All know the acronym/phrase ‘LGBT’ is shorthand for an ever-expanding list of kinds of sexual desire. We began with LGBT and we are now at LGBTQWERTY, or whatever. I used to be derisive of lists like that, but I now believe this is the one thing sexual desire ideologues get right It really is true that sexual desire is broad, much broader than we used to understand. A man may desire sex, or more usually simulated sex, with himself, with another man, with a child, with a couch on the side of a road (a real case), with a goat, with another man’s wife, with a dead body, with those missing limbs because they are missing limbs, with only females of certain races, with men who pretend to be women, and on and on and on He may desire sex (or simulated sex) in one way today and another tomorrow. Desire can be fluid. For instance, many men do not realize that they desire simulated sex with other men until they are introduced to the concept from older men. And we recall that some men who were called ‘gay’ have fathered children. The number of possible propensities, or ‘orientations,’ is practically infinite … It is thus no surprise that the man who defines himself by his temptations is the man more likely to slip. Since desire is fluid and temptations are as many, as orientation ideologues say, it is also no surprise that this class of men is more likely to sin in many different ways. And that is precisely what is observed This is why the idea to fix the scandal by having priests openly define themselves as their temptations, as advocated by among others the Washington Post, will only make everything worse The Church instead needs to return to a proper understanding of the nature of man.