When I saw that a number of hypersensitive orientationally-challenged individuals in faux mourning for someone they never met were visiting in order to emote in their inimitably dramatic fashion over my dispassionate observations on the Clementi suicide, my first thought was, “I wonder how long it will take before someone sees fit to strike a blow for truth, justice, and the Sodomite Way by vandalizing Wikipedia?” It turns out the answer was 19 hours and 46 minutes. It was surprisingly calm and measured in comparison with the militant New Atheists, actually.
“…according to this ethic, “only a woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man can be considered a wholly innocent victim”, rape is nevertheless “really fun,” and that “[n]either the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of rape to be just totally awesome and justly giving the rapist bitchin’ high fives.”
I rather like that version; pity someone has already reverted it. But to paraphrase Norman Mailer, thank you, predictable bitches! I note that despite 300+ comments still no one has yet managed to answer the perfectly straightforward question: by what recognized moral or ethic does one conclude that a) homosexual activity is moral, and b) rape is immoral?
I ask merely for informationpersonal amusement, you understand.