i have come to understand more and more in my life that words are very meaningful. thus, choosing the right words is important (not something i always exemplify here, i know that). ever more powerful is putting the right words into a phrasing. so it is when i read news articles (or articles saying they are news) that i get disturbed when i find words put into phrases that i do not think work together, but only bring about harmful results. latest example has come from this article.
The Prime Minister, Prof. Apolo Nsibambi, has lauded the firm stand the Anglican communion has taken against homosexuality and other perverted practices.
the emphasis is mine, i did that to bring attention to what i take issue with. i will say that i take issue with it as it wasn't illustrated as a quote from one person, but a synopsis of what they said. so let the word smithing begin.
i can accept the on going conversation on homosexuality within the church (i use "conversation" because that's how i like to think my approach is, i know for many it is a done deal or an all out fight). i can't accept, and others should not either, the throwing of homosexuality into the same world of "perverted practices." if you were going to do this, at least have the courtesy to expand on what those practices are, ie. wrongful suing, not holding the door for someone.
huh?
the dictionary would define "perverted" as to turn away from what is right or good. only one translation that i could find actually mentioned sexuality, most mentioned justice as a cite example.
wanna take a stab at practices?
in the context of this sentence we are to assume that homosexuality is a "perverted practice" but what does that mean? by the definitions we could assume it to be the same as not holding open a door in this context. better use would be to say sexual perversion, that might reference on a medical terminology. however, even then it is shameful to group it into the same practice of neophilia? they are not the same
