,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
In brief, the Catholic Church is in the right. 
And they used the correct methodology.
I need to point out the straw man at play here. NO ONE thinks that sexuality is a matter of SIMPLE CHOICE.
I tweeted about this false dichotomy quite recently. Let me see if I can find it:
I tweeted about this false dichotomy quite recently. Let me see if I can find it:
The argument is being made by pedophiles that pedophilia is a “sexual orientation.”
And it is.
It lacks exactly no characteristics that would rule it out as one.
Except if we admit it is one, which it is, it then because the basis of a protected civil rights class.
Bad idea.
And it is.
It lacks exactly no characteristics that would rule it out as one.
Except if we admit it is one, which it is, it then because the basis of a protected civil rights class.
Bad idea.
𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 is why the term “sexual orientation” deserves quotation marks, because the thing is almost certainly 𝙣𝙤𝙩 what it is usually represented as for Leftist ideological purposes, viz. a natural, normal, stable, healthy variation on human eros, just as good as any other.
It is the same trick as is done with the term “sex”—a false genus has been created, whereby one can then attempt to classify the reproductive act of human beings as merely one 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙨 of the new 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙪𝙨 “sex.”
The implication of there being a genus “sex” is that there are countless species of “sex” and they are all more or less equivalent, straight, gay, oral, anal, vaginal, etc., etc.
Nothing particularly special or important or sacred about the 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩 that engenders new life.
Nothing particularly special or important or sacred about the 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩 that engenders new life.
Similarly, we have a new—and I argue, false—genus “sexual orientation”, whereby there are a multiplicity of “orientations” all presented, as species of the same genus, as more or less equivalent.
As a society, we have largely become convinced that “homosexuality” is a “sexual orientation” not much different than “heterosexuality”—why the words form a natural part! Who could dispute with an appeal to language made up just for the purpose of establishing an equivalence?
Actually, they weren’t. “Heterosexuality” was originally meant to name a PATHOLOGICAL CONDITION, as was “homosexuality.”
It was not meant to be a word for normal, healthy sexual desire—we usually don’t need a term for the natural and normal state.
No need for “cis” for example.
It was not meant to be a word for normal, healthy sexual desire—we usually don’t need a term for the natural and normal state.
No need for “cis” for example.
I’m not going to get into it at length here, but I will only note that the widespread shift in our societal viewpoint about the “nature” of same-sex sexual desire, from vicious and sinful, to pathological, to normal & healthy occurred remarkable free of any actual DISCOVERIES.
The shift was almost entirely driven by ideological-political forces. First in the 19th century, which wanted to replace sin and vice with psychopathology, and then the depathologization of homosexuality by the APA as a result of a sustained campaign of political terrorism.
I would suggest that everyone with an interest in 𝙝𝙤𝙬 homosexuality became accepted in America and so quickly, read Robert R. Reilly’s 𝙈𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙂𝙖𝙮 𝙊𝙠𝙖𝙮, which can be found here: b-ok.cc/book/2740031/4…
I note further than once the pseudo-genus of “sexual orientation” has done its work of normalizing more and more “orientations” it will then be deconstructed—in favor of the obliteration of 𝙖𝙣𝙮 stable categories concerning “sexuality.”
Foucault was already working on that:
Foucault was already working on that:
