Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
The verse speaks specifically of men, not generically of others. So if you are straight, it does not compel you to sexual acts on women, while if you are gay, you shall try to hit on all the men to your heart’s content. You can see this perfectly fits ordinary morality.
I think it’s apposite to go beyond the Golden Rule, but by improvement rather than negation. The first step is Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”. The second step is functional decision theory.
I happened to have the same doubt as you. A deeper analysis of the sacred texts shows how your interpretation of the Golden Rule is amiss. You say:
But the correct version is:
The verse speaks specifically of men, not generically of others. So if you are straight, it does not compel you to sexual acts on women, while if you are gay, you shall try to hit on all the men to your heart’s content. You can see this perfectly fits ordinary morality.
I think it’s apposite to go beyond the Golden Rule, but by improvement rather than negation. The first step is Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”. The second step is functional decision theory.