Episcopal bishop: Gay marriage is a ‘conservative proposal’

  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Sep 27, 2012 4:19 PM GMT

    Episcopal bishop: Gay marriage is a ‘conservative proposal’

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/09/26/gay-marriage-conservative-proposal-bishop/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 5:06 PM GMT
    It's lovely but it's still bullshit.

    "Legalizing same-sex marriage is “a conservative proposal” consistent with basic Christian teaching and the Christian life,"

    It may or may not be consistent with basic Christian teaching. I have no idea and couldn't give a crap. But it most certainly is not a conservative proposal. It is a liberal one. And fuck them for trying to steal credit.

    "Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts — but especially in relation to two people in marriage — fidelity to be our value,” Bishop Rickel writes. “Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments, and also in our life as Christians.” "

    What the fuck has marriage to do with fidelity? The heteros have already proven that ain't so. Loyalty exists independent of license. This isn't about fidelity; it's about a formality signifying equality.

    " “If one would think about this carefully, it would be clear what they ask of us, the church and their government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect"

    Oh bullshit. Let's be real clear about this. We are not asking. We are demanding. And we don't give a flying fuck about your approval nor your vote. We'll keep this in the courts until you relent hegemony. We are not pleading to you for our rights. We will wrest them from your greedy fucking fingers.

    “They (gays and lesbians) are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community. To me, this is a conservative proposal.”

    I get that he's using rhetoric to make his point but this is just so fucking divisive. Since when is being accountable a conservative proposal. No offense intended, but Jesus fucking Christ, if that were true, we wouldn't even recognize our own political landscape.
  • StevieB0402

    Posts: 159

    Sep 27, 2012 6:56 PM GMT
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    Unfortunately, there is
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 7:13 PM GMT
    toukan said
    StevieB0402 said
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    Unfortunately, there is


    Why, because the govt. calls it "marriage"? If the govt. declares that you are my sister, and entitled to all the privileges of being my sister, do you magically become my sister?

    If the govt. bans the law of gravity, does that mean anything?

    Govt. can't change nature or things like "marriage," which has a meaning independent of positive law.


    Holy crap. What century did you just pop out of?

    Here, I already told you to wear this. Yer gonna need it.

    pink-hard-hat2.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 7:42 PM GMT
    Marriage is a social construct, not a biological one.

    The shape of our dicks evolved to pull the plug of ejaculate out when fucking a woman who had just been fucked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 7:45 PM GMT
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 8:02 PM GMT
    toukan said
    StevieB0402 said
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    Unfortunately, there is


    Why, because the govt. calls it "marriage"? If the govt. declares that you are my sister, and entitled to all the privileges of being my sister, do you magically become my sister?

    If the govt. bans the law of gravity, does that mean anything?

    Govt. can't change nature or things like "marriage," which has a meaning independent of positive law.



    This is an ignorant statement. Hell dude....even the most basic terms such as "he, she, him, her, man, woman, etc) have changed over time. A MTF transsexual is now referred to as a "she" or "her". If pronouns are changing, the definition of marriage will certainly be changing. It's absolutely inevitable.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Sep 27, 2012 8:08 PM GMT
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    Troll alert!!!!icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 8:13 PM GMT
    Having gay marriage will be a win for freedom and liberty, not "conservatism" or "liberalism".
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Sep 27, 2012 8:50 PM GMT
    theantijock saidIt's lovely but it's still bullshit.

    "Legalizing same-sex marriage is “a conservative proposal” consistent with basic Christian teaching and the Christian life,"

    It may or may not be consistent with basic Christian teaching. I have no idea and couldn't give a crap. But it most certainly is not a conservative proposal. It is a liberal one. And fuck them for trying to steal credit.

    "Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts — but especially in relation to two people in marriage — fidelity to be our value,” Bishop Rickel writes. “Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments, and also in our life as Christians.” "

    What the fuck has marriage to do with fidelity? The heteros have already proven that ain't so. Loyalty exists independent of license. This isn't about fidelity; it's about a formality signifying equality.

    " “If one would think about this carefully, it would be clear what they ask of us, the church and their government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect"

    Oh bullshit. Let's be real clear about this. We are not asking. We are demanding. And we don't give a flying fuck about your approval nor your vote. We'll keep this in the courts until you relent hegemony. We are not pleading to you for our rights. We will wrest them from your greedy fucking fingers.

    “They (gays and lesbians) are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community. To me, this is a conservative proposal.”

    I get that he's using rhetoric to make his point but this is just so fucking divisive. Since when is being accountable a conservative proposal. No offense intended, but Jesus fucking Christ, if that were true, we wouldn't even recognize our own political landscape.



    Bishop Rickle has been a huge and constant supporter of same-sex marriage, as and much of the opposition is "bible-based," his support has been invaluable and important in Washington. He has built a lot of bridges for us into the "christian" crowd.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 27, 2012 10:13 PM GMT
    tazzari said
    theantijock saidIt's lovely but it's still bullshit.

    "Legalizing same-sex marriage is “a conservative proposal” consistent with basic Christian teaching and the Christian life,"

    It may or may not be consistent with basic Christian teaching. I have no idea and couldn't give a crap. But it most certainly is not a conservative proposal. It is a liberal one. And fuck them for trying to steal credit.

    "Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts — but especially in relation to two people in marriage — fidelity to be our value,” Bishop Rickel writes. “Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments, and also in our life as Christians.” "

    What the fuck has marriage to do with fidelity? The heteros have already proven that ain't so. Loyalty exists independent of license. This isn't about fidelity; it's about a formality signifying equality.

    " “If one would think about this carefully, it would be clear what they ask of us, the church and their government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect"

    Oh bullshit. Let's be real clear about this. We are not asking. We are demanding. And we don't give a flying fuck about your approval nor your vote. We'll keep this in the courts until you relent hegemony. We are not pleading to you for our rights. We will wrest them from your greedy fucking fingers.

    “They (gays and lesbians) are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for equal treatment. They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community. To me, this is a conservative proposal.”

    I get that he's using rhetoric to make his point but this is just so fucking divisive. Since when is being accountable a conservative proposal. No offense intended, but Jesus fucking Christ, if that were true, we wouldn't even recognize our own political landscape.



    Bishop Rickle has been a huge and constant supporter of same-sex marriage, as and much of the opposition is "bible-based," his support has been invaluable and important in Washington. He has built a lot of bridges for us into the "christian" crowd.


    Oh I don't doubt that in his own little world--even if that little world is the world at large--he's speaking their language and doing his best to make positive change in our favor. More power to him. I'm just saying that in reality--even if most people live a delusional life--it's bullshit. I meant no disrespect, of course, though it would be nearly impossible for me to have expressed myself without coming off as such to those buying into the bullshit.

    The facts are that we are not asking for nor do not require their approval of us, that just the idea that they can vote on our human rights is in itself dehumanizing, that we do not require a contract to prove our loyalty to one another, and certainly is the fact that the conservative movement is the status quo that our liberal cause is fighting against.

    He might usurp that to communicate to his own people, butchya doesn't get da credit. That's all ours. Our kids died for that. Suicides never martyred because we were so busy quilting. Because they didn't give a shit about our dead. Because they didn't give a shit about our lives for 1000s of years.

    They are welcomed to join our movement, but they are not our emancipators, they are our enslavers. That the good reverend requires cloaking our cause in his own rhetoric to save his own flock from being heartless abominations unto the Lord, I have no issues. But I was only speaking on a gay forum where we're not afraid of saying what's really going on here. Or at least we should have the balls to face it.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 27, 2012 10:27 PM GMT
    The good Bishop is exactly right: same-sex marriage promotes fidelity, monogamy, responsibility, family, freedom, and liberty.

    Since conservatives claim to espouse those things, same-sex marriage is just as conservative as it is liberal. Marriage equality should not be a partisan issue, and "conservatives" really have no excuse for opposing this noble and virtuous institution besides their own bigotry, hatred, and homophobia.

    Conservatives should be ashamed for allowing prejudice to force them to oppose their own ideals.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14380

    Sep 27, 2012 11:06 PM GMT
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."
    Another brainless idiot talking right wing bullshit.
  • shoelessj

    Posts: 511

    Sep 27, 2012 11:42 PM GMT
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    You're right. There is no 'gay marriage,' just as there is no 'straight marriage.' There is only marriage, and it should be an option to anyone - gay, straight, bi, trans, religious, non-religious...anyone.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 28, 2012 12:22 AM GMT
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    LMAO, and let me guess our hero, your new book analyzing the shift from modern to postmodern/contemporary art vis-a-vis the competing movements in Europe and the West is going to be released next month, right?

    Child please. Whether your want to talk biblical definitions of marriage or American jurisprudential iterations of marriage I WILL school your G.E.D. ass all over this board and persuasively illustrate that marriage includes "gay marriage," (as it does polyamorous marriages and other iterations for that matter).

    You are further proof the people who talk the most have the least to say. Ignorance must truly be bliss.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 2:34 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete saidThe good Bishop is exactly right: same-sex marriage promotes fidelity, monogamy, responsibility, family, freedom, and liberty.

    Since conservatives claim to espouse those things, same-sex marriage is just as conservative as it is liberal. Marriage equality should not be a partisan issue, and "conservatives" really have no excuse for opposing this noble and virtuous institution besides their own bigotry, hatred, and homophobia.

    Conservatives should be ashamed for allowing prejudice to force them to oppose their own ideals.


    I completely agree with you here actually!
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Sep 28, 2012 2:47 AM GMT
    toukan said
    Svnw688 said
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    LMAO, and let me guess our hero, your new book analyzing the shift from modern to postmodern/contemporary art vis-a-vis the competing movements in Europe and the West is going to be released next month, right?

    Child please. Whether your want to talk biblical definitions of marriage or American jurisprudential iterations of marriage I WILL school your G.E.D. ass all over this board and persuasively illustrate that marriage includes "gay marriage," (as it does polyamorous marriages and other iterations for that matter).

    You are further proof the people who talk the most have the least to say. Ignorance must truly be bliss.


    You seem to have a bad case of verbal diarrhea and to be confused about how to to construct a sentence that has meaning. You are not able to school anyone. Forget about what you learned at extension night school about "genderqueer theory" bro, no one cares about your degrees. Use clear language and logic and make your case.

    Why does the modern state recognize marriage in the first place?

    You're a little girl who wants to know that "teacher says it's OK."




    Deserved condescension delivered intelligently is not "verbal diarrhea," but the very definition of intelligence. A classy smack-down, if you will. And "extension night school" is a nice try, but try Duke Law School.

    1). First, what "modern state"? I'll assume you're talking about the USA. If so, since it's founding the USA recognized "marriage" as a state-sanctioned institution between a man and a woman. Interesting, the concept has evolved since the founding. It has always been administered by the "states," but only recently have federal "floors" or minimums come in to guarantee certain protections via the 14th amendment, enforced by the Supremacy Clause of the Federal Constitution on the separate states. For example, states used to not allow a woman to file for divorce, only a man could. Also, as a legal matter, a husband could not "rape" his wife.

    Moving forward, many states ignorantly stated about interracial couples (as you ignorantly state now against gay couples) that "there is no interracial marriage." They used the same weak ass arguments that you did: (a) no matter what you say 'positive law' does not recognize interracial marriage, (b) marriage has historically only been between same race couples, so tradition and history should be honored, (c) marriage is for the purpose of fostering and supporting loving family units and interracial couples frustrate this important government interest.

    Enter Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). These aforementioned (a)-(c) arguments above were literally argued before the Supreme Court. Importantly, the holding of Loving destroyed the argument brought by white supremicist bigots wherein they argued "look, the 14th equal protection clause to the Federal Constitution is not discriminating against interracial couples, whites are free to marry whites, and blacks are free to marry blacks, therefore there is no discrimination." However, the Supreme Court obliderated this argument by holding (a) marriage is a fundamental right in the Federal Constitution, the strong possible right, and (b) the right to marry someone of the same race is not the same as the right to marry someone of a different race, and the Federal Constitution allows "mixed" marriages between the races.

    Apply the still valid holding of Loving to gays today. Bigots like yourself will jurisprudentially say "look, it's not discrimination, a gay man is allowed to marry a woman, and a gay woman is allowed to marry a man, so there is no discrimination." Just as in Loving, the right to marry opposite gender, is not the same as the right to marry same gender. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental right, and as such, "strict scrutiny" will apply in a Constituional analysis. As Justice Scalia remarked, strict scrutiny is strict in theory and fatal in practice. You have a HUGE burden a in trying to prove that allowing same sex couples to marry is someone "narrowly" serving an "exceptional" state interested and "no less restrictive" means is possible to advancing said interest.

    In short, when this question goes before the Supreme Court, Loving will control and same sex marriage will be enacted on all the states by the 14th amendment via the Supremacy Clause.

    2). From a biblical or 'positive law' analysis, I'll assume you're referring to Christianity since that is the only Abrahamic tradition that uses this denotation. You're right that the Catholic Church currently does not recognize marriage between same sex couples. One of their strongest verses is Leviticus 20:13, which reads "If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them." Let the exegesis begin:

    First, Leviticus covers many other issues that are readily breached today by Christians and the Catholic Church, such as wearing mixed fabrics, eating shell fish, idols and not stoning disobedients.

    Second, the Bible was written for the "majority," and the majority of people are straight. Studies vary, but the range is that 4% to 10% of people are homosexual. As such, it is perfectly normal that the Bible would read if a man lies with a man then that is an abomination. More precisely, it should have said should a STRAIGHT man lie with another STRAIGHT man then that is an abomination. The "straight" was simply dropped because it was assumed. The "abomination" here is a person, gay or straight, going AGAINST their natural orientation. When a straight "goes gay" or a gay "plays straight" in the closet, they are committing an ABOMINATION because they are denying their true essence and orientation.

    Third, the old testament was not incorporated by reference by Christ in the New Testament, and as such, only the 10 Commandments and a few other specific instances were ratified and incorporated into the now binding New Testament. In short, you're reading the wrong covenant. Wrong contract, dweeb.

    Let me know if you want to continue to play ball with the big boys.
  • TroyAthlete

    Posts: 4269

    Sep 28, 2012 3:15 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    TroyAthlete saidThe good Bishop is exactly right: same-sex marriage promotes fidelity, monogamy, responsibility, family, freedom, and liberty.

    Since conservatives claim to espouse those things, same-sex marriage is just as conservative as it is liberal. Marriage equality should not be a partisan issue, and "conservatives" really have no excuse for opposing this noble and virtuous institution besides their own bigotry, hatred, and homophobia.

    Conservatives should be ashamed for allowing prejudice to force them to oppose their own ideals.


    I completely agree with you here actually!



    Hahaha, dude, I think the Internet just exploded!!!
  • StevieB0402

    Posts: 159

    Sep 28, 2012 2:16 PM GMT
    toukan said
    StevieB0402 said
    toukan saidThere is no such thing as "gay marriage."


    Unfortunately, there is


    Why, because the govt. calls it "marriage"? If the govt. declares that you are my sister, and entitled to all the privileges of being my sister, do you magically become my sister?

    If the govt. bans the law of gravity, does that mean anything?

    Govt. can't change nature or things like "marriage," which has a meaning independent of positive law.



    Actually, what I meant was that it is unfortunate we have "gay" marriage when we really should just have marriage for any consenting adult that wishes to participate in the institution.

    As to your government question; my mother fostered a young girl and then adopted her. So the answer to your question is yes, when the courts (a branch of the government) granted the adoption they did declare that she became my sister and in fact she did.

    The law of gravity? Really? There is a gargantuan difference between mandating a socially constructed, man made institution and a physical law of the universe.

    The government can, and does, change the nature of marriage. They changed it when women stopped being the property of their husbands. They changed it when they allowed divorce. They changed it every time they varied it from the biblical definition, as in the old testament when a virgin was required to marry her rapist. So you are half right, the government cant change nature but they can change things like marriage.

  • StevieB0402

    Posts: 159

    Sep 28, 2012 2:52 PM GMT
    toukan saidAny gay guy who wants to get "married" has the mentality of a little girl: "teacher says it's OK." You guys just want approval from society and state sanction. It's pathetic more than anything.

    I like fucking guys, I'd never dream of wanting to "marry" one lol it's so absurd...

    And in the end actually you won't really be married. Most people will still see you as freaks. Which is why it gets voted down every time it comes up for a vote.

    Here's a question for all of you to think about. Why is there marriage in the first place? Is it to make people "feel good" about their lifestyles and themselves?


    Since I was 15, I have not and will probably never, seek approval from any person, persons, or society thereof. You can choose to believe that or not, but a quick chat with any of my friends, coworkers, or family will verify this because it is a constant source of migraines for them as they struggle to understand why I'm not ashamed by some of my more exotic behaviors. I want to marry my partner because I love him. Because I want him to be my next of kin and not have to fill out thousands of sheets of legal paperwork to grant us a portion of the rights straight people enjoy and take for granted. I dont want us to be in Utah or Texas and have someone tell us that our Massachusetts marriage "aint real down here". When I die I dont want him to pay a copper penny in death tax on our estate, which he wouldnt if we were legally married.

    If you want to fuck guys but not marry them, Cheers ! ! Enjoy ! ! But dont take it away from those of us who want it. I'm Jewish but I'm not going to come to your brunch and tell you its absurd and laughable (lol) that you want to eat sausage and bacon.

    It matters to me if I'm married because I want it and when it becomes legal then I will be "really married", regardless of whether or not the rest of the world thinks I'm a "freak". That could not matter less to me and it shouldnt to you either. Are you intelligent? healthy? compassionate? generous? happy? if so, fuck everybody else and what they think. I feel great about myself. I live a fantastic life, not a lifestyle, and I couldnt care less why there is marriage in the first place because I live in the here and now, not the then when it was created. Marriage means something to me and my partner and it has emotional, legal, and spiritual benefits that I deserve and want. That alone is reason enough to fight for the legalization.
  • StevieB0402

    Posts: 159

    Sep 28, 2012 3:14 PM GMT
    Second, the Bible was written for the "majority," and the majority of people are straight. Studies vary, but the range is that 4% to 10% of people are homosexual. As such, it is perfectly normal that the Bible would read if a man lies with a man then that is an abomination. More precisely, it should have said should a STRAIGHT man lie with another STRAIGHT man then that is an abomination. The "straight" was simply dropped because it was assumed. The "abomination" here is a person, gay or straight, going AGAINST their natural orientation. When a straight "goes gay" or a gay "plays straight" in the closet, they are committing an ABOMINATION because they are denying their true essence and orientation.


    As a Jew, we read and study the Torah, which is the Christian's old testament. In our book Leviticus 18:22 reads, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind for it is an abomination." But in old Hebrew, the word for abomination means "unclean". Given that the Greeks and Romans of the time were habitually engaging in homosexual acts (and persecution of Jews) on a diet of lamb, fruit, and grape leaves, I imagine it was pretty dirty and the Jews of the time had a certain phobia of unclean acts, which is why we are not allowed to eat 'dirty' animals, give blowjobs (even the women), or lie with other men. Guess what? I'm still gonna sex my husband, suck his dick, swallow, and take him out for seafood afterward. If God really is upset by that, then He can tell me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 28, 2012 3:18 PM GMT
    Im gonna speak on my view of marriage from my religious stand point as a Catholic. I consider myself Catholic (went to Catholic school) but I believe ALL ORGANIZED RELIGION is CORRUPT.

    Marriage as I was taught in Catholic school is a covenant (agreement, contract) between two people that they will love each other as much as they love God in this world, until they both die.

    So what really ruins the sanctity of marriage is divorce. You are basically breaking your agreement with God about your love for him. Now im not saying all divorce is bad but in this world people are rushing to get married and then get divorced within a few years., they don't try to make it work. So why cant two men or women who love each other and are gonna spend the rest of their lives loving each other as much as they love god? How does that ruin the sanctity of marriage, I think boost it?

    Also Divorce at one point was looked DOWN on and was forbidden. I mean thats the reason why the Church of England was created, so Divorce could be legalized. Now people can get divorced and religious people dont care as much as they used to, so dont give me that shit that religion doesn't change. they dont want to.

    Im also gonna throw this in right now cause I read about it and it pisses me off. A man was killed the other day for rapping more than a couple little children. He was not in jail (i dont know if he already did his time or what cause he was a registered sex offender). But he had a wive and TWO KIDS. And the wive said he was a good father. IT PISSED ME OFF THAT THIS MAN WHO IS A CONVICTED CHILD RAPIST CAN HAVE KIDS AND NOT BE LABELED A BAD PARENT BUT 2 GAYS ARE UNFIT TO RAISE A KID CAUSE THEY'LL DAMAGE THEM!!!
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Sep 28, 2012 4:08 PM GMT
    “Here's a question for all of you to think about. Why is there marriage in the first place? Is it to make people "feel good" about their lifestyles and themselves?”

    I can’t speak about “the first place”. I may be old, but not that old! Bur speaking personally, a marriage is a public statement of commitment, where friends are invited to participate by supporting the couple and celebrating their life together. Being married may not be the cement that holds a couple together, but the support and shared celebration of friends can be a help. My friends D & A are a stronger couple because we all perceive them as a couple. Ditto Chris and me while he was alive.

    As to the bishop – he’s a liberal bishop in a liberal state. His statement was an effort to pull the rug out from under those who consider same-sex marriage as and “attack” on marriage. It helps – and it reaches a lot of people. I think we as a community are sometimes too ready to tear into allies; we are in the right – but we need to encourage allies: that’s how you change the world.

    As to marriage in general: in one form or another, it’s a good thing: be remaining together through thick and thin and some very hard times, Chris and I both became wiser and better people. It takes work – but that work leads to growth. In my experience, human beings need an “other”.