Dear lenscap,
I find it very remarkable that a person such as yourself would set up a straw man argument at the first of your reply. You have decided what Dr. Bock’s argument is:
“Your argument is that legalizing gay marriage would be to bring moral affirmation to an "immoral" social minority.”

Then you proceed to compare what you have decided to be the argument to another argument, this one against the Jim Crow laws:

“But the lie that was inherent in Jim Crow laws was that whenever laws don't actively define equality (or when they legislate separateness), that the very concept of equality is annulled.”

Now, you validly say that “sexual preference is not race,” or rather you put those words into Dr. Bock’s mouth.

But let us get past your introduction to your argument. Let us get to the real beginning:
“I would argue that because morality cannot be biologically proven, you need look no further than the tactics of separation to see a glaring red herring.”

I find this statement to be glaringly true. There is no apparent tie between morality and biology. However, since pedophilia or a tendency to commit homicide is a moral issue rather than biological, perhaps your argument here should not only be in favor of homosexuality, but also in favor of releasing pedophiles and murderers from prison. That is to say, unless this is not a valid argument at this point.

Now, I do find your next claim interesting:

“You are confusing protection - a structural legal necessity - with promotion.”

But if this is the case, who is protecting those murderers and pedophiles from themselves and from being looked down upon in modern society? Perhaps what is going on inside them is not a moral decision to commit atrocities, but rather a biological mechanism that triggers. If this is the case then they must be set free. It is not their fault. They have no choice in the matter. They were born that way.

Well, anyway, on to the next claim:

“Any validation of non-hetersexuality as a social (first), or even legal crime (second) on the basis that it is already "morally" judged by the majority is a textbook example of a circular argument.”

Please, would you mind explaining the “circular argument”? If, by this, you mean that you are starting with something that you admit Dr. Bock’s blog does not, perhaps it would be better to set a level ground with which to examine your point here.

“Your 5 articles are about the role of "moral" citizens towards those they deem to be their (somehow) inferiors. Such power-play is implicit in your final prescriptions, where you "draw the line".”

Again, you set Dr. Bock’s argument up to be a straw man. I must say that while I am not homosexual, I do know a few who are. I do not judge them to be inferior to myself. They are in sin, but not inferior. I must add here that I have not said that I never sin. The difference, I believe, is that I see my sin for what it is: sin. And I repent and give God glory.

Next:

“Your blog does matter in the sense that (like a leader or a father) you give people moral validation and support for what will ulitmately be a hierarchical judgement. This leads to real, psychic and physical violence againts those being judged.”

I imagine you mean “psychological” rather than “psychic,” but please do correct me if I am wrong. With that being assumed, I must ask, are we to seek ways to make sure that everyone in the world goes without ever feeling judged? If this is the case, then we must dismiss the court system from our government at all levels, allow everyone who applies for credit to receive the maximum amount of it, certainly never allow a police officer to pull over a car for running a red light. But if we do that, are we not in effect judging those things as well? I can see only one or two logical outcomes of your argument here: Either we must start an anarchic government where everyone judges for themselves right from wrong or else we must shut our own selves up in our rooms and never interfere with our environment in any way.

On to your claims against Christianity:

“I've elswhere drawn a parallel between Koranic prohibitions towards women and your own Christian-inspired anti-gay legal stance. The same hiding behind scriptures to advocate a dominant (and literally judgemental) status-quo.”

By saying this do you realize that you are judging Christians everywhere to be wrong? You are saying that the Koran holds just as much truth as the Christian scriptures. But the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Now, you do go on to discredit both as being false, but you minimalize Christians far beyond what I believe you mean.

“But, your argument uses the mechanisms of plain and simple cultural dominance. Like so many others from different faiths and ideologies, you are seizing upon difference as a means of shoring up your own hegemony.”

Again with straw man tactics. Set ‘em up and knock ‘em down.

Here we return to the attack to Christianity:

“The singlemost error Christians make is in believing they are privy to the only morality, spirituality, and faith around. But morality, faith and sprituality have never been - and never will be - limited to the sphere of religion(s) alone.”

If by religion you mean that which is set up in which a god (or gods) determines right or wrong, then I must not agree with you that “morality, faith and spirtuality [sic] have never been…limited to the sphere of religion(s) alone.” These things inherently are limited to religion. What religion is now the question. Is it Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, tribal religions? Or is it the religion in which the individual has set himself up as the one who determines right or wrong (in effect making himself a god)? So, this leads us back to the beginning of your claim here about the error Christians make. Is it really just an “error” that WE make? I think not.

“Putting that another way, one that needs to be repeated constantly is that you can be religious and moral, but that being religious is not the only way to be moral. This point is critical and is the only path for peace in the world.”

How do you know this is the only path for peace in the world? I am getting a bit off subject, but frankly, so are you. Where did this statement come from? Is it your own claim? If that is the case, then you are religious for you have set yourself up in a way to judge how the world should be. If that is not the case, however, then your point is moot.

Onward:

“The issue you've brought up in your blog is the relationship between a divine scripture and a social contract between different people. But the only post-enlightement (or universal) answer must at all cost transcend faith.”

Ok, so here it is not yourself that is a god. You do not have a religion of self. Or is your argument losing it’s momentum and is now scratching at another argument from another position? Either way, in the argument here it appears that “post-enlightement (sic)” is what decides right and wrong. And here that religion judges that faith is not enough. But I thought we mustn’t judge others. Will this not lead to some serious psychological or physical harm of Christians if this religion you are promoting becomes pre-eminent?

But wait:

“Again, I've elsewhere drawn a parallel between early (persecuted) Christians, and today's gays and bisexuals. Not in the loaded terms one or the other's access to sacrosanct morality, but rather in the mechanics of their relationship to society.”

So you do not want Christians to be persecuted? Well, let’s move on to the meat of this particular claim:

“Early Christians just wanted to believe, be left alone, and be protected from violence, something the emperor Constantine allowed them when he legalised their faith and freedom.

“The only way to argue that their plight was different than non-heterosexuals' plight today is to say that they were following from a "universal" source of morality, "God". This argument is simply no longer workable in the modern world, and that's why we have the separation between church and state. Furthermore, faith and obviously conversion are - precisely - choices.”

This is a sad look at Christian history. You get vague ideas right, but you miss it all at the same time. Christians knew and expected persecution. Jesus saying that he came to bring a sword was not going to make Rome happy and those that believed knew it going in. Persecution was expected to such a degree that if a minister of the gospel did not have the marks of persecution it could take some doing to convince fellow believers that you were not simply a spy.

I do not think there are any heterosexual Christian spies working to make sure that homosexuals are known and persecuted. Again, if I am wrong here please tell me. However, despite my position on that, your position has returned back to the individualistic religion you had previously set up. You have decided that God “is simply no longer workable in the modern world.” So, we have outgrown God, have we? But that only implies that there is something greater than God: you.

“The comparison is not intended to be offensive, but it does call on self-reflection and applying the same standards to everyone. Many non-heterosexuals (myself included) are deeply respectful of Christian values, and all we ask is the same, structurally, just so there's no confusion.”

You are right. This comparison should not be taken offensively. I do not for a second think that your comparison is worth any merit of offense. And you are right again. Self-reflection and the application of the same standards to everyone are called for. But who is to judge what those standards are? You? Your way seems to lead to logically lead to anarchy. Do not confuse your own self. You do not respect Christian values for you do not know them. In fact, you attack what you believe they are at every turn.

And now to your conclusion:

“Laws therefore must not emanate from faiths, but must bring them together under equality. Moral law must exist above faith, because the great religions - while losing none of their spiritual potency - cannot be credibly (or maybe equitably) seen as the only paths in existence leading to human salvation.”

This conclusion is weak. This is the same point I keep coming back to. You have set up your own religion: The religion of the individual. Your laws would be based in faith! As for the great religions not being the only way to “human salvation,” I have already addressed this as well. It seems you are arguing in circles.

I must note at the end of this examination of lenscap’s argument that I have not addressed the issue of homosexuality. This issue should be addressed, but first, bring a well-developed argument.