Life itself is a giant experiment for which no-one really knows the answer to.

I am pretty much for being open and accepting of our own humanity (desires, flaws, quirks), without tabooing the fuck out of everything and trying to control what other individuals think and do with themselves. Education, information, critical thinking and a sharp change of culture into acceptance is what I think we need, not a "safe process".

>> Education, information, critical thinking and a sharp change of culture into acceptance is what I think we need,

Just out of curiosity , would you apply similar rules to hard drugs ? Are the any limits to your approach , places where a slower process that tries to minimize risks, should be applied ?

I'd apply the same logic to hard drugs, with emphasis in treatment, not criminalization, if you develop addiction or other problem. I think a big chink of the drug problem is the alienation it creates, in part due to being illegal and a taboo. If it's just something you can do, it probably loses half the appeal, and information about its risks and intricacies are probably more generally available.

I emphasize critical thinking, so yeah I think there are limits to my approach, especially when it concerns other people more directly (e.g. hurting others is not ok).

Process is generally warranted as well when a large group of people have to interact directly and the consequences are more fatal, such as traffic. In fact, I am pretty much for there being processes, not necessarily for minimizing risks, but to reduce conflict in a functioning society. What I don't like, I guess, is micro-managing daily behavior of people without a very good reason.

EDIT: I also think process should be revised constantly for an evolving society, again, with an emphasis in acceptance and critical thinking, not just accepting the status quo. The last thing we need is 18th century law causing problems today.

There are lots of "we" in your sentences. Who is this "we" and when was the last time when you noticed scientific consensus on any highly subjective topics like sexuality ?

Not knowing the consequences of something is an insufficient reason not to do it. You're invoking a form of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (Namely, that it hasn't been proven safe, so should be presumed unsafe.)

there's a difference between doing something , to doing something on a huge scale , no ?