By Sarah Hey, Stand Firm
The author of this article in National Review
is entirely wrong in his thesis. Sexual attraction for children *is* a “sexual orientation” just as is sexual attraction to the same sex, and sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and sexual attraction to dead people, and sexual attraction to animals, and sexual attraction to high-heeled shoes, and sexual attraction *and commitment* to multiple women at the same time.
Just because one has a “sexual orientation” does not mean that society must approve of it. That has been, of course, the long-time bellowing refrain of gay activists—that because they have a hard-wired “sexual orientation” they must, perforce, be allowed to force society to approve of their actions.
That is, obviously, categorically false. And the more that society begins to examine *other* sexual orientations that are currently not faddish, but will be soon, the more the falsity of the gay activists’ rhetoric will be revealed.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.