![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 63 to 87 of 127. Go back in thread:
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?
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
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.