« more interesting than the grammies | Main | The Powers of Ten! »

intolerance should be the 8th sin

California's new Lesbian and Gay Caucus introduced sweeping legislation that gives the state's 400,000 domestic partners all the same rights as marriage.

Of course, there are people who don't like this idea. And, as usual, the most vocal are the most moronic.

The pastor of the Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco says he's not against gays and lesbians as individuals, but he's against the bill, because he claims it promotes their lifestyle, which he says leads to AIDS and death.

Promotes their lifestyle? My god, people are loving each other! We must stop this madness! News flash for the good pastor: Being gay does not lead to AIDS and death. Unprotected sex with an infected person does. That goes for gay or straight people.

"If you had just five people in the whole state die from E.coli from one hamburger chain, you could close them down so fast, it would make your head spin. Here we have something where thousands of people die, and we're giving it the protections of law," Dr. David Innes told NBC11.

No. Unprotected sex is not getting the protection of law. Loving relationships between two people that happen to be the same sex, but due to closed minded thinking of too many people , cannot get married in your state is what the "protection of law" is referring to.

Would these two men prescribe the same judgment to straight men and women who have unprotected sex with multiple partners?

They are out of their minds if anyone believes their crap that their opposition to this law has anything to do with the spread of AIDS. It's about non-accpetance of people who have lifestyles different from theirs.

We can't help who we fall in love with. And why would it matter to anyone else? I don't understand why so many people have so many problems with the simple fact that two people are in love and want to share their lives together in wedded bliss. If you can't give them the wedding part, at least give them the right to protect each other through health insurance, the right to file their taxes jointly, the right to be happy in their relationship without living in a fishbowl that homophobes keep holding up for display.

As far as I'm concerned, intolerance is a sinful, hateful act. Especially when that intolerance keeps you from accepting the fact that two people - no matter what their gender - can exist in a loving, legal relationship.


found via decaf mocha

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference intolerance should be the 8th sin:

» Must. Control. White. Hot. Rage. from Commentary du Jour
Michele at a small victory has quite the debate broiling in her comments section, in regards to a post on [Read More]

» Healthy Recipes from Healthy Recipes
To be healthy Healthy Recipes [Read More]

Comments

Well said!

Get this, my employer will insure same sex domestic partners.....but NOT heterosexual domestic partners. I think that's wrong. Domestic partners are domestic partners, correct?

Rock on with your bad self, mama!

[Also, not meaning to ignore you... will write back as soon as I can breathe this week. :) ]

Da Goddess, in theory they should be, IF gays are allowed to marry. However, since gays are denied the ability to marry it is arguable that extending partner benefits to them is the "best" solution.

I had a very right-wing friend who complained about the very same thing, albeit a little differently. He argued that since gays couldn't be married, they shouldn't get partner benefits; but that if they got benefits, heterosexuals should get them too. He was unable to see that the two were directly related and that allowing gays to marry (with all the plus and minus attributes of doing such) would resolve it pretty neatly.

In Canada, if you live with someone that is not a family member for longer than 6 months, you have the right to file taxes jointly as common-law partners with the same tax benifits (or banes) as married couples. This also stems to health benifits for most companies, however, their classification for common law may be more than 6 months (sometimes in the range of 5 years living together). You don't have to claim common law status (I never claimed it with my now husband when we were living together cause my taxes were better if I claimed single), but it is an option. And it doesn't discriminate against same sex relationships. I will admit I don't know a lot about American tax laws, but it sounds like this itself could be a good idea to include... Maybe it's just me.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is not about intolerance. Nor, for that matter, is it about the desire of homosexuals to marry. It's about compelling employers to pay for health insurance for those "domestic partners," and compelling taxpayers, through the Social Security system, to pay survivors' benefits to them as well.

It's just coercion. For the usual reason -- money -- but it's still just coercion.

For further thoughts, please see A Taxing Question

It's nice to see my state government doing something sane for once. They should consider doing it more often.

On the other hand, it's sunny and 72 degrees here (and as Steve Martin would say, our next weather report will be in four days).

"doing something sane" ? You could rephrase that more accurately as "once again ignoring what was actually voted in, and shovelling more legislation on employers". Regardless of your position on the matter, you gotta wonder why the CA government does whatever the hell it likes, with impunity. You also gotta wonder how long before the whole state goes bankrupt.

Wow, what do ya know. Something I agree about.

I've always found this thought to humor me a bit: If, by "their" logic, being gay spreads AIDS and promiscuity then why on earth would "they" be against a legal, committed, and monogomous relationship?

And you can see a sign welcoming you to the great state of California on your left. Notice that it actually reads "Welcome to the Stone Age."

What's the deal with discriminating against same sex relationships? y'all are a lil' bit behind on the times in good ole' Kaley-four-nai-ay, aren't you?

Thank you. Amen. And hallelujah!

Now, I'm going to attempt to offer an opposing viewpoint to this without referring to scripture. Cross your fingers!
Now, for the first point : You claim that 'the most vocal [critics] are the most moronic'. I guess that ad hominem attacks are fair game. You can't adequately attack what they're saying, so instead, you stoop to name calling. Next, you say that when the Southern Baptist minister claims that allowing homosexual domestic partners the same rights as marriage will promote their lifestyle, he is attacking people loving each other. Now, whether you have so little understanding of this man's religion that you cannot understand his point, or you willfully misconstrue his point in order to build up a straw man that you can easily tear down (considering how you use this, i would believe the latter to be more likely), is immaterial. It's clear that this man means that giving homosexual domestic partners the same advantages as actual marriage will promote homosexuality. Now, I don't know about you, but where I come from, giving tax incentives to something generally promotes it. You also claim that being homosexual doesn't lead to AIDS and death. Now, while homosexuality does not necessarily lead to AIDS by itself, homosexuals do have a higher rate of contracting the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and the HIV virus that leads to AIDS. As for death, homosexuality does statistically reduce one's lifespan, so saying homosexuality doesn't led to death is akin to saying smoking won't lead to death. Now, as for the second man's quote, your attack on it relies on the case you made against the pastor's quote. Your snide remark about 'closed minded thinking' is pathetically close to the parody of right-wingers of presented most often by neo-Marxists and other forms of fascists and anti-Americans. Now, afterwards, you ask "Would these two men prescribe the same judgment to straight men and women who have unprotected sex with multiple partners?". No, seeing that the first man was a southern Baptist minister, the answer pertaining to g=him would probably be yes. AS for the second quoted man, I can't attest to what goes on in the mind of Dr. David Innes, and thus I won't try to guess as to how he'd answer that.
Next, you claim that this has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS. Well, since homosexuals statistically do have a higher rate of AIDS that heterosexuals, I'd say it has everything to do with it. You say this is instead about "non-acceptance of people who have lifestyles different from theirs." This, again, is frightfully similar to the parody of right-wingers generally put forth by those who seek to politically benefit from the weakening of them. You also claim that "We can't help who we fall in love with", which is patently untrue. You can' control who you lust after, but love must be consciously known. If you aren't consciously sure you're in love, if you don't know deep inside whether you're really in love despite your own possible efforts to deny it to yourself, you're not in love. Next, you deride all those that disagree with you as "homophobes", which, as a word, makes little sense( I don't know anyone who is afraid of homosexuals), and as a concept, even less. Finally, you deride intolerance. I'm not tolerant of militant Moslems attempting to kill me, and thus advocate airlines screening for them. Is this as "sinful, hateful" as not advocating incentivizing(?) a lifestyle that is dangerous for those who practice it? Again, you parody right-wingers in the same way that lefties do. You can't stop people from trying to keep homosexuality from being an attractive 'lifestyle choice' for their kids in any way possible, any more than you can make the like buggering, or make kids my age from using the phrases "knock it off" and "quit being a fag" interchangeably.

Thanks for listening, and God bless.

-Mike H
wildcall@nospam.localnet.com (remove nospam)
http://glenville.blogspot.com

Now, I don't know about you, but where I come from, giving tax incentives to something generally promotes it.

Yeah, it does, when the primary motivator is money or acquisition of wealth. For most people though, I don't think we're marrying for money, but out of love and a public commitment and bond; the bennies are just icing on the cake.

Well, since homosexuals statistically do have a higher rate of AIDS that heterosexuals, I'd say it has everything to do with it.

And since poor blacks end up with it more than poor whites, we should probably not encourage anyone to engage in being a poor black either. Ridiculous? Of course, just like your statement. Again, consider unsafe sexual behavior and promiscuity as culprits - something that a pro-marriage bill would seem to work against, no?

And homosexuality reduces one's life span statistically? You have something to support that it's causation and not simple correlation? I'll wager it's more unsafe sexual practices among gay men than just the state of being homosexual.

You also claim that "We can't help who we fall in love with", which is patently untrue.

It is? I fell in love with my wife through our interactions - I suppose I could have just cut off communication and not given her a chance to woo me with her charms, but I think you're aware that that is not what Michele meant. I love my wife. I cannot consciously choose to stop loving her; although she can do things that would result a loss of my love for her. Your blurb on love is a) mere opinion and b) doesn't really reflect my experience of love.

You can't stop people from trying to keep homosexuality from being an attractive 'lifestyle choice' for their kids in any way possible...

Oh, I see, you're one of the "it's a choice!" crowd. You should put that in the first sentence since it would clue is in that any sort of reasoned debate is, more likely than not, impossible. I won't say if it's genetic, or something in the womb, or something during development, but knowing many gay people, it sure isn't just a choice - they don't wake up one morning and think "Hey, I used to think this girl was hot, but now I think I'd rather bugger her boyfriend."

Oh, and the Muslim comment was a nice change from typical pedophila bullshit link people like you generally invoke. I'll give you points for that one.

Boy, nothing wraps up a cruel, vitriolic tirade in a pretty little bow like "God Bless".

But you don't even believe in the first 7...

Oh dear. Here we go again. It's the five-day floating flame fest known as "Queer Good/Fag Bad."

Years and years and YEARS of this on the net. And with a revolving cast.

Comes down to this: I'm queer. I would like to Marry my husband, but I can't. Many people support this, and many people object. Some think faggotry is genetic. Some think it's chosen. Some think about pie and coffee.

Next topic!

Mike H., your statistics are wrong on exposure rates. CDC statistics indicate that for the year 2001, 368, 971 exposures to HIV were a result of male /male sexual activity. 386,811 infections were due to either heterosexual contact, intravenous drug use, hemophilia, or by drug transfusions. So homosexuality accounts for a little less than half of all HIV exposures. Kind of points to the fact that risky behavior results in infection, not sexuality, doesn't it?

doing something sane" ? You could rephrase that more accurately as "once again ignoring what was actually voted in, and shovelling more legislation on employers".

Attempting to pass new legislation = "ignoring what was actually voted in"? What interesting logic. Do you realize that, should this legislation pass, it too will count as being "actually voted in"? In any event, I said "sane", not "democratic". "Sane" and "democratic" seldom go together, especially in California. :)

As for "shovelling more legislation on employers", I'm curious as to what you're talking about -- no mention of new employer requirements is made in the article.

The headline for that news article should really read "Pastor of Hamilton Square Baptist Church Opposes Monogamy."

There was a bill that got voted in, in CA, that stated marriage would only be recognized between a man and a woman. This new bill is a method to circumvent that - yet only for gay couples! How wierdly intolerant of heterosexual couples!

Employer burden = expanded health coverage for employees. You didn't think that healthcare was a freebie for your employer did you?

though, re-reading the article, it doesn't explicitly state that it's for gays only - so I suppose it might not be. I just got that impression from other posters comments.

While I have religious and ethical problems with homosexuality, I'm able to put that aside when it comes to law and government. Homosexuals should have every right and privilage under the law that heterosexuals have - no more no less (that whole "equality" concept). Sexual persuasion is no business of the government's. I don't think gay "domestic partners" should receive the benefits of being married if straight "domestic partners" can't. However, gay couples should be allowed to marry just the same as straight couples.

Wow.

Look at all the worms in that can.

PS. Keith: I'm not gay, but I'll take some pie and coffee, if ya'll are offering.

I wonder what George Dubya would think of all this talk about homosexuality. I know he's a church goer (nothing wrong with that) and I know he would like to ban all human cloning ( I have some reservations about that), but I'm not familiar with his policies and platforms as far as same sex benefits are concerned. Although I do know the NDP supports same sex marriage. Go Jack Layton!

Kevin, you're right.

Californians voted in March of 2000 to define the legal term "marriage" as between a man and a woman.

(as background: California has a process of direct democracy through the initiative system. If you have enough money to gather enough signatures you can place a measure on the ballot declaring the sky green and the grass blue. If the voters approved, legally it would be so.)

Some looked at the ballot and thought, "hmm, seems logical to me." Others looked at it and thought, "Hey, that bumps me out of the picture." Still others thought, "Heeheehee, get the queers outta here." I don't know what camp or meta-camp Kevin may fall into but I can understand your confusion over the passage of Prop. 22 and subsequent attempts to extend domestic partner benefits.

Michele, the headline of the bill is wrong. Even if the bill passed, domestic partners would still not be eligible for roughly 1000 of the 1400 benefits legally conferred by marriage.

God Bless.

CA's domestic partner registry is for same-sex couples only.

The Governor felt that straight people who wanted benefits could get married. Gays and lesbians could not. Therefore a separate process to extend benefits bit by bit, piece by piece, dole by dole, and generous grace by generous grace.

Oh, one correction. Those eligible for Social Security could become domestic partners. The AARP lobbied to be included 'cause their members wanted benefits without the hassles of marriage. And they vote.

More proof why people make it a nightmare to be a souther baptist, such as myself. The very term 'southern baptist' is often interpretted, even by other christians, as a swear word meaning something similar to 'fucking dickhead.'

But anyway, as for gay marriage, I don't think it's moral, but this is America--we have the right to be immoral if want to.

Practically speaking, I am surprised the govt is actually doing it. If homosexuals are given status as married couples this gives them access to the tax breaks that go with that. I just think it's surprising that a state govt is passing a law which, in effect, will reduce their revenues (especially from San Francisco) by quite a bit.

But stranger things have happened I suppose. In any case, I will keep an eye out for 4 weird looking guys on horseback.

It's clear that this man means that giving homosexual domestic partners the same advantages as actual marriage will promote homosexuality. Now, I don't know about you, but where I come from, giving tax incentives to something generally promotes it.

Except the tax incentive applies to the action of becoming monogamous, not to the action of becoming homosexual, you moron. It is not designed to make more people gay, it's designed to make more gay people monogamous. I think I can tell what you thought your point was, but it was, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.

Do you really, honestly think that there are people who will see this benefit and think, "Well, I was going to get married to my girlfriend, but now that I can get the tax benefits without an expensive, time-consuming wedding, I'm going gay?"

CDC statistics indicate that for the year 2001, 368, 971 exposures to HIV were a result of male /male sexual activity. 386,811 infections were due to either heterosexual contact, intravenous drug use, hemophilia, or by drug transfusions. So homosexuality accounts for a little less than half of all HIV exposures. Kind of points to the fact that risky behavior results in infection, not sexuality, doesn't it?

Well, technically if you look at the number of infections as a percentage of the respective populations, the rate is higher for the homosexual population. (I'm assuming that there are more heterosexuals, heterosexual IV drug users and heterosexual blood transfusion recipients than there are homosexuals in this country.) Or am I missing something here. But that doesn't really have anything to do with this issue - as someone above said, I'm not heterosexual for the marriage benefits. I just happen to like women.

There was a bill that got voted in [...] This new bill is a method to circumvent that

Did the bill allowing Chinese and Mexicans to own land in California "circumvent" the previous bill that had banned such ownership? Of course not. You see, when a new bill passes that overrides an old one, we don't call that "circumvention". We call it "democracy". :)

Employer burden = expanded health coverage for employees. You didn't think that healthcare was a freebie for your employer did you?

Nothing in the article said that employers would have to extend health coverage to domestic partners. Even if it did, the logical position for a person as "concerned for employers" as you claim to be is to demand that all laws requiring employers to provide coverage to spouses be repealed. After all, if it's a problem that gay partners are getting coverage, then it's a much LARGER problem that heterosexual spouses get coverage -- since heterosexual spouses outnumber gay partners by a factor of about 40. :)

I agree, the guy quoted in the article is incredibly dumb. There's no way that supporting domestic partners/gay marriage promotes AIDS; in fact it's the opposite. It promotes monogamy, therefore it prevents AIDS. Promiscuity is a definite factor in the spread of AIDS; homosexuality itself is not.

James P.: I know what you mean about the Southern Baptist comment ... Fairly brought or not, I see more anti-Christian statements during discussions of homosexuality than practically any other topic. So as a Bible-believing Episcopalian, I'll just call you Southern Baptists a bunch of antinomian heretics. (kidding, kidding, sorry, love the Southern Baptists and Baptists of all kinds.) One thing I'm a bit tired of, though: the overemphasis on linking these two topics, Christianity and homosexuality.

They are really two different things, in degree, in kind, in everything. Suppose every time someone mentioned the New York Yankees in the press, they quoted cranky Cincinnati Reds fan IB Bill as saying all problems with parity/salaries in major league baseball could be solved by removing the Yankees and the Mets from the league. Funny once, maybe. Perhaps true. But would you continue to quote that opinion over and over again every time player salaries were brought up? (Salaries too high? Get rid of the Yankees! Now we don't have a problem.)

You'd start to see how absurd some Christians feel about this debate; it is akin to the frustration Keith feels on the other side of the debate. Thus, I suppose, I'm mostly with Keith on the pie and coffee thing.

Does that make any sense?

It makes me sad, too, every time I hear Southern Baptists labeled the enemy in these discussions. I'm gay, and I was raised Southern Baptist. It's true that the Southern Baptist Convention has been overtaken by the religious right lately, but the true beliefs of Southern Baptists don't support what the Convention has been up to. That's why a liberal offshoot appeared. I still believe in the basic tenets of Christianity, and I'm still a voting member of my home church (which was kicked out of the local Southern Baptist association 20-some-odd years ago for allowing women to be deacons and non-members to take communion). My Southern Baptist church is full of the most loving, accepting people I know. They're my family. And nothing made me happier than attending when I was home for Christmas last month and hearing the pastor address acceptance of gays in the church as a logical part of the Baptist mission.

Personally, I don't think a pastor should have to state an acceptance of gays as part of the Baptist mission. The mission of the Baptist church is to win all people to Christ whoever they are, wherever they are from, so gays are kind of implied in that policy. I think it's a sad commentary that a baptist minister actually has to say that.

As for the Southern Baptist Convention, they are sort of like the republican party to me. I agree with over 90% of the things they stand for, and I am happy about the missionaries they fund, so I can in good conscious support them financially. This does not necessarily mean I like everything they do. There isn't a person/organization in this world I will agree with 100%. I honestly question the intellectual honesty of a statement that SBC hates gays. I find that rather hard to believe, whatever the reporters might be able to dig up.

IB:

Coffee and pie are definitely to be desired. Especially the pie part.

I've long thought that civil unions are the way to go on this issue, and I'm happy to let the states figure it out themselves.

Yes, of course, those with the biggest mouths and the smallest brains get the most attention. There are rational reasons to be concerned about something like this. But the press seems to like finding the morons.

Ah well. It doesn't much matter. The writing's on the wall, and domestic partner legislation is the way of the future. The Republican will somehow find a way to survive. ;-)

lokked and looked, but I couldn't find where homosexuals wanted to make anyone adopt their lifestyle in the article. Or even where they wanted to promote it.

But I did see where they wanted to be allowed to adopt the lifestyle of Southern Bapists.

They want to adopt marriage and monogamy. They want to be allowed to do what any christian would be allowed to do--get married.

Homosexuals aren't telling anyone that they have to engage in buggery--they're just asking to engage in matrimony.

""Employer burden = expanded health coverage for employees. You didn't think that healthcare was a freebie for your employer did you?""

Single folks have been paying extra (in healthcare premimums, taxes for programs such as WIC) to support the offspring of all the 'breeders' for years.

To all right wing religious bigots and homophobes:

One hundred years from now society will look back upon today's homosexaul debate as a sad unpleasant chapter in history in the same way we look back upon the slavery debate back in the 1800s. People who condemn homosexuals do so for religious reasons, let's not kid ourselves. Eventually as humans evolve further, religion will fade into oblivion as a primtive relic of man's barbaric past. All religions require followers to have faith. By definition, faith is blind belief without evidence. It is the antithesis of science. When one compares science to religion, it is clear beyond any doubt that science reigns supreme over religion. It always has and it always will. Science is what cures diseases, science is what allows man to fly all over the world, science is what put man on the moon. Every advancement made by man came about through the intelligent application of science. Without science, man would be swinging with the monkeys in the jungle. It's clear that religion can't hold a candle to science. Religion has produced nothing of value to mankind throughout history. The only thing religion has produced is bloodshed through wars caused by religious differences among people. Why do you suppose there are so many different religions in the world? Can any one religion establish superiority over another? Of course not!! That's because all religions are based on faith and are impossible to prove false. My religion is based upon the almighty 2 ton chicken that I believe is located in the core of planet Pluto. Can anyone prove that my belief is false? The answer is no. My religion is just as good as Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. People who are devoutly religious believe in God 100%. Science has established that no information can be known with 100% certainty. Only brainwashed and mentally deficient individuals will hold a belief with 100% certainty. For those that are "scientifically challenged" please review Quantum Physics and the Heisenbery Uncertainty Principle.

Here is my final opinion on homosexuality. My theory is that homosexuality is a congenital physical deformity. Specifically, the sex organs fail to match the person's gender identity in their brain. Some people make the absurd argument that sexual orientation is a choice. I don't know about you, but I never made a choice to be heterosexual. I don't believe that anybody makes a choice in the matter. Could you imagine the absurdity of someone sitting down and weighing the pros and cons of homosexuality versus heterosexuality in order to decide upon which orientation to be. It's downright preposterous. I never made a decision to be heterosexual. That's just the way my brain and body were constructed. I have feelings of attraction only for women. This aspect of my identity is innate and immutable.

I submit that gender and sexual orientation is detemined by the brain. The male/female classification is determined by one's anatomy below the waist. When anatomy is constructed inconsistently with the cerebral gender identity, a homosexual has been created. This happens in the womb and is completely beyond the control of the individual. To discriminate against these people is morally despicable. It's no different than discriminating against a person born with a disfigurement.

Sincerely,
Dr. David Shelton, MD, Ph.D.

PS: By the way, if two consenting male adults wish to engage in sexual activity in the privacy of their own home, how does this harm anyone? In fact, homosexuals are actually a benefit to society in that they generally do not procreate as much as heterosexuals, This helps prevent over population!