It bothered me a great deal when I wrote it. The problem, to me at least, is that we have allowed antiquated religious definitions of morality that are basically, at least in Judeo-christian-islamic cultures, arbitrary and authoritarian. This can be true of any religious tradition. We have partially substituted defined rights to replace cultural traditions but the missing component is a shared moral standard that embodies full diversity. When this is simply personal action or adult shared actions it should be, by default, allowed. When someone insists that a “higher” morality denies other’s rights that cannot be allowed. That opens the door to authoritarian opportunists such as the current Republican Party or others who will support repression to gain support of these groups. Do we deny this? Do we vote on it by majority, plurality, unanimity? By fiat? Or do we simply separate these people from all others? Traditional human approach is either comply with community standards or leave. That’s now very difficult on a small, internetworked planet. We need a new planet. . .