"The time will come when such tragedies will be no more, for knowledge will conquer prejudice, truth will conquer lies, and love will triumph over hatred."
Magnus Hirschfeld (May 14, 1868 - May 14, 1935) was a German physician and sexologist. An outspoken advocate for sexual minorities, Hirschfeld founded the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, which Dustin Goltz called "the first advocacy for homosexual and transgender rights.
Learn more at GLBTQ.
10 comments:
Joe,
Jesus said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?" (Matthew 19:4-5)
Was He being prejudiced and hateful?
Rob, the author of this post may have to call Jesus a bigot. He will probably then conclude that bigotry is a religious phenomenon.
However, from an atheistic evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is also a dead end. Homosex just doesn't have any survival value. So a consistent Darwinist could easily be "bigoted and hateful" towards homosexuals, and would definitely have no reason to recognize homosexual relationships in any legal sense.
And since he wouldn't have Jesus' or Moses' command to "love your neighbor as yourself", there would be no natural restraints on how he expressed his dislike for that behavior.
George,
I believe you're correct that Jesus would be labeled a bigot. I just wish Joe Wilson would say that. I'd have more respect for him. For some reason he avoids any answer.
Christianity has a moral code. Followers of Jesus accept His teachings. So the fight isn't so much with Christians as it is with Christianity. The conviction that homosexuality is a violation of that moral code is equivalent with the conviction that looking at a woman with lust is adultery.
The question then arises whether or not calling virtually every man an adulterer constitutes the same kind of bigotry this website/blog claims when applied to homosexual conduct? And can I be accused of bigotry against myself? Notice not even homosexual men are excluded from adultery in this sense when looking at another man with lust.
So if I'm a bigot for saying homosexual conduct is immoral, then I'm also a bigot for saying lust after a woman is adultery. I get both convictions from the same place.
Where does Joe Wilson get his moral convictions? How do we know his is superior.
The more important questions are:
Why do some people insist on imposing their superstitious beliefs and religious doctrine on others and why do they seek to legislate religiously-infused inequality in the secular land of the free?
And on a slightly different note Rob, please try to refrain from expressing, over and over and over, your seemingly uncontrollable lust for women other than your wife. It's getting a little too creepy.
Uncontrollable? That's too funny. Nice try. Violating God's command only takes one occasion. Not everyone continues in willful, open sin Joe. On the other hand, some do. And nice dodge of the question again.
Rob, from an atheistic perspective, morality doesn't make any sense. The deer doesn't like being hunted by the wolf, but has no grounds to complain of unfairness.
So when Joe hears you saying that homosexual lust is wrong, he can't evaluate that statement morally. Really he is just observing some atoms combining together in some particular order that coincidentally sounds like a moral argument.
Who is to say that your set of chemical reactions is superior to his?
George,
The trouble is Joe is making a moral claim when he calls someone a bigot or when he seeks to end bigotry in Venango County. He's definitely not operating within a framework where "morality doesn't make any sense". He thinks it's wrong. Otherwise, why would he try to end it? In that sense, he's operating in a Christian framework.
I'm glad you brought that up.
Rob
Rob, you are correct: I was being imprecise.
Joe can't LOGICALLY make his moral arguments without referring to a law giver outside of himself. However, he continues to make such arguments, even though the arguments have no visible means of support.
It can seem good to a man to be his own moral authority. So how can it be wrong when it feels so right? I wonder if Joe Wilson finds any of his own natural inclinations to be immoral.
Post a Comment