More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law 

There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.

In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.

That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.

As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.

As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.

Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉

Leave a Reply