This is not analogous to tearing down laws or social norms so old and complicated that no one could reasonably be expected to know why they were made in the first place.
Is this relevant to a norm whose invention was explicitly documented six years ago?
But I don’t need to know that in order to establish that homosexuality should be allowed and accepted today.
How confident are you that an argument for abolishing a social norm that is thousands of years old that makes no charitable reference to why the norm survived thousands of years is calm, dispassionate, and complete? (I should note this is a general response, and I am entirely uninterested in discussing the specifics of homosexuality in this thread.)
Is this relevant to a norm whose invention was explicitly documented six years ago?
How confident are you that an argument for abolishing a social norm that is thousands of years old that makes no charitable reference to why the norm survived thousands of years is calm, dispassionate, and complete? (I should note this is a general response, and I am entirely uninterested in discussing the specifics of homosexuality in this thread.)