![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:43:01
In reply to Re: and in case it is in doubt » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 12:50:05
Disclosure: I am straight, female, and have been happily in a monogomous marriage for more than thirty five years. I am a self-educated Canadian, so what do I know about American politics? My US History teacher (I attended high school in U.S. for a couple of years) openly admitted he was in teaching just for the money.
Posted by snoozin on March 1, 2005, at 15:19:26
In reply to Re: and in case it is in doubt » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:43:01
Shows you what I know. I thought you were a male. "ray", you know. Sorry. :-)
> Disclosure: I am straight, female, and have been happily in a monogomous marriage for more than thirty five years. I am a self-educated Canadian, so what do I know about American politics? My US History teacher (I attended high school in U.S. for a couple of years) openly admitted he was in teaching just for the money.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:34:15
It is indeed hard to predict outcomes. But I also think it's crazymaking to try to think of all the scenarios. So I try to concentrate on figuring out what the most likely outcomes will be.
And, not knowing what you call all the facts, and what I would call the future, we do have to rely on our gut.
My gut tells me that if gay marriage is not prohibited then the marriages are likely to be much as most heterosexual ones are now. Many would work and be stable. Some would contain abuse and cheating, and there would be some divorces. What the numbers would be compared to current hetosexual ones are I don't know. Probably worse at first, then as society adjusts they would be about the same.
My gut also tells me that if things started going towards your worse-case scenarios there would be a point where huge numbers of people in both the gay and straight worlds would object and a line would be drawn.
The other question: "Should society feel an obligation to present belief in God as an option to the children?" I personally believe that no, society has no right teaching that to children, just as it has no right teaching that there is no god.
If god were brought into schools then the naturally curious kiddos would ask questions about the nature of god. At that point, they are likely to be taught that nature accordint to the particular teacher's beliefs. And as we all know there are as many different views on that as there are teachers. Even among Christians the views aren't the same.
So - best for all to let the schools stick to math, science, history, liturature and so on.
Teaching religion is the parents' job. (In my opinion of course.)
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:07:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
Then bright ones, let us solve the problem.
My gut tells me there is only one way to solve it. As you said, let parents teach their children.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:13:43
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
We will soon see this day, in fact it is here already, and it will only get worse. That is my own political prophecy.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:26:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:13:43
http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/10/35-36#36
Another scriptural twist to the idea. There are definately two scenarios here.
1. Gay marriage could certainly set parents and their children against one another
2. Belief in God could put families against each other too if one believes and another doesn't.Have you ever read the Bible, or parts of it? Why would or wouldn't you choose to read the world's most famous book?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 17:10:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:26:05
Why would it set parents and children apart, or families against each other? I guess it's possible it *could* but no reason that it *should* or *would*.
We (the two of us) can reasonably discuss things here and would probably get along quite well in person. I don't see any reason other people couldn't do the same thing.
And, yes I've read a fair amount of the bible. In varying translations. I've always found it interesting that different translations can have quite different meanings.
I've also found it interesting that there are such a large number of people that only follow the parts that agree with their own morality.
Do you eat shrimp?
Sorry. Bad question - that could be taken as baiting and that's not what I intend.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 17:10:06
You are detail oriented and quite analytical while I can barely remember the topic. If you're baiting me, I'm hooked. Now, why would you ask if I eat shrimp?
You are right about the meaning changing in the different translations of the Bible. Would you say the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly? What about the Book of Mormon? After 175 years it is finally being published. http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s03/hardy.html
Now, what was the topic? Is there a connection between the two books? When read together, even the shrimp issue is easier to understand.
Posted by gromit on March 2, 2005, at 0:15:26
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
The people who sue to remove the word "God" and stop kids from praying in school if they want are no less wrong that the people who want to ban gay marriage IMO.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:30:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
You make me sick. I have nothing more to say.
Ed.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
The world would be a better place without idiotic bigots like you.
Ed.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:34:01
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
Ray and I are having a reasonable discussion, I think. I haven't seen the bigoted rantings I've seen from other people.
I think it's actually a good thing to discuss it in a reasonable matter - but from different perspectives.
It's rare, I know, which is why I think it should be encouraged.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
Well, now we're getting back to the basic fact that I'm a non-believer.
Though for a believer I would think that a correct translation would *have* to be better than an incorrect one.
As for the Book of Mormon I have to claim complete and total ignorance, so it wouldn't be right for me to give any opinion.
Shrimp? The same book of Leviticus that is cited by those that say homosexuality is wrong also bans eating shellfish.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:43:12
In reply to Re: books, shrimp and translations » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
under the picture of the church sign there is a small link to the 'church sign generator' it's a lark.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 12:05:40
In reply to Re: books, shrimp and translations » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
The Supreme Court is hearing a case about having the ten commandments on display on public property. The case originated down here in Texas, so I've been following it.
One thing I've learned is that different denominations even within Christianity have their own version of the ten commandments.
The wording on the monument in Austin is the wording used by Lutherans, but rejected by Catholics and others.
I knew there were different wordings, to a degree, but never knew different denominations had "official" wordings.
Interesting.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 12:09:04
In reply to Re: diff translations - church and state » AuntieMel, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 12:05:40
Hi,
I just wanted to apologise for my posts, I was really upset when I posted and was also quite angry.
Ed.
Posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
> The world would be a better place without idiotic bigots like you.
>
> Ed.
Hey, I agree, the world would be a better place without idiotic bigots.
One of the wisest people I know is Dr. Suess. I don't actually know him, but know his work. Another person I admire is/was Walt Disney. Another C.S. Lewis.
These people all wore labels. Some labels we give ourselves, some others give us. We all seem to own our fair share of them.The problem I have with labels is that I can grow up under the umbrella of truth and wisdom in the home of a loving family. I can then go on into the next generation, and mirror what I learned in my home and so on to the 12th generation. We can live lives of community service, minding our own business, doing all that we can to help others, and someone will still label us idiotic bigots, homophobics, GDMormons, or whatever. Are you asking me to stop minding my own business and venture into yours?
I have not taken offense to the label you gave me because I know who I am.
The political issue over gay marriage is one deserving of clear and careful examination. What are your opinions and ideas for resolution? At best we can only hope for some kind of compromise, meaning both sides of the debate will have to give up something.
There are likely bigots and idiots on both sides of the debate, but there are also many who have tollerance and an open mind. Dr. Suess still said it best.
http://www.uulongview.com/sermons/bellies_with_stars.html
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 15:26:19
In reply to Designer Labels, posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
"The problem I have with labels is that I can grow up under the umbrella of truth and wisdom in the home of a loving family. I can then go on into the next generation, and mirror what I learned in my home and so on to the 12th generation. We can live lives of community service, minding our own business, doing all that we can to help others, and someone will still label us idiotic bigots, homophobics, GDMormons, or whatever. Are you asking me to stop minding my own business and venture into yours?"
That depends, doesn't it?
I think the desire Ed has is for *all* people to have the opportunity to grow up with a loving family, live quiet happy lives trying to help others.
Pardon me if I'm speaking out of turn Ed.
As for the political problem, wouldn't the first issue be to define what "marriage" means. Right now it is used interchangeably as a religious ceremony and as a civil contract, recognized by the government.
And I doubt if anyone truly wants religious entities to be forced to perform gay weddings.
But to be treated equally under the civil law is quite another matter.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 15:33:52
In reply to Re: Hi, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 12:09:04
I figured that was the case. I just was trying to keep the conversation philosophical, not personal.
Care to join in?
Did you enjoy the link?
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 3, 2005, at 14:38:35
In reply to Re: Designer Labels » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 15:26:19
If I marry again, the next time will surely be to a woman. The wedding will probably be held in a court house, as was my first. And, I'm going to make sure those commandments are no where to be seen!
emmy -- voicing 2 political opinions with one stone
Posted by ed_uk on March 4, 2005, at 7:11:00
In reply to Designer Labels, posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
Hello,
I'm sorry for what I said.
>The political issue over gay marriage is one deserving of clear and careful examination. What are your opinions and ideas for resolution?
I don't think I can join in with this discussion because I know I will get upset. It is a very personal issue for me.
Regards,
Ed.
Posted by rayww on March 4, 2005, at 8:07:20
In reply to Re: Designer Labels » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 4, 2005, at 7:11:00
I'm sorry. thank-you for your apology and for being so honest.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 5, 2005, at 13:21:31
In reply to Re: Designer Labels » ed_uk, posted by rayww on March 4, 2005, at 8:07:20
In my opinion..
I had an entirely civil (ie, non-religious) wedding.. By law in England, if you have a non-church wedding, no mention of anything even slightly religious is allowed.. You can't have religious music (eg, walking down the aisle to Ava Maria), no prayers, no mention of God etc etc.
I am married, legally, to my husband, and that gives me certain legal rights. If he were to die intestate, I would be his next of kin to inherit. If he were in a serious accident, I am next of kin to make medical decisions..
Why shouldn't a gay person have these same rights?
And rayww's comment "A marriage is a contract that carries within it the power to create".. No, sexual intercourse is what carries the power to create.. Marriage isn't needed, or required, to have children. I haven't married to have children.. I married as I love my husband and we wanted to recognise that legally and in front of friends and family.
I fail to understand WHY a gay person should not have the same rights in a relationship as my husband and I do.
I'm lucky that I'm in the UK, and gay marriage is shortly to be made legal.
I hear alot about the seperation of Church and State from the US, so surely this should be viewed in a purely political way?
And rayww - as for living life according the bible.. I don't really fancy animal sacrifice after giving birth, or having to hide myself away while menstruating thanks.
Nikki
Posted by rayww on March 5, 2005, at 19:24:11
In reply to marriage isn't religious.., posted by NikkiT2 on March 5, 2005, at 13:21:31
Thank-you NikkiT2 for entering this discussion. I would like to reply to several of your ideas/opinions, in the five minutes I have here. I hundred percent support civil union and believe in freedom of choice and its positive or negative consequenses within and without the framework of law.
When you speak of separating religion and politics what do you mean? Do you mean that any civil law that is the same as a commandment should be excluded? What came first religion or politics? By the fact that the ten commandments have been altered in their many translations is evidence that politics has interfered with religion over the ages. I don't see how law can be separated between religion and politics concerning right and wrong because both are based on belief. If you can explain this to me I may be able to understand.
To some people marriage isn't religious, but to many cultures it is. Marriage is central to my religion, not just the till death do we separate eternally type, but the real McCoy, eternal marriage. There is no marrying in heaven, it has to be performed on earth by the proper authority. Then if you add the commandments, one of which is not to commit adultry - - meaning sex outside the bond of legal marriage - - and if you change the law to include gay marriage, then adultry has changed. It is now permissable to have sex between members of the same sex, or man and woman, and as long as you are in either bond then you are in good standing with God. In my opinion you cannot separate religion from politics on this issue. It must be named something other than marriage. Rights and privileges can be offered, but they must be different, not entirely the same. It must be a different type of contract. Either way, as I opinionize this, there must be a compromise from both sides to make it work.
And, of your last comment, the points you referred to were of the law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ. All of those rituals were actually to symbolize the coming of Christ, and a reminder of His sacrifice, which they didn't understand at that time, in our behalf. There is so much more to all of this that most just cannot comprehend or understand. I am trying to understand both sides. Please enlighten me more.
> In my opinion..
>
> I had an entirely civil (ie, non-religious) wedding.. By law in England, if you have a non-church wedding, no mention of anything even slightly religious is allowed.. You can't have religious music (eg, walking down the aisle to Ava Maria), no prayers, no mention of God etc etc.
>
> I am married, legally, to my husband, and that gives me certain legal rights. If he were to die intestate, I would be his next of kin to inherit. If he were in a serious accident, I am next of kin to make medical decisions..
>
> Why shouldn't a gay person have these same rights?
>
> And rayww's comment "A marriage is a contract that carries within it the power to create".. No, sexual intercourse is what carries the power to create.. Marriage isn't needed, or required, to have children. I haven't married to have children.. I married as I love my husband and we wanted to recognise that legally and in front of friends and family.
>
> I fail to understand WHY a gay person should not have the same rights in a relationship as my husband and I do.
>
> I'm lucky that I'm in the UK, and gay marriage is shortly to be made legal.
>
> I hear alot about the seperation of Church and State from the US, so surely this should be viewed in a purely political way?
>
> And rayww - as for living life according the bible.. I don't really fancy animal sacrifice after giving birth, or having to hide myself away while menstruating thanks.
>
> Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 6, 2005, at 3:33:30
In reply to Re: marriage isn't religious.., posted by rayww on March 5, 2005, at 19:24:11
Which came first, politics or religion..
Well, um, It would have to be politics. Civilised man was around alot earlier than religion.. Laws were around in England LONG before Christianity reached these shores..
By religion, do you mean Christianity? Because Buddhism was around thousands of years before Christianity.
You said "Marriage is central to my religion,".. I think the word that needs to stand out in that sentence is *my*. Its only central to YOUR religion, not everyones..
And ofcourse I don't think that all laws that match with, say a commandment, should be removed. I just believe that the bible was an early form of political statement.. A way to live 2000 or what ever years ago. But its now the 21st Century, and we have perfectly good systems of government in the UK, the US, Australia and other western countries, so, in my opinion, laws should be made, regardless of religion.
Civil marriage is a perfectly acceptable way for hetorosexual people to marry. Its a legal contract with NO religious involvement (Though I believe in the US, you can have a civil marriage that involves some religius aspect).. Why should that legal contract, in a legal context, be removed from a large section of the population, simply because they are homosexual.
Why should a homosexual man not be able to make medical decisions, as next of kin, for his partner of, say, 20 years? Why should he not be able to take on his partners pension after his death as a hetorosexual person would be able to?
I'm speaking about it in a purely legal sense. I know that a religious marriage is about pro-creation, and I can completely understand why the Church and its members would be against religious homosexual marriage.
You say "Rights and privileges can be offered, but they must be different, not entirely the same.". Why must rights and privileges be different? What rights must be different?
And why not call it marriage? My husband and I call ourselves married, and we called what we went through a marriage. No God involved, no religion. Just our love, and sharing that with friends and family, and making our future more secure within the legal frame work that constitues marriage.
I, I admit, completely fail to understand what it is about homosexuality that it should be sectioned off from such a large part of what makes our society. But then, I was bought up believing EVERYONE is equal, and that everyone should be afforded equal rights, and that someones sexuality isn't something to fear. But I guess, even though I was bought up in a small town, my mum had a number of gay friends, that had been her friends since high school in the 1950's, so it was nothing out of the ordinary for me at all (and meant I was also the best dressed 5 year old in town *L*).
At the end of the day, love is love. And in this day and age, (the era of aids) I believe monogomany between any two people should be encouraged.
Nikki x
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.