EAllusion wrote:It doesn't matter that driving is a volitional activity and homosexual orientation is not. (Homosexual sex is, but that's neither here nor there.) The problem is that homosexual sex, like driving, has obvious benefits that justify its risks for homosexuals. The idea that any risk = morally wrong, to be avoided, etc. is defeated by the analogy.
I think it does, though it makes the issue much more muddy in ways that Amore is taking advantage of in the case of her argument. At least in the case of discussing it with those like subgenius because it is a distinction with a difference as to what justifies the supposed risks over the motive for engaging in the so-called risky behavior.
I read Amore as making multiple arguments. One was to argue that innate conditions such as professionally recognized mental illnesses do not justify society enabling people who have them. The argument from risk is a secondary one, and exactly the type I think a lawyer would use to confuse a jury on an issue. I'm not convinced she is arguing her own beliefs so much as setting up a "legally-defensible" argument and seeing how the left-leaning board members respond to it. Not unlike what you used to (still? don't know) do on the MAD board playing an apologist and testing other's reasoning for their positions even when you didn't hold the underlying beliefs.
Anyway, my opinion is that the simple demonstration that "risk = moral wrong is false" alone doesn't address the opposing point. That being he differentiated between risky behaviors that he feels are beneficial to society and individuals, and then those that are self-destructive but may be perceived as beneficial by the individual. This seems to make his argument more about what is truly beneficial risky behavior rather than what is only deemed beneficial by the individual. But society may view it differently. How to distinguish between these categories? Or even more, when ought society to step in and interfere with what may broadly be seen as self-destructive but to the individual seems to have benefits that outweigh any risk potential? Of all of us, I'm sure you have the best grasp on the messiness that comes with evaluating where the line is here. When we chose between individual liberty and socially imposed restrictions on behaviors that may be "harmful" to society, we enter terrain that Amore seems to have recognized isn't as easy to traverse as binary right or wrong. I think that is where Amore has placed part of the argument and sub is riding the obvious issues it creates. One has to concede to some degree that society operates in complex and often inconsistent ways. We encourage some risky behaviors with benefits and allow many that are self-destructive in favor of individual liberty. But not always.
By presenting the argument that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, rather than a volitional activity, it places it in a category for evaluation in accordance with the issues outlined above that opens it up for attack in some ways (those employed by Amore for example) while it simply removes many of the attempted analogies used by sub that are generally recognized as self-destructive and volitional behaviors in addition to being risky.