As Polonius put it, “We are oft to blame in this, ’tis too much proved, that by devotions visage and pious action we do sugar o’er the Devil himself.” I am always amazed how people can get away with saying any sort of offensive or audacious claim, when people add to it that it is in their religion. I think I’ll include in my religious belief to not pay money to buy things and see how many people would put on the guise of tolerance and respect for such a belief. I find it ironic that it’s always the people who protest love, forgiveness and acceptance, who are the most intolerant, most cruel and most disgusting. When it comes to moralizing and using guilt and fear tactics, Christians do it best. This is in response to Matthew Esquivel’s article.
“What does define us? Jesus Christ. The word of God.”
What do you mean by defining ourselves? Are you talking about our numerical identity, something that is unchanging? Or are you referring to something more loosely, like personality, which is relatively consistent? The problem of identity is actually a difficult philosophical project, one in which there is a lot of debate on what makes a person’s identity, and what this definition even entails. Second of all, what do you mean that Jesus Christ defines us? Does this mean that Jesus is handcrafting identity clay and putting it into us? Maybe you mean the teachings of Jesus Christ? But of course what that would entail is somebody who does not know or accept the teachings of Jesus is not defined, which of course opens up the question, what does it mean to be not defined? This claim is ridiculous. This could only apply to Jesus Christ but of course that would only be the reflexive property. Who defines Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ. Trivial.
“I believe that the term “‘homosexual’ describes what a person does, not who a person is. A liar is someone who lies. A murderer is someone who murderers. An adulterer is one who commits adultery.”
Sorry, but belief alone doesn’t constitute reality. What makes you say that “homosexual” describes what a person does, not who a person is? You can change the definition of homosexual but it is unwarranted. You also add examples, using liars, murderers and adulterers but of course we tend to attribute these qualities to personhood. A person who lies is a liar. A person who murders is a murderer. A person who commits adultery is an adulterer. Yet a person who engages in homosexuality is not a homosexual? And why would you use these examples if they were counterintuitive? I think the only person who would agree with you that a person who engages in homosexuality is not a homosexual is Ted Haggard. You might want to start working on your pseudonym.
“God did not make anyone a liar, a murderer, an adulterer or a homosexual.”
It is hard to believe that somebody, in the 21st century could be so marvelously intolerant. I did not know that homosexuality is a sin, comparable to liars, adulterers and murderers. I can only assume that the fact that you put those three things within the same list as homosexual is that your brain didn’t even register that you compared homosexuals with murderers. Basically, the rest of your article was a high-horse way of saying, “If you are gay, you are going to hell.” I would suggest that you take your moralizing, intolerant, pathetic, self-loathing existence to your local campus bookstore so you can buy a freshman ethics textbook, since your elementary Sunday school morality is offensive to modernity itself and you are not fit to exist in the age of computers, cell phones or heliocentricism. Also I should add, if you are struggling, trying to deny your “thoughts and feelings” when it comes to homosexuality, it probably means that you are gay.
Ken Ueda is a senior math, physics and philosophy major. He can be reached for contact at [email protected].
