Re: Fearing the queers?

"The point I tried to make is anyone might lay claim to being part of a minority, innumerable cults do such, but where is the significance for treating them as such?"

And why the heck not?

The default position should be "full personhood" unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And fully able to exercise rights unless you can demonstrate harm. If we assume the negative, that types of humans aren't persons, that forms of behaviour are mere privileges or are assumed harmful without any evidence; then we will only reinforce irrational prejudices.

Folks once assumed that women weren't persons in the same sense men were. Or that open homosexuality causes harm to str8 bystanders. The reason we got over these was the demand for proof of the merit of the restriction, not proof of the merit of the person attempting to assert their humanity and exercise their liberty.

"And of course nobody has a right to violate the consent of another person, or to interfere with their right to consent."

"Perhaps we won't go there since most child-lovers and all others seem to disagree on the abilities of some to fitfully consent."

Disagreement over the rights of women to consent didn't prevent rational people from questioning the assumption that they couldn't self-govern. Nor..... ( Well, I pointed out that the old prejudices aren't even disguised by those who presently employ them. They're as bankrupt as ever. But they're still in use. )

Dante