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.
And thus, the mystery of Cannoli begins to be resolved.
Yes. Does that mean only every-day letter combinations can be used? My apologies for assuming your lexicon extended beyond the average Joe. And yes, I'm assuming Joe is a normal male person in this sentence. Please be assured no one is assuming you're anything but a normal male.
Well given your vast experience with "the scientists" and sex ed teachers...
A head-scratcher, this. Are you trying to indicate you have learned the correct terminology? Or is this a sign of continued confusion in your normal male brain?
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."
And we all give thanks for being spared that horror, but no one is denying your right to do so. Also, why is the n-word in quotes?
Which is my point. The difference between me and them, is that they are far more likely to attempt to enforce their point judicially.
Neither are they. I know of no one asking for casual homophobia to be made into a crime. Certainly, this article didn't even hint at such a thing.
This is a joke, right? Or are you arguing that all those people who wrote and enforced sodomy laws till Lawrence v Texas came along weren't actually Christians?
If those services are being offered in the marketplace, yeah. If your Christianity is so important that you will impose it on customers, don't offer your services in the open market, which is secular.
You do know that stories from a later time are not sources from prehistory, right? Given its appalling factual inaccuracies when it comes to the creation of Earth, any stories in it have about as much relevance to actual prehistoric practices as any given fantasy novel.
Functional? On what basis?
It really doesn't work.
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.
This author didn't come up with the concept of casual homophobia either.
As for the "virtue" of Holy Mother Church on the issue of homosexuality, or anything related to sex... that has to be one of the more bizarre oxymorons in existence. The Church has no credibility to talk about any kind of sexual activity, given its multiple criminal cover-ups of pedophile priests. The Church has repeatedly proven itself to be a toxic cesspool where the worst of sexual crimes, in the eyes of any religion and in the eyes of secular law, not only occurs repeatedly but is hidden and the perpetrators protected.
Which is my point.
No, your point was about non-public sexual intercourse not being your business.
So why is sex that is not hot for you to view, when it happens in public, your business? Walk away? Close your eyes?
But that doesn't invalidate their underlying criticism of whichever political figure they're satirizing. Just like you don't, or so you claim, question the validity of someone's positions by citing their alignment.
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.
Nope. What the author is talking of here is also widely known and accepted. Not in the "normal male" circles you hang around, perhaps, but he's certainly not the first, or the only, person speaking of this.
*NM*