Quote:
|
Except for DNA-related cases, I take and/or recognize a homosexuality as a wrong concept and/or approach for sexual activity.
|
Why the exception for DNA-related cases?
(rhetorical question -- I already know your answer, I just look forward to demonstrating the faulty logic behind your reasoning)
Quote:
|
Therefore, they had better stay away from any form of publicity if that may (potentially) influence children, especially since children deserve a special status within communities, societies, groups, etc. that is why any form of endorsing and/or promoting homosexuality is unacceptable (at least).
|
I feel the same way about religion, including Catholicism, for its generally (exceptions allowed) destructive influence on the ego and intellect. However, we live in a democratic society, and unless one (you or me) can prove an act or activity produces irreparable damage (that which threatens the health of a community to the point of rendering dysfunctional -- aka, destroying it), you can't inhibit public sphere endorsement or promotion of it.
That's the virtue and vice of
equality. Since exposure to homosexuality does not appear to make churn out significantly higher numbers of homosexual children, that whole avenue of thought is a waste of time -- moreover, it has not been proven large numbers of homosexuals would be wrong (it would only be a serious problem if maintaining the population became hard, which is actually the opposite of our trouble just now), since homosexuality is not intrinsically a drain on health, intellect, or happiness.
Maybe you would be happier living in a theocracy like the Vatican, where publicity you approve of is mandated. If you can't accept publicity of factions contrary to yours, then you aren't suitable for a democratic society, where other factions are a fact of life.