conjunction injunction, what's your fucktion? i heard on the radio the other day that the comparison between gay marriage rights and civil rights was insulting to some. i'm not well read enough on the subject to have any solid opinion but my first reaction was "what the fuck?!?" apparently coretta scott king (martin luther's widow) caused an uproar in the black community by putting the doctor's name behind homosexual organizations. "the comparison between the two movements and the rights associated with them can be misleading....homosexuality is behavior. it's not something you're born with," said the director for a group of conservative black leaders.

(counterpoint) "there's a growing body of evidence to indicate that there's a biological basis for homosexuality. gay people are not defined by what they do, they're defined by who they are," said david smith, a spokesman for the human rights campaign, a national homosexual advocacy group.



if homosexual groups can convince people that homosexuality is innate - like race and ethnicity - they stand a better chance of gaining recognition as a protected minority class under federal law, analysts said. this would lead, among other things, to the lifting of the military's ban on service by open homosexuals and the legal recognition of same-sex marriages.



as homosexual advocacy groups increasingly model their push for greater acceptance on the rhetoric and tactics of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, some black groups are beginning to take exception.

is this what it's boiling down to? whether or not being homosexual is biological or not? it seems like that's the big issue to me. like if being homosexual were natural and biological, people would be forced to accept it and deal with it. but if it's a social and mental construct -- and thus a lifestyle choice -- then people can be discriminated based upon their "choice." even if homosexualism (is that even a word?) is a choice, is that any reason to bar homosexuals from enjoying all the rights that are afforded heterosexuals? isn't choosing a particular religion a choice? is it okay to discriminate against people with religion because it's not a biological choice? are you going to discriminate against me because i choose to worship hello kitty?



all men are created equal. that is the underlying standard of our nation, if not our world. if african americans or asian americans were found to be fundamentally biologically different, would the civil rights movement suddenly lose meaning and purpose? "oh, you're right, we are biologically inferior, enslave us." this argument can be used in the defense of any living thing. preserve the environment. save the rainforest. rescue endangered species. increase the peace.



the recent brouhaha with the whole san francisco gay marriage thing is great i think. a city illegally marrying people because it's right and not because it's legal. and all the conservative groups from every spectrum of the rainbow, turning out to protest and to file injuctions and motions to deny. deny deny deny. the sanctity of marriage is being challenged! help me help you!



did you know that californians -- on march 7, 2000 -- elected to approve a ballot measure that allows the state to only recognize unions between a man and a woman? and that "in 1996, the federal government passed the defense of marriage act, which defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. it also permits states to deny recognizing a same-sex marriage in any state. such laws have been passed by thirty seven states."



of course california has a domestic partnership registry and twenty nine municipalities offer domestic partnership benefits so it's not all bad. but domestic partnership and civic unions aren't the same as getting the right to be married. freedom of speech. freedom to carry arms. freedom to do whatever the hell you want in the bedroom with whomever you want (excluding small children, family members, and maybe sheep).



california is headed to better places. the world is headed to better places. if we can get over this "are homosexuals biological or sociological?" who cares? treat everyone the same and give them equal civic rights. as long as they aren't hurting you and infringing upon your rights, who cares what they do?



my great plan for overcoming homophobia is to create a video game that features homosexuals who kick ass. in a game like warcraft you might get asians, blacks, whites, homosexuals, religious folk, middle class folk, whatevers, as your "races". and then in order to win you need to cooperate and use all the races together. this would slowly indoctrinate our next generation -- through the spell binding power of video games -- to love and respect everybody. good idea hunh?



i love hello kitty. rock on.



ps. i'm very curious what my more religiously inclined friends think about this topic. since most of them i hold to be fair minded, open hearted people (until proven otherwise). do they toe the company line or do they have their own opinion on the matter? i will ask you individually so be prepared to give me an answer. i will not accept "i haven't thought about it much" as an answer. if you haven't thought about your stance on social issues in light of your religious faith, you are doing yourself (and our eventual conversation) a great disservice.