UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

That is morally wrong, even in accepted secular belief systems.

My position does not stand on a nuanced and artificial legal definition (as yours does). It stands on accepted biological science...not the fictional system you create where sex is not genetic (even though there is a gene for it) and sexual attraction is genetic (even though there is no gene for it). Your view is contrary to biological science, and as such, it is akin to Lysenkoism, and will be an embarrassment to future liberals, as Lysenkoism is to current communists.

Nor does my position stand on religious grounds (so religious arguments are irrelevant). It stands on accepted secular humanism moral theory (and definitely not the nazi-style of moral theory where you just define a human being to be a non-person so you can kill them). Your position is akin to eugenics (a moral theory based on politics and/or personal convenience...neither of which is something upon which morality should be based; morality either restricts convenience or political acts, or it is totally meaningless). Your political/convenience-based morality will be an embarrassment to future generations as eugenics is to us now (assuming evil does not take over the world, and I don't think it will.

A further point about American jurisprudence: It is a basic principle that the government cannot transfer a harm from one innocent victim to a new innocent victim. Our system of law should not do that, and authorizing such aggression against innocent human beings, when done in the US, is (or should be) an aberration to be fixed, not a feature to be lauded.