> Presumably because their behavior does not breach what the list maker deems acceptable.

So it’s not because they are gay, it’s their behaviour.

I am glad we finally agreed though I am sad we had to spend as many steps to reach this conclusion.

Ah, a dim light is starting to flicker.

These lists aren't about homosexuality (or communism or adulterers or whatever), it's about attacking ideological and political opposition. The list makers never include "transgressions" of people aligned with them on their lists. If they can bully and intimidate their opponents about their sexuality they'll do that, if not they'll find something else. That's how these things work.

So I refer you back to Nietzsche.

You seem to have confused your insults and arrogance for insight.

There's no ideology involved, only breaking the social contract and hurting others.

I'd refer you to Scanlon.

Always funny to hear people making lists of minorities and undesirables defend themselves. None of what you're coming up with is new.

It's not a list of minorities, it's also not a list of undesirables.

Listing the actions of individuals has no inherent morality. The morality of the actions is decided by the broader society.

You keep painting them as victims when the list is only outlining their actions. If you have done no harm, you have nothing to fear.

That's great, you keep saving the world one list of homosexuals at a time.

The amount of strawmans and insults you have thrown should have been your wake-up call.

As far as I am concerned, you are just another hypocrite, no different to the people in the list and this conversation is not worth it.

Again, read up on contractualism.