The Vatican has officially opposed the decriminalization of homosexuality, arguing that not jailing or executing gays would lead to reverse discrimination against straight people. You can’t make this shit up:

Archbishop Celestino Migliore said the Vatican opposed the resolution because it would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination” and could lead to reverse discrimination against traditional heterosexual marriage.

This is the kind of thing that makes rational people do a double take, cock their heads and squint, and finally question how anyone could be so dense. And it’s coming from the highest source of truth and authority for more than a billion people worldwide.

Think that’s scary? Check out the response from the neocons at Freerepublic:

“The Church has finally caught on to the significance of all these “decriminalization” movements. It’s about normalizing filthy, dangerous behavior. And not many institutions know the kind of harm ramapant homosexuality can do better than the Catholic Church. Praise God our bishops are coming around!”
- ‘Antoninus’

Better to execute people than let them be considered normal in OUR society, right?

“To the extent you are relying on immorality, I guess it is the degree of immorality and the degree of potential damage to society. Deviant sexual behaviors pose a fundamental threat to the stable family unit, the protection of which has been a primary motivator of societies for millenia.”
- ‘lady lawyer’

Yeah, yeah, two dudes knocking boots will just RUIN your marriage. We’ve heard this one before.

“God did not give us free will to do evil. God gave us free will to love and obey him. God permits the use of free will to do evil, but in no way do we enjoy a God-given right to do evil. God does not will evil, nor does he will that we will evil. We suffer under a false, modern notion of freedom, which is a confusion of freedom and license. True freedom is the ability to do good, not the ability to do good or evil.”
- ‘Aquinasfan’

War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!

“While I agree with you in principle, I disagree with the idea that you can make deviant sexual practices between consenting adults illegal. Bestiality is illegal because the beast is not sentient. Pedophilia is illegal because children are children not adults. I too would prefer the homo’s get back in the closet, or at least have some respect for the rest of us and STFU about the marriage thing and their “pride” parades and so forth. I openly address them as sodomites and homos and all the perceived slurs, because I’m quite tired of them and their selfish antics..”
- ‘Ouderkirk’

Even the guy who actually likes freedom would really prefer gays never exercise theirs.

We’re still in 2008, right?!

It’s a good thing the Democrats won this one, huh?

Apparently Sarah Palin couldn’t name the few nations (including, y’know, us) that make up North America. She also was under impression that Africa was a country, and South Africa was a region therein. Oh, and she apparently was prone to throwing what could be described as tantrums, sometimes pushing aids to tears.

I mean…

Jessica Valenti, one of my favorite author-bloggers, is already catching shit for her new book: “The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women” - which is interesting, seeing as the book hasn’t even been published yet. The mere suggestion that virginity may not be all that it’s cracked up to be is like gasoline on the neocon fire. There’s every aspect of the typical religious right shitstorm; slut-shaming, ad hominem attacks, and rape apologism:

“Why is it so many feminists are so obsessed with turning teenage girls into raging whores? How is that something you tell girls they should aspire to? Sleeping around is not a good thing… Maybe I should just write a book called ‘The Feminism Myth: How Feminists’ Obsession with Slutting Around is Hurting Young Women’. See, feminism did not come around as a vehicle for women to be able to have on-demand birth control and abortions, or sleep around like horndog men.” - Cassy Fiano

“From what I understand Jessica is a bit promiscuous and wrote about it in her previous book. I would theorize that she is a little jealous of those girls/women who can practice abstinence.” - Paul L.

“If we want to see the end of the “rape culture”, women need to do thier part and stop sleeping with scumbags. I try to do my part by being a resoectful, committed guy who wants to get married. Too bad feminists see the conservtive man as Satan.” - Andrew

All this blather really does is make Valenti’s point, which is that we are a people obsessed with virginity. The concept of virginity as a cure-all for the societal ills perceived by conservatives - birth control access, abortion, and “raging whores” - puts women in a position of culpability; it’s our fault the world is so sinful, and if we’d just kept our legs together, maybe we wouldn’t have made it so.

The reality? Having sex before marriage does not make anyone “impure.” It doesn’t make anyone a “slut” or a bad person. And saving sex for marriage CAN be a good thing, if it’s a conscious choice made outside societal pressures.

If you haven’t seen the SNL take on the veep debate yet:

The religious right has yet another -totally- valid complaint against the godless capitalist market and its heathen ways - Hallmark has begun marketing wedding cards for homosexuals!

(Cue gasps of horror and disgust - or, if you’re like me, murmurs of “So?” or “And…?”)

The Family Policy Network has put together a petition asking Hallmark to withdraw all products that “celebrate, condone or otherwise encourage” teh gay. Petitioners are threatening to do their worst to Hallmark - a boycott!

This could mean serious trouble for the card giant. After all, One petitioner claims to make up 99% of all Hallmark revenue:

John in La Mesa, CA writes, “I will NOT buy from your store until this practice stops. 1% vs. 99%. Looks like a smart business move to me. I don’t think so!”

Oh, ho, ho! You’re in deep shit now, Hallmark!

And oh, snap! A gold crown customer has joined the boycott:

Kathy in Cobb, CA writes, “As a weekly gold crown customer in Montgomery Village Santa Rosa Ca I will no longer support you due to the current stand you have taken.”

As one petitioner notes, Ford’s loss of sales has nothing to do with the downward spiral of the American economy or the gas crunch - it’s the wrath of every Christian in America!

Sven in Herald, CA writes, “I’ll be sure to take my business elsewhere… I doubt you’ll be able to withstand the boycott of millions of Christians. Ask Ford how it’s doing.”

These Christians mean serious business. It’s a good thing that there’s nothing more important going on right now, like, say, a worldwide economic crisis. Or mass genocide abroad. Or a looming environmental disaster.

Biden and Palin both did what they were sent to the debate to do: Biden clearly won it, and Palin didn’t make any colossal blunder.

Palin had answers that she could form in complete sentences, but half the time they weren’t answers to the questions asked (does she know what “Achilles’ heel” means?). She didn’t have to deal with any “gotcha” moments because she wasn’t even really required to answer the questions fielded to her, and no question was specific enough to catch her in the headlights for longer than half a second or so. When in doubt, spout energy talking points. If she had been asked about the Bork nomination - and pressed to answer - she’d have been in deep shit. The questions asked were questions that virtually everyone could put their two cents into fairly intelligently as long as they didn’t have to explain the “how.” Add that to the smiling, the winks, the shout-out to her Wasilla 3rd graders - wait, is she running for Vice President or Miss America?

Nobody seems to really care much about what Biden had to say, but that was only partially his fault. Palin had the press interest from the get-go, but it’s always been her “folksy” presentation that’s wowed her base. Palin was all winks and teeth; Biden seemed strained and monotone in comparison. He also had, you know, substance. And while Palin made every attempt to play the pit bull, Biden stopped it in its tracks and stepped away from the debate unblemished.

Palin didn’t win this one. She had the benefit of no Couric-style follow-ups, but in no objective way did she top Biden.

[1] One shot for every use of the phrase “As we say/do/know in Alaska, ____.”

[2] One shot for every time either VP candidate offers a personal anecdote for a pressing issue of national importance.

[3] A small sip for every time Palin does the lip thing (yeah, you know what I’m talking about).

[4] Half a shot for each of the following buzzwords: God, 9/11, strategy, “Main Street,” and freedom.

[5] One shot for every time Biden makes a reference to his use of public transportation.

[6] Should there be any mention of Tina Fey, everyone must toast and down whatever drink they’ve got in hand.

Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric was anything but “straight talk,” especially when it came to abortion. As the Times article put it, she drew “a bit of a fuzzy line” regarding women who have been impregnated as the result of rape or incest:

Ms. Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?

Ms. Palin: I am pro-life. And I’m unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people’s opinions on this? Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.

Ms. Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Ms. Palin: I’m saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you’re asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That’s nothing I would ever support.

None of this actually answers the question or gives the American woman any solid idea of what to expect should Palin become Vice President (or, potentially, President). It seems like she would have some qualms with sending a rape victim to jail for aborting, but would have no problem with trying to guilt a battered child into giving birth despite the “horrific, horrific circumstances” that got her pregnant.

And I don’t buy the “I want them to be supported” shit, either. As Governor, she slashed funding for Covenant House Alaska, an organization that included programs (such as Passage House) to help struggling teenage mothers:

According to Passage House’s web site, its purpose is to provide “young mothers a place to live with their babies for up to eighteen months while they gain the necessary skills and resources to change their lives” and help teen moms “become productive, successful, independent adults who create and provide a stable environment for themselves and their families.”

I don’t think it’s even remotely fair to women to block abortion access, but to insist on a pro-life nation while cutting funding to homes for young mothers who don’t have any other support is just disgusting. I can’t imagine anything further from “pro-woman.”

While Sarah Palin was the mayor, Wasilla rape victims were indeed charged for their own rape kits, which could cost as much as $1200 apiece. Palin’s political history regarding sexual assault is just plain disturbing.

They have the proof: All gay men are identical faceless aliens.

This website - dubbed “Gay Answers” - is something else. The main notion presented is that anyone who doesn’t want heterosexual sex is no better than a racist. Confused yet? It gets worse.

Claim: Gay men are inherently misogynistic, anti-diversity sexists.

Try to wrap your mind around this one:

Most gay folks don’t feel hate towards the opposite sex. However, when it comes to ‘love’, homosexuality causes an otherwise loving person to always exclude equal treatment of the complementary gender simply because that person is different. This is why gay marriage is called same-sex, not diverse-sex. In fact, gays claim to have a genetic (preconceived) orientation for their own gender superior to the diverse gender.This is no better than a white person always preferring whites above blacks.

Riiiight. Because we all know that lust overrides every sort of love a person can feel, and that if you’re not willing to go to bed with everyone you meet for one reason or another, you’re being a discriminatory bastard.

I’m going to say right now that I love and am loved by people of many different gender identities and sexual orientations. Some of the friends I’ve made through my university’s LGBT organization have become my family away from home. College life has its ups and downs, and I don’t know how any of us would have made it through some of these rough patches unscathed had it not been for the unconditional support of our friends.

On the other hand, I’ve had my share of straight men who’ve been willing to say just about anything for the better part of a week in an attempt to get me in bed. We talk a little, maybe go on a date or two, and when they realize that I’m not really looking for a purely sexual relationship and won’t fall flutter-eyed at their charisma, they’re off after the next woman. According to “Gay Answers,” these men are the diversity-seeking progressives, and I’m just the unrelenting bigot.

Ironically, if the website’s statement somehow had any basis in reality, the obvious conclusion would be that the only way to avoid being a self-devoted bigot would be to become bisexual. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

Claim: Any woman who becomes a surrogate for a male couple is being relegated to the status of second-class citizen because… well, just because.

To support this, they provide the single most blatantly propagandistic (and over-hyphenated) monologue I have ever seen:

“…If our all-male-dominated same-sex union wants a child, we contract a woman as a second-class womb-donor or nanny to serve us, then our unproductive same-sex union collects the marriage tax benefits while the woman who bore our child gets nothing but what we give her. This is what we call equality… Equality for sex-segregated all-male-dominated public civil-marriage.”

If you’ve read any of my posts, you know that I spend the majority of my time tackling women’s rights issues. I have never been given any reason whatsoever to believe that surrogacy infringes on women’s rights when the women involved are emotionally and financially stable, informed, and willing. In my opinion, willfully using your body to help another person (through surrogacy, egg/sperm donation, organ donation, and so on) is a highly respectable decision. There is nothing inherently misogynistic about forming a fair, mutually agreed-to contract with a competent woman (unless, of course, you believe that there isn’t such a thing as a competent woman).

And, please, let’s not pretend that women haven’t been used by men largely for their reproductive capacity throughout the entire history of the known world. SO overdone.

Claim: By nature, heterosexuals cannot be sexist or misogynistic.

This one is a little more subtle, but given the struggle women have put up over hundreds of years to only just recently gain basic civil rights in many parts of the world, I find it pretty damn offensive. You may also pick up on the “parts fit” and “it’s all about the babies” rhetoric:

Men and women are complementary by natural design, being uniquely qualified since the beginning of time, in every way psychologically, spiritually and biologically to be synergistically united together in love. Both sexes are required equally in order to create a complete family. This is true from any scientific, religious or evolutionary perspective. However, nature never gave any qualifications or significant purpose to same-sex.

First off, no individual is “in every way psychologically, spiritually, and biologically” qualified for ANYTHING based only on the sexual organs they possess. There’s a hell of a lot more to it than that, and individuals are far too diverse to lump them into any group based on sex alone.

Second, a “complete” family does not necessarily include children, and heterosexual lovers are not the only ones who can acquire or raise kids. Nor are they always capable of doing so. Adoption and surrogacy are nothing new, and scientific advances continue to give couples of all types more and more options. As a side note, a well-rounded person will have loved ones of both sexes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they must be parents or lovers.

Third - and this is a big one - no type of relationship is “required” to give equal consideration to all involved. For thousands of years heterosexual relationships have been dominated by males, and until recently women weren’t treated much better than livestock. Their input counted for little to nothing. Is this the “natural design” of the “equal” relationship? I think not.

And finally, nature gave human beings plenty of reasons to engage in sex aside from reproduction. Virtually everyone, no matter how far to the right they may be, eventually has sex with the hope or assurance that a pregnancy won’t result. Sex can be a deeply intimate bonding experience, and it can also just be a lot of fun.

For any anti-gay conservatives who might be reading this: If you’re going to keep your bigoted views, at the very least don’t try to promote them under the charade that you’re pro-diversity or give a shit about liberating women. It’s as pathetic as it is despicable.