Hating the Sin. Not Giving a Damn About the Sinner.

Rob Tisinai

October 26th, 2011

Will is a full-time student with a part-time job. I work for a big company with spectacular benefits. And as of January 1, Will’s going to be covered under my medical and dental plans, because my firm has a provision for domestic partners.

Yay.

Our opponents often blast companies for offering such benefits, and are dead-set against having state, local, or federal governments offer such a thing.

Sometimes the objections are foul. It’ll cost too much money! It would be awful to let a straight person’s spouse die of lingering treatable cancer, but it’s just good fiscal sense to strand homos in medical hell.

Sometimes the objections are patently false, like Maggie Gallagher’s naive belief that two working spouses will each naturally take care of their own health insurance.

And sometimes the objections are just plain ignorant, as when Maggie claims that not being allowed to marry offers this super-cool benefit: “the ability to walk away from a partner’s medical debts.”

!

Wait, that’s not enough.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maggie may be legally correct, but she’s morally ignorant.  What makes her think I value this ability to “walk away”?  Will’s medical bills — and general welfare — are my responsibility, just as mine are his.  That doesn’t change just because we’re in a same-sex committed relationship.  Is that so impossible to understand?

Our religious opponents continually claim they hate the “sin” but love the “sinner.” But it’s this sort of thing — this exact sort of thing — that shows how meagerly our opponents understand us, how little they even care to understand us, and how empty their claim is of sweetly and religiously loving us.

Bose in St. Peter MN

October 26th, 2011

One of Maggie’s favorite statements — about marriage bringing together the “two great halves of humanity” — strikes me as particularly awful.

The logical inference is that straight, cis, gender-conforming men and women are the sole, rightful owners of humanity. For lesbian, trans, gay, intersex and other folks, humanity is conditional, to be denied or conferred at the whims of the “two great halves.”

I agree with you, Rob… that’s not compassion, not love, not empathy.

Parhelion

October 26th, 2011

My neighborhood Society of Friends wants me to get married and have the same social benefits as they do because they believe it would be as uplifting for me as it is for them. At least, that’s what they say God finally managed to get through to them while they sat around listening for their instructions on Sunday mornings.

Such consistent beliefs are certainly religious and are also rather sweet. And I admit to thinking they’re lovely to boot. So I wish these other creeps would stop trying to claim-jump the local Quakers’ previous and valid claim to sweetly and religiously loving me.

Rob in San Diego

October 26th, 2011

See Maggie forgets that we have love and commitment for each other. In her eyes we’re all together for just the Santorum sex.

Rev Ray Neal

October 27th, 2011

I deal with this kind of response frequently…and I’m a Christian minister who also happens to have a same-sex husband/partner. Sometimes I’ve even been told that I must not realize that I can’t possibly be a Christian, much less an ordained Christian minister, because I am gay. But, then they usually say, “We love you, we just hate your sin.” I’ve gotten that from family members, other ministers, and people I meet on the street. I sure do wish they would all practice the Christ-like faith they profess to have. sure would make a big difference.

StraightGrandmother

October 27th, 2011

I am so happy you and Will are together. Just remember nothing warms a mothers heart more than grandchildren. I wish you and Will many Blessed years of happiness.SG

Timothy Kincaid

October 27th, 2011

Maggie claims that not being allowed to marry offers this super-cool benefit: “the ability to walk away from a partner’s medical debts.”

Yes. In precisely the same way that a heterosexual couple that are unmarried can do. Which is why Maggie opposes heterosexuals marrying.

ohhhhh…. yeah, she actually campaigns for heterosexuals marrying.

What makes her think I value this ability to “walk away”? Will’s medical bills — and general welfare — are my responsibility, just as mine are his.

Actually, that is one of the reasons that marriage exists at all. It is a social contract that ties people to each other and provides that when things go bad, there’s someone there to help. So that a) care is there and b) it isn’t up to the rest of everyone else to take care of it (ask Maggie if she’d prefer socialized medicine). It is a HUGE societal improvement project, in a way.

Gosh, I guess Maggie’s either astonishingly cynical or astonishly stupid.

EOJinDC

October 27th, 2011

This column brings up two issues for me:

1) If these people were actually “Christians,” they would know it’s not their job to sit in judgement of anyone. Furthermore, the whole “Love the sinner. Hate the sin” thing is irrelevant once we realize that we don’t need anyone’s approval to live our lives as we see fit. I despise the word “tolerance.” What makes someone think they have the moral authority to “tolerate” (versus accept) me?

2) Mr. Tisinai wrote, “Maggie may be legally correct, but she’s morally ignorant.” I think you meant to say that she is embarrassingly ignorant and morally bankrupt. Then again, I can see how one might argue that her knowledge of moral values is deficient, thus making her ignorant. However, this is just a suggestion, pointing out that she is BOTH ignorant and devoid of the same morals she claims to champion (i.e., what impact would millions of same-sex partners walking away from medical bills have on the health care system’s ability to treat patients not to mention health care costs?) is just more fun in my humble opinion.

Timothy Kincaid

October 28th, 2011

Unfortunately, Maggie’s morals are based on Catholicism, not Christian principles.

Christian principles would apply choices based on the heirarchy that one finds in Scripture:

1. Is there a specific Scriptural teaching?

2. Would this teaching be overruled by Peter’s Sheet, i.e. is there “unpure or unclean” assignment which is arbitrary rather than inherent?

3. Where does this teaching fit into the Big Ten?

4. Is this a teaching you would want applied to you if you were in the other person’s shoes? This vetos all.

But Catholic morality – of the sort that Maggie believes – is based on the teachings of the church. Heck, I bet that if they Catholic Church decided something wacky like – oh, I dunno – not being able to eat meat on Friday, Maggie would not question it.

Or, imagine if the Catholic Church came up with something as irrational as not using birth control when you aren’t physically, emotionally, or financially capable of raising a child. (I’m just kidding. Surely they wouldn’t say that!)

A Christian principle might suggest that such irresponsibility was unwise, if not downright immoral. It certainly isn’t very loving to subject such a child (or your already present children) to poverty. And it sure isn’t loving to insist that those who want to be responsible in procreation should be stopped from doing so.

But ya know, I bet Maggie would believe the Church even they claimed that the irresponsible act was the correct moral choice.

Timothy (TRiG)

October 28th, 2011

Ah, so making fun of religion on BTB is just hunky dory, as long as it’s not Timothy’s religion we make fun of. I’ll remember that for future reference.

TRiG.

Shannon

October 29th, 2011

Must make MAggie’s husband feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that if he had huge medical bills that Maggie wished she had the option to just walk away. Shows her moral character and how much she truely loves him.

Timothy Kincaid

October 29th, 2011

Trig,

I’m sorry if this came across as an attack on the catholic faith in comparison to other belief systems. All faiths come with some wackiness I suspect. And yes i was unfairly mocking of their beliefs (I’ll continue to mock the church’s contraception ban but the fish on Friday dogma was harmless tradition and I shouldn’t have used it)

My point is that Maggie’s ethical system isn’t based on princies but rather on rote obedience. It is also true the Catholics hold no monopoly on mindless obedience and in reality Catholics ignore their church’s nonsense by huge majorities.

cowboy

October 29th, 2011

Catholics hold no monopoly on mindless obedience

No and the Mormons might be the in running for the top spot in this category.

And wackiness is just another way of sometimes saying it’s cult-like. From some perspectives someone’s sacred canons probably are viewed as wackiness by people who are ignorant. Take for example, the constant referral (not here on BTB) about Mormons’ “magic underwear”.

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.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.