Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Sexual morality debated on Popehat
Clark and Ken argue. Chaos erupts in the comboxes. And I find a lovely new image:
And all this in what's not actually a Catholic blog, despite the name.
Seriously though Clark and the comboxen makes some good points about how these things all fit together, point out some common faults in popular reasoning (why do people who have divorced and remarried three times seem to talk about the sanctity of marriage? Why do people seem to turn a blind eye to heterosexual fornication disapprove so much of homosexual fornication?), and also manage to talk about bananas with dreadlocks, which I suspect is some cultural reference that I just missed.
So, by this heuristic, how does Broussard do?Snarling against an already hit asteroid. Does that sum up my life? Maybe, yes.
Well he stands up for traditional Christian sexual morality – whatever you think of that – and was very clear that he considers premarital heterosexual sex to be sinful as well.
That itself is a wildly unpopular position. To use Ken's term, this isn't just snarling against the next asteroid; it's snarling against the one that already hit (and had a detrimental effect on the dinosaurs).
And all this in what's not actually a Catholic blog, despite the name.
Seriously though Clark and the comboxen makes some good points about how these things all fit together, point out some common faults in popular reasoning (why do people who have divorced and remarried three times seem to talk about the sanctity of marriage? Why do people seem to turn a blind eye to heterosexual fornication disapprove so much of homosexual fornication?), and also manage to talk about bananas with dreadlocks, which I suspect is some cultural reference that I just missed.
