Catholic Church: You approve gay marriage, we stop social service programs

What happens when society progresses on human rights, but a 2,000 year old book is more important to you? Resort to childish strong-arm tactics:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

What in the world could this bill be saying that has Catholics so upset? Will it force them to perform gay marriages? To watch Bravo TV marathons? To ordain gay priests? …Wait a second…

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

So, the bill says you just have to stop discrimination…and they’re against this? Do they have any idea how bad this makes them look? I guess they’re not worried about PR, though, since their response is to threaten to take away social service programs than benefit the community. That’s a pretty jerk move, if you ask me, since it’s hurting people not even involved with the issue at hand. Just how many people will they be affecting with their selfish temper tantrum?

Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

“All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow,” Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

Wow, just wow. Thankfully the council members seem to have more sense than the church:

The church’s influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as “somewhat childish.” Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city’s relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

You know all of those recent debates about if the Catholic church is an overall force of good in the world? I think your “goodness” suffers a bit if you’re only using it for political clout. Just a thought.

Two news articles on the Chapman incident

I have a feeling this story is going to take off – not because someone said something homophobic (no news there, unfortunately) – but because it’s generating good discussion about free speech. There’s an article over at the Journal & Courier, Lafayette’s local newspaper, and the IndyStar, a newspaper in Indianapolis. They use a quote from my original post in their article, woo.

If anything, go to check out the comments from the Hoosiers…kind of frightening.

Chapman developments: letters, protests, and interviews, oh my!

You’ll remember that a little over a week ago I talked about a Bert Chapman, a Purdue Professor who blamed homosexuals spreading AIDS for our bad economy, amongst other ignorant and hateful drivel. There have been a lot of developments at Purdue since then, but sadly I’ve been a bit behind in the coverage because I’ve been busy (you know, classes, grad school, PZ Myers coming – those minor things). Here’s a quick run down of what’s been going on:

1. Lots of letters have been written about the incident to our local student newspaper, the Exponent. The first wave of letters called Chapman out, the next wave said we were trying to censor him, and the third wave demonstrated how little people understand sarcasm, and the most recent letter from many Purdue librarians (not Chapman) note they support equal rights. The Exponent itself also weighed in, and I pretty much agree with them (free speech is free speech, we can criticize him all we want, but we shouldn’t be calling for him to be fired).

2. Today there was a protest in the Stewart Center, outside the library where Chapman works. I was unable to stop by because I had class all day, but another Purdue student wrote a good review of what happened.

3. A reporter from the IndyStar newspaper emailed me, saying he read my blog post on the matter (woo!) and wanted to interview me. I said sure, and did a little phone interview about the whole incident. Of course right after I hung up, I thought of all the things I wanted to say – oh well! If it gets covered, I’ll let all of you know.

Gay tourists not welcome at the Vatican

Shocking, I know. It’s not a decree from the Pope himself, but it’s the attitude of Bishop Janusz Kaleta of Holy See, the Apostolic Administrator of Atyrau. When asked about gay and lesbian tourists visiting the Vatican, this is what he had to say:

“The church teachings are from the Bible. If we change this teaching, we will not be the Catholic Church. Don’t expect the Catholic church to change these issues, because it is our identity.” When asked if the Vatican is open to dialogue about welcoming such homosexual groups of tourists in the future, Bishop Kaleta responded that “such demonstrations are just not ethical.”

Yep, because religion is something that never changes, but homosexuality is totally a choice. Hmm, I feel like I heard that somewhere before… But anyway, so is the Bishop just against a gay pride parade going through St. Peter’s Square?

Publisher Steinmetz clarified that what was meant by gay travel was traveling for the purpose of a visit, not as a demonstration. To this the Bishop replied, “I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is abuse of our buildings and our religion because the church interprets our religion that it is not ethical. We expect respect of our church as we expect to respect that a person does not have to belong to the Catholic Church. If you have different ideas, go to a different location.”

Nope, simply being gay is provocative, abusive, and disrespectful. Not bears in assless chaps, not rainbow flags, not public make out sessions, not kisses, not holding hands – thought crimes of a homosexual nature are enough. You know how many gays probably go to the Vatican to stare in wonder at the Michelangelos and Berninis (who were probably gay)? Maybe the Vatican would be singing a different tune if they realized how much money they’d lose from banning everyone but upstanding, “moral” Catholics from visiting. Of course, I visited the Vatican when I was already calling myself an atheist, and I somehow didn’t manage to get kicked out (I was also 12 at the time…).

As CarnalNation pointed out, the Swiss Guard better start working on their gaydars.

You know what else is an abomination, Maine? Lobster

Dear 53% of Maine,

Today you decided that homosexuals are lesser human beings who don’t deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. You have just illustrated to the nation that you, like California, believe popular vote is a valid and moral way to decide human rights. I’m really glad we didn’t use this method back when legalizing interracial marriage, but I guess the whole majority rule, minority rights thing isn’t too important too you. But if you’re going to go and base your legal decisions on the Bible, I thought I’d like to point out one little thing to you so your logic is at least consistent. In the same book that condemns homosexuality, there’s another verse that you may find important:

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

I know the Bible can be a little hard to understand, so let me spell it out for you: God hates shellfish. You know what’s a shellfish? Lobster. Because of this, I fully expect a ban on Maine’s lobster industry ASAP. I know that’s a major facet of your economy and all, but you’ve illustrated that God’s word is more important than the well being of your citizens. I’m sure they’ll understand the dip in the economy, since getting into heaven later is more important than this life.

So, get cracking on that next referendum. I mean, you don’t want to be hypocrites, do you?

Purdue Professor: Gays wasting our money on AIDS research

Multiple Purdue students have alerted me to a blog post by Bert Chapman, Government Information & Political Science Librarian and Professor of Library Science at Purdue University. He’s caused quite a stir amongst progressive students at Purdue after making a blog post claiming homosexuals are hurting the economy by making us fund AIDS research and making insurance companies and businesses acknowledge their partnerships. To fully appreciate his woeful ignorance, let’s go through his post with some commentary by yours truly:

An Economic Case Against Homosexuality

As a Christian, I agree with the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms. To defend traditional sexual morality against the encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression, we need to be able to do more than cite Bible verses. Fortunately, there are plenty of economic reasons for being against sodomite degeneracy and I think as conservatives we need to be able to articulate why our nation cannot afford the extremely high financial costs of this lifestyle at a time when we are confronting dangerously high budget deficits, national debt, and personal debt.

First, I want all you gay-rights supporting Christians out there to hang your head in shame for being associated with this man. Done? Okay, good. Hurray for a world that is increasingly rejecting biblical norms – that’s a good thing when people wake up and see these ancient, bigoted ideas as immoral and unfounded. At least Professor Chapman recognizes that Bible verses aren’t going to fly when it comes to public policy – especially public policy that is trying to remove rights from minorities groups. This may just be me…but using money as a guide to what rights to give what people seems pretty fucking morally bankrupt. Oh, that’s right, I’m a hippie liberal. Sorry, forgot.

Let’s start with AIDS. U.S. Government expenditures on this disease have risen from $200,000 in Fiscal Year 1980-1981 to $23.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2008. These figures have increased steadily over nearly three decades and probably exceed $100 billion. When you factor in what countries all over the world have spent on seeking to diminish this disease, without recognizing the morally aberrant sexual behavior causing its spread, we are probably looking at expenditures of over $1 trillion dollars. Think of how much constructively such money could have been spent on public health issues such as improved sanitation, immunizations, and other more worthwhile programs instead of promoting immoral and self-destructive behavior through needle exchanges and widespread condom distribution. The money wasted on AIDS research could be returned to taxpayers or transferred to more worthwhile areas of public health research such as cancer, heart disease, and combating pandemic conditions like H1N1 flu. Our ongoing U.S. political debate over health care reform also needs to factor in the economic costs of homosexual and other sexually deviant behaviors on our health care system in terms of pharmaceutical drugs, tainted blood supplies, and requiring doctors and nurses to treat sexually transmitted diseases which would not occur if people practiced chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and monogamy within such marriage.

…I’m just take this one step at a time.

1. “Probably” exceeds a $100 billion? “Probably” over $1 trillion? I understand this was probably just some spontaneous blog post, but it doesn’t really help your argument when you’re just making up numbers.

2. AIDS IS NOT A GAY DISEASE. Sorry for the caps lock, but this is so ignorant that it makes me scream. AIDS infects all people regardless of sexual preference – heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual. Of course, he thinks anything outside of monogamy within a heterosexual marriage is deviant, so I’m not sure he would care. Just don’t go blaming the gays for AIDs and make that your major point.

3. Condom distribution decreases the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. Study after study has shown that abstinence only education simply does not work.

4. It pretty much terrifies me that this man is fairly obviously suggesting that anyone with AIDS or any other type of STD should just suffer or die. We shouldn’t research these diseases, we shouldn’t pay doctors to treat these diseases, we shouldn’t develop drugs for these diseases. Unfortunately, this horrifying world view isn’t new, especially among the religious right (Remember when Jerry Fallwel said, “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals, it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”?). I guess it doesn’t matter if a quarter or more of our population (people with STDs) suffer or die, since they’re all the heathen liberals that deserve it.

Anyone who studies prison conditions knows that AIDS is a reality in many correctional facilities due to the occurrence of rape. I’m not sure if the Justice Dept’s Bureau of Justice Statistics keeps track of prison rape statistics or other instances of same sex sexual assault, but that also has economic implications not to mention the psychological trauma experienced by all rape victims.

I’m honestly not quite sure what this has to do with gays. Shouldn’t we be worried about, oh I don’t know, stopping rape?

The sad practice of so many companies and universities adopting domestic partner benefits in a misguided effort to attract employees drives up insurance costs for these companies and prevents them from providing additional coverage to those of us adhering to traditional sexual moral standards. It also requires these companies to pass on the costs of their goods and services beyond normal inflationary trends. Additionally, it also probably makes it more difficult for them to expand their businesses and create additional jobs in an economy coping with near double digit unemployment rates.

Yes, how dare companies give all of their employees equal rights instead of giving special privileges to the group you happen to be in. I have an idea: Why don’t we just make it so only Christian employees can receive partner benefits? According to your traditional morals, only those marriages are seen as valid in the eyes of God, so we can ignore everyone else. Yes, that seems like a lovely place to derive our reasoning. Definitely shouldn’t give benefits that promote monogamy and stable relationships.

The homosexual lifestyle also affects areas such as life insurance, estate planning, real estate, and investments as firms providing these services have to factor in how to treat same sex domestic partner issues into their cost calculations. Guess who has to pay for these increased costs and potentially lower investment returns? We do, regardless of whether or not we approve of the homosexual lifestyle. The next time some one tells you how wonderful is the “progress” gays have made in recent decades ask them if they have ever thought about the multiple economic consequences of this “progress” as described in this posting. I welcome suggestions from readers as to other possible economic costs of the homosexual lifestyle which I have forgotten.

Again, heaven forbid that everyone has equal rights. I’m not up on my fiscal policy so I don’t know if what he’s saying about rising costs is true or not, but who cares? Do we really take away the rights of a minority because it’s cheaper for the majority? Well then, better go back and institute slavery. It’ll be so much cheaper if we don’t have to pay black people wages!

I’m seriously disappointed that such a ignorant and homophobic piece could be written by a professor here at Purdue. It makes me ashamed to also call myself a Boilermaker. Much of the controversy is where his rights lie as a Purdue employee to publish such a thing. I support everyone’s freedom of speech, regardless if I agree with what they’re saying or not. However, I also believe one must be accountable for what they have said – he deserves criticism and messages of outrage. Purdue stresses tolerance and diversity, but to have a Purdue professor (a fact made available in his Bio) saying such hateful things… how would a gay student feel in one of his classes? Would gay students want to come to Purdue with such bigotry being represented?

What do you think? Should Professor Chapman just face the negative opinions of the public, or should Purdue reprimand him? Should what a professor say on his private blog have any connection to what he does at work?

Other Purdue students have also voiced their opinions on the matter:
Boilercrat Junction
The Dark Matter Effect
NEW: Politics and Pucks

Being gay is a choice, but religion is in your genes!

No, I didn’t suddenly make a big discovery while working in my genetics lab – you can thank House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) for the insight:

In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner “supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics.” …”He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes,” Smith continued.

What the hell, really? How many scientific studies do we need to throw at you ignorant bigots before you’ll accept that homosexuality has a genetic basis?! This is not a matter of opinion – homosexuality is not a choice. That assertion is usually enough to make me want to bash my head against a wall, but coupled with the ludicrous claim that religion is immutable? Yes, because people never ever change religions, and adopted children always grow up to be the faith of their biological parents. Thanks for submitting that Christian gene sequence to GenBank, really interesting to know a single point mutation can make someone phenotypically Muslim!

Yes, I know – sexuality is fluid. There are definitely cases of people who once identified as straight as later identifying as gay and vice versa. There are bisexuals whose attractions skew back and forth over time. But immutability shouldn’t be the sole deciding factor for what becomes a protected class. Even if people change their religion, gender, and sexual orientation, they shouldn’t be discriminated for it. Regardless, it’s obvious this man isn’t talking about fluid sexuality – he’s talking about homosexuality being a “choice,” and that what annoys me so much.

It terrifies me that people like this get elected to public office.

(Via Pandagon)

I take it back: Screw you, Indiana

Just when I found a reason to give Indiana some brownie points, I’ve found a reason to take them away. Goshen, IN voted against changing an anti-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation. Yep, it’s still a-okay to discriminate the gays.

“Some speakers discussed religious reasons for their stance on the law.

“This is an issue of morals, if we start telling people in our schools everything’s okay, where do we draw the line? I want to know where do we draw the line,” said one resident who said he talked with his pastor about the ordinance.””

Oh no, the slippery slope of being an understanding, kind person! …Yep, this sure is an issue of morals: if you want to discriminate against the GLBT community because of your bigotry, then you sir are the immoral one.

It really doesn’t surprise me, though. Western Indiana is fairly religious, with very high numbers of Amish and Mennonites. I’m not saying those particular groups were behind this, but that area has a very small town, country, simple living kind of feel. I complain about Indiana a lot, but to hammer the point home, let me just quote some of my favorite comments from that article:

Want is happening to the morals of this country. Just because Christians choose to honor God and respect the fact that the Bible teaches that a man and woman belong together not a woman and woman or a man or man doesn’t mean we are bigots. A sin is a sin and to say you were born this way is just your way of justifying your sin in your mind. As a christian if I would agree that God made you this way than I would be responsible for your sinning. It doesn’t mean that I hate that person. It just means I hate your sin. Next we will have to make special concessions for sex offenders because they could use the same argument and same hey I was born this way. I’m glad I live in Goshen where the city officials stand up for what is morally right. Do you expect God to keep blessing up if we keep forgetting to follow the Bible.

If we made laws to protect Socially unaccepted behavior then we would have to protect All socially unaccepted behavior opening a Pandora’s box. There are already discrimination laws that cover these things. Let Goshen pass this ridiculous law and they can be the San Fran of Indiana because this behavior is SOCIAL and will attract all that want to engage in it.

Wow looks like the Sodom and Gamorra aficianados lost this one. Score 1 for decent family people.

I do not see where discrimination comes into play because the ordinance changes did not pass. The City of Goshen decided not to add on extra protection for people who have different preferences. There is NO discrimination in that. If I have a preference in having body piercings or a tatoo, I do not expect a town to add an ordinance to protect me. The “small town thinking” and “hypocricy” comments; give me a break. Your use of guilt and put down tactics on people who do not agree with you is sad. It is amazing the ugly ways people have responded to this ordinance not passing. Wow! Stop slamming God and anyone who does not agree with you. Just because Goshen choose not to add special protection for a lifestyle choice does not mean we are filled with hate. I don’t agree with the lifestyle choice, I can still love the person making the choice. We are all human beings and the current ordinance protects those rights. I strongly believe in Christ’s love, for ALL of us.

Everyone else seems to want to talk about how Goshen is so closeminded…Your asking us not to discriminate bc of your opinions and CHOICE to be homosexual…so guess what…if you expect to be heard…so do we. Just because we can actually back our beliefs up with the Bible…and your backing up homosexuality by what?? Bc it feels good? Excuse us all for still having some moral fiber in this sick world!

Where did the morals go? Just because your “gay” everyone else should deal with your problem? ITS WRONG, always has been, always will be – no matter how many laws are passed. Get some help, or keep it to yourself.

I’m just going to stop there because about all that’s going through my head is constant screaming of “IT’S NOT A LIFESTYLE AARRRRHRGGGHGHGHGHHH!!!!”

(Via Friendly Atheist)

More school drama – flyers

The Society of Non-Theists has had a particularly bad time putting up flyers at Purdue. I’ve had events where 75% or higher of the flyers were torn down after 24 hours, and I had to constantly replace them. We only put them where they’re allowed to be, but that doesn’t stop students from tearing them down. Purdue used to allow you to tape flyers to the ground (no longer do, it was an eye sore), and even those went missing. I actually caught someone in the act and tried to stop them, but since he and his friends were very large males and weren’t being too kind to me, I decided my well being is more important than a flyer and backed off. And if the flyers aren’t being torn down, they’re being written on – stuff like “Jesus loves you” and “You’re going to hell.” Interesting dichotomy there, no?

Anyway, we have some new flyer drama developments. I was going to LILY to relax in the library, but instead I got all riled up. Why? Of our five flyers on the main for, two were torn down and replaced by a Fraternity’s flyer, and the other three were directly covered by that Frat’s flyers like so:

These poster boards had plenty of space for the flyers to go, and the only other group that had a flyer perfectly covering it was the Queer Student Union:

Coincidence? I think not.

My first instinct was “Grrrr Delta Pi Rho!!! You’re a minority frat! Shouldn’t your members know better than treats other minority groups’ flyers like that?!” But then I looked at the flyer set up again. None of them completely covered our flyers, which had been the case in the past. They all made sure to include “Atheist?!” or “God?!” or “Big Gay.” What do I think is really happening? Some jerkface probably thinks it’s funny to slur Delta Pi Rho by calling them gay atheists by rearranging the flyers that way.

And you know what? That probably makes me crankier than if Delta Pi Rho themselves had just been acting like jerks. The fact that “atheist” is used as an insult really illustrates how most of America (especially conservative parts like Purdue) view nonbelievers. It’s a dirty word and a slur. What’s worse than being an atheist or gay?

I usually could care less when rival frats play pranks on each other (which is probably all this is), but at least do it without making some of the largest minority groups in America the butt of the jokes.

This guy needs to learn the term “slashers”

From the New York Post (emphasis mine):

Guy Ritchie’s plan to put a gay spin on the relationship of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in his new movie about the detective and his sidekick could backfire.

Robert Downey Jr, who plays Holmes, has revealed the crimebuster will sleep with and have sweaty grappling scenes with Watson, played by Jude Law, in “Sherlock Holmes,” due out Christmas Day.

“We’re two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It’s bad-ass,” Downey told Britain’s News of the World. Added much-in-the-news Law: “Guy wanted to make this about the relationship between Watson and Holmes. They’re both mean and complicated.”

But Michael Medved, a former Post movie critic, says Downey and Law must be joking. “There’s not a seething, bubbling hunger to see straight stars impersonating homosexuals,” Medved told us. “I think they’re just trying to generate controversy . . . They know that making Holmes and Watson homosexual will take away two-thirds of their box office. Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out? I don’t think it would be appealing to women. Straight men don’t want to see it.

…

*raises hand*

This man has clearly never talked to a straight woman who wasn’t a fundamentalist or an uber-conservative. Are you shitting me? When I saw the trailer for Sherlock Holmes I flailed with girlish glee, which honestly doesn’t happen too often. But a Sherlock Holmes movie? With Robert Downey Jr.? And Jude Law? Dressed in period clothing? Bickering like an old married couple with homoerotic undertones? Fuck yeah, eye candy. I’ll happily shell out eight bucks for that.

If you could assure me Downey Jr. and Jude Law would make out, first I would cry tears of joy, then I would probably go back multiple times. As would a very large number of women (proof? go read the comments on this LJ thread). We’re the people who saw Brokeback Mountain for teh gay (actually didn’t like it, but that’s because I went for the gay, and I usually hate those kinds of movies). We’re the people who shat bricks of pure bliss when Harry Potter Book 6 essentially made Harry/Draco canon. We’re 95% of the people who read and write slash (homosexual) fanfiction – the straight gals, not the gay guys. We are more than enough to make up for the homophobes that would be scared away.

I highly doubt the movie will have anything more than homoerotic subtext, but that’s fine by me. Imagining what’s really happening it half the fun anyway. And if it wasn’t nearly 3 am, I’d have some insightful comment as to why straight women love homoeroticism, and how this mirrors men’s stereotypical love of lesbians. But it is 3 am, so I’ll just leave it at this:

Bow chicka wow wow