire not to subject yourself to society's disapproval), without any regard for the thought that maybe, perhaps, you're viewing it through a narrow (and, as I stated before, egocentric) lens. Before we judge these people for bringing down the wrath of polite, gentile society upon themselves with their perverted sexual proclivities, I think there are three elements that sort of go against your logic in this discussion:
1 - We don't know, and have little to no right to know, what happens behind closed doors for 99% of people - hence, lines like "in my experience" ring hollow.
2 - We don't know, and have absolutely no right to know, what drives individuals to engage in acts we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of.
3 - Our response to (1) and (2) say as much about ourselves as the individuals involved.
I don't get where you're going with lines like "...except she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys", either - it seems like a pseudo-scientific rationale for an otherwise-opinion-based argument. You certainly have the right to judge, if you'd like, but I simply can't go along with your reasoning in doing so - the logic simply doesn't extend, especially if it's based on societal or moral/ethical bases without the concomitant and tacit understanding that these things are both not set in stone and are wholly and completely temporal.
|
