In fact, I did not take sex ed. Like every other important thing in life, I learned it elsewhere, without the need for a bureaucratic babysitting service to instruct me.
Isn't colloquial terminology the subject of this discussion?
Absolutely no one talks like that, including the scientists, who immediately after writing with that terminology turn around and discuss "getting" blowjobs.
Only if they do it right.
Again, so what? Sticks and stones. You don't see me going around complaining about the anti-Catholic biases built into our language or the free use of blasphemy which I consider more offensive than the "N word."
Which is my point. The difference between me and them, is that they are far more likely to attempt to enforce their point judicially. Why don't you cite an occasion where I endorsed the enforcement of such morality through legislation or judicial action? It's not Christians who go around suing homosexuals to stop cornholing one another or talking about GIVING and GETTING blowjobs in the privacy of their glory holes or privately owned gay bars. It's the queer trolls who sue Christians to compell their services.
Because it is in prehistoric sources, like the stories compiled in the Book of Genesis.

The point of the antiquity of tradition is that it is a viable and functional mode of action and has been for a long time. We know one way works. We have no proof that political correctness is a viable practice, just the unsupported speculation that it will be more beneficial.

Because we are discussing an article wherein individuals are accused of hypocrisy and condemned for language that is being construed to contradict their professed beliefs.
Yes. Because he's pulling it out of his ass. That's his point - "Look how awesome my ass is! It produced this!" I am not the one responsible for any of my moral positions. Therefore I am only virtue signalling on behalf of Holy Mother Church and the highest moral traditions of Western Civilization.
Which is my point.
They're way hotter.
No, he's saying that their positions on homosexual privilege are incongruous with their use of idiom. In other words, he's saying that if they were really devout practitioners of political correctness, they would not blaspheme agaisnt the Holy Homos by using such language.
Obviously, but that's not what virtue signalling is. My repetition of widely known and accepted rules has nothing to do with me and therefore could be construed to redound to my credit.