The rhetoric you excerpted is interesting in its illogicality. The assertion that justice does not mean giving in to every sexual desire is a complete strawman.

If you take a class of people and outlaw them in some way, you are in fact declining to test each case on the merits, preferring to do your thinking in large categories and treat everyone int hose categories the same way. As your proponent points out, this does not serve justice.

If you insist on linking categories that do not really tie together (such as the capability of bishops and the sexual orientation of the people who act in that capacity) you are not serving logic, either, because you are asserting false-middle and hidden-premise distortions.

"No-one should be a bishop who will not safeguard the young" is a fine principle. "All homosexuals threaten the young with corruption" is highly debatable. Linking these propositions together automatically is a betrayal of reason, preferring reflexive or reactionary modes of thought. It is exactly the same failing that militates for dictating about sexual orientation to people and denying civil rights to people because of some attribute or category instead of the merits of individual cases.

It is lazy, reactive, irresponsible thinking.


A


A