John C. Wright #homophobia #elitist #kinkshaming

John C. Wright #homophobia #elitist #kinkshaming scifiwright.com

{from 2014}

This has nothing to do with my religion. I joined the Catholics because they are against homosexuality. I did not become against homosexuality because I joined the Catholics.

There is no need for you to apologize. I am not the one who decided to act unprofessionally, and assault the character of a fellow writer int the field. Mr Hines is. I am not the bigot. Mr Hines is. I believe a certain degree of courtesy and respect is due to comrades, and that other loyalties exist aside from political loyalties: Mr Hines does not.

He is a member of a cult of hate; I am a member of a religion of love. I love mankind, love virtue, love truth, and love beauty to the same degree and with the same intensity that the Hate Cult hates all these things. There is no compromise, no quarter and no peace between us.

PS: Logically, your friend cannot have a 'wife.' Women cannot have wives for the same reason the mother of an orphan cannot be alive. The word refers to someone who forms one half of a sexual dyad.

What your friend has is a desire for her friend to masturbate together with her, which creates sexual sensations without the sex act. The sex act requires mates of the opposite sex to perform. I have no doubt their love is as sincere as a pederast for his underage lover, a sadomasochist for his partner in chains, and so on. The sincerity of the love does not change the unnatural love to a natural one.

The fact that your language is so degraded and debased that you cannot even form a non-paradoxical sentence, that you cannot speak the truth, but instead choose to speak what you know or should know to be nonsense about the matter indicates an alarming lack of mental integrity on your part.

14 comments

This is what, about Korra and eight years old? Hasn't this goober said anything horrible since?

“The death cult I joined didn't make me a bigot, I joined the death cult because I'm a bigot” is a hot take to show off, I'll give him that much. At least he's being honest that his being a shitweasel precedes his being a superstitious twit.

The sex act requires mates of the opposite sex to perform.

So JCW thinks sex is dick-in-pussy intercourse, nothing else.

I love mankind, love virtue, love truth

Well, here's a fact that destroys the whole concept of 'Truth' - because after all: when Pilate asked your precious J-boy 'What is Truth?' he couldn't answer - certainly not only your subjective so-called 'Opinion'-based definition of such: The Prostate Gland: and where it's positioned. One fact which blows the whole Cre(a)ti(o)nists' argument out of the water like a hypersonic anti-ship missile.

In more ways than one, your 'God' done fucked up, boy.

If man-on-man love wasn't supposed to happen, why place such a hyper-sensitive erogenous zone in a part of the body that can be stimulated precisely by that not permitted by their creator ? So much for so-called Intelligent Design.

...besides: if you built a leisure centre at the same time as another facility situated right next to such: a sewage outflow...!

Oh, and Pope Francis. So either you're a Sedevacantist - thus you're not actually a Catholic or by refusing to accept what he says about LGBT people you're not actually a Catholic.

...oh, II: Sir Elton John & David Furnish. Their two sons.

Fact-based Reality ensures so-called 'Truth' is as non-existent as the answer to Pilate's question by your J-boy.

Don't make me get out my David & Jonathan, John C. Wrong...!

@ryu238 #109068

Well, to a biologist, sex is the exchange of genetic material. So two bacteria can have sex, but if two fertile humans are using a condom, they're not.

….by that definition, anyway.

But nothing on pornhub allows the sifting of material by genetic exchange.

I also can't find anywhere that says my spouse must have or even be able to reproduce with me in order to legally be my medical proxy, or cosign my mortgage, or exert power of attorney, or be listed as a dependent... Any of those benefits inherently attached to the status of 'wedded.'

Kind of a dumb reason to join the Roman Catholic Church.

@Malingspann #109096

Yes, he is against blowjobs as well, which he has referred to using Bill Clinton’s name, as if Bill Clinton invented them or even popularised them. (I also assume he opposes cunnilingus, although he probably hasn’t given any thought to that.)

I joined the Catholics because they are against homosexuality. I did not become against homosexuality because I joined the Catholics.

So, you’re so obsessed with teh scary gaes that you openly allow yourself to be defined in your public life by it, including maybe modifying your entite worldview just to fit the dogmas of an organization you’ve joined just because of a single issue which, for some reason inexplicable to sane people, is the issue of paramount importance to you.

I have no doubt their love is as sincere as a pederast for his underage lover, a sadomasochist for his partner in chains

Should probably get the #kinkshaming tag for comparing D/s relationships to a pedophile sexually abusing a child.

Should probably get the #kinkshaming tag for comparing D/s relationships to a pedophile sexually abusing a child.

Added.

I joined the Catholics because they are against homosexuality

I am a member of a religion of love.

Seems just a little bit contradictory to me…

Are they now? They should teach that priests touching little boys is a mortal sin, not consenting adults. You put yourself in that glass house, or should I say cathedral.

I joined the Catholics because they are against homosexuality

So you joined a religion not because you have faith in their teachings, bcause you’re sincerely believing its basic tenets are true or even because you love its liturgy but because it opposes the same things as you. If you’re so much obsessed about homosexuality then you should have joined the Westboro Church.

Women cannot have wives for the same reason the mother of an orphan cannot be alive

Orphan can also be used to describe children whose only a parent has died.

What your friend has is a desire for her friend to masturbate together with her, which creates sexual sensations without the sex act. The sex act requires mates of the opposite sex to perform

So sexuality is only vaginal penetration by a penis, to the exclusion of any other way for any couple to be intimate. By the same standard, someone should be able to claim they didn’t have sex when he got fellated by an intern.

And yes, love can be as strong in a homosexual couple as in a straight one.

Lastly, masturbation is when someone sexually stimulate alone and by himself; when two or more persons are participating, it doesn’t count as such.

The fact that your language is so degraded and debased that you cannot even form a non-paradoxical sentence

I see that you are a linguistic prescriptivist, and that also your definition of words is based on Catholic doctrine (or at least your personal interpretation thereof) where applicable, despite your insistence otherwise. Also, I did a quick check of dictionary.com and there’s no definition of “sexual dyad” (or even just “sex dyad”) listed at all, so unless there’s some formal definition elsewhere I guess that means whatever you want it to - in which case that particular phrase can’t be part of any formal definition of marriage. Sadly for you, the only time prescriptivism has ever had a meaningful influence on the English language was during the 1600s when Latin professors invented “Proper English”, and even that didn’t fully stick. People will continue to use words however they use words, and it’s not “paradoxical” if it doesn’t match what you think it should mean so long as most people can understand it.

Also, amusingly, dictionary.com’s primary definition of marriage is all about “conjugal rights and responsibilities” and their secondary definition states that it’s used as a shortened form of “opposite-sex marriage” and/or “same-sex marriage”. I don’t know if it said the same in 2014, but still. This does differ from my 2001 Webster’s Dictionary, which the primary definition strongly implies that it must involve one man and one woman, but the secondary one implies that other forms exist.