![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 127. Go back in thread:
Posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 8:47:58
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 8:18:21
>There's already a substantial number of people, especially in Utah, who believe polygamy should be legal. That's next. What are you going to say about that?
I would imagine that if polygamy was legal, only a very small number of people would be interested. I doubt that it would have a major impact on society as a whole.Regarding gay marriage, it doesn't threaten heterosexual marriage so why does it bother you so much? The bible represents the views of the people who wrote it and the prevailing views of society at the time of writing. My own views on gay marriage are equally valid, and in my opinion, more sensible.
Regarding God.... if there is a God I would not like to presume what 'its' view on gay marriage would be. Such information cannot be found in Leviticus.
Ed.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:04:23
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 8:47:58
The Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years, and it certainly did NOT represent the prevailing views of society at that time.
Posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 9:13:48
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:04:23
Thank you MKB, I am well aware that the Bible was written by many people over a long period of time.......
I was refering to individual statements regarding homosexuality and not the Bible as a whole. For example... the laws given in (the so often quoted) Leviticus reflect what would have been considered to be acceptable behaviour.
Ed.
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 9:20:00
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for? » Bling Bling, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 8:16:16
> Are you Bible-phobic?
>
>Please keep this about politics, save the bible chat for the Faith board.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:21:47
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 9:13:48
Even at that time and later, polygamy was accepted. Does that mean the Bible teaches polygamy as God's design? Regardless, this is evolving into a faith discussion instead of a political one. What I was trying to do was respond to someone's question about what conservative Americans believe. One of those beliefs is that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Going beyond that tradition is a slippery slope than will eventually create a legal nightmare and will bog down our family courts, not to mention the great harm that will be done to children.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:23:27
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for? » MKB, posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 9:20:00
You asked what conservative Americans believe and I tried to tell you. I think you are the one who mentioned the Bible first.
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 9:25:52
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 9:13:48
> Thank you MKB, I am well aware that the Bible was written by many people over a long period of time.......
>Don't forget that the bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat.
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 9:30:33
In reply to Gay Marriage, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 5:11:01
> >MKB said 'What if folks demand their "civil rights" to marry in groups, to marry their dog, to marry their mother, to marry a child, etc? Slippery slope, it is.'
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I resent the implication that gay marriage is in any way comparable to these. Gay marriage would be a partnership between two consenting adults.
>
> Ed.
>Hello Ed,
I agree with you, it wasn't a very nice answer.
Posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 9:30:59
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:21:47
>Going beyond that tradition is a slippery slope than will eventually create a legal nightmare and will bog down our family courts, not to mention the great harm that will be done to children.
Hello MKB,
It is unreasonable of you to state that the legalisation of gay marriage would be harmful to children. What are you suggesting?
Ed.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:57:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 9:25:52
Where did you get that idea? Please quote the verses from the Bible that say that. I'll keep checking back for your answer.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:11:51
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage..... to MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 9:30:59
Where this is going is that eventually, marriage will become obsolete. To understand the background of that statement, please read
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=1
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 10:16:03
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Bling Bling, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 9:57:05
> Where did you get that idea? Please quote the verses from the Bible that say that. I'll keep checking back for your answer.
>
>It would help if you included a quote so that I know what you are inquiring about.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:34:23
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 10:16:03
You said, "Don't forget that the bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat."
I want to know where you got this idea.
Posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 10:38:33
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage..... to MKB » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:11:51
What makes you think that gay people should not be allowed to marry? I know several gay couples in stable long term relationships, why shouldn't they be granted the protection provided by marriage?
In England, it has been suggested that gay couples should be allowed to have civil partnerships. A civil partnership would occur in a register office rather than a church. It would provide the same legal protection as marriage but would not be called marriage. Personally, I don't think it matters whether it is called marriage or not.
Ed.
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 10:53:31
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Bling Bling, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:34:23
> I want to know where you got this idea.
>
>I asked a question earlier that you haven't given an answer to yet. I'll be sure to "keep checking back for your answer."
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 11:56:10
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 8:47:58
Ed, you said, >Regarding God.... if there is a God I would not like to presume what 'its' view on gay marriage would be. Such information cannot be found in Leviticus.>
Since you are the one who mentioned Leviticus, I would like to make you aware of this verse from Leviticus 18:22ff-
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination...for by all these things the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you..."The above admonition is in the same chapter that condemns sexual relations among family members and with animals.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:03:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage..... to MKB » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 10:38:33
Ok, let's calm down - stick to issues and not resort to personal attacks. (and this post, while in "babble" might *seem* to be a reply to one person, it is addressed to all)
Gay marriage rhetoric:
1) The phrase that seems to be used by most politicians is that (I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.) They also talk about the sanctity of marriage. The same phrases are being used by both the folks for and against an ammendment.
2) The only difference I can see is that what they (the politicians) are calling marriage (and sanctity) is church involvement. Assuming of course that they are willing to accept that civil unions grant next-of-kin status to the other partner.
Therefore:
3) The politicians are asking for an ammendment that would prohibit churches from 'sanctifying' gay marriages.
The latest state votes to not allow 'gay marriage' are actually voting against civil unions - the same thing more than half the country says should be allowed. They do not touch the writes of some religeous denominations to perform gay marriages.
Oh, the doublespeak.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:17:24
In reply to Gay marriage (rhetoric) and logic » ed_uk, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:03:05
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 12:26:02
In reply to Gay marriage (rhetoric) and logic » ed_uk, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:03:05
>3) The politicians are asking for an ammendment that would prohibit churches from 'sanctifying' gay marriages.>
No,...they do not want churches to be FORCED to perform gay marriages.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 13:38:01
In reply to the other side, posted by Jilly on December 11, 2004, at 21:01:31
Actually, I think Hil was always middle of the road. Just like Bill. He managed to fulfill several things on a conservative agends. Balanced budget. Welfare reform. He just didn't have what some consider the right "morals."
Hil, on the other hand, did actually do the stand-by-your-man bit, something every family value conservative should admire.
My guess is there aren't really two 'sides' - just good people (leaving out politicians) who have different priorities.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 14:32:51
In reply to Re: Gay marriage (rhetoric) and logic » AuntieMel, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 12:26:02
Interesting. I don't remember anyone saying that churches could be forced to do that. I don't recall that churches are forced to do *any* marriage, for that matter.
I am talking about rhetoric and logic, while (for now) taking no side.
From a speech by Bush:
" Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."
Mel's observations:
Marriage, in this country has two definitions, civil and religeous. The only one the government recognizes is the civil union. Religious weddings won't get you a hill of beans with the irs.
But according to the speech (and I've heard several like this) there won't be a ban on civil unions. So, the only part of marriage left is the religious part. Effectively, the only gay marriages the proposed ammendment would forbid would be the religious ones.
Mind you, I'm parsing words. But I do wonder if there isn't some greater meaning behind the words. I think so - but I haven't figured out what it is yet.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 15:46:35
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 11:56:10
>
> Since you are the one who mentioned Leviticus, I would like to make you aware of this verse from Leviticus 18:22ff-
> "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination...for by all these things the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you..."
>
It also states that eating shellfish is an abomination Lev. 11:10as is: planting two crops in the same field, getting your hair trimmed, and it states that you do not have permission to approach the altar of god if you have a defect in your sight Lev 21:20
I find that self explanatory
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 17:23:33
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 15:46:35
Hey, I wasn't using Leviticus to prop up my position. I wasn't the one who brought it up.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 17:26:22
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 15:46:35
No blended fabrics.
Accepted animal sacrifices are spedified.
And slaves are ok - as long as they are heathens.
Ahhhh, Around my neck of the woods there are lots of people that like to cherry-pick the bible. Very common. Like dirt.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 18:00:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 17:23:33
> Hey, I wasn't using Leviticus to prop up my position. I wasn't the one who brought it up.
It wasn't really about Leviticus, it's about using the bible to justify homophobia.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.