tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post4368013418320809326..comments2024-03-28T16:16:51.062-04:00Comments on Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: "Against Heterosexuality: The Idea of Sexual Orientation is Artificial and Inhibits Christian Witness"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-26250317180385452352014-02-27T12:00:05.436-05:002014-02-27T12:00:05.436-05:00Great article, showing why precision in speech and...Great article, showing why precision in speech and an understanding of history are so important in this context (and, of course, others as well). But the defenders of sodomy are not interested in the Truth, nor in drawing correct distinctions- they just want to have their way at all costs. They are (literally) hell-bent on jamming their benighted, anti-Catholic notions of morality down the throats of all parties concerned, including and especially children. (And I agree with those who discern a demonic element in their unholy quest.) I called in to a local radio program to object to the hosts' take on the recently vetoed Arizona law protecting religious liberty: 'As a business owner, you have the right to think homosexuality is wrong, but not the right to refuse service to homosexuals.' I didn't want to get into a discussion of sodomy per se, I merely wanted to point out that rights permits actions or they are pointless. It would be as if one said that the right to vote meant one could decide on the candidate of one's choice but couldn't cast a ballot. We never got there, though, I was quickly asked if I thought homosexuality was wrong. When I said 'yes' I was scoffed at and summarily dismissed as the 21st century equivalent of a Klansman: 'Robert's just going to have to get used to serving gays in his restaurant, just like the racists down south had to eventually begin serving blacks.' I'm sure they think that they won the 'debate' (as if I had a chance with their fingers on the hang-up button) but, the thing is, ridicule is not an argument. RFGA, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11981669525574676528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-25270485479658922942014-02-27T09:11:21.619-05:002014-02-27T09:11:21.619-05:00Michel Foucault was a flaming sodomite who died of...Michel Foucault was a flaming sodomite who died of AIDS. He also stooped to mendacious and arbitrary revisionism in his so-called "histories" of this or that. Nevertheless, he has a point when it comes to this matter of "orientation essentialism." <br /><br />There is no such thing.<br /><br />Even our new Catechism of the Catholic Church, along with Pope John Paul II, rejects the notion that a person is defined by their sexual orientation. <br /><br />The one correction we should make is to stop talking about "sexual orientations," "homosexuals," and "heterosexuals," since that only reinforces the distortion. Instead, we should talk about individuals who are faithful to Church teaching or not, people who are "sodomites" or not. We should probably also be more forthright about those who are not "sodomites," but are involved in recreational sex of the supposedly "normal" type, and call them out for being what they are: "fornicators," "adulterers," "lechers," "pedophiles," and "sexual predators." <br /><br />Good article.Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6312447.post-83585853946622993952014-02-27T04:22:14.913-05:002014-02-27T04:22:14.913-05:00Judith Butler says the same thing about male and f...Judith Butler says the same thing about male and female. Social constructionism goes all the way down. Ex-gay ideologists espouse it at their peril.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com