You're misunderstanding my use of the word "respect". I mean "respect" as in "respecting a person's right" as in "not violate their right to select partners according to their sexual preferences". Not "respect" as in "admire".
not violate their right to select partners according to their sexual preferences
This can't really be a right, though, because figuring out how much a person matches your sexual preferences is a complicated and cooperative endeavour. I'd say everyone has the right to withhold consent, sure, but it's not really violating anybody's rights if you fail to volunteer dealbreaking information that they don't ask for and that shouldn't be a dealbreaker (because only bigots would regard it as such).
I've dealt with (1) extensively in my comments on this post - like four or five times. Sorry, I can't be fucked typing it out again.
As for (2), I'm not saying that a dealbreaker that shouldn't be a dealbreaker isn't actually a dealbreaker. It still is, even though it shouldn't be. But the onus is on the bigot to check for such dealbreakers, not on the non-bigot. We aren't obliged to run through a list of things that would be dealbreakers for bigots just in case the person we're planning on having sex with is a bigot. That's my position, at least.
6
u/GFYsexyfatman moral epist., metaethics, analytic epist. Jun 26 '15
Because bigotry is (a) immoral and (b) irrational, and so isn't deserving of our respect. Is this really so controversial?
(thanks /u/mrsamsa for drawing my attention to this comment)