The question.Dear editor, The Journal has been filled with letters and articles about the acceptability of homosexual homosexual /ho·mo·sex·u·al/ (-sek´shoo-al) 1. pertaining to, characteristic of, or directed toward the same sex. 2. one who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. relationships. Nobody seems to recognize that the main issue here is not specifically related to homosexual relationships at all. Consider the following question: "Should a single male priest be defrocked if he is found to be engaged in gay sex?" Consider also the question: "Should a single male priest be defrocked if he is found to be engaged in heterosexual heterosexual /het·ero·sex·u·al/ (-sek´shoo-al) 1. pertaining to, characteristic of, or directed toward the opposite sex. 2. one who is sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. sex?" Why are we putting such a focus on one kind of sex and thereby artificially limiting the terms of the discussion? The issue, whatever it is, seems not to be about gay sex at all. Let us at least try to understand the questions before we start confusing con·fuse v. con·fused, con·fus·ing, con·fus·es v.tr. 1. a. To cause to be unable to think with clarity or act with intelligence or understanding; throw off. b. ourselves with poorly thought-out answers. Andrew F. Reeve REEVE. The name of an ancient English officer of justice, inferior in rank to an alderman. 2. He was a ministerial officer, appointed to execute process, keep the king's peace, and put the laws in execution. Kitchener, Ont. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion