Motus Mentis

One Comment

1. David says

   Thanks for not wanting me to miss Bill’s recent post. I agree with much (most?) of what Bill writes, but, in the spirit of reciprocity, I will give you my first-ever comment- to disagree with (quibble about, perhaps?) just 2 points.

   Re Bill’s #1 (the difference between “disposition or inclination or proclivity” and “acts”): Attempts to make this particular distinction in this particular case are very fraught (as the Catholic Church has learned). I am a man, my body produces testosterone, and the sexual “act” is an essential part of my life (and my pursuit of happiness). How long can Bill or Phil (or you, MavPhil) “go without”? It’s oh so generous to claim that “Moral criticism of homosexual practices is not criticism of anyone for who he is”, but since the “act” is very much a part of who I am, I would take no comfort in that generosity.

   Re Bill’s #8 (“Pedophiles, sadomasochists, necrophiliacs, and so on down the list of sexual perversions are most of them born with their proclivity, but that fact does not justify their engaging in the corresponding practices.”): Well, of course you’re correct (the “logic” you disparage is indeed faulty), but why did you leave serial killers (or at least the ones who kill for sexual thrills) off your list? Just being generous again? If you really think that “In the interests of comity, homosexuals and their practices ought to be tolerated” and that “they ought to be legally permissible as long as they are between consenting adults”, you might want to avoid placing homosexuals on your list of perverts. Or are you really able to love the pederast although you hate his pederasty?

   Posted December 27, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink