![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 81 to 105 of 127. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on December 14, 2004, at 11:55:18
In reply to Re: Gay people, posted by ed_uk on December 14, 2004, at 7:16:05
Yes, but that's an argument that will never be resolved.
Best to work in our worldly confines, right?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2004, at 17:18:18
In reply to Re: not using the Bible » MKB, posted by AuntieMel on December 14, 2004, at 10:42:17
> I wish people could at least try and put aside their reservations on this issue and explore why it may actually be a *good* thing.
>
> Snoozin> The problem I have with this issue is that there is a large group insistent on forcing their opinion onto the rest of the population (by constitutional ammendment, no less!)
>
> AuntieMelPlease respect the views of others. Those who think it's a good thing could also explore why it might be bad... And don't both sides favor legislation of some type? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by henrietta on December 14, 2004, at 19:58:56
In reply to Re: The other side, posted by MKB on December 14, 2004, at 11:14:47
i am a heterosexual in a monogamous marriage for over 30 years. no infidelidty on either side no f$$$ing of animals children or monks. for the life of me i can't understand how the sanctification of commitment, love, and life-sharing of two consenting adults threatens my marriage, yours,or whatever is meant by "the institution". Can you please explain to me how it is a bad thing for people who love one another and want to share their lives, want to make a COMMITMENT (aren't we constantly told that commitment is a difficult and valuable thing?), to be allowed to make that morally valued choice? I'm not being sarcastic, argumentative, or political, here. I truly don't understand why people are so threatened by this. Love and acceptance are so hard to find in the world that I think we should open our arms and hearts to anyone fortunate enough to find these gifts. Their consequent well-being can only add to the well-being of the cosmos, to the dimunition of war, hatred, anger, and to graciousness in your grocery store line .
And, on an even more practical note: Do you realize that two people who have loved each other for 20-30-40 years, who have taken care of one another, who know one another deeply, know each other's every desire, can be separated at crisis time, in the hospital, dying, by parents they haven't seen since adolescence? By parents , even, who have abused them emotionally, physically? That the beloved partner can be denied access to the hospital room while the parents, not seen or heard from in decades, are allowed free reign over life and death decisions, regardless of the dying one's wishes?
I am trying very hard to understand how this stance is "moral", or has anything to do with the teachings of christ. Please enlighten me.
thank you.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 14, 2004, at 22:58:23
In reply to Re: The other side, posted by henrietta on December 14, 2004, at 19:58:56
Wow Henrietta. If I could I'd reach out and hug you whether you wanted me too or not. I'm not gay either, but I'm single, and well, I don't have in many respects what could be seen as the typical lifestyle.
To have someone who's been married 30 years, and could easily choose to pretend these issues don't exist speak out like that, is powerful, as is your writing. I agree it's NOT loving that's the problem. And I find it amazing that
people will turn a blind eye to having their children watch two men kill each other on T.V
but (and I've actually heard this said) fear that they will be negatively affected for life if they see two men kiss.
Posted by MKB on December 15, 2004, at 0:09:43
In reply to Re: please respect the views of others, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2004, at 17:18:18
If there is gay marriage, there will also be gay divorce. If 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, will homosexuals do any better? I don't think so, since many heterosexuals work harder to hold their marriage together for the sake of their biological children.
If there is gay divorce, there will also be issues of alimony, child support, visitation, division of property. Since medical science as yet has not enabled two people of the same gender to have a biological child, there will often be 3 parents fighting over a child.
If the motivation is financial benefits that come with gay marriage, there will eventually be single people who want to form partnerships just for that reason, when sex is not even involved.
This is going to put a tremendous strain on our court system and it will not be cheap. Laws will have to be rewritten.
Some lawyers are already pushing for polygamy to be legal, yes, even in Canada.
Eventually, marriage will become a moot point. It will, in the end, be of no benefit to anyone.
Let's leave religion out of it.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 15, 2004, at 1:24:35
In reply to Re: Pandora's Box, posted by MKB on December 15, 2004, at 0:09:43
> If there is gay marriage, there will also be gay divorce. If 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, will homosexuals do any better? I don't think so,
It's quite likely that homosexuals will "do better" as there is less pressure on them to get married in the first place, the ones who decide to make this commitment have the opportunity to put great thought into it.
And why should they have to "do better" than heterosexuals to have the same legal rights?
This is about the equality of two human beings who love each other.> since many heterosexuals work harder to hold their marriage together for the sake of their biological children.
And many heterosexuals make the mistake of getting married in the first place because of pregnancy.
This is not about who behaves in what way.
You could take individual heterosexual couples and using this same format of argument to decide who should be allowed to get married and who should not. Justifying the legal denial of certain rights to citizens, which is an enormous thing, must be made on more than opinion.
To be seen as more than opinion the argument can't be applied selectively.
>
> If there is gay divorce, there will also be issues of alimony, child support, visitation, division of property. Since medical science as yet has not enabled two people of the same gender to have a biological child, there will often be 3 parents fighting over a child.
>There are already often 3 parents fighting over a child. Is that enough of a reason to deny homosexual union? We don't want more divorces, we don't want any more custody battles. Okay, then it's equally legitimate to say we should deny the rights of young women to have babies, and get married. There are already too many marriages ending in divorce, and we don't want to create any more situations wherein there are three parents fighting over a child.
> If the motivation is financial benefits that come with gay marriage, there will eventually be single people who want to form partnerships just for that reason, when sex is not even involved.
There are many heterosexuals who already get married for reasons other than sex.
> This is going to put a tremendous strain on our court system and it will not be cheap. Laws will have to be rewritten.
>
Laws had to be rewritten to abolish slavery.If you were against abortion, and the abortion laws were changed would you question the strain it would put on the court system?
If you were innocent of a crime, and yet convicted, and it took 20 years to prove your innocence would you question the strain it put on the court system?
> Some lawyers are already pushing for polygamy to be legal, yes, even in Canada.That is simply not applicable to this situation however IMO I have no interest in polygamy but it doesn't horrify me. There are many terrible things done by heterosexual couples with children that frighten me far more.
The state of marriage is always changing, it always has been.
>
> Eventually, marriage will become a moot point. It will, in the end, be of no benefit to anyone.Marriage was originally a way for a man to own a woman, she became chattel, anything she owned became his, he knew any children she bore were his own and he had the right to beat her. That's the history of marriage, it had nothing to do with male monogamy, (she of course had to be monagamous) It had nothing to do with a loving union unless by chance. Some would argue that we had little to lose.
Posted by henrietta on December 15, 2004, at 8:25:14
In reply to Re: The other side » henrietta, posted by Gabbix2 on December 14, 2004, at 22:58:23
Thank you, Gabbix2. That means a lot to me.
hen
Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 8:39:26
In reply to Re: please respect the views of others, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2004, at 17:18:18
That is exactly what I am trying to do - explore the issue without too much emotion and use logical arguments. I would be more than happy to hear any logical arguments, and would (I swear) explore them.
I thought I made it pretty clear in that post that I was referring to the media mostly, and that I hoped we babblers could do better.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 9:05:15
In reply to Re: Pandora's Box, posted by MKB on December 15, 2004, at 0:09:43
Sure, there will be gay divorce. There are splits right now and they tie up courts even more because there are no "rules" to go by. And the one person considered the "parent" could completely shut out the other one. Is this in the best interest of the child? Aren't the children the most important part of the equation?
Yes, many heterosexual couples hold marriages together "for the sake of the children <adopted ones too!>." My parents did it, and it was a miserable place to be. I'm convinced that having one happy parent is infinately better than two miserable ones.
I've been married, more or less happily, for 22 years - my second marriage. I had one child I was forced to give up for adoption, one with my first husband and one with my second. And my sister is gay with three kids from a marriage before she came out. I've pretty much seen it from all sides.
Will marriage become a moot point? I doubt it. Because we are talking about human beings, not corporations, and as humans we want to live in a home with love and family, two cats in the yard, the whole bit. It just seems unfair to me to limit that dream to heterosexuals.
Posted by Bobby on December 15, 2004, at 9:10:41
In reply to Re: Pandora's Box » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 15, 2004, at 1:24:35
you could marry me. I am a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Would that be moral? :)
Posted by ed_uk on December 15, 2004, at 9:46:27
In reply to If I were single » Gabbix2, posted by Bobby on December 15, 2004, at 9:10:41
Hi Bobby :-)
Do you mean that you are a man who is attracted to women but you want to be a woman?
Ed.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 10:13:00
In reply to Re: If I were single » Bobby, posted by ed_uk on December 15, 2004, at 9:46:27
Oy, too confusing.
My shrink asked me if I thought I had any gender issues. I've always preferred male conversation, "male" career choices, etc. I'd much rather talk football (soccer) than shoes.
Problem: I also get turned on by men. Puts a crimp in the 'are you a lesbian' question.
Posted by MKB on December 15, 2004, at 10:22:48
In reply to Re: Pandora's Box, posted by MKB on December 15, 2004, at 0:09:43
It is not always necessary to marry in order to get legal protections. Many couples, gay and heterosexual, prefer not to marry, but they can still get legal protections in many areas.
"Many (though not all) of the rights, privileges, and protections that married couples receive are also available to people in unmarried relationships, although for unmarried relationships they don't happen automatically. People in unmarried relationships can work with a lawyer to prepare the documents listed below, or use one of several excellent do-it-yourself legal guides. Many lawyers advise people in unmarried relationships to prepare (explanations for each are below):
1. A durable power of attorney for healthcare (or healthcare proxy)
2. A living together (or domestic partnership) agreement
3. A will
4. A durable power of attorney for financial management"from www.unmarried.org
Posted by Bobby on December 15, 2004, at 10:27:48
In reply to Re: If I were single » Bobby, posted by ed_uk on December 15, 2004, at 9:46:27
Don't take me too seriously Ed. I've no desire to be a woman but you could pass me the Quaaludes and some Heroin.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 11:50:16
In reply to Re: Pandora's Box, posted by MKB on December 15, 2004, at 10:22:48
Yes, this is true. Legally, if you have the foresight (how many people don't even have a will!) you can create many safeguards.
The jury is still out, though, on how well they stand up. Sure, you might eventually win in court, but if the hospital won't let you see your partner, much less let you make crucial medical decisions, does it really make a difference?
And there have been multiple stories of judges refusing to consider a mother for custody of a child in a (heterosexual) divorce if the mother has just come out.
However, you are correct that, with good lawyers, a degree of civil protection can be had.
There are still a few that the best lawyers can't fix, the court testimony issue being one.
But we all know that, to most people, marriage is a powerful symbol of commitment. It just doesn't seem fair to me that it is only abailable to heterosexuals.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 15, 2004, at 11:51:54
In reply to Re: If I were single » ed_uk, posted by Bobby on December 15, 2004, at 10:27:48
"I've no desire to be a woman" begs the Seinfield "not that there's anything wrong with that"
Posted by ed_uk on December 15, 2004, at 13:30:42
In reply to Re: If I were single » ed_uk, posted by Bobby on December 15, 2004, at 10:27:48
Sorry, I don't have any Quaaludes or heroin!
Ed.
Posted by Jai Narayan on December 15, 2004, at 18:15:55
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for? » Jai Narayan, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 23:40:48
wow, that is so cool.
congratulations, love at first sight....nice.
Jai
Posted by KaraS on December 15, 2004, at 22:06:25
In reply to Re: please be civil » Jai » MKB » Bling » KaraS » Gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on December 13, 2004, at 22:34:26
> > democracy has lost.
> >
> > Jai
>
> > I am going to make some statements that include generalizations based on the posts I've seen on this board.
> >
> > I am continually stunned by the vicious, unfounded, sensational, personal attacks on our President. They sound hysterical and mentally unbalanced to me.
> >
> > MKB
>
> > It's very sad that all the carnage in Iraq is for the benefit of buisnesses & shareholders in the US & UK.
> >
> > Bling Bling
>
> > I think Bush is the most divisive President we've ever had.
> >
> > KaraS
>
> > > Just curious...are you in favor of institutionalized murder?
> >
> > ahhh, the old just curious, which is sadly, rarely a sincere effort to hear anothers views, or a desire to get to know them better
> >
> > Gabbix2
>
> Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down or exaggerate or overgeneralize.
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> I thought those were good explanations of what people stood for. It may at some point be better to agree to disagree than to try to convert the other side...
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> BobDr. Bob,
I can't believe that you are finding fault with that statement I made. I was trying very hard to be civil when writing this post. That one sentence of mine isn't attacking anyone's views. IMHO it's just expressing a sentiment that BOTH sides of the political spectrum would probably agree with. What other president has caused this much polarization?I tried very hard not to slam anyone for their beliefs. I'm in shock - that's all I can say here.
Kara
Posted by MKB on December 16, 2004, at 0:10:14
In reply to new baby...., posted by Jai Narayan on December 15, 2004, at 18:15:55
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 16, 2004, at 0:32:19
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by KaraS on December 15, 2004, at 22:06:25
>> Dr. Bob,
Kara's statement was no different than saying The subject of abortion divided a town.
I think you jumped on devisive as a verb, and therefore assumed it was a criticism.
Posted by Jai Narayan on December 16, 2004, at 8:09:51
In reply to Re: please be civil » KaraS, posted by Gabbix2 on December 16, 2004, at 0:32:19
I think it was Dinah that said this site could be very difficult.
How can we stay within certain boundaries and how can Dr. Bob make sure we do?There have been many juicy topics on this site but I knew I couldn't join in because I am so uncertain of the rules and I have so many feelings, thoughts, beliefs and ideas.
I find myself in a self imposed verbal straight jacket.
Oh well.....
Posted by MKB on December 16, 2004, at 8:42:11
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Jai Narayan on December 16, 2004, at 8:09:51
Posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 10:08:56
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Jai Narayan on December 16, 2004, at 8:09:51
>I knew I couldn't join in because I am so uncertain of the rules and I have so many feelings, thoughts, beliefs and ideas.
Hi,
Please do join in. :-)
Generally you will be OK so long as you don't use any bad language.Ed.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 16, 2004, at 10:55:46
In reply to Re: To Jai, posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 10:08:56
And it's safe for sure to talk about your own beliefs. It's when talking about others that the verbal gymnastics get involved.
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.