I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
Laws not only enforce cultural standards but they signal what the cultural standards are. If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Legally enforcing community standards isn't an inherent good, it's a sometimes-necessary action that needs to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the community. Whether or not it's oppressive really depends on the law itself. It very well could be oppressive if it's overly broad, disproportionate in its punishment, or invasive (as in, violating citizens' privacy and prosecuting private behavior instead of public behavior).
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Admittedly, it doesn't provide much (if any) benefit except for freedom itself. But freedom is an important consideration. The test for whether something needs to be banned ought to be whether it's causing harm, not whether allowing it provides benefit. The latter position leads to things being banned by default, which inverts the burden of proof, as it were. A society that functioned that way would inevitably become oppressive.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
I agree with this completely. That's why I think the best way forward is fewer laws and de-facto laws, not more. Instead of banning things (except where absolutely necessary) allow people to discriminate and society will sort itself out. The people should be able to decide what they will tolerate via their culture, rather than have their will haphazardly filtered through incompetent/corrupt/flawed politicians and then be dictated to by the state.
If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
This is a good point, however. Laws aren't only about restriction and punishment, they represent a society's values and signal its intent. Sometimes a law can solidify an official position but not be rigidly enforced, and sometimes that's preferable.
I think a healthy society can do the job with encouragement and discouragement without needing to resort to oppressive laws. Oppression is the problem even now; this LGBT stuff is being upheld through regulatory capture, propaganda and the suppression of dissent.
Enforcing community standards isn't "oppression". Neither is enforcing against indecency or obscenity.
Degeneracy is allowed because "discrimination" is illegal or if not illegal it is a considered a civil tort. If people could be fired and kicked out of leases for being gay then faggots would go back into closet and we would go back to our reasonable equilibrium that we had for centuries.
Laws not only enforce cultural standards but they signal what the cultural standards are. If sodomy isn't against the law then it is a signal that sodomy is tolerated.
Another question is what good comes from having sodomy be legal?
Legally enforcing community standards isn't an inherent good, it's a sometimes-necessary action that needs to balance individual freedoms with the needs of the community. Whether or not it's oppressive really depends on the law itself. It very well could be oppressive if it's overly broad, disproportionate in its punishment, or invasive (as in, violating citizens' privacy and prosecuting private behavior instead of public behavior).
Admittedly, it doesn't provide much (if any) benefit except for freedom itself. But freedom is an important consideration. The test for whether something needs to be banned ought to be whether it's causing harm, not whether allowing it provides benefit. The latter position leads to things being banned by default, which inverts the burden of proof, as it were. A society that functioned that way would inevitably become oppressive.
I agree with this completely. That's why I think the best way forward is fewer laws and de-facto laws, not more. Instead of banning things (except where absolutely necessary) allow people to discriminate and society will sort itself out. The people should be able to decide what they will tolerate via their culture, rather than have their will haphazardly filtered through incompetent/corrupt/flawed politicians and then be dictated to by the state.
This is a good point, however. Laws aren't only about restriction and punishment, they represent a society's values and signal its intent. Sometimes a law can solidify an official position but not be rigidly enforced, and sometimes that's preferable.