That was very well put.
Folowing the thread so far can it be said that the term homosexual person is dangerous because it is such a subtle but substantial change from previously understood meanings of sodomy?
Just as subtle as the "pro-multis" controversy about "for many" or "for all" in the roman rite NO Mass
Or probebly MORE subtle
Folowing the thread so far can it be said that the term homosexual person is dangerous because it is such a subtle but substantial change from previously understood meanings of sodomy?
Just as subtle as the "pro-multis" controversy about "for many" or "for all" in the roman rite NO Mass
Or probebly MORE subtle