Spring Break
Werner responds to claims
Aaron Werner
Issue date: 4/17/09 Section: Opinions and Editorials
My primary objection to your editorial is three-fold. First, you wrote, "these claims are hazardous to the health of the community."
However, if homosexuality is morally wrong, how are these claims hazardous? I think this claim is question-begging, since homosexuality's morality is the very thing the we're attempting to ascertain.
Let me put it this way. Suppose a middle-age man goes for his annual physical and the doctor tells him (in a loving way) that he is obese, and will die unless he changes his lifestyle. If obesity is dangerous, how is the warning hazardous?
If obesity is not physically dangerous, then, I suppose, one could make a case that the doctor's warning is hazardous-for it makes obese people feel unduly guilty about their obesity, when in reality, there is nothing to fear.
However, if obesity is truly dangerous, then the most dangerous hazard is failing to heed the admonition. Likewise, if homosexuality is immoral (and thereby spiritually hazardous), then how is its admonition hazardous?
Second, I disagree with your accusation that my article is "homophobic." I think I made it clear (through my spam and bridge illustrations) that my booklet is homophilic (loving).
Perhaps you could re-read those sections. Indeed, several struggling homosexuals have found comfort in reading this pamphlet.
Third, did mean "hermaphrodites" not "transgender."
There is so much more we could discuss. Perhaps we can continue this conversation over coffee-my treat.
However, if homosexuality is morally wrong, how are these claims hazardous? I think this claim is question-begging, since homosexuality's morality is the very thing the we're attempting to ascertain.
Let me put it this way. Suppose a middle-age man goes for his annual physical and the doctor tells him (in a loving way) that he is obese, and will die unless he changes his lifestyle. If obesity is dangerous, how is the warning hazardous?
If obesity is not physically dangerous, then, I suppose, one could make a case that the doctor's warning is hazardous-for it makes obese people feel unduly guilty about their obesity, when in reality, there is nothing to fear.
However, if obesity is truly dangerous, then the most dangerous hazard is failing to heed the admonition. Likewise, if homosexuality is immoral (and thereby spiritually hazardous), then how is its admonition hazardous?
Second, I disagree with your accusation that my article is "homophobic." I think I made it clear (through my spam and bridge illustrations) that my booklet is homophilic (loving).
Perhaps you could re-read those sections. Indeed, several struggling homosexuals have found comfort in reading this pamphlet.
Third, did mean "hermaphrodites" not "transgender."
There is so much more we could discuss. Perhaps we can continue this conversation over coffee-my treat.
Be the first to comment on this story