Cobb

Interesting post. Very. Interesting.

There’s something about this sentence, “Gay is to homosexual as black is to African. You can be born African, but you have to act black,” that is disturbing as hell to me. I'm going to have to think about that idea because it appears obviously wrong to me.

I understand what you are saying with respect to homosexuality: you can be born homosexual but you have to decide to act gay.

Okay, I think I agree with that. It's the Black part, my man, that strikes the wrong note.

African Americans of the 30s were no more or less genetically African than we are. But they certainly did not possess black consciousness. Black Consciousness was an intellectual and political movement of the 60s. We changed from 'colored' to 'Negro' to 'black'. This was all about changing the way we referred to society and what we told society to expect from us. This kind of thing changes over time, but the fundamentals of genetics (I am perfectly willing to believe that people might be genetically homo) stay the same.

Please don't tell me Rattle, that you believe in racial essentialism. Otherwise, why can't you speak Swahili?

Anyway as I said at the top, Gayness or gaity if you will, is a social expression of homosexuality that is completely under control of the individual. He can decide to 'act gay' he can stay closeted. He can be promiscuous as a act of political rebellion, he can join the Log Cabin Republicans.

I have a big problem with the presumptions of liberal activists for the cause of gay marriage very much the same way I have issues with white liberals. I'm trying to separate the radical chic culture vultures from the people interested in civil rights. So people who are trying to mainstream gays are a problem, people who are interested in their health care benefits packages vis a vis registered domestic partners are not a problem.

Marriage, because it strongly connotes that same thing men & women have been doing for centuries, goes beyond the expression of civil rights. It's another class of commitment which I don't believe necessarily belongs in the public legal domain.. So why Marriage and not Civil Union?

Children until the age of around three are developmentally not able to understand that other people do not share their point of view. They cannot understand that if they see the front of an object, someone facing them sees the back of the object. It's not something that can be explained or argued, one just has to wait until they are ready.

Bowen, your church defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Another church may define marriage as being applicable to two men.

I think you literally cannot read the previous paragraph. It really may as well be in white text on a white background. You just cannot process the idea that another church or another person can have a different definition of marriage.

(Or as it appears to you: You cannot process the idea that _______ _____ __ _________ _______ ___ ____ _ __________ ____________ ___ ________.)

If I were to condescend to address the point made here I'd ask if homosexuals who are not gay should be able to be married.

Then I'd ask why a heterosexual couple who do not share your church's view on marriage should be able to be married, assuming they are just as anti-establishment as "gays."

But really, the idea that your conception of marriage is your conception of marriage, and not a universal revelation implanted into the minds of every human by God is an idea that you just cannot get.

Why marriage and not civil union? Because my priest has just as much right to allow homosexual marriage as your priest has to deny homosexual marriage.

(Or Because __ _______ ___ _____ __ ____ ______ ...)

Now other than yourself, where are the conservatives actually advocating civil unions?

Other than in your imagination, where are black churches advocating gay marriage? In answer to you last silly questions the obvious answer is the Log Cabin Republicans and various members of the Bear Flag League several of which I have met in person.

You don't seem to understand that I am not taking a position against gays or homosexuality but the rationale of the liberal agenda when it comes to this specific issue. I am not doing it because my Chruch or my God tells me so - this is a political complaint about the campaign of deception and sleight of hand. This blog is not evangelical at all. As I cite my church and The Church in general, I am speaking of a tradition spanning centuries in recognition of the sacred and fundamental recognition of human nature and human relationships. I am not impressed with any few church's declarations.

You seem to have a difficult time understanding why marriage, like rites of passage and funerals are associated with churches, and seem to have no respect whatsoever for the accumulated body of tradition in this regard. I find this ahistorical view simply uninformed. But you may have chosen simply not to speak on it.

Why is it, do you think, that the issue of Gay Marriage has presented itself at this particular juncture in American history? Was it inevitable? Do all civilizations, somewhere about 300 years into their existence evolve in this particular way? Where are the precedents?

Perhaps you have a psychological explaination for it. Is there a particular state of mind our collective consciousness has risen to which reveals this new opportunity to be right?

My explaination is simple. Liberal overproduction. This is a pet project of largely straight white bourgie agnostic baby-boomer liberals. I don't trust their judgement and I am concerned that their ability to escalate their politics in this democracy might rise to the Constitutional level. That prospect unnerves me.

That unnerves me because I believe that the chances for this particular issue to be mis-legislated are good. Furthermore the chances that poor federal law might unduly influence churches may be profound. I exemplify this by saying that if Gay Marriage becomes constitutional in California and such documents must be recognized in other states, and the net effect is that several major sects of Christianity feel compelled to change their rites, then that's a huge problem.

If the Lutherans had decided to bless civil unions as marriage based on their ow internal dialog, that's one thing. But this doesn't take place in a vaccuum. It's certainly as big an issue as that of the celibate priesthood - bigger I think, and that has had huge consequences throughout history.

So you can pretend that I don't hear or comprehend your arguments. I just don't see much logic in them. Try again.

Is it imaginable that I do not attend a black church?

Can white priests marry people according to their spiritual beliefs or do they have to marry people according to your spiritual beliefs?

I don't mind that you stand in opposition to the traditions of the black church in this country, I just want to hear you admit it.

My spritual beliefs in marriage are based on my understanding of the written sacrament. If the Episcopal Church USA changes the sacrament, I'm leaving.

Go ahead and leave. That's a private matter that has nothing to do with the law or the government.

But is your position that the law should prevent a priest whose spiritual beliefs compel him to accept homosexual marriages from accepting those marriages?

Is it your position that the law should impose your spiritual beliefs on priests who do not share your beliefs?

No absolutely not. The law should not impose any spiritual beliefs on priests. There should be no law except that which guarantees equal rights, and in the context of family law it should be that of a civil union, not of a marriage. Just like foster parents are not natural parents, the difference is real.

To demand Marriage is to demand of churches, and in this regard liberal politics is out of bounds. It is this demand that has made conservatives strike back with threats of constitutional amendments.

Put it this way. I don't have to accept an LDS polygamous marriage as an Episcopalian. But if the state of Utah licenses such marriages, then all of the spouses have some rights to inheritance (I speculate) which would have to be respected in other states. Since they don't, but allow polygamists to practice their religion, a balance is struck. That's bottoms up and that's fair. But if LDS activists started in the political sphere and imposed their version of marriage on the state it would be out of balance and unfair. By law, others in the state would have to recognize polygamous marriage. That's the imposition. The precedent of law would impose on churches, but the precedent in churches would not impose on the law.

That is why I prefer that this remain out of political debate, however that's impossible and I accept that it is a public and political debate. Given that, I argue against to liberal position based on the my belief that as a matter of rights, that which gay couples are missing in comparison to marrieds is minimal if it exists at all. But what liberals want is to change the public consciounsess about the very nature of Marriage as defined by All churches. They seek to brand churches are regressive and homophobic and will not stop at public accomodations. This is the problem.

To demand marriage licenses makes no demand at all on churches and I think you know that.

Two baptist model heterosexuals can get a marriage license, take it to a catholic church and be denied a marriage.

Marriage licenses can be fulfilled by your church, by the church of one of those internet correspondence-school priests, by a wiccan or satan worshiper who gets authorized by the state or by a government official.

Marriage licenses are strictly a civil issue. They are exactly what you mean when you say civil unions except they are labeled by what to you is a magic word "Marriage" with a capital M.

A church can take a state marriage license and then legally induct a couple into their own marriage rituals, whatever those rituals are.

A black and white couple can get a marriage license. That imposes no obligation on the white aryan church of christ to marry them or to recognize their marriage. There is no obligation of your church to marry a gay couple. There is no obligation of your church to marry a mormon couple or a couple where the man wasn't born on Monday or whatever standards your church feels like setting.

You know that already. I'm trying to figure out if you're being dishonest or blind when you put forward some kind of scenario where the government issuing marriage licenses compels your or any church to do anything against its beliefs.

Besides marriage licenses - which are a civil issue - there is the separate, private, non-governmental issue of liberals saying any church that denies gay marriage is backwards and discriminatory and hateful.

Liberals really believe it and they say what they believe. They have the right to say what they believe. If you can make a convincing argument liberals will lose. If not liberals will win. From this website, I predict liberals will win.

You're not arguing against marriage licenses. You're arguing against what you consider the liberal slander against your religion. Liberals have a right to slander your religion and you have a right to slander liberals. That's just the pain of living in a democracy.

Then you go a step further when you say that in response to the slander, conservatives are justified in passing amendments that deny marriage and civil unions to homosexuals, and that is the fault of liberals.

No.

Liberals control what liberals do. Conservatives control what conservatives do. Conservatives denying civil unions to homosexuals is the fault of conservatives and conservative regressivenss and conservative homophobia.

You can think its the liberals fault if you want to, but its a bad argument to try to make in public.

You have to face the fact. The republicans are going from state to state amending constitutions to ban all legal rights of marriage to homosexuals because republicans are the party of homophobia and regression. The liberals aren't putting guns to their heads.

The state can also legally divorce a marriage.

The most direct assault possible on the institution of marriage is the legalized divorce.

Your church does not have to recognize a divorce by any means. It can refuse to remarry, it call call the divorcee a sinner, whatever it wants. Civil divorce is no more or less binding on any church than civil marriage licensing.

But no anti-divorce amendments? I guess it was just repression and homophobia after all.

I live in California and there is practically no legal difference between the legal status of domestic partners and married couples AND we passed a Defense of Marriage Act PLUS we have the most gay friendly city on the planet FURTHERMORE in California, registered domestic partners who split have to have property settlements in court just like everybody else.

You're right. Liberals just want a chance to tar conservatives and repressive and homophobic just because they can't get their way in state legislatures.

cobb...

there's a lot in there which i didn't read, but the one piece i did read doesn't resonate: namely, that black consciousness was a 60's movement...the name change thing is a recurring issue in our history and in fact, many, many organizations going all the way back to the 1700's were called "African..." there are really too many examples to recount, but i would simply say that frederick douglass' response to the question of what separated him from martin r. delany is most instructive...douglass said that while he thanked god every day for being born a man, delany thanked god for being born a black man.

more of us have been black and african for much longer than the 60's...if the media just caught up 40 years ago, that's on them, but it don't redefine we...our timeline is a bit different bruh.

Practically no legal difference?

You would think that should be good enough for the homosexuals - if you're homophobic.

Name the legal differences and sue for each. If it's constitutional we have no prob.

Temple, I'll take that to the top..

Thanks for the advice, but some liberals have decided that a gay couple should have as much right to be married as a straight couple.

Instead of black people being admitted to Ole Miss, they could have named every difference between that school and Tougalou and sued for each.

That may have been more comforting to racists, but it was rightly decided that it would have been a waste of time and energy.

As far as I can see, right now you have no remaining arguments against gay couples having the same right to marriage as straight couples that do not depend on your religion's specific interpretation of "Marriage" as a magic word.

If I'm right about that, this discussion is over. I'm not trying to convert you away from your religion. You won't convert me to join your religion.

Like it or not, arguments that depend nearly entirely on religious faith have a poor track record in this civilization. Maybe not tomorrow, but its a pretty sure bet that homosexual marriage is on its way. You and people like you will either eventually succomb to the pressure or die and be replaced by people with less faith in your position.

Liberals are already approaching 50%.

So what I'm saying is that the extent to which people willingly submit their sexual desires to the discipline and scrutiny of the general public under generally understood conventions, as represented by thousands-year-old traditions of marriage, they are morally superior to those out for simple gratification.

Here's the problem.., if your ecclesiastic hierarchy, i.e., the magicians under whose psycho-spiritual direction these conventions are maintained, cannot easily articulate much less practically discern the differences between individual hylic, psychic, and pneumatic constitutions, then no moral or practical benefit is obtained. In order to claim moral superiority, one must actually be morally superior.

One need only consider the exceedingly high divorce rates in the U.S. to understand beyond any doubt whatsoever that the magical/moral praxis on which marriage was founded has fallen into degeneracy.

Given the dearth of competent magicians around who are capable of determining the typological suitability/compatibility of heterosexual couplings, the appeal to tradition devoid of knowledge seems extremely susceptible to repressive or homophobic motive.

Homosexual marriage is on it's way in maybe 4 of the 50 states of 21st Century America. If that's victory, then lube up the circle jerk. I say it's an embarrassment.

BTW, if I get a divorce, I'll buy you all a drink. I hope you're not thirsty.

Homosexual marriage is on it's way in maybe 4 of the 50 states of 21st Century America.

In striking your Gay Friend is Ugly pose, you've demonstrated a nearly inexhaustible proclivity for rhetorical mud brah - not only an ad numerum, but also an ad populum in a piece founded on a claim of moral superiority? I know you can do better than that!

Rather, they would have us believe that everyone's sexual gratification is equally amoral and what difference does it make who calls it marriage? Marriage that is blind to distinction is not distinguished at all. So instead only the most palatable gay stereotypes are being raised for the sake of this political assault and all the queers are being tossed aside. This is the height of hipocrisy.

I believe the actual height of hypocrisy is achieved in the attempt to put religious lipstick on the pig of disdain for homosexuality. I'm the last person in the world to advocate on behalf of a Gay or SGL partisan lifestyle - but this is simply because I'm indifferent. On the other hand, specious or anti-Christian moral claims invite ruthless interrogation because of the damage that these inflict on the general understanding of Christianity.

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

According to the Dallas Morning News, a Dallas TX newspaper, the national study "raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, [and] even brought on a little holy anger." This caused George Barna to write a letter to his supporters, saying that he is standing by his data, even though it is upsetting. He said that "We rarely find substantial differences" between the moral behavior of Christians and non-Christians. Barna Project Director Meg Flammang said: "We would love to be able to report that Christians are living very distinct lives and impacting the community, but ... in the area of divorce rates they continue to be the same."

Maybe - even in the interest of black partisan political expediency - limits ought to be set on the quest to find common ground with people who so demonstrably miss the mark.

The 21st Century is 100 years long. So far we've seen about 5 of them. Maybe you're right that after 95 more years there will be 46 states without gay marriage. I think you're wrong.

By my reading of these threads, you don't have any arguments left against gay marriage that do not depend on your religious faith.

When you finally admit to yourself that your repressive and homophobic position is entirely based on your religion, you probably will rethink both the position and your religion.

If not, don't worry - your kids and the entire next generation are growing up in an entirely different world from where you grew up.

I'm on record in defending female and gay ordination, I don't think ones sexual orientation taints their soul in they eyes of God. So the entire homophobic and repressive kneejerk is getting tired and simply more evidence that you have no argument against my fundamental gripe about the difference between civil union and gay marriage. You repeat with the same unmitigated gall as liberal activists in broadsides against Christianity and the role of the Church in its moral conservatism and relative immobility without demonstrating any proven validity in the moral authority of Gay Liberation. You simply assume that anyone who rebels against Church doctrine is morally superior without any basis in fact. Smearing weak-ass Christians doesn't prove any superiority in the alternative. Your argument is simply libertine and yet another example of making the personal political.

Its like saying women with augmented breasts are superior to those with natural breasts without any reference to the natural function of breasts.

In this particular branch of the argument, you have completely ignored the primary point which is that activists for the liberal cause have put lipstick on the queer pig and completely elided the substance of the anti-social critique of Gay Pride.

My magicians are evolved over centuries over leading all manner of humanity. Who do you have, Larry Kramer? David Geffen? Robert Mapplethorpe? Don't make me laugh.

"you have no argument against my fundamental gripe about the difference between civil union and gay marriage."

Here is my argument: The way your religion defines marriage is between you and your priest another person should be free to define marriage in a way that can include homosexuals. And if they define marriage that way they should have the same access to government sanction that you have, that a catholic has, that a wiccan has or even that a devil-worshipper has who gets the proper government authorization to perform marriages.

"You repeat with the same unmitigated gall as liberal activists in broadsides against Christianity and the role of the Church in its moral conservatism and relative immobility without demonstrating any proven validity in the moral authority of Gay Liberation."

huh? A lot of syllables. I'm not sure what is being said here.

"Its like saying women with augmented breasts are superior to those with natural breasts without any reference to the natural function of breasts."

Where is this coming from? What are you talking about? Is this some kind of meltdown?

"[The]primary point which is that activists for the liberal cause have put lipstick on the queer pig and completely elided the substance of the anti-social critique of Gay Pride."

Well, my primary point is that those who believe marriage can include homosexuals should be able to get marriage licenses.

If you think Gay Pride is anti-social, even if you could prove it it doesn't follow that homosexuals should not be able to get marriage licenses.

I couldn't care less if you don't like gay pride for whatever reason you want.

My disagreement with you starts at whatever step in the process turns your dislike of Gay Pride into an argument that homosexuals should not be allowed to be issued marriage licenses by the state.

You haven't said what that step is - really because there is no logical step. You just believe as a matter of religious faith that homosexuals should not be issued marriage licenses by the state.

All of this other stuff is just a fog you are throwing up to justify what is at base just a homophobic and repressive position.

"You simply assume that anyone who rebels against Church doctrine is morally superior without any basis in fact."

I sure never said anything like that. Which of my statement requires an assumption that anyone who rebels against Church doctrine is morally superior to be true?

Are you just mad because I showed you how your belief that homosexual marriage is not real marriage depends on assuming that marriage is heterosexual - which is an assumption that you cannot support?

It's clear that there is little served by your insistence that I believe something that I don't. I'll repeat it again. Marriage, like funerals and rites of passage are evolved human behavior that is culturally similar all over the world for thousands of years. There are religious rites that have co-evolved over thousands of years in recognition of their elemental centrality to human experience. Similarly law has co-evolved in recognition of their elemental centrality.

Homosexuality is also a fundamental human behavior, but it exists on the margins of society. It is not central to human culture. It is merely an alternative.

In the United States the ability to change the law has far exceeded the ability to change religion. Politics is fast. Religion is slow. This is generally seen as a good thing because there are discoveries in science that can advance civilization. Peopl Furthermore the economy changes quickly. Amidst all that change, one thing that does not change is human nature, and one is wise to recognize the fundamental aspects of it.

One of the fundamental aspects of human behavior is that people act according to their interests, and those interests may be foolish. People often try to rationalize the absurd, to make what is counter-intuitive seem to be natural and proper - to substitute fiction for truth and profit from deception. When deceptive people are successful, society suffers.

I'm really sick of this discussion. I'll finish this later.

If you finish this, I hope you explicitly get to the part where homosexual couples should be denied marriage licenses.

Satanism is a fringe that has not been around for thousands of years, but satanists can get married. Maybe not in your church - but as long as nobody is forced to join your church nobody other than you really cares who your church is willing to marry.

My gripe with you Parker, aside from our differences on this litmus issue, is that I don't percieve that you see anything fundamentally wrong with relativism in marriage. It's like you're not willing to say x is a bad marriage. That you seem to lack an ideal. I can't get over that, and I don't mean to disrespect you, in fact I'm glad (but exhausted) that you've spent the time here. This discussion will provide useful for lots of folks beyond us. Still, it irks me that you just don't get it. It's like you listen to Steve Winwood sing 'Bring me a Higher Love' and you say, yeah whatever just another pop song.

I am working in defiance of a simulacrum of Marriage, in defiance of 'marriage in name only', and if there were some institution which had higher standards than the Episcopal and Catholic Church, I'd gladly make them the reference. But anyway.. I need to finish this final piece.

Dude, you're making this up.

In the context of this discussion, why would I say x is a bad marriage? If it was true that I'm not willing to say it, how would you know? This has never been a discussion of what makes a marriage good or bad.

I'm concerned with one question: Should the government issue marriage permits to homosexual couples.

You say no. What's your reason? Your interpretation of the Scripture says Marriage is between a man and a woman.

But we're talking about public policy. We're talking about policy the government applies to people who do not want to live their lives according to your interpretation of the Scripture.

The right answer is: "Yes. I want the government to impose the current Episcopal interpretation of the Scripture on the entire US population."

But even worse, the answer is: "This is the issue on which I want the government to impose the Episcopal interpretation of the Scripture on the entire population, and not many other issues."

Why this issue and not others? "Because God (cough cough) has a special dislike of homosexual marriage that he doesn't have against, for example, divorce."

Wow. God sure is homophobic according to you. But the defense of marriage act you support/understand does not ban divorce.

So of course, you'd rather not give the real reason you oppose the state giving marriage licenses to homosexuals because it is obvious where that leads.

So instead we're getting a whole lot of other issues that really do not have anything to do with the question of should the government issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

Proponents of gay marriage are deceptive because they don't admit gay pride is anti-social. Homosexual marriage will benefit white men more than others. Church has evolved for thousands of years. Homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals. Many homosexuals are also queers, and queers are against marriage. You don't believe one marriage can be better than another. You don't even appreciate Steve Winwood.

None of these are a reason the government should not give marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

There really is no reason except: "Yes. I want the government to impose the current Episcopal interpretation of the Scripture on the entire US population. This is the issue on which I want the government to impose the Episcopal interpretation of the Scripture, and not other issues because God (cough cough) has a special dislike of homosexual marriage that he doesn't have against, for example, divorce."

That's the reason.

And it will always be easy to show why any of the other smokescreens you put up are not relevant to the question of "Should the government grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples"