Not at all. They are 'statements' which express your assertion about what my views are. By any reasonable reading, this is an unreasonable process.
That you would have a problem with depraved stuff that goes on eg in park toilet blocks should have safely been assumed. Your escape route via customary, expedient argumentative literalalism should also have been anticipated.
Ah, the passive voice! What's this 'code for', Tony?
is in another 'not quite right' carte blanche statement league altogether. italicised ever , no less.
This 'not quite right' journey started with you: 'you don't have a problem with homosexual acts'.
That is an unreasonable characterisation of my views.
My redundantly clarified version of your views comes with the same sting.
Which is also instructive.
And I find it strange that one who rejects the Church's teaching on sexuality and acts as tireless warrior for its 'growth and change' gets shirty when it is pointed out they don't share a catholic faith with another who accepts and rejoices in the beauty and truth of that teaching.
How satisfying for you! A tip: keep that straw man away from matches!
Responses « Back to index | View thread »