Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tax-chick
Not for their "orientation" or "identity," but for their sexual behavior or public advocacy.

Exactly: a key distinction that most people don't seem to "get". And if the two women don't "get" this, they certainly have no qualification to be in charge of religious education!

22 posted on 08/09/2015 5:55:26 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Un pere, une mere! C'est elementaire!" - banner at "Natural Marriage" demonstration in Paris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

The line about orientation or identity came from a homosexual activist group quoted by the biased journalist. Whether the principals in this article get it or not, is not made clear.

I can’t help thinking that there are people who could be happy and live moral lives in the context of chaste friendship, but the culture does not give them any vision of an intimate association that doesn’t involve sexual use.

Someone remarked upthread, “Why couldn’t they just be friends?” Why? Because we live in a culture that spells Love, S-E-X. A person could reasonably believe, no matter how much she does for others, that she is not capable of love, simply because she doesn’t feel an overwhelming urge for sex. What kind of a mess do you end up with?


24 posted on 08/09/2015 6:15:27 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("All the time live the truth with love in your heart." ~Fr. Ho Lung)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson