That's kind of par for the course with moondog, for whom words and facts mean what he wants them to mean. He pretty much did the exact thing the article claims is implied with the language discussed therein a while back. It was during one of the points when "Caitlin" Jenner was in the news and during a discussion about the accompanying issues, he seized upon an abstract theoretical point in one of my posts on the subject to make homosexual insinuations about me. I thought it was pretty funny for just those reasons, and because moondog, did not bother casting pearls before swine to point out his inconsistency.

But the author is using it precisely because these people ARE vulnerable to it, as members of the same belief system. I wouldn't bother accusing a Muslim of heresy, because it has nothing to do with him. Call me homophobic and you get...what? I openly acknowledge the truth that homosexuality is a grave sin, right up there with heterosexual fornication. The naturally pedantic inclinations that seem to come with being a rafonaut might incline to wonder how I can be demonstrated to be irrationally afraid of the same, which is what 'homophobia' means, or homosexuals, if we are to make allowances. Sometimes people display contempt or hatred as a coping mechanism to fear, and other times, just out of distaste or legit contempt. Opposition to homosexuality can come from any number of sources, not limited to fear or hatred, and including sincere concern for a practitioner's mental and sexual, not to mention, spiritual well-being. Ostensibly, that's where mine comes from in the abstract. In practice, of course, I am not nearly that good of a person and the actual motivations are probably something like an innate distaste for something that is morally forbidden, and thus, incurs little obligation to be considerate or restrained in said distaste. The problem there is it easily leads to dehumanizing the real victims of said debasement. It's certainly not me, or altar boys with venal parents who are willing to take hush money, rather it's the people who engage in disordered behavior. It's also important to restrain oneself from going above and beyond justified defense when such individuals seek to impose on your rights to freedom of religion, expression or association or deliberately offend your sensibilities with the sort of debased behavior the mainstream media and entertainment industry likes to conflate with the theoretical rights of people to engage in aberrant sexual practices in private, which I support politically as a matter of principal.

The point is, these are complex issues, because they deal with human behavior and emotions and thought. On both sides. It's wrong when PC-Nazi SJWs go around enforcing their speech codes, especially to derail political or philosophical discussion or to signal an individual should be targeted by their fellow believers. That they turn these shibboleths against one another STILL does not make them right! Does anyone really think that the individuals cited in the article are NOT supporters of homosexual privilege? That if they could throw a switch to grant whichever of those privileges are currently fashionable to claim represent equality, they wouldn't? They are not rendered less so by using a word whose literal denotation is all but forgotten without awareness or reflection on it.

Let's be serious, the use of the word "sucks" is so commonplace that accusing people who use it of hatred, bigotry or discrimination toward sexually submissive people or onanism collaborators is sheer nonsense on a par with charging anyone who says "Fuck you" with attempted rape. When you say a concept or inanimate object "stinks" no one believes you are making an olfactory assessment, and that word is generally interchangeable with "sucks" in the popular lexicon. And if you ARE going to be discriminatory toward sexual submissives... so what? In the first place, you're not going to know who they are, unless they are being so indiscreet as to make the worthy of Darwin-award consideration and in the second place, wouldn't most of them like it?

The whole piece strikes me as yet another permutation of these sorts of people to signal their own virtue by inventing new sins with which to chastise their fellow believers. It's the age old problem of the sanctimonious: Rather than further their cause, and expand the practice of their morals, and the supposed benefits thereof, to more people, they turn those morals into a weapon of self-aggrandizement. Michelangelo Signorile probably has a lot in common with the Pharisees of the time of Christ, and more with the church ladies of popular fiction such as the Harper Valley PTA than he'd like admit.