Gay People Exist? Shocking!

The usual suspects are freaking out about the Fair Education Act, CA SB 48. They describe it as

Failure to notify parents of sexually charged discussion, which will be used to indoctrinate impressionable young children about high-risk behaviors[*], by praising adults in a high risk lifestyle (without mentioning the dangers thereof), is a blatant usurpation of the rights and responsibilities of parents to teach their own children about sexuality, as well as a thinly-veiled power play by homosexual activists, seeking to mainstream and promote behaviors which are not healthy, normal, admirable, or moral or conducive to a healthy self*, a strong family, or a healthy society.

Wow. That sounds like they're going to be showing gay porn to kindergardeners and insisting that high school students have at least one sexual encounter with a member of their own sex, film it and show it to the entire class.

That seems so unlikely, I checked to see what CA SB 48 actually calls for:

The FAIR Education Act would ensure that LGBT people are included in instructional

materials, which studies have shown is linked to greater student safety and lower

rates of bullying. The FAIR Education Act would require that lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgender (LGBT) Americans are included and recognized for their important

historical contributions to the economic, political, and social development of

California. Specifically, this legislation would add LGBT to the existing list of

underrepresented cultural and ethnic groups, which are covered by current law

related to inclusion in textbooks and other instructional materials in schools. This

inclusion will help to ensure that students get a fair and accurate picture of the

people and events that have shaped our society, and that fair and accurate

portrayals of LGBT people are no longer excluded from classroom discussions. The

FAIR Education Act will bring classroom instruction into alignment with nondiscrimination laws passed by the California Legislature and adopted by the State Board of Education a decade ago, by prohibiting the adoption of discriminatory instructional materials and textbooks.

Oh. So we'll be acknowledging reality then. That's certainly . . . the least upsetting thing I can think of. Gay people have always been and always will be a part of the human race, and therefore have shaped society and continue to do so. Acknowledging that should be about as controversial as acknowledging that the sky is blue and grass is green. And working against discrimination and bullying? That should be the sort of thing parents demand for their children.

Unless, of course, you're a homophobic asshole, in which case merely acknowledging that gay people exist is horrifying and ending the discrimination against them is an assault against the very core of their discriminating, bullying souls.

So vote yes on CA SB 48. Vote yes for acknowledging the really real world** and vote no to bullying and discrimination.

*Those are the original links from the post, not my links. I don't recommend clicking on them if you have high blood pressure, or other stress impacted health issues.

**That's right, I worked in a Crow reference.

Protestants Experience Institutionalized Racism in the US?

Upon reading the third sentence of this screed against Elena Kagan, I screamed "WHAT THE FUCK?!" You probably heard me. People in China probably heard me. My boss definitely heard me.

Me: "WHAT THE FUCK?!"

My boss: O_o

Me: "Uh . . . stubbed my toe?"

My boss: *_*

Seriously, this spleenweasel almost got me fired.

The nomination of Elena Kagan for Supreme Court should outrage evangelical Protestants. The reason is not simply her legal perspective, her lack of judicial experience, or her personal view of faith and religious liberties. Devout Christians of all denominations and races are in danger of experiencing what blacks in the late 1960s and early 1970s called “institutional racism” or “institutional discrimination.”

Really? From over here in the atheist corner, Christians have so much privilege it's oozing out their ears. Some examples of Christian privilege in the US*.

• An American Christian can affix a Jesus fish to his or her car without having to give vandalism a second thought. And yet, I do not get to place any sort of symbol promoting science, reason, or atheism on my car for fear of vandalism or assault. The same goes for t-shirts.
• The state of Florida actually exempts faith-based day-care centersfrom state inspection and licensing while requiring both of secular day-care centers.
• Christian billboards are commonplace, but atheist billboards are typically met with vandalism, protests, and calls to the billboard owner.
• Public school teachers may come under fire for criticizing religion but are expected to criticize every other form of idiocy.

Testify in Court and the first thing they do is make you take an oath to God on the Bible. Nobody even notices a cross necklace, that's just jewelry, but try wearing a Darwin fish or pagan symbol and see what you get. Sneeze and get blessed, don't bless someone who sneezes and you are the rudest person imaginable. I could go on and on. Christians have privilege in this country which is entirely unlike being the victim of discrimination and it is unbelievably offensive to the actual victims of discrimination to have the privileged claim this. Blown away, I am.

*I keep making the point "in the US" because Christians do experience actual persecution and discrimination in other countries. This often involves torture, lengthy imprisonment and murder. I am horrified by this and if I could do anything to stop it, I would. In fact, I strongly support allowing victims of religious persecution asylum in the US- because there is no persecution or discrimination against Christians in the US.

Not Making Things Better

mackey, whole, foods, discrimination, health care,
Okay, it's well established I'm not a fan of Bob Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods.

His latest idea to "fix" health care (from AmericaBlog) is spectacular:

Keep in mind that the guy who runs Whole Foods is a right-wing Republican nutjob. His latest brilliant idea is to give employees greater in-store discounts if they have lower blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, and don't smoke. The idea is interesting, but also a bit unnerving. I have low blood pressure (good low blood pressure), but it's not because of anything I've ever done. It simply is. I've also been relatively skinny most of my life, again simply because I am. Why should I get more employee benefits for things I had zero control over? And an even bigger question, what does the Americans with Disabilities Act have to say about employers who decrease employee benefits based on their physical maladies (high blood pressure and high cholesterol)?

This is insane. I have no control over having porphyria. None. It's a genetic quirk, nothing more. So, because my blood pressure randomly skews from dangerously low to ER-doc-says-holy-shit! high, I will get a lower in store discount. I have done nothing to maintain my low weight (BMI) and low cholesterol. In fact, considering the crap that I tend to eat, I should have high both.

Things like blood pressure, BMI and cholesterol are far less controllable than you might think. My mother has had high cholesterol forever, and has been eating an extremely low fat diet forever. Her body pumps out way too much cholesterol. She can't control it. One of the lawyers here at work has a fantastic BMI, and dangerously high cholesterol. He eats right, exercises daily, and has had several stents put in. Another lawyer has a terrible BMI and fantastic cholesterol and blood pressure. He drinks scotch, smokes cigars, eats fatty foods, and according to his doctor, has the vascular system of a man half his age.

I think Bob Mackey should just go for it. I mean, high blood pressure and obesity are more common in African Americans, so let's give them a lower discount than whites. Latinos are more subject to diabetes, so they'll get a lower discount, too. Women are the only ones who get ovarian and cervical cancer, so they should get a lower discount as well.

I mean, if you're going to be discriminatory, own it. Go all the fucking way.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Confused

discrimination, mlk, playful, walrus, opine, editorials, same sex, gay, marriage, traditional, stupid, asshat,

Or so says The Playful Walrus of the Opine Editorials in his latest exercise in sophistry.

The truth is, we all discriminate. We couldn't function if we didn't. We discriminate against staying in bed longer or getting up earlier. We discriminate between eating this or eating that. We discriminate in whether or not to ask any given person for a date or whether or not to accept a request for a date. In decisions large and small, we discriminate - and we should. In addition, all of our laws discriminate - separating what is legal from what is illegal.

It's almost like Walrus just now realized that words frequently have more than one meaning. Or that he thinks we haven't realized this yet.

The definition of "discriminate" that Walrus is using is a valid one. It's the second definition of the word: to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

However, we all, including Walrus, know damn well that this second definition is not the definition in play when discussing same sex marriage. That would a use of the first definition of discriminate: to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality.

If we accept Walrus' use of the second definition of discriminate in this context, then we also have to argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. was confused. Apparently, the entire civil rights movement was based on Mr. King's inability to grasp that discrimination is a good thing, without which society would grind to a halt, and possibly explode. I doubt even The Playful Walrus is enough of an idiot to make that assertion, but I have surprised by his level of asshattery before, so don't count on it.

Libertarian Ideals

homophobia, homosexual, christian, christianity, bigotry, discrimination, libertarian, government, regulation, gay
Our friend emissary has learned something about himself: he's okay with government regulations against businesses discriminating against blacks, not so much when the regulations protect gays.

I ran across a very interesting forum discussion that caused me to question some things I had always assumed. It all came down to a simple question: Should government be able to regulate who whom! WHOM! a private business must (or must not) serve? In researching further on terms brought up by the discussion, I found that one person was arguing what's known as "the libertarian concept of freedom of association".

The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often rebuked from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. (wikipedia: freedom of association) i provided the link, i'm not sure why emissary couldn't.

Here's my problem with libertarian ideas: they look great on paper, but fail to take real human behavior into account. Our current economic crisis is the result of unregulated capitalism. Libertarians will argue that regulations on businesses are bad, that businesses will, if left to their own devices, be run in a manner that produces the most profit and the least loss, and that businesses that are run badly will fail. There is no need for government to interfere. That, of course, fails to take into account that certain greedy assholes will cheerfully run a business into the ground in order to achieve personal short-term gain, and that there are enough greedy assholes out there to do serious damage to the world's economy. (see: reality)

Let's look at the explanation of freedom of association above. " unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage." Sounds true, doesn't it? Refuse to serve between 5 and 10% of the population, and you will be at a competitive disadvantage to the other businesses who do serve that market. However, this is not the reality we live in.

If every business in the area refuses to serve homosexuals on religious grounds, then the business that does serve homosexuals is likely to lose a significant portion of its business, the people who agree with emissary. Unless the number of homosexuals in the community is larger than the number of homophobes in the community, serving homosexuals puts businesses at a disadvantage. Therefore, homosexuals will not be served.

Government regulation solves this problem. Every business has to serve every segment of the population- homosexuals, blacks, women, atheists, muslims, etc.- and therefore no segment remains unserved. Because of the regulation, businesses can hide behind "well, we don't really have a choice" if someone like emissary complains.

I do like the end of the post, where emissary almost has an epiphany about his own bigotry. Almost.

Growing up, I learned about prejudices against people because of their differences (especially race and religion). So I had never before questioned that government should have laws like this in place.But the homosexual marriage issue has caused me to pause and really think about it.

Marriage is a Civil Right, not a Religious Rite

Some people just know exactly what to do.