there’s a logical inconsistency in giving people 3000 years ago credit for the rationality of their views on lepers and pork, but condemning them for having irrational views on homosexuality
It’s not inconsistent to acknowledge the occasional rightness of a stopped clock.
It’s inconsistent to call ideas about the transmission of homosexuality “superstition” because they turned out to be wrong (if they did; I don’t know the research), yet not call ideas about the transmission of leprosy “superstition”, just because they turned out to be right. The people at that time had roughly equal reason to believe either proposition. Detection of the transmission of leprosy is extremely hard to detect, so much so that for much of the 20th century, doctors said it was not transmissible.
I think his claim is that people are illicitly labeling people who disagree with their values as irrational.
Ok, so to be logically consistent, if your values are that homosexuality is as bad as leprosy (!) and you believe its contagious, then you isolate the homosexuals, you don’t kill them.
It’s not inconsistent to acknowledge the occasional rightness of a stopped clock.
It’s inconsistent to call ideas about the transmission of homosexuality “superstition” because they turned out to be wrong (if they did; I don’t know the research), yet not call ideas about the transmission of leprosy “superstition”, just because they turned out to be right. The people at that time had roughly equal reason to believe either proposition. Detection of the transmission of leprosy is extremely hard to detect, so much so that for much of the 20th century, doctors said it was not transmissible.
I think his claim is that people are illicitly labeling people who disagree with their values as irrational.
Ok, so to be logically consistent, if your values are that homosexuality is as bad as leprosy (!) and you believe its contagious, then you isolate the homosexuals, you don’t kill them.