AfricanAmerica.org
/ AfricanAmerica.org / Our Forums / ISSUES / Issues & Politics Sign In (New User? Sign Up)
  Join Channel
Is Gay the New Black? Marriage Ban Spurs Debate
EbonyRose offline
A1 · 16344 Forum Posts
 December 3, 2008 2:03 PM
Is Gay the New Black? Marriage Ban Spurs Debate
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008
By: Jesse Washington, AP National Writer


Gay is the new black, say signs and magazines, casting the gay marriage war as the last frontier of equal rights for all. (AP)



NEW YORK - Gay is the new black, say the protest signs and magazine covers, casting the gay marriage battle as the last frontier of equal rights for all.

Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do.


The gay rights movement entered a new era when Barack Obama was elected the first black president the same day that voters in California and Florida passed referendums to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, while Arizonans turned down civil unions and Arkansans said no to adoptions by same-sex couples.

Racism was defanged by Obama's triumph, leaving gays as perhaps the last group of Americans claiming that their basic rights are being systematically denied.


"Black people are equal now, and gay people aren't," said Emil Wilbekin, a black gay man and the editor of Giant magazine. "I always have this discussion with my friends: What's worse, being a black man or a black gay man?"

"Civil rights have come much further than gay rights," he said. "A lot of people in the gay community have been condemned for their lifestyle and promiscuity and drugs and sex, so it's odd that when they want to conform and model themselves after straight people and have the same rights for marriage and domestic partnership and adoption, they're being blocked."

In a cover story for the Advocate magazine titled "Gay is the New Black," Michael Joseph Gross wrote, "These past few years we've made so much progress that we'd begun to think everybody saw us as we see ourselves. Suddenly we were faced with the reality that a majority of voters don't like us, don't think we're normal, don't believe our lives and loves count as much or are worth as much as theirs."

Yet even some gay leaders are reluctant to directly tie their fight to the African-American legacy. They acknowledge significant differences in the experiences of gays and blacks, ranging from slavery to the relative affluence of white gay men to the choice made by some gays to conceal their sexual orientation, which is not an option for those with darker skin.


"I believe we are very much in a modern-day civil rights struggle," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization.

"We liken some of the experiences that we have had and will have to the (black) civil rights struggle. We also are enormously respectful of the differences," he said. "What we are best served doing is when we take lessons from the civil rights experience and apply them to our work."

Complicating the issue is the domination of minority politics by blacks and Latinos, who can be less than friendly to gay issues.

In the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which repealed gay marriage, about 70 percent of blacks favored the ban, according to an exit poll; Latinos' close vote may have favored it, though the poll's small sample left some uncertainty. In Florida, 71 percent of blacks and 64 percent of Latinos favored a similar ban.

Opposition to gay rights often has a religious basis, and blacks and Latinos are more churchgoing than society at large. Twenty-six percent of blacks attend religious services more than once per week, compared with 16 percent of Latinos and 14 percent of whites, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"I do not consider (gays) to be a minority in legal and adjudicated terms, the same way people who only like to eat broccoli with butter aren't a minority," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. "We can't categorize things according to behavior. It's based on ethnicity, on who we are rather than what we do."

"Who am I to say that you weren't born that way ... (but) sexual activity, what you do, who you sleep with, is your business," Rodriguez said. "That's between you, your lover, and the good God Almighty in heaven. I don't want to know. Let's leave sexual activity in the bedroom. The government shouldn't be legislating what we do behind closed doors between two consenting adults. And to compare it to the African-American struggle, to me that's an abomination."


So is gay the new black, or did the election define a new and unique set of gay challenges?

"The gay fight for marriage has its own integrity, its own background," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. "The experience of blacks in the United States is very different. ... I don't think it helps the fight for equality to make that claim."

Cherlin says that fight began in the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic unfolded. Gay partners had few rights to help their ailing loved ones, visit them in hospitals or inherit their property, which led to the push for civil unions.



Today, only Connecticut and Massachusetts permit gay marriage, and a few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage. Galvanized by the stinging Nov. 4 defeat in liberal California, the marriage movement is now as much symbolic as practical.

"There was a shift in the '90s, from rights to the symbolism of being married," Cherlin said. "This is not primarily a battle about rights now. If it was, all you'd be hearing about is domestic partnerships. Now it's at two levels simultaneously. One is the level of rights; the second is the level of symbols."

One symbol that some see missing from the gay rights movement is a figurehead. There are famous people who are out and proud, such as Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., or Ellen DeGeneres. But "we don't have our Martin Luther King or Malcolm X or Barack Obama," Wilbekin said.


Yet the nature of activism has changed since the days when King proposed the idea of a mass march on Washington. The recent nationwide gay protests were instigated by a Seattle blogger who set up a Web page three days after the California vote.

And in some ways, gays see Obama himself as a symbol of gay progress - even though he opposes gay marriage.

Obama is in favor of civil unions, and during his victory speech, when he included gays in his description of America, it made them feel part of the historic racial milestone.


Solmonese said that the election defeats of Nov. 4 have inspired a level of gay activism not seen since the early days of the AIDS epidemic.

"That is buoyed by equal parts anger and rage about Proposition 8," he said, "but also hope and inspiration about doing something that for a long time we didn't think possible - like electing Barack Obama as our president."

Tags:
None
 

Rating:
 

Post Reply
Replies: 46
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 3, 2008 2:13 PM
quote:
...casting the gay marriage war as the last frontier of equal rights for all.


bs

nah...ain't the first...unlikely to be the last...
urbansun offline
A1 · 1452 Forum Posts
 December 3, 2008 2:16 PM
quote:
Is Gay the New Black?
No

quote:
Gay marriage is not a civil right, opponents counter, insisting that minority status comes from who you are rather than what you do.
True

quote:
"Black people are equal now, and gay people aren't," said Emil Wilbekin, a black gay man
Negro Please Roll Eyes
Whirling Moat offline
A1 · 515 Forum Posts
 December 3, 2008 6:32 PM
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.

Two people of the same sex being married would be like a atheist christian..Does an atheist have the right to be Christian? No..The only way an atheist could be a christian is by changing the definition of Christian to mean something other than what it means..

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..If Gay people want to join in a union they can have a wedding and then form a partnership...They coukd incorporate their union even and then they would have contractual rights equal to married couples..They could create by laws, and exist in a state where they are legally bound to one another, and have ownership in each others estate...

But they cannot get married...


that is a specific species of contract which is rooted in a spiritual principle.


Whirling Moat
Fabulous offline
A1 · 6010 Forum Posts
 December 3, 2008 9:53 PM
quote:
Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term


Good point tfro
EbonyRose offline
A1 · 16344 Forum Posts
 December 3, 2008 10:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:

Opposition to gay rights often has a religious basis, and blacks and Latinos are more churchgoing than society at large. Twenty-six percent of blacks attend religious services more than once per week, compared with 16 percent of Latinos and 14 percent of whites, according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.


I wonder if these statistics are accurate? 19
Wiz offline
A1 · 2106 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 5:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.

Two people of the same sex being married would be like a atheist christian..Does an atheist have the right to be Christian? No..The only way an atheist could be a christian is by changing the definition of Christian to mean something other than what it means..

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..If Gay people want to join in a union they can have a wedding and then form a partnership...They coukd incorporate their union even and then they would have contractual rights equal to married couples..They could create by laws, and exist in a state where they are legally bound to one another, and have ownership in each others estate...

But they cannot get married...


that is a specific species of contract which is rooted in a spiritual principle.


Whirling Moat
Marriage is a legal thing, not spiritual. You do not need a priest or a pastor to end a marriage, you need a couple of lawyers and a judge. You do not even need anything religious or spiritual to get married, you need a legal document signed by the county clerk, not a preacher.
If that is your definition, you need a new dictionary (union of opposites my eye).
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 5:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..


No it doesn't.
Cocoa Starr offline
A2 · 388 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 6:10 AM
NO Gay is not the new black, but they are out there taking care of their business and fighting for what they believe in without compromise. I have to admit I admire that much.
It goes to show if we (African-Americans) would stop messing around and handle our business we could get somewhere too.
urbansun offline
A1 · 1452 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 7:33 AM
quote:
NO Gay is not the new black, but they are out there taking care of their business and fighting for what they believe in without compromise. I have to admit I admire that much.
It goes to show if we (African-Americans) would stop messing around and handle our business we could get somewhere too.


I 100% agree with you Cocoa. I have always stated that I am in favor of folks fighting for what they want in a democratic society even if I disagree with the content of what they are fighting for. My feelings on homosexuality, and gay marriage are against what I believe, but I 100% support there right to fight for what they believe.

I think when we get into trying to limit peoples right to fight is when we move from a democracy to a totalitarian system. That is why by and large I am against judicial activism and pro-legislative process.
kresge offline
A1 · 4270 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 11:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.

Two people of the same sex being married would be like a atheist christian..Does an atheist have the right to be Christian? No..The only way an atheist could be a christian is by changing the definition of Christian to mean something other than what it means..

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..If Gay people want to join in a union they can have a wedding and then form a partnership...They coukd incorporate their union even and then they would have contractual rights equal to married couples..They could create by laws, and exist in a state where they are legally bound to one another, and have ownership in each others estate...

But they cannot get married...


that is a specific species of contract which is rooted in a spiritual principle.


Whirling Moat
Marriage is a legal thing, not spiritual. You do not need a priest or a pastor to end a marriage, you need a couple of lawyers and a judge. You do not even need anything religious or spiritual to get married, you need a legal document signed by the county clerk, not a preacher.
If that is your definition, you need a new dictionary (union of opposites my eye).

yeah It is the legal status that is the issue. Spiritual matters are not subject to public referendums. Plus there have been hundreds if not thousands or more LGBT people wed by spiritual authorities; e.g., priest, rabbis, ministers, Quaker meetings, etc. A lesbian couple who are friends of mine have been married for 13 years. One is an ordained Presbyterian minister and the other is an ordained Episcopal priest and canon at St. John the Divine in NYC. They were married at in an Episcopal Church, exchanging vows in front of a congregation. They don't have any spiritual impediments. The impediments are from the state.
EbonyRose offline
A1 · 16344 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 11:16 AM
Okay .. this is kinda off but kinda not! 19 Kresge's mention of the Episcopal Church made me remember I read this story yesterday and meant to post it but I wasn't sure where!

Traditionalists set to split from Episcopal Church


The consecration of Rev. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire left many conservatives disaffected.



(CNN) -- Breakaway conservative members of the Episcopal Church in the United States and its Canadian counterpart are expected to formally announce Wednesday the formation of a rival North American Anglican church.

Leaders of the Common Cause Partnership, a network of more than 100,000 Anglican Christians in North America, are expected to unveil a draft constitution for a new ecclesiastical territorial division, or province, at an evening service in Wheaton Evangelical Free Church in Wheaton, Illinois, the group said in a written statement.

"The public release of our draft constitution is an important concrete step toward the goal of a biblical, missionary and united Anglican Church in North America," Bishop Robert Duncan of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, diocese, said in the written statement.

The move comes after years of debate over issues from the interpretation of the Bible to homosexuality. Tensions reached a boiling point in 2003, when the Episcopal Church consecrated an openly gay man, Rev. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.

The move outraged worshippers with traditionalist tendencies, and since then, four dioceses and several parishes have left the Episcopalian Church, including Duncan's Pittsburgh diocese.

In all, the newly formed division will consist of about 100,000 members from the secessionist dioceses and parishes, along with splinter groups that had left the Episcopalian Church in earlier years, said Robert Lundy, a spokesman for the group

"This constitution brings them back together under one church, all aligned together," Lundy said. "This is all these folks coming back together."

Lunday said it was safe to say Duncan will lead the nascent province. An assembly is likely to be called next year to determine additional leadership, he said.

The Rev. Dr. Charles K. Robertson, canon to the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, issued a statement saying it would not hazard a guess as to the consequences of Wednesday's service.

"We will not predict what will or will not come out of this meeting, but simply continue to be clear that the Episcopal Church, along with the Anglican Church of Canada and the La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico, comprise the official, recognized presence of the Anglican Communion in North America," he said.

"We reiterate what has been true of Anglicanism for centuries: that there is room within the Episcopal Church for people with different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ."

The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, which is composed of 38 provinces around the world. It was not immediately clear which of the other provinces would recognize the Anglican Church in North America, but Lundy said in a meeting last year in Jerusalem indicated that some would do so.

Lundy said the draft constitution will state the province's core beliefs and doctrine.

He said it will not lay out definite policies for issues the leaders disagree on, such as ordaining women.




Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/...pal.split/index.html
urbansun offline
A1 · 1452 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 12:21 PM
I read that to Ebony. That was my point on the other thread about women ordination. In this case if you don't like the way the organization is head then leave. This is what this group did. From a religious standpoint I see no reason why someone would want to remain in an organization that has dramatically different religious viewpoints than their own.
sunnubian offline
A1 · 2159 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 4:55 PM
I still believe gay marriage IS a civil rights issue because our courts are going against our constitutional ban of mixing church and state to enact a law against it in the first place, since whether or not gays should marry is a religous philosopy/doctrine,etc., and courts should not be (and constitutionally bound by law not to) enacting religous doctrine into laws of the land for entire nation.
Whirling Moat offline
A1 · 515 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 7:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.

Two people of the same sex being married would be like a atheist christian..Does an atheist have the right to be Christian? No..The only way an atheist could be a christian is by changing the definition of Christian to mean something other than what it means..

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..If Gay people want to join in a union they can have a wedding and then form a partnership...They coukd incorporate their union even and then they would have contractual rights equal to married couples..They could create by laws, and exist in a state where they are legally bound to one another, and have ownership in each others estate...

But they cannot get married...


that is a specific species of contract which is rooted in a spiritual principle.


Whirling Moat
Marriage is a legal thing, not spiritual. You do not need a priest or a pastor to end a marriage, you need a couple of lawyers and a judge. You do not even need anything religious or spiritual to get married, you need a legal document signed by the county clerk, not a preacher.
If that is your definition, you need a new dictionary (union of opposites my eye).



Marriage was adopted by the government and was subsequently adapted to suit a legal form. Of course you know that people were married before there was ever an American system of jurisprudence.

Marriage is an ancient rite which can be found in every culture. The duty inherent in marriage is derived from spiritual principles, not legal precedents.

America was formed upon the idealism of men who believed in human purpose as presented in the Bible. In genesis we find that the purpose of marriage is clearly defined by God himself "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:21-24)

The American ideal in this regard was fashion pursuant to the biblical ideal.

When Gay people demand to be married is it that they are demanding to be contractually obligated to one another? If so, they can follow the advice I gave above, and create a corporation.

quote:
No it doesn't.


Yes it does...

quote:
It is the legal status that is the issue. Spiritual matters are not subject to public referendums. Plus there have been hundreds if not thousands or more LGBT people wed by spiritual authorities; e.g., priest, rabbis, ministers, Quaker meetings, etc. A lesbian couple who are friends of mine have been married for 13 years. One is an ordained Presbyterian minister and the other is an ordained Episcopal priest and canon at St. John the Divine in NYC. They were married at in an Episcopal Church, exchanging vows in front of a congregation. They don't have any spiritual impediments. The impediments are from the state.


I think the state imposes such impediments to reinforce marriage in it's true form. The State is supposedly an extension of God's purpose on earth. The founders of this Nation believed in the many Masonic principles which are tied to the aforemwntion ideals found in the passages of the Bible. This truth is inescapable.

When a law is ambiguous, oftimes the courts, or attorneys, will research the legislative intent of a statute. The purpose here is to determine the spirit of law..It's target..or aim..In finding the intent the courts know better how to enforce the law, and how to uphold it. a legal marriage is formed in accordance to and for the furtherance of spiritual principle and purpose.


Whirling Moat
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 7:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:

quote:
Is Gay the New Black?
No


Hell, I don't even know what the question means.

Confused

Not being particularly up on pop culture, I had to drag my aging and out of touch stick in the mud ass over to wikipedia just to get some idea for what it is that is being asked in the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_black

quote:

The new black


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the catch phrase. For the album by Strapping Young Lad, see The New Black.

"_____ is the new black" is a catch phrase used to indicate the sudden popularity or versatility of an idea at the expense of the popularity of a second idea. It is also the origin of a snowclone of the form "X is the new Y".

Contents


* 1 History
* 2 Contemporary examples
* 3 References
* 4 External links

History

An early pop culture example of popularizing a particular color as the new "in" thing appears in the 1957 film Funny Face, in which editor Maggie Prescott (inspired by the legendary Vogue editor Diana Vreeland and played by Kay Thompson) extols the color pink.

A closer early approximation of the phrase is Vreeland's pronouncement, said to have been made in 1962, that "shocking pink is the navy blue of India."[citation needed] Vreeland meant that the color pink seemed to be the foundation of the attire there, much like navy blue was the base color of most ensembles in New York City. The phrase is commonly misattributed to Gloria Vanderbilt and a fictional trip to India in the 1960s, during which she supposedly noted the prevalence of pink in the native garb. In actuality, it was Vreeland who made the observation when shown a sample of pink fabric from India.[1]

In the late 1970s, the phrase "X is the new neutral" was widely used (culminating in the humorous observation that "It looks like red is the new neutral"). By the early 1980s this had changed to "X is the new black".[1] Later in the 1980s, the phrase was reappropriated to indicate that other colors (frequently brown, navy blue or grey) were temporarily displacing black's position in fashion or industrial design as a versatile staple that complemented all other aspects and was generally unobjectionable.

The phrase quickly became lampooned for its simplistic nature; The Wall Street Journal soon declared that "White is the new black".[citation needed] It soon degenerated into a complete cliché and is now used in a great variety of contexts, mostly ironic in nature. Because the phrase is so familiar, it is now sometimes used in absurd contexts as a signifier instead of as a metaphor.

The phrase is often generalised to "X is the new Y", where the standard may be almost anything ("the new rock and roll" is a common variant). This makes it an excellent example of the linguistic phenomenon recently dubbed the snowclone, and is so widespread that the British satirical magazine Private Eye chronicles the over-use of the phrase in its column "Neophiliacs". In 2008, Lake Superior State University included "X is the new Y" on their annual "Banished Words List", stating, "The idea behind such comparisons was originally good, but we've all watched them spiral out of reasonable uses into ludicrous ones and it's now time to banish them from use."[2]

Contemporary examples
Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. (August 2008)

* (2001) The phrasing was used to humorous effect in the movie Josie and the Pussycats, with increasingly referential claims that, "Pink is the new red", "Orange is the new pink" and "Heath Ledger is the new Matt Damon."
* (2001) "Big is the new small," referring to the supposed cool factor of a gigantic cell phone, as used in a 2001 episode of Saturday Night Live. It played off the phrase "small is the new big", indicating that small electronics were more expensive and modern than larger electronics, and therefore the smaller your cell phone the better. However, that phrase was cast in opposition to the still-earlier concept that "bigger is better".[3]
* (2001) Norwegian folk-pop duo Kings of Convenience named their debut album Quiet Is the New Loud.
* (2003) Carson Kressley from Queer Eye once declared, "Gay is the new black." It is unclear whether he intended to mean that gay fashion was now extremely hip and versatile, or if being gay was trendy (implying the exploitation of gay culture along the same lines as blaxploitation in the 1970s), or both. The phrase has also been used by other authors around the same time as the launch of Kressley's show, and it is unclear who was the originator of the phrase.
* (2003) In the musical Wicked, Galinda sings to Elphaba that "black is this year's pink".
* (2003) Funeral for a Friend's song "Red is the New Black" from the album Casually Dressed & Deep in Conversation
* (2004) The tagline for the 2004 film Ocean's Twelve, the sequel to Ocean's Eleven, was "Twelve is the new eleven."
* (2005) "The New Black" is a single from Every Time I Die's third album, Gutter Phenomenon.
* (2005) One of the catch phrases for Apple's iPod shuffle is "Random is the new order", which may be a double play on words.
* (2005) In The New York Times of May 23, Stuart Eliott stated that "So in a trend-conscious industry, economizing is the new black." The phrase was not used in quotation marks or in an ironic context, and the metaphor is incomprehensible without a familiarity of the history of the phrase. [4] Black has a meaning in accounting: "in the black", financially sound.
* (2005) Australian musician Ben Lee's album Awake Is the New Sleep.
* (2006) A movie review of Brokeback Mountain opined that "Gay cowboys are now the new penguins"[5] – a double reference to the surprise success of the love story (which supplanted the previous year's dark horse, the documentary March of the Penguins) and to the publicity given to gay penguin couples in zoos, which had recently been in the news.
* (2006) Strapping Young Lad's album The New Black.
* (2006) Janis Ian's album Folk Is the New Black.
* (2006) Chris Stephenson of Microsoft, on the color of the Zune packaging: "Brown is the new black is the new white."
* (2007) An episode of The Apprentice 6 was entitled "Pink is the New Black", in reference to the color of men's swimsuits.
* (2007) Jonathan Byrd's album This Is the New That.
* (2007) The bonus disc of Radiohead's album In Rainbows contains a track called "Down Is the New Up".
* (2008) On the Weekend Update portion of Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey (in a monologue about Hillary Clinton) stated that "Bitch is the new black". Tracy Morgan later retorted, "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch."

References

1. ^ a b Zimmer, Benjamin (December 28, 2006). "On the trail of 'the new black' (and 'the navy blue')" (HTML). Language Log. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved on 2008-11-11.
2. ^ "Lake Superior State University". 2008 List of Banished Words. Retrieved on January 1, 2008.
3. ^ SNL sketch with 'big is the new small'
4. ^ New York Times article
5. ^ usatoday.com

External links

* Comprehensive chart of "is the new" for 2005
* X is the new Y charts for colors and web companies and programming languages and sports, as mined from the web
* List of things that are the new black
* Blog that tracks occurrences of the X is the new Y formula
* Neu Black - A popular site covering Design, Culture, and Style
* The Boston Globe investigated what had been described as the new black in 2007
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 7:55 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

When Gay people demand to be married is it that they are demanding to be contractually obligated to one another? If so, they can follow the advice I gave above, and create a corporation.

quote:
No it doesn't.


Yes it does...


Does not...
EbonyRose offline
A1 · 16344 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 8:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
I still believe gay marriage IS a civil rights issue because our courts are going against our constitutional ban of mixing church and state to enact a law against it in the first place, since whether or not gays should marry is a religous philosopy/doctrine,etc., and courts should not be (and constitutionally bound by law not to) enacting religous doctrine into laws of the land for entire nation.


Good point. tfro
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 4, 2008 8:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

When Gay people demand to be married is it that they are demanding to be contractually obligated to one another?


I would imagine that they are demanding pretty much the same thing that you or I demand.

(1) Contractual obligations of the couple towards each other.

(2) Contractual obligations of the couple to the state.

(3) Contractual obligations of the state to the couple.

All three parties to this contract (the two spouses and the state) are bound in a complex web of contractual obligations towards each other.
jazzdog offline
A1 · 1904 Forum Posts
 December 5, 2008 9:06 PM
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle

I can't hide in the closet from my skin color like folks hide their lifestyle

When was the last time you saw water foundations that said straight and gay

When was the last time gays had to enter thought the back door.

Gay rights and the black experience will never be the same.
Wiz offline
A1 · 2106 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 5:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:


Marriage was adopted by the government and was subsequently adapted to suit a legal form. Of course you know that people were married before there was ever an American system of jurisprudence.

Marriage is an ancient rite which can be found in every culture. The duty inherent in marriage is derived from spiritual principles, not legal precedents.

America was formed upon the idealism of men who believed in human purpose as presented in the Bible. In genesis we find that the purpose of marriage is clearly defined by God himself "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:21-24)

The American ideal in this regard was fashion pursuant to the biblical ideal.



Whirling Moat

Fuck a bible
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 9:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle


My skin color is not a lifestyle, either. Neither is my gender.

I suppose my marriage, using current popular (if somewhat bizarre) terminology, would be considered as a "lifestyle" choice.

quote:
I can't hide in the closet from my skin color like folks hide their lifestyle


Likewise, I cannot hide in the closet from either my skin color or my gender. (Unless I quite literally choose to live in a closet!)

It is true that I could hide my "lifestyle" to a certain extent by refusing to be seen in public with my wife, but we had to show up at the County Clerk's office together to get our Marriage License, so it is not as if I can keep my "lifestyle" a total secret from everybody, and certainly not from the government, which is what most of this debate tends to be about.

In any cases, while it is certainly true that I could hide my interracial "lifestyle" in certain instances (for example, by having my wife walk six feet behind me when we walk down the sidewalk so that nobody but the most observant will notice that we are together), I can't think of many reasons why this would be desirable. Can you?

Am I supposed to feel embaressed or ashamed of my so-called "lifestyle" choice? Try to hide it from the outside world just because it offends some peoples' moral and/or religious sensibilities?

quote:
When was the last time you saw water foundations that said straight and gay

When was the last time gays had to enter thought the back door.


Until reciently (Noveber 4, 2008), there were indeed separate lines for couples living a "heterosexual lifestyle" and couples living a "homosexual lifestyle".


"We didn’t do it with pride or joy," Barbara Levine-Ritterman said of getting the civil-union license. "It felt gritty to be in a separate line."

On Wednesday, however, she proudly held up the first same-sex marriage license issued in New Haven as about 100 people applauded outside City Hall. She and her betrothed, who held red roses, plan to marry in May.

"It’s thrilling today," Barbara Levine-Ritterman said. "We are all in one line for one form. Love is love, and the state recognizes it."


http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...sition=recent_bullet


quote:
Gay rights and the black experience will never be the same.


No, it will not. Except when embodied in the real life experiences of black gays.

Just like the black experience and the latino experience will never be the same, except when embodied in the real life experience of afrolatinos like my wife.

There are many people whose real life experiences are indeed lived in the intersections.
Whirling Moat offline
A1 · 515 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 9:38 AM
Peace....



quote:
Does not...




Does.....TO



In every possible dimension according to the postulates of M theory.

quote:
Fuck a Bible


Without the Bible you have no way to argue the intent behind the laws which establish marriage in this country.


Whirling Moat
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 9:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..

No it doesn't.

Yes it does...

Does not...

Does.....TO

Does not...
NSpirit offline
A1 · 10254 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 9:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:


Marriage was adopted by the government and was subsequently adapted to suit a legal form. Of course you know that people were married before there was ever an American system of jurisprudence.

Marriage is an ancient rite which can be found in every culture. The duty inherent in marriage is derived from spiritual principles, not legal precedents.

America was formed upon the idealism of men who believed in human purpose as presented in the Bible. In genesis we find that the purpose of marriage is clearly defined by God himself "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:21-24)

The American ideal in this regard was fashion pursuant to the biblical ideal.



Whirling Moat

Fuck a bible


nice sck

f&ck a bible
hate fat women
welfare recipients are lazy and evil


somehow this type of sentiment is normalized but sentiments regarding marriage are pathologized...

*ack*
NSpirit offline
A1 · 10254 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 9:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle


My skin color is not a lifestyle, either. Neither is my gender.

I suppose my marriage, using current popular (if somewhat bizarre) terminology, would be considered as a "lifestyle" choice.

quote:
I can't hide in the closet from my skin color like folks hide their lifestyle


Likewise, I cannot hide in the closet from either my skin color or my gender. (Unless I quite literally choose to live in a closet!)




Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


as if pasty white skin has ever been at issue..
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 10:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle


My skin color is not a lifestyle, either. Neither is my gender.

I suppose my marriage, using current popular (if somewhat bizarre) terminology, would be considered as a "lifestyle" choice.

quote:
I can't hide in the closet from my skin color like folks hide their lifestyle


Likewise, I cannot hide in the closet from either my skin color or my gender. (Unless I quite literally choose to live in a closet!)




Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


as if pasty white skin has ever been at issue..


No, having white skin has not been much of an problem for me. Nor has my being male.

But I was responding to Jazzdog's distinctions between what he calls my birthright (white skin, male gender, etc) and what are often called "lifestyle" choices (contemporary newspeak for ones choice of romantic/marriage partner).

My white skin effects how people view my "lifestyle" choices. I am viewed as having an interracial "lifestyle" or marriage, because of my white skin. Were my skin black, people would view my "lifestyle" much differently. I would be viewed as living a "intraracial "lifestyle.

In the recient past, such a "lifestyle" choice would have made marriage quite difficult for me in many states.

Similarly, my male gender effects how people view my "lifestyle" choices. I am viewed as having a heterosexual "lifestyle" or marriage, because of my male gender. Were I female, people would view my "lifestyle" much differently. I would be viewed as living a homosexual "lifestyle".

In this case, my "lifestyle" choice makes marriage much easier for me in many states.
NSpirit offline
A1 · 10254 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 12:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
quote:
Originally posted by ricardomath:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle


My skin color is not a lifestyle, either. Neither is my gender.

I suppose my marriage, using current popular (if somewhat bizarre) terminology, would be considered as a "lifestyle" choice.

quote:
I can't hide in the closet from my skin color like folks hide their lifestyle


Likewise, I cannot hide in the closet from either my skin color or my gender. (Unless I quite literally choose to live in a closet!)




Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


as if pasty white skin has ever been at issue..


No, having white skin has not been much of an problem for me. Nor has my being male.


it hasn't been a problem for you AT ALL, but rather a privilege and thus any inane comparisons to anything Jazzdog said are MOOT, NULL, VOID and SPECIOUS.
Empty Purnata offline
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 12:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.


Then why can people get civil marriages completely outside of the church?

If the church insists on trying to ban gay marriage on religious grounds I say that churchs' tax-exempt status needs to be revoked and they should be subject to government regulation like every other political entity.
Empty Purnata offline
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 12:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Wiz:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.

Two people of the same sex being married would be like a atheist christian..Does an atheist have the right to be Christian? No..The only way an atheist could be a christian is by changing the definition of Christian to mean something other than what it means..

Should gay people be extended the Civil right to join in union..Sure, they have that right already..They simply can legally form a partnership..Marriage is a contract which binds two people into a single legal entity..A partnership effectively does the same thing..If Gay people want to join in a union they can have a wedding and then form a partnership...They coukd incorporate their union even and then they would have contractual rights equal to married couples..They could create by laws, and exist in a state where they are legally bound to one another, and have ownership in each others estate...

But they cannot get married...


that is a specific species of contract which is rooted in a spiritual principle.


Whirling Moat
Marriage is a legal thing, not spiritual. You do not need a priest or a pastor to end a marriage, you need a couple of lawyers and a judge. You do not even need anything religious or spiritual to get married, you need a legal document signed by the county clerk, not a preacher.
If that is your definition, you need a new dictionary (union of opposites my eye).

yeah It is the legal status that is the issue. Spiritual matters are not subject to public referendums.


THANK YOU!

I don't know when theologically conservative religious people are going to get it out of their head that "spirituality" (particularly THEIR spirituality because they almost always object to other religions influencing American politics) cannot be legislated by an earthly government. My parents are pretty much theologically conservative and they don't oppose Gay Marriage on the grounds that religion and politics don't mix and Jesus specifically told Christians to "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God". In other words, don't mix the spiritual with earthly, secular institutions.

quote:
Plus there have been hundreds if not thousands or more LGBT people wed by spiritual authorities; e.g., priest, rabbis, ministers, Quaker meetings, etc. A lesbian couple who are friends of mine have been married for 13 years. One is an ordained Presbyterian minister and the other is an ordained Episcopal priest and canon at St. John the Divine in NYC. They were married at in an Episcopal Church, exchanging vows in front of a congregation. They don't have any spiritual impediments. The impediments are from the state.


tfro
Empty Purnata offline
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 12:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle


Being gay is not a lifestyle either. Which is part of why I have problems with upper-middle class and wealthy gay yuppies who insist on making their sexual preference into a totalistic identity. Being gay is a sexual preference, not a lifestyle. Otherwise, is there such thing as a "straight lifestyle"?
Empty Purnata offline
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 12:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Without the Bible you have no way to argue the intent behind the laws which establish marriage in this country.


Whirling Moat


Marriage existed thousands of years before the Bible existed, and it continues to exist in countries where Christians are the extreme minority. Marriage was invented by humans originally as a property agreement between a man and an older man using the older man's daughter as a bargaining chip to entitle the older man's land and wealth to the younger man upon the older man's death.
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 1:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Botton line......

My skin color is a birthright not a lifestyle


Being gay is not a lifestyle either. Which is part of why I have problems with upper-middle class and wealthy gay yuppies who insist on making their sexual preference into a totalistic identity. Being gay is a sexual preference, not a lifestyle. Otherwise, is there such thing as a "straight lifestyle"?


I've never understood what people mean by this "lifestyle" thing.

How does who somebody is involved with romantically or who somebody marries constitute a "lifestyle"?

But the concept does seem to have entered newspeak, for some reason.
Whirling Moat offline
A1 · 515 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 1:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Not simply because it is illegal, but also because it is impossible. By definition marriage involves the union of opposites. Marriage is a spiritual term.


Then why can people get civil marriages completely outside of the church?

If the church insists on trying to ban gay marriage on religious grounds I say that churchs' tax-exempt status needs to be revoked and they should be subject to government regulation like every other political entity.


EP, I don't think the church is overstepping it's bounds by objecting to the use of marriage by those who are openly and notoriously in violation of the legal and scriptural definition of the word. "America" as an institution is not liberal in it's founding principles..It is strict..This is a nation founded on Christian principles..

When a President takes the oath of office He places his hand upon the Bible..He pledges before the Lord of the scriptures to uphold the Constitution. According to the Constitution the power of government is derived from the people who act by a natural right extended from a Creator. In this sense this nation is form for the purpose of allowing citizens to live in accordance to God's Will.

When the colonies declared independence they did so believing in rights extended from Heaven. Without a Creator, and scripture, there would have been no "Right" to speak of..

The Church has a very profound and load bearing position in this Nation and it's identity. A person can enjoy freedom, however, that freedom is measured against this nation's principles. This is why we are not free to murder, perjure oursleves, commit suicide, and rape, etc..these acts are clearly inconsistent with the principle which this Nation rests upon. These principles are not derived from thin air...



Ricardo, please see my previous response..My "Does" is automated and will continue unabated for all possible eternities. Unless you concede, you will have alot of typing to do.



Whirling Moat
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 1:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

"America" as an institution is not liberal in it's founding principles...


Ya' think?

lol

quote:
Ricardo, please see my previous response..My "Does" is automated and will continue unabated for all possible eternities. Unless you concede, you will have alot of typing to do.


Actually, the quoting function makes it quite easy to continue with a minimum of typing.

I did do a little editing that last time around to properly format the exchange so far, but now that the general pattern has been established, and a well formated model exists from which to copy, continuing for a few hundred more rounds can be done with a minimum of effort, either typing or editing.
Empty Purnata offline
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 3:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
EP, I don't think the church is overstepping it's bounds by objecting to the use of marriage by those who are openly and notoriously in violation of the legal


It was once illegal for a black person to go to certain institutions in this country. What's legal is not always what is ethically right.

quote:
and scriptural


If that was the case then do you also object to non-Christians getting married? They don't recognize your God when they get married. If the law is being defined on what is "scriptural" that is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...on.billofrights.html

quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Basing laws on whether or not they are "scriptural" is a violation of Clause I of the 1st Amendment. If you can't deal with that then you need to either:

1) Write a bill to change the 1st Amendment
2) or move to another country where their constitution doesn't have that clause


quote:
definition of the word. "America" as an institution is not liberal in it's founding principles..It is strict..This is a nation founded on Christian principles..


No it isn't. God and Christ is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Many of the "Founding Fathers" were deists, agnostics and atheists.

quote:
When a President takes the oath of office He places his hand upon the Bible


That's a tradition, not a law. A president can opt not to do this if they want.

quote:
He pledges before the Lord of the scriptures to uphold the Constitution.


And? A president can technically swear on whatever or whoever they want to to uphold the Constitution. And the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

so if they pass laws based on biblical scripture they are NOT upholding the Constitution.

quote:
According to the Constitution the power of government is derived from the people who act by a natural right extended from a Creator.


1) That's not what it says. Go read it again.
2) "A Creator" is vague and can mean the god of any religion. My parents, who are theologically conservative Christians, say that all the time. "Creator" or "God" doesn't = Jesus Christ or the God of the Bible. Most religions lay claim to a god or creator. "Creator" can mean Ahura Mazda or Brahman, or even Tathata ("Suchness") or Shunyata ("Openness"/"Voidness") or the Laws of Nature. They made it vague that way purposely.

Claiming that "Creator" means the god of theologically conservative Christianity (not all Christians agree that gay marriage is not "scriptural") is like claiming that "being religious" means "being a Christian". None of this should matter anyway because religion is by Constitutional law prohibited from deciding laws in our country. You are being un-Constitutional.

quote:
In this sense this nation is form for the purpose of allowing citizens to live in accordance to God's Will.


17

quote:
When the colonies declared independence they did so believing in rights extended from Heaven. Without a Creator, and scripture, there would have been no "Right" to speak of..


You need to Read the Constitution for yourself instead of swallowing what some Religious Right talking points pundit tells you (much like more Christians would do well to read the entire Bible for themselves instead of just swallowing what Pastor tells them).

The word "Creator" DOES NOT appear in the Constitution at any point. It only appears in the Declaration of Independence at one point.

quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


None of that says that laws in this country should be based on the Bible. And besides, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is not the Constitution.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

http://www.theocracywatch.org/...on_church_state2.htm

This is just proving to me that you have probably never read the Constitution. Otherwise you would know that the term "creator" never appears in it. So your claim:

quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
According to the Constitution the power of government is derived from the people who act by a natural right extended from a Creator.


is incorrect because that word is not in the Constitution. It only appears once in a document that is not the legal document of which US laws are based.

http://dmiessler.com/blog/god-in-the-constitution

I love how right-wing Constitutionalists don't even read the document they claim to hold so dear and claim that liberals don't respect. Much like how many Evangelicals and Religious Right Christians don't even read the book they claim guides their entire life. It's politics and spirituality for intellectual couch potatoes.
Whirling Moat offline
A1 · 515 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 4:46 PM
Peace....


quote:
It was once illegal for a black person to go to certain institutions in this country. What's legal is not always what is ethically right.


I think you are missing my point.

In order to make a argument as it relates to ethics, you must have an established moral standard to refer to.

Gay people having the right to marry should be based on something...They cannot use "Civil right" since these rights are extended based upon Christian principles. There is nothing Christian or Scriptural which would justify slavery or racism..The two are incomparable..

quote:
If that was the case then do you also object to non-Christians getting married? They don't recognize your God when they get married. If the law is being defined on what is "scriptural" that is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.



It could easily be argued that the Founders were deists, and freemasons, and thus viewed my faith as the same as their own. While you may have a limited view of what it means to believe and accept the scriptures, I do not think they were under such limitations

As it relates to the first amendment I will say this...Of course the ehtics, and moral sentiment of this Nation leans in favor of certain religious ideals.

The first amendment disallows the restriction or prohibition of acts which are considered part of a religious practice, however, it is illegal to sacrifice human beings as part of a religous practice, and it is illegal to assist in the suicide of another as part of a religious practice..Why?? Because the framers and subsequent reformers of the constituion never counted on including such diverse practices and populations as we see among us today. The were naive, and had no idea that by creating certain amendments, they would open Pandora's Box.

Technicalities and constituional loopholes have allowed all kind of decadent practices to sprout and spread in America.

Today's liberal must understand that the slippery slope ends at total anarchy and ruin. What seems implausible today will be tommorrow's norm..The liberal of tommorrow will ask questions like.."Is beastiality the new Gay?". AQnd twenty years later it will be "Is pedophilia the new beastiality?", and then twen years later is serial killing of home3less youth the new pedophilia?"...Of course I am way out of line to you..But how do you think you would be viewed advocating on behalf of gay marriage 50 years ago?


quote:
1) That's not what it says. Go read it again


I stand corrected, it is not the Constituion which mentions a Creator but the Declaration of Independance which establishes the basis for the creation of this nation written by one of the constituional framers...

quote:
I love how right-wing Constitutionalists don't even read the document they claim to hold so dear and claim that liberals don't respect


I think you are milking this petty point to much...

You are correct as I stated above..The mention of God and Creator is not in the Constituion but in the Declaration..I have read the Constituion..I have studied it..It is easy to make the mistake you are riding into glory due to the fact that they are so closely intertwined. The Delaration Of Independance was crafted to set the mood for the new nation. To this day it speaks to the American spirit...To pretend that the Constitution is somehow paramount to the Delaration is a stretch....

My points stand even while my reference was off...



Whirling Moat
Empty Purnata offline
A1 · 5066 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 6:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:
Peace....


think you are missing my point.

In order to make a argument as it relates to ethics, you must have an established moral standard to refer to.


Yes, and that moral standard can be completely secular. Secular humanists do it all the time (Note: I'm not an atheist but I'm not religious either).

quote:
Gay people having the right to marry should be based on something...They cannot use "Civil right" since these rights are extended based upon Christian principles.


While the argument can be made that civil rights are in line with Christian principles the civil rights movement was not based on Christianity. Many civil rights defenders are not Christians and indeed some are atheists or agnostic. Civil Rights is a human rights issue, not a religious issue.


quote:
There is nothing Christian or Scriptural which would justify slavery or racism..The two are incomparable..


Slavery is permitted in the Bible. Racism is not but tribalism is in the way that God treated the Israelites (who Christian racists used as the justification for 'biblical racism'). Are you aware that racist Christian Dixiecrats used the Bible as their main justification for segregation?

Anyway, this is a non-issue because one does not have to be a Christian to support civil rights.

quote:
It could easily be argued that the Founders were deists, and freemasons, and thus viewed my faith as the same as their own. While you may have a limited view of what it means to believe and accept the scriptures, I do not think they were under such limitations


So you're arguing that they were Christian deists? I beg to differ because many of them are quoted calling the Bible "utterly ridiculous" and "for those of a weak mind". I guess you could consider them "Christian" if you loosely define a "Christian" as someone who thinks Christ is a good ethical role model.

quote:
As it relates to the first amendment I will say this...Of course the ehtics, and moral sentiment of this Nation leans in favor of certain religious ideals.


How would you quantify that claim?

quote:
The first amendment disallows the restriction or prohibition of acts which are considered part of a religious practice


Yes, which is why the government allows churches to not recognize gay marriage if they do not wish to and can't force churches to wed same-sex couples. But churches are not allowed to base laws on scripture on those same bounds. Christians who want to base laws on scripture but not allow the government to regulate their church are trying to have it both ways. You can't keep the church out of government but allow the church into the government.

When it comes to gay people getting married outside of a church by civil ceremonies the church has absolutely no right to get involved in that. That's a state issue, not a church issue. The church has no right to ban gay civil marriages anymore than they have the right to ban the building of mosques or synagogues.

quote:
however, it is illegal to sacrifice human beings as part of a religous practice, and it is illegal to assist in the suicide of another as part of a religious practice..Why??


Because humans have the right to live as long as they haven't taken life away from others. You don't need religion to give you the answer to that.

quote:
Because the framers and subsequent reformers of the constituion never counted on including such diverse practices and populations as we see among us today. The were naive, and had no idea that by creating certain amendments, they would open Pandora's Box.


What religion is trying to have human sacrifices made legal? And do you realize that animal sacrifices (and occasionally human sacrifices) were permitted in the Old Testament? You don't see American Jews trying to have those rituals legalized.

quote:
Technicalities and constituional loopholes have allowed all kind of decadent practices to sprout and spread in America.


Such as?

quote:
Today's liberal must understand that the slippery slope ends at total anarchy and ruin.


As an anarchist, I resent that remark. lol I most certainly don't believe in chaos and nihilism. Anarchy means "no authority". But that's beside the point.

"Slippery slope" arguments are a logical fallacy, if you weren't aware.

quote:
What seems implausible today will be tommorrow's norm..The liberal of tommorrow will ask questions like.."Is beastiality the new Gay?".


Now you're arguing from incredulity and making arguments ad absurdum. Two more logical fallacies. You're not doing a good job backing up your argument. Telling that you compare homosexuality to bestiality. The two are in no way comparable because animals cannot consent to sex or marriage with humans. Gay humans are two consenting adult humans.

Apples and oranges.

quote:
AQnd twenty years later it will be "Is pedophilia the new beastiality?"


Children cannot consent the way two adults can.

Your argument fails again. Your logic is very weak here. If I were a smartass I would say that you are adding cannon fodder to the stereotype that social conservatives are not strong in logic.

quote:
and then twen years later is serial killing of home3less youth the new pedophilia?"...Of course I am way out of line to you..But how do you think you would be viewed advocating on behalf of gay marriage 50 years ago?


Because none of these things can be compared to homosexuality.

quote:
I stand corrected, it is not the Constituion which mentions a Creator but the Declaration of Independance which establishes the basis for the creation of this nation written by one of the constituional framers...


1) The Constitution is not based on the Declaration of Independence.
2) That statement simply said:

quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Nowhere does it claim that the nation should be based on Christian principles. Nowhere is Christ or the Judeo-Christian God even mentioned.

Creator != YWVH

quote:
You are correct as I stated above..The mention of God and Creator is not in the Constituion but in the Declaration..I have read the Constituion..I have studied it


So how did you not know that "god" is not mentioned in it?

quote:
The Delaration Of Independance was crafted to set the mood for the new nation. To this day it speaks to the American spirit


Perhaps. But "creator" is so vague that it can apply to any religion and even atheists. "Creator" can simply mean "Laws of Nature" or "The Big Bang". That was intentional because the drafters of the Constitution did not want to create a religious government. If you know about them they heavily criticized Britain for having a religious government.
Whirling Moat offline
A1 · 515 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 8:29 PM
Peace....



quote:
Yes, and that moral standard can be completely secular. Secular humanists do it all the time (Note: I'm not an atheist but I'm not religious either).


The moral standard could theoretically be anything..I am not arguing that there could be no moral standard away from religion..I will however argue that it is impossible to argue the value of a nonreligious moral standard against another system of morality and reach any meaningful resolution. This is where the anarchy arises. The people of this nation have not chosen that form of cohabitation.

Let's be clear here...We are speaking of Gay rights. We are spefically talking about the right of Gay people in the United States to be legally Wed. It is illegal now because it is clearly not the will of the people of this nation. Why?? Because the bias of Americans is there due to the religious beliefs of it's citizens and the religios leaning of the Government. To say that this should not be the case is to argue that some other standard of morality and view of Gay Marriage is superior to the one we are using now..Slavery and Civil rights arguments were successful because we had a Prima facie case based upon the existing moral standard. Blacks did not have to super impose a new morality onto America in order to make our case...The Civil Rights Movement was an Appeal to the exisitng ethics..

quote:
Slavery is permitted in the Bible. Racism is not but tribalism is in the way that God treated the Israelites (who Christian racists used as the justification for 'biblical racism'). Are you aware that racist Christian Dixiecrats used the Bible as their main justification for segregation?

Anyway, this is a non-issue because one does not have to be a Christian to support civil rights


Man..C'mon...

yes, there are alot of things in the Bible..In the end the black Civil rights leaders were able to make a better case than those against them..They were however all arguing from the same code....

In your world it is okay for a guy to make an argument from a foreign system of ethics...Not only will it never work..But it is strange to think that anyone would even consider such a thing..That would be like someone coming to the hood and trying to explain to a crack dealer why they should stop selling crack and instead pass out issues of "The Militant" newspaper in support of Labor..Before you would have a snow balls chance in Hell you would have to first divest the dealer of his entire wolrdview...

Do you see my point? Gay marriage has no basis in the USA..In the ethereal world of anarchists..Yes..But on the ground in the theist world of America..No..

quote:
So you're arguing that they were Christian deists? I beg to differ because many of them are quoted calling the Bible "utterly ridiculous" and "for those of a weak mind". I guess you could consider them "Christian" if you loosely define a "Christian" as someone who thinks Christ is a good ethical role model.



Let's leave this issue for now..This will be a distraction to the thread...

quote:
When it comes to gay people getting married outside of a church by civil ceremonies the church has absolutely no right to get involved in that. That's a state issue, not a church issue. The church has no right to ban gay civil marriages anymore than they have the right to ban the building of mosques or synagogues.


I agree the Church not only lacks the right..It lack the power..


quote:
"Slippery slope" arguments are a logical fallacy, if you weren't aware.


For the purpose of this discussion I will point out that this slippery slope is a matter of history which overpowers the need for rationalization...The empirical evidence establishes my point..ha..

hat

quote:
Children cannot consent the way two adults can.

Your argument fails again. Your logic is very weak here. If I were a smartass I would say that you are adding cannon fodder to the stereotype that social conservatives are not strong in logic.



Please explain how and why children lack the ability to consent? Isn't it a scientifically verified fact that certain children reach maturity faster than others? Isn't it also true that several children have graduated highschool and attended college while still in adolescents ie, Asif Haque , of UC Berkley, who started attending when he was 13 years old, and Graduated at 16 yrs old...Surely if Asif was able to attend college classes, he was mature enough, and knowlegeable enough to consent to sex...Am I wrong..Uh..watch that slope..kinda slippery there..

quote:
Because none of these things can be compared to homosexuality.


Ah, but homosexuality can be compared to ethnicity..

Nice...

quote:
Perhaps. But "creator" is so vague that it can apply to any religion and even atheists. "Creator" can simply mean "Laws of Nature" or "The Big Bang". That was intentional because the drafters of the Constitution did not want to create a religious government. If you know about them they heavily criticized Britain for having a religious government


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."


But the word GOD aint so vague...


The bottom line is that the United States was established with a purpose and vision in mind. The laws created to help the nation form a more perfect union, and among other things promote the welfare of it's citizen. These objectives were thought and conceived to be consistent with the ideology of the founders...Two men marrying would have been an abomination to those who created the Nation and it's laws...



Whirling Moat
ricardomath offline
A1 · 6289 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 8:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Whirling Moat:

Let's be clear here...We are speaking of Gay rights. We are spefically talking about the right of Gay people in the United States to be legally Wed. It is illegal now because it is clearly not the will of the people of this nation.


Depends on the state, doesn't it?

One cannot simply say that same sex marriage is legal or illegal across the entire nation.

It is legal in some states, and illegal in others. Just like interracial marriage was untill reciently.

There is no nationwide policy on same sex marriage. Depends where you live. (Soon, I expect it to be legal here in Iowa.)
Oshun Auset offline
A1 · 7168 Forum Posts
 December 6, 2008 8:50 PM
quote:
Is Gay the New Black?


No...

quote:
The State is supposedly an extension of God's purpose on earth.


That's some scary ish!
Post Reply