![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 127. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 18:06:09
In reply to Re:Don't forget » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 17:26:22
> 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.OY, it frustrates me. We all mess up, we all try really hard and still aren't perfect, but dang it if you're going to be sanctimonious
about something you BETTER be scrupulous..
There that's my view on the world : )I feel so much better now.
G
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 18:33:17
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 18:00:06
The issue being discussed is not homophobia. The issue is the definition of marriage. It seems to me that some folks would rather make accusations and throw out distractors than actually stick to the topic.
Let me make it clear: Defining marriage as between one woman and one man does NOT equal homophobia.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 19:14:51
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 18:33:17
>
> Let me make it clear: Defining marriage as between one woman and one man does NOT equal homophobia.It doesn't equal homophobia, no, however the denial of equal rights to gay couples soley because they are of the same sex is one aspect of institutionalized homophobia.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 19:57:39
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 19:14:51
>It doesn't equal homophobia, no, however the denial of equal rights to gay couples soley because they are of the same sex is one aspect of institutionalized homophobia.>
Just curious...are you in favor of institutionalized murder?
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 20:33:16
In reply to Re: Institutions » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 19:57:39
> >It doesn't equal homophobia, no, however the denial of equal rights to gay couples soley because they are of the same sex is one aspect of institutionalized homophobia.>
>
> 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, but more of a leaping off point. I'm offended by pretense. I think it's time for my dinner.
Posted by jay on December 13, 2004, at 20:37:46
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?
You are trying to use an analogy that doesn't work...period. There are people who think all sorts of things, but gay marriage has been a long time, seperate issue, on the table. I've seen it bloom here in Canada, and it's an amazing thing I am very proud to be a Canadian for. There is absolutely no talk of 'polygamy' or any other sort, so please keep the issues seperate.Jay
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:11:20
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by jay on December 13, 2004, at 20:37:46
> > 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?
>
>
> You are trying to use an analogy that doesn't work...period. There are people who think all sorts of things, but gay marriage has been a long time, seperate issue, on the table. I've seen it bloom here in Canada, and it's an amazing thing I am very proud to be a Canadian for. There is absolutely no talk of 'polygamy' or any other sort, so please keep the issues seperate.Exactly, there was a time, and not to long ago when women fighting for the right to vote, and were scorned with "What's next the vote for beasts?" And the bible was used to justify keeping women in their "place"
The church didn't even acknowledge that women might have souls until the 1900's.The Bible was used to justify slavery too
The thought that blacks were people deserving of their independence also horrified many "Law abiding church goin' folks"I need to add that my problem is not so much with the Bible it's with the things that have been done to people by others who claim to be adhering to its teachings
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:43:32
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » jay, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:11:20
>Exactly, there was a time, and not to long ago when women fighting for the right to vote, and were scorned with "What's next the vote for beasts?" And the bible was used to justify keeping women in their "place"
The church didn't even acknowledge that women might have souls until the 1900's.>The Bible was used to justify slavery too
The thought that blacks were people deserving of their independence also horrified many "Law abiding church goin' folks">I need to add that my problem is not so much with the Bible it's with the things that have been done to people by others who claim to be adhering to its teachings
I'm not trying to throw the Bible at anyone. I do know how to use it properly and I don't believe in shoving my beliefs down anyone's throat. I was "trolled," pretty well set-up by ed_uk throwing out his Leviticus reference and I fell for it.
I know others have a different view of this issue than I do, but I really have tried to refrain from demonizing people or overgeneralizing. A question was asked and I tried to answer it. I still think marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. This does not mean I am homophobic.
Whether legalizing same-sex marriages leads to other types of marriages or the abolition of marriage altogether remains to be seen.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:50:17
In reply to Re: Using the Bible » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:43:32
Okay MKB I much prefer learning of others beliefs too even when they are different from my own, (Within limits of course!) than feeling like I'm being set up, which I did there for a minute too Thanks for explaining,
I appreciate it.
Olive branch? : )
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:54:52
In reply to Re: Using the Bible » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:50:17
Of course.
Posted by Jai Narayan on December 13, 2004, at 22:14:51
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for? » Jai Narayan, posted by MKB on December 12, 2004, at 21:45:57
Boy or girl? I am so glad everybody is fine.
Where you there for the birth?
What a magical moment.
Granny.
jai
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 13, 2004, at 22:34:26
In reply to Re: Institutions » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 20:33:16
> 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
>
> Gabbix2Please 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,
Bob
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 23:15:57
In reply to Re: please be civil » Jai » MKB » Bling » KaraS » Gabbix2, posted by Dr. Bob on December 13, 2004, at 22:34:26
Sorry Dr. Bob, I am easily offended by bigots who want to group homosexuals with pedophiles.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 23:40:48
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for?, posted by Jai Narayan on December 13, 2004, at 22:14:51
A boy. David. I arrived within minutes. It was love at first sight. He is blessed to have a mom and a dad who love each other and love him.
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 23:55:14
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for? » Jai Narayan, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 23:40:48
> A boy. David. I arrived within minutes. It was love at first sight. He is blessed to have a mom and a dad who love each other and love him.
>
>He would be equally blessed to have two dads who love each other and love him.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 14, 2004, at 1:01:56
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 23:15:57
> Sorry Dr. Bob, I am easily offended by bigots who want to group homosexuals with pedophiles.
Oh dear, I must have missed that post.
Probably a good thing.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do believe it's the grouping of homosexuals with pedophiles that is UNCIVIL to say the least.
Such a strange twisted board-world.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2004, at 1:25:36
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 23:15:57
> bigots who want to group homosexuals with pedophiles.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. I asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
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
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by ed_uk on December 14, 2004, at 7:16:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 11:56:10
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.>
MKB said.....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..."
My reply....Yes, I know that it says this in Leviticus.
How can anyone seriously claim that this is the view of God? As I said, if there is a God, I would not like to presume what 'its' view would be. Leviticus is the product of man, it was not written by God.
Ed.
Posted by Snoozin on December 14, 2004, at 10:31:36
In reply to Re: Gay people, posted by ed_uk on December 14, 2004, at 7:16:05
Oh, I know this is a hot topic, and forgive me for jumping in.
I know the idea of condoning gay marriage is very weird to a lot of people. But if you can remove yourself from the *weirdness* factor, I think gay marriage makes a lot of sense on so many levels, all of which are good for our society.
I think gay marriage actually validates and strengthens the institution of marriage, promoting the idea of fidelity, family, and monogamy, regardless of sexual orientation. The family looks different than what we are used to, but it still promotes a family unit. And I think a family unit is desirable and preferable in our society.
The whole point of marriage, under English common law, was to provide for inheritance and property rights. It was a legal union, kind of like creating a corporation, but on a social vs. business level. In the eyes of the law, a married couple is one entity for all legal purposes. To provide legitimate heirs vs. illegitimate ones.
The religious side of marriage was nd is an entirely separate issue. I don't think that permitting legal, civil marriage for gay couples would force churches to marry couples they didn't want to. I know my church won't marry people who aren't members, and I'm sure many churches wouldn't marry gay couples even if it were legal.
But by making gay marriage legal, or even civil unions legal, we would help reduce the number of uninsured persons. We would create safe financial environments for children of gay couples (regardless of what you think the moral environment might be; I know many straight married couples who create a horrible moral environment, including my own parents,). We would be encouraging fidelity and monogamy.
I don't think it devalues traditional marriage between a man and a woman at all. First off, gay people are a very small percentage of our population. Not all gays would actually marry. Their children would be raised to value marriage as an institution, which I personally think is a good thing.
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.
Just my measly 2 cents.
Susan
Posted by AuntieMel on December 14, 2004, at 10:42:17
In reply to Re: Using the Bible » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:43:32
I'm a firm believer that everyone has a right to his own opinion, even if it is a minority opinion.
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!)
And there are folks that will distort things to prove their point (not talking about anyone here, mainly the pseudo-conservitive talking heads.) Activist judges in Massachusetts? The way I heard the story (from reading news reports) was that the court there said that current laws banning gay marriage were against the state constitution. And it said that if that were to be changed it would have to be changed by the legislature or state ammendment. It sounds like a simple law decision, but from listening to certain media you would swear they just rewrote law.
I never hear anyone discuss the pros/cons of the issue as it relates to public policy. Again - I'm talking about the media - newspapers, tv, internet, etc. Wouldn't it be nice if babblers could rise above that?
So - taking the term "marriage" out of the equation, what are we really talking about? These are the things I've personally seen that are issues to be resolved (I'm using him/his in the generic sense, like mankind) Most of these have to do with the assumed rights <and responsibilities> that married couples have:
1) Next-of-kinship. If one partner is in intensive care in the hospital it isn't uncommon for his family to barge in, make all the decisions and ban the well parner from even seeing him. This happens often, especially when the sick partner's family hasn't accepted their sexual identity.
2) Insurance - companies offer insurance to 'spouses' but gay couples need not apply (yes, I know some companies have it, but it isn't the norm)
3) Survivorship. Even with a will, there is no guarantee that the deceased partner's wishes will be fulfilled. Burial arrangements can be a real hot spot.
4) Custody rights. Gay couples *do* become parents. Women use artificial insemination and both genders adopt - often older kids that wouldn't otherwise have a home. Because of current laws/norms only one person is listed as the mommy or daddy. If a relationship ends for some reason - 'divorce' or death - the other partner can lose the right to even visit.
5) Court testimony. Law says one spouse can not be forced to testify against another. Not true for gay couples.
I could go on and on, but these are enough to chew on for now.
Posted by MKB on December 14, 2004, at 11:14:47
In reply to Gay Marriage, posted by Snoozin on December 14, 2004, at 10:31:36
Just as a reference in understanding the opposing view, I would suggest reading:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=1The article goes beyond what anyone "thinks" to providing little known facts important to a comprehensive understanding of the issue, which I do not yet claim to possess.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 14, 2004, at 11:53:45
In reply to Re: The other side, posted by MKB on December 14, 2004, at 11:14:47
I've read the article. In my opinion it doesn't even pretend to address a full understanding of the issue - the rights and obligations proferred by marriage (or whatever you call it.)
I don't see where it offers any facts on the topic either. It certainly reads like an opinion piece to me. And none of it even addresses the gay marriage issue itself - it makes a leap to polygamy up front and the rest of the article is about non-monogamous relationships. Nobody has mentioned an ammendment against polygamy yet, that I know of.
To date I haven't seen a logical argument against gay marriage, or even one that includes any science. I would be very interested in one, myself.
I also haven't heard of anyone trying to save "family values" by doing anything to support the traditional family. Poor people don't get married because they might lose welfare, elders shack up to save their retirement benefits. I've thought of getting a divorce myself - just to reduce my income tax bill!
Why always a stick, never a carrot? (That's a rhetorical question. It would require a wholesale group attitude shift to fix this.)
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?
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.