Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: sitetest; Tax-chick
Dear Tax-chick,

Delay of game, 5 yard penalty.

“’Heterosexuality,’ as a reified ‘sexual orientation’ does bless or sanction, in my mind, various heterosexual sins.”

Should have been:

“’Heterosexuality,’ as a reified ‘sexual orientation’ does NOT bless or sanction, in my mind, various heterosexual sins.”

Yikes.

Sorry.


sitetest

44 posted on 03/03/2014 8:47:52 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: sitetest

I didn’t notice what you considered an error because I thought your first statement was accurate. I think that setting up “heterosexuality,” which is “good and natural,” as a category opposite “homosexuality,” which is “unnatural and abhorrent,” does tend to vitiate heterosexual sins, because, after all, “It’s only natural, it’s the way I was made.”

I don’t think this is required by logic, but I think it naturally follows, because it makes “What one does with Mr. Wiggles” *the* identity-defining characteristic of a person.


46 posted on 03/03/2014 8:57:16 AM PST by Tax-chick (I've forgotten most of those languages, but I remember the joke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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