Fair enough, I give you credit for being consistent.
I will say: the case of disabled WWI veterans is a case where the interests of all parties basically agree. The public benefited from not having to look at disfigured veterans all the time, and the veterans themselves benefited from appearing as nicely as possible in public. Hence, it was in everybody’s interests for the veterans to wear these prosthetics.
This is not the case with gay men kissing in public, since the interests of the gay men and the interests of homophobes diverge.
Veterans found their faces unappealing too, but homosexuals don't find their kissing unappealing but think the other party is wrong. In the first case, there's aesthetic agreement as to what is "appearing nicely", while in the second there's disagreement and homosexuals would have to submit to a third party's aesthetic standard.
I think the "in public" part of "appearing nicely in public" necessarily means that some third party's aesthetic standard is being deferred to. Many people refrain from using profanity in public even if they themselves are not bothered by profanity.
I think that most people are naturally inclined to be considerate of other people's sensibilities while in public, and the opposition to doing so in the particular case of homosexuality seems ideological to me.
Except you dont need to be a homophobe to be put off by displays of gay intimacy. The important claim would be that it comes off that way to any normal straight man regardless of their views on the legitimacy of gay relationships, etc.
Fair enough, I give you credit for being consistent.
I will say: the case of disabled WWI veterans is a case where the interests of all parties basically agree. The public benefited from not having to look at disfigured veterans all the time, and the veterans themselves benefited from appearing as nicely as possible in public. Hence, it was in everybody’s interests for the veterans to wear these prosthetics.
This is not the case with gay men kissing in public, since the interests of the gay men and the interests of homophobes diverge.
Why do the veterans benefit from appearing as nicely as possible in public, but gay men don’t benefit from appearing as nicely as possible in public?
Veterans found their faces unappealing too, but homosexuals don't find their kissing unappealing but think the other party is wrong. In the first case, there's aesthetic agreement as to what is "appearing nicely", while in the second there's disagreement and homosexuals would have to submit to a third party's aesthetic standard.
I think the "in public" part of "appearing nicely in public" necessarily means that some third party's aesthetic standard is being deferred to. Many people refrain from using profanity in public even if they themselves are not bothered by profanity.
I think that most people are naturally inclined to be considerate of other people's sensibilities while in public, and the opposition to doing so in the particular case of homosexuality seems ideological to me.
Except you dont need to be a homophobe to be put off by displays of gay intimacy. The important claim would be that it comes off that way to any normal straight man regardless of their views on the legitimacy of gay relationships, etc.
This pulls me in a lot of different directions.
How so?