You didn't just have to be extremely heteronormative. You didn't just have to assume that everyone reading this book goes to church. You also had to lump homosexuality in with incest, adultery, pedophilia and beastiality in the group of sexual behaviors whose ethics are questionable. I understand that there are arguments that homosexuality is "unethical", but that doesn't mean you have to actually validate them by listing homosexuality alongside all of these behaviors constantly. There are valid arguments that support the idea that adultery, pedophilia and beastiality are all unethical. There are no valid arguments (that I have heard) that support the idea that homosexuality is unethical. Why couldn't you follow the example of the side that sees homosexuality as ethically neutral when constructing your examples, instead of following the example of the side that thinks it is unethical? When is society going to realize that trying to argue that homosexuality is "unethical" or "wrong" is complete and total bullshit, and is an argument that should not even be entertained? I know society would not tolerate the argument, "Heterosexuality is wrong/unethical" for one second. Why not show the same courtesy to homosexuality?
I am getting really sick of reading the line, "such as incest, adultery and homosexuality." I know it seems like a small thing, but please forgive me if I do not like seeing my identity lined up next to breaking a lover's trust and child rape.
Incest, adultery and heterosexuality,
x-posted to queer_rage