But the homosexuality is not the root cause of my aversion. So I am a peccataphobe and not actually enough of one for my own good.
Homophobia has many causes. It can be a toxic sense of masculinity, it can be disgust for the act of homosexual intercourse of any sort, it can be misogyny, it can be religious belief. That your religious belief causes you to feel aversion to homosexuals doesn't in any stop you from being a homophobe, just as the religious beliefs of people who are against interracial marriages doesn't make them non-racists.
Sure, if accusing me of some unfounded phobia makes you feel better about your own, go for it. But I didn't define homophobia. Nor am I the person deciding that it can be rooted in religious belief.
People on the receptive end of intercourse are not the ones who "suck". The people who suck are the ones who PERFORM oral intercourse, whereas the other parties are said to have received oral sex, fellatio, cunnilingus or "a blow job".
This is embarrassing. Did you never have sex ed? When discussing sexual intercourse involving a penis, the person whose penis is inserted is called the insertive partner, and the person whose mouth/anus/vagina is receiving the penis is called the receptive partner.
Colloquially, a person may receive a blowjob, but in scientific terminology he would be the insertive partner in the sex act being described, whether it is fellatio, anal intercourse or vaginal intercourse.
Thus, the person who "sucks" is the person who is at the "receptive end of intercourse".
I explained the so what right before the sentence you chose to quote. Ie. that this is so deeply embedded into our language, and that it therefore constitutes the "casual homophobia" the author is referring to.
Which guys were those? Conversely, what prehistoric moral tradition or source of divine revelation made politically incorrect speech a sin?
Divine revaluation by whose standards? Can you prive its divinity in a court of law? If not, why is your divine revelation more valid than that of another?
Also, why does a moral tradition from prehistory carry more weight? We don't even know if there was prehistoric tradition of opprobrium over homosexuality, but even if there was, we are not in prehistory, we are in the now.
And so flawed is your reading comprehension that you don't even see the difference. Whom was I calling out or condemning for their homosexuality?
Why do you have to call out any specific person's homosexuality for the comparison to matter?
To put it another way, would your assessment of this article as another permutation of virtue signaling have been different if the author didn't specifically refer to people who committed the "sin" he's discussing, but instead just generally stated his opinions on it?
It wouldn't be your business even if they were, unless they did it in front of you. In that unlikely event, would it even matter if the act was homosexual or heterosexual in nature? If it does matter, what is your rationale for the acceptance of public heterosexual sex, but not homosexual acts?
Neither is the author of the article. He is condemning the means by which some people are criticizing/making fun of Trump/Arpaio. At no point does he say their underlying position is invalid because of the "sin" they commit in the way they express it.
Well, they don't differentiate from phobia, but leaving that aside, your post clearly states that while you think heterosexual intercourse is alright in some contexts, such is not your view on homosexual intercourse. Are you not sanctimoniously labeling the behavior of others as a sin, here, while signaling other behavior as virtuous?
*NM*