I read this in the hard copy when it came out. I thought it was persuasive in many ways. It’s heavy reading, though ... I got the idea that the author is a philosophy graduate student!
Yeah. I've read it through completely just once so far. I've read parts a couple of times. It IS heavy reading.
Some of what he's saying resonates very clearly, but some of it is a little murky to me, so far. It may be in part because I'm kind of behind the times. “Heterosexuality,” as a reified “sexual orientation” does bless or sanction, in my mind, various heterosexual sins. So, perhaps for that reason, I'm not so willing to overthrow “heteronormativity,” since, in my mind, that umbrella doesn't excuse sexual sins committed by folks who like folks of the opposite sex.
sitetest
You guess the writer is a philosophy graduate student. I agree. He is immersed in the bone gnawing examination of an idea which gnaws when there is no meat left on the bone.(
The street talk version is this I think. We are human beings. We are not heterosexual or homosexual. As humans we are subject to various inclinations especially in regards to our erotic attributes. If we act on those iinclinations
we set up a physiological psychological stimulus response, which as repeated becomes habitual.
FYI... the initial quote from Alasdair MacIntyre is from his “Whose Justice? Which Rationality?”, which I have almost finished reading. It is not an easy text for anyone with less than a MA in Philosophy. I have an MA in Catholic Philosophical Studies, and have read MacIntyre’s other books, and I still struggle with it.