No rights for you

The Southern Baptist Convention…

A day after electing their first African-American president, Southern Baptists on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing the idea that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

The resolution adopted at the denomination’s annual meeting in New Orleans affirms Southern Baptists’ beliefs that marriage is “the exclusive union of one man and one woman” and that “all sexual behavior outside of marriage is sinful.”

Oh give it up, baps. Drop it along with the “Southern.” Just let it go, you’ll feel better.

It’s sex. Do you take sneezing to be sinful? Eating? Scratching?

Give up “sinful” while you’re at it. You’ll be amazed at how much better you get along. You’ll know better than to bully people on buses, and you won’t try to take people’s rights away.

“We deny that the effort to legalize ‘same-sex marriage’ qualifies as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender,” the resolution says.

Because they say so. It was good enough for Moses, so it ought to be good enough for us.



  1. julian says

    It’s amazing how eager oppressors are to remove what makes any group a discriminated group; that they’re discriminated against.

  2. Stacy says

    We deny that the effort to legalize ‘same-sex marriage’ qualifies as a civil rights issue since homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender,” the resolution says

    I had this argument recently with a fool on YouTube (yes, I know. I have a lot of time on my hands right now.) He told me homosexuals can’t be a protected class because their sexuality isn’t an “immutable” trait*, like race and gender. When I pointed out that religion is not immutable but religious beliefs are protected, he told me that homosexuality is not mentioned in the Constitution. When I pointed out that race and gender were not originally mentioned in the Constitution, either, he got confused.

    True story.

    * Apparently arguing on the basis of the “mutability” of gayness is a thing. I didn’t get into the question of mutability/immutability per se because it’s complicated. Also a bullshit red herring.

  3. Randomfactor says

    “a class meriting special protections, like race and gender,”

    Odd that THEY don’t mention creed…being as they’re all about wanting special treatment.

  4. eric says

    While I wish they’d change their position, as long as they have this position I’m glad they publish about it and pass resolutions about it, and so on. It just undermines the concept of a single and clear biblical interpretation that much more when, a decade or two from now, they do change their mind.

  5. thephilosophicalprimate says

    Whenever any idiot says anything in my vicinity about the mutability of gayness or even mentions words like “choice” and “lifestyle” in this context, I suggest that the only evidence I will accept for his claim is that he (it’s always a he) prove the mutability of sexual orientation by giving up heterosexuality and trying homosexuality for a week. If that doesn’t outright shut him up, it at least forces him to start spewing the other hate-filled homophobic nonsense he’s trying to hide behind supposedly “rational” positions based on “principles.”

  6. steve oberski says

    It wasn’t that long ago when their definition of marriage was one man and one woman of the same race.

    Their new chief bigot was born in 1956 so you’d think he might have some memories of that.

  7. tynk says

    ” homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections,”

    You are right you bigoted fucking asshole.


  8. avh1 says

    Stacy @2
    On the poor dear. Had no-one ever exposed him to logic before?

    And Tynk, that seems to sum things up nicely. I have real trouble empathising with the sort of people who come up with these sorts of declarations. You’d have thought that the example of race might have some bearing on this for them. After all they changed their views about whether race should be a ‘protected class’ and the world didn’t end and their sect didn’t cease to exist.

  9. Stacy says


    “homosexuality does not qualify as a class meriting special protections,”

    You are right you bigoted fucking asshole.


    Regular people have regular protections and rights. Scary minorities, like negroes and teh gheys, have special protections and special rights.

    You can easily see how unfair this is. What makes you so special? I thought we were all equal here!?

    In conclusion, there is no Adam and Steve in the Constitution. Please stop oppressing straight people. Don’t make me marry a raccoon.

  10. Ichthia says

    If this were simply about the internal dealings of the church, I would not have too much at issue with this. They can still refuse to perform weddings for gay couples and shun gay members for all I care.

    However, this is a measure about opposing the legalization of gay marriage. One would think that such a measure in their charter or bylaws or whatever would establish that they are in fact a lobbying organization, instead of a religion as they claim to be, so therefore ineligible to their tax exempt status that currently enjoy.

  11. says

    The fun thing is that you can completely defend the right for gay marriage just by appealing to gender equality protections, which they supposedly now support. After all, if a person wants to marry a man, equal treatment based on gender should allow that person to do so regardless of their gender. The same if someone wants to marry a woman, or someone who identifies as non-binary, of course.

    It’s even more funny when you point out that they claim to want a small government, but somehow think that the government should check which genitals you have before they’ll allow you to marry someone.

  12. RealSpace says

    Well I hate to break it to the Baptists but marriage is NOT a religious union. It is a legal contract which binds two people into one collective unit. Special advantages apply to this kind of union under the law and denying it to same-sex couples is a violation of the Equal Protection clause under the 14th Amendment. Religious opinion doesn’t even come into play, except as an optional check box in a marriage license. Religious groups can have their own regulations, but they are not the LAW. The sooner this nation starts applying the law equally the better.

  13. joel says

    You just don’t understand. The doughnut boys should be applauded for exercising their natural manly duty of advising women. Our male minds are not contaminated by any actual experience of living as female, therefore we enjoy an unbiased perspective.

  14. ohdear says

    Huh, stressing the fact that there’s an African american at their head? Well, well well – isn’t that interesting? Why did you go out of your way to stress that, hmmm?

    (cheap shot? Lousy innuendo? Sure. How’s it feel to be on the receiving end of it?)

  15. says


    I dont follow you. It isn’t innuendo, it is a legitimate observation that someone whose rights were relatively recently recognized has trouble recognizing the rights of others.

    Perhaps you could clarify the point you wished to make? Assuming there is one.

  16. Lyanna says

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, WAIT a sec–did they just ADMIT that *gender* is a class meriting special protections?

    Aren’t these the same deeply sexist types who think women should “graciously submit” to their husbands?

    It’s hilarious enough that they now pretend to be anti-racist, given their history. But at least they currently don’t have explicit racism in their official policy positions.

    They do have explicit sexism, and yet they concede that gender is a civil-rights category?

  17. says

    Godalmighty, the troll finds the weirdest things to object to.

    I didn’t “go out of my way” and I didn’t “stress that” – I included it in the quoted passage because that’s how the article started. I almost omitted that clause, actually, because it seemed irrelevant, but I thought if I did I would probably be accused of hiding it for some sinister reason! You’re a sick fuck, troll. You should confine yourself to the ERV thread, which is more adapted to you.

  18. lordshipmayhem says

    tynk@ #7


    Love it – two thumbs up!

    I am reminded of the fact that being left-handed was once considered by Christians a lifestyle choice – or more accurately, a sign of being possessed by the devil (if you were left-anded, you were referred to as a “sinister”). Now, it’s being GLTB, whereas being left-handed seems to be OK, it’s how your brain is wired.

    Hopefully, it won’t be that much longer until the religious being GLTB is considered “that’s just how you’re wired”, same as being left-handed, having blue eyes, or having red hair.

  19. says

    @Oh dear

    Even if we for a moment forget your dishonest attempt to slur Ophelia for the great crime of quoting what the article says, you’re seriously comparing Ophelia mentioning the minority status of a person with the Southern baptist Convention outright saying that they think a minority shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else?

    Fuck off and die, troll.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *