Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Southern Baptists oppose health insurance for gays

Timothy Kincaid

November 30th, 2009

Richard LandIn an article in the Baptist Press about legislation to provide equal benefits to gay federal employees, prominent Southern Baptist Richard Land declares his opposition and that of his fellow Baptists.

The bill, H.R. 2517, would bestow on homosexual partners of federal employees such benefits as health insurance, retirement and disability benefits, group life insurance, and family and medical leave.

Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land criticized the proposal both before and after the committee’s vote.

“Most Southern Baptists believe that the only relationship that should be defined by its sexual nature and should have special benefits accrued to it is heterosexual marriage,” said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Nov. 25.

Land makes much of his pretense that such a bill would “discriminate” against heterosexuals who are allowed to marry but decide that they don’t wish to do so. Such appeals to irrationality reveal Land’s insincerity and smugness.

Land seems quite happy that straight employees receive greater compensation packages than gay employees. After all, these employment benefits are “special benefits” that are reserved as a reward for being heterosexual, you see.

And naturally, Land expresses absolutely no concern whatsoever about how same-sex spouses or domestic partners are to get health insurance or care during a medical emergency. Frankly, it seems that Land couldn’t care less if they suffer without any medical care at all.

As a religious ethicist (a fascinating misnomer), I’m certain that Richard Land has read the last parable of Matthew 25. I wonder what sort of mental gymnastics he has to play in order to see this as anything other than a direct condemnation of him by Christ.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Mel
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Easy. They claim Biblical infallibility but then give more weight to the passages they like. Which usually aren’t the ones that Jesus had anything to do with.

Edwin
November 30th, 2009 | LINK

Well I guess we could send all of our medical bills to Land and let him pay them for us. Since he thinks he deserves the reward for being a hetro trouble maker.

wackadoodle
December 1st, 2009 | LINK

“Most Southern Baptists believe that the only relationship that should be defined by its sexual nature and should have special benefits accrued to it is heterosexual marriage,” said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Nov. 25.

What’s that thing they constantly accuse us of wanting when we want to be treated exactly the same as them? Starts with an S…

Christopher Waldrop
December 1st, 2009 | LINK

I’m trying to wrap my head around why the “bill would ‘discriminate’ against heterosexuals who are allowed to marry but decide that they don’t wish to do so.” Okay, so any company that offers benefits to married couples–whether heterosexual or same-sex–is technically discriminating against single people who choose not to marry. If the Southern Baptists have a problem with discrimination against singles then they should oppose any benefits for married couples.

CLS
December 1st, 2009 | LINK

Land even misstates the nature of marriage as he would define it. It is NOT defined by its sexual nature at all, only by the gender of the participants. Many marriages are entirely sexless. No one from the SBC goes around checking that married couples are actually having intercourse in order to be legally defined as “married.” A gay man could marry a lesbian, both could have sex with other partners and never have sex with one another, and they would still be legally married.

Normally a “ethicist” would be more careful with definitions. But that is harder to do if ones position is logically inconsistent and based on fallacies.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.