[aeternum]

Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. For many, it can even be racial, religious, etc. We as a society have determined that it is okay to discriminate based on personal tastes when it comes to sex.

That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex.

As much as we want to believe Human Rights are some fundamental property of nature, the reality is they are simply an agreed upon social construct.

[geysersam]

The word "discrimination" has two meanings.

> 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.

> 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

> Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination.

It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications.

Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown.

In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust.

What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?

[aeternum]

Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.

[geysersam]

> How do you decide what is just vs. unjust?

The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better.

Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).

[jfowief]

Morality is subjective at its core, so you can't "argue" that something is unjust, and the fact that moral philosophers baselessly think they can doesn't change this fact.

[jfowief]

Hilarious that the commenter accused you of running in circles when it's actually him who is using meaningless terms like "just" and "unjust"