![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 12 to 36 of 43. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
> But - what is marriage? In modern times it is two things. It can be a sacrement, blessed by a church, but not recognized by the governemt. And it is also a civil contract, which *is* recognized by the state.
I agree. This is the root of the issue. And maybe it can't be solved without splitting the terminology. So that no government entity recognizes marriage at all, leaving it purely a religious sacrament. And all government entities recognize something else, civil union or whatever, which is what people (any people) would get a license for, and which would be open to anyone.
Although that still leaves plenty of room for argument. My not too far distant ancestors were second (or later) wives in polygamous marriages whose children were made illegitimate when Utah joined the United States, which led to disastrous economic consequences for my one step down ancestors. Should civil unions be limited to two individuals? Custom in many cultures would dictate otherwise. Is it fair to impose western values on polygamy?
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:35:55
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:57:15
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
Good questions. Some would say that polygamy is the slippery slope that gay marriage would start.
Others say just limit it to two.
These days the children of your second-step ancestors would have as much right to inheritance as the first-step ones, so it isn't as important an issue as it was then.
But - even among religions there isn't just one answer. I heard a guy on the radio the other day - a talk show about this very topic. The guy was a (Christian, but I didn't catch which branch) preacher and he was talking about divorce. He said that according to the bible there is only one valid reason for divorce - adultery. If you are beaten within an inch of your life you can move away, but you can't divorce or remarry.
Another reason to keep civil and religious compacts separate, I think.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
An ability to discuss issues without getting personal.
I love it! Good job, guys.
Posted by ClearSkies on February 9, 2006, at 14:16:57
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
Way cool. Fun to watch!
:-)
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 15:24:56
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » AuntieMel, posted by ClearSkies on February 9, 2006, at 14:16:57
I think it's possible to discuss things without getting personal. I also think it's possible because all of us recognize that there actually *is* a problem.
I like the idea of separating the *sacrament* from the *institution*. The legal rights and priveleges would come from the institution while the sacramental aspect is conferred by the religion.
I don't have a problem with polyamorous or polygamous relationships though that's not my personal style, with an exception: The people involved in such a relationship ought to be able to support themselves as a family. I'll have to think about my position though, because there are monagamous relationships that don't support themselves well. hmmmmmm
Whatever the case, I hope that this country comes to realize that calling only heterosexual marriages legitimate does a disservice to a great many people.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 16:29:05
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 15:24:56
I think the problem that would come from multiperson legal unions would be the cost of benefits. But maybe they could fix that by increasing the base salary and having the benefits being a pre-tax deduction that each person pays for. I don't know.
My only requirement for legal unions would be the ability of all parties involved for informed consent. That would outlaw some of the most slippery slope forms of union.
The entire concept of separating the sacramental and legal aspects of what is now jointly known as marriage, and thus removing the emotional overtones of what it means to have a "marriage" seems so logical that I'm sure I'm missing something.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 21:35:45
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
And fun too!
We have started having "political" discussions at the dinner table. World events anyway, and especially local events.
It's sort of fun because with little ears around, not only do I have to be civil, but I feel compelled to give both sides of every argument so that he can feel free to come to his own conclusions. No matter how strongly I feel about a topic.
I'm certain I don't come across completely impartially, but I do enjoy the mental stimulation of finding good things to say about opposing points of view.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 22:27:35
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 21:35:45
Dinah,
I like to stay open, but I'm glad that I don't have to come up with something positive to say about prohibiting marriage of other than heterosexual couples. Still, I'd never fight against a church's right to preach against this, only to try to pass laws against it. Oh yeah... I'd fight Rev. Phelps ability to protest funerals, etc. I think that's obscene.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 23:47:27
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » Dinah, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 22:27:35
Well there are a few topics where I won't even try (racism, Hitler, etc.), and others where I can only say "some people believe". But even with those topics, I try to place them in context so that he at least understands the historical basis that had influences on the result.
For example, I in no way excuse the Holocaust or a quest for world domination, but I do explain the financial devastation Germany experienced after WWI and how that ripened the environment for what happened. And how important it is not to humiliate a defeated nation.
And I don't present the viewpoint of people who hate on the basis of race. But I do explain that the world changed around older people who were taught one thing in their youth and another now. And how reasonably decent people can try to do what's right, but how hard it is to overcome a lifetime of learning, and how confusing life can be when everything you thought you knew turns out to be wrong by current standards.
I guess it's along the lines of learning to reject actions while having a certain amount of compassion for how they came to be.
I don't know. Maybe it's wrong of me. But I guess it's got something to do with the religious idea of hating the sin but not the sinner, or the Montessori idea of being sad that someone made a bad choice. Or maybe just the hope for redemption.
I guess I don't want him growing up to hate.
Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2006, at 0:05:10
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » deirdrehbrt, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 23:47:27
Believe it or not, I actually pride myself on my cynicism.
But that's different than hating.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 1:29:16
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by Dinah on February 10, 2006, at 0:05:10
Dinah,
Ok... I understand that, and I guess that's the way I try to live my life too. I can have compassion for another's beliefs. For example: I don't particularly like the current Pope, but I don't hold him accountable for having been involved in the Nazi youth movement in his childhood. That wasn't his choice, and I don't think that he holds to the beliefs promoted by that organization. I don't like his stance on alot of issues, but he's not making rules for me anymore. That's the Catholic church, which I'm no longer a part of.
My children still attend there, with my ex, but I think they have more liberal views. They can decide for themselves what they believe, though I hope they won't grow to reject me, and I don't think they will.
My oldest daughter is now in an inter-ratial relationship. When she first brought it up with me, I think she was trying to shock me, but I really don't have a problem with it at all, and let her know that. I'm kind of sad that she might have even thought that I might have a problem, but then again, she hadn't spoken to me in about four years so I didn't really have the opportunity to discuss dating with her.
As I've been thinking about things, I realized that I really need to consider my opinions about compelling a religious organization, as an employer, to hire people who live a lifestyle which is in opposition to that organization's beliefs. If I believe that organization should be free to uphold it's beliefs, shouldn't that extend to it's hospitals, schools, and the like? Isn't that still part of the church?
I don't know... there's lots to think about. Just as much as I don't want the religious right creating laws that interfere with my life, I don't think it's fair for the courts to tell a religious organization how they should be run. Freedom should be extended in both directions.
I've even come to terms with the Boy Scout's stand on homosexuality. There are legitimate alternatives. Spiral Scouts is a growing organization that is much more open. Still, I wish that GLBT people didn't have to search for alternatives.
Maybe one day society will be more sexually mature and less afraid of the differences among us. I hope so.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 8:43:14
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » Dinah, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 1:29:16
"As I've been thinking about things, I realized that I really need to consider my opinions about compelling a religious organization, as an employer, to hire people who live a lifestyle which is in opposition to that organization's beliefs. If I believe that organization should be free to uphold it's beliefs, shouldn't that extend to it's hospitals, schools, and the like? Isn't that still part of the church?"
I guess that depends, but then I think there ought to be a line drawn between what is considered 'church' (tax exempt) and 'business' (tax paying.)
So many churches these days are also multi-million corporations. I doubt if anyone had this in mind when they made churches tax exempt.
As far as employment - and the benefits that come with it - I think if that school or hospital were to take *any* taxpayer money - even school vouchers or federal school loans - that it should also be subject to EEOC.
Luckily schools and hospitals are all short staffed enough that no one should need to work where they aren't wanted.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 10:39:37
In reply to Re: employment, posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 8:43:14
AnutieMel,
I suppose you're right... I just think I needed to think about it to figure out where I am. I wonder if the religious aid organization that provide services overseas are bound by the same laws?
I have'nt figured out my entire position, and I guess that's why I posted on this thread... it helps to hear other viewpoints to either solidify or modify my own.
Thanks for making me think.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 13:38:35
In reply to Re: employment, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 10:39:37
It's a complicated issue. Many, many shades of grey.
I think there would be room for a compromise of sorts if people could get past their emotions and talk.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2006, at 23:50:08
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:10:57
> I don't find that the sanctity of christian marriages means very much
>
> There are only two possible motives for the christian right to wish to deny the right to marry to the LGBT community:
> 1. to impose their religious beliefs on a country.
> 2. To stamp out a way of life that they do not agree with.
>
> for the religious right to say that their rules come from love is being disingenuous at best.I know this is an issue that's important to you, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
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 posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by lynn971 on February 11, 2006, at 0:25:51
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » lynn971, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:50:18
Fair enough. I see your point.
I am just afraid that one day, christians will lose their rights to assemble in a church, or be arrested for preaching the gospel like in some countries.
Your friend,
Lynn
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 11, 2006, at 10:47:43
In reply to Re: ok » deirdrehbrt, posted by lynn971 on February 11, 2006, at 0:25:51
Lynn, I hope that never happens. I would fight it tooth and bone. As I said, I'm not anti-christian at all. I have tremendous respect for Christ and his teaching.
The ONLY thing that I object to is casting religious beliefs into law. Allowing gays to marry doesn't interfere with your practice of your faith, does it?
No-one has ever contested (with one exception that Ill get to) a preacher's right to say what they want from the pulpit. That one exception, which I whole-heartedly disagree with, states that they aren't allowed to speak of politics.... for or against a candidate from the pulpit. If a church does that, they lose their tax-exempt status. I think that law is a crock. A preacher should be able to speak out against a candidate that they view as dangerous or evil.
I don't remember if this is a state or national law, but some churches have gone so far as to give up their tax exempt status. That's sad, and maybe the churches should petition the ACLU to give them their freedom of speech from the pulpit.
In any event, I, nor people like me pose no threat to any religion's right to assemble or preach what they want. I have no issue with what you preach to your members. I do have an issue when a church legislates it's morals and denies a full 10% of the population the right to marry. I further object that they do so, claiming the sanctity of an institution (marriage) that in half the cases does not survive.
If the churches want a sacrament of marriage, they can have it. If they don't want to marry gay people, they don't have to. But there is no reason on the Goddess' green earth why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in a church that permits it, or in a civil ceremony.
I challenge you to find a legitimate reason why gays being permitted to marry would threaten your relationship with your god or with your partner. It can't happen, not if you have a real faith and a real devotion.
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 11, 2006, at 11:40:57
In reply to Re: please be civil » deirdrehbrt, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2006, at 23:50:08
Dr. Bob,
You're tootin' it's important.
Gays have been KILLED for being gay. Gays get beat up in night clubs, on the streets, in schools, etc. Gays have protests at their funerals by anti-gay organizations. Schools that are supportive of gays get hate mail and protests. It's just as hard for the transgendered community.
As far as uncivil goes, I recommend a read from a very conservative fundamental web site. Please don't look at this if you are very easily offended.****CAUTION****
****This link contains uncivil and vulgar material directed at the GLBT community by a church****http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2006/20060204_leavenworth-high.pdf
****End of uncivil and vulgar material****
((((I'm hoping that pointing to a source of truly uncivil language isn't itself considered uncivil. I'm just trying to show the attitudes that I am fighting against.))))
This is today folks. This is what the GLBT community has to put up with. This is what we are fighting.
I know that not all churches are this bad, this hateful, this outrageous. Still, a great many of them are actively anti-gay. They attribute all manner of evil against us. They say that if gay marriage is permitted, that we are going to raise up children for NAMBLA, or to be gay themselves.
Again, this isn't ALL churches, but it is MANY churches.
Personally, in the face of what I see coming at the LGBT community, and what I read directed against me, and the people I love, I believe that I was being civil. I called no-one names. I threatened no-one. I questioned motives, and institutions, but I called no-one evil. Nor did I use vile or vulgar language.
If you can find a way to state desperately important things, highly charged things effectively but more *civilly*, please let me know. I believed I was challenging, and don't believe there is a way to present this material without being so.
If you want me to, I'll avoid posting about important and emotionally charged issues.
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 12, 2006, at 2:18:50
In reply to NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
A little history about me...
In 1979, I joined the USAF. Partly... ok... mostly to prove that I could be a man... that I wasn't really going to hell because I knew I wasn't a man. I served through some troubled times. I became a supervisor, and had some wonderful people working for me.
When I left in 1983, I was ready to be promoted to Staff sergeant, and I had earned the Air Force Commendation medal. I had done well.
Later on, I joined the Air National Guard, partly I guess for the same reasons, and partly to save my marriage. While there, I again did work that I was proud of. I really would have liked to continue my career, but they became aware of my therapy, and my transgendered status. We trannies aren't fit to serve in the military. We're mentally ill, and may alter our genetalia. Both of these are grounds for dismissal.
During my time in the military, and outside, I spent 25 years in music ministry in my church. While I was in, I taught Vacation Bible School. I tried really hard to believe... In the Christian church, and that God would "fix" me. I realize now that it didn't happen because I'm not broken as the church defined it. Stuff happens, wires get crossed, and plumbing just might not match the brain. An accident of nature, but definitely not sin. Same thing with being gay or lesbian. Brains are wired just a bit differently. Nothing sick or sinfull... it's just the way they are.
I'll admit that I was later found to be Bipolar, and Borderline, which would have ended my career anyway, but that's not why I was discharged. (At least they gave me an honorable, but I'm prohibited from ever serving in any branch again.)
There is such prejudice and intolerance an hatred directed against the GLBT community that it's impossible to discuss it without passion. I loved being in the military. But even there I remember people telling gay jokes because "That's the only people we can joke about without getting into trouble". Those who were gay or lesbian couldn't say anything for fear of being outed. The "don't ask don't tell" policy meaning that you just had to suck it up and deal with it.
The safe person to go to would be the chaplain... maybe. Even there, the best you could hope for would be for them to say "Pray to god to remove this terrible curse from you" or something similar.
Finally, I've decided to live my life the way the Goddess meant for me to live it. I'm still frightened. Someone might decide they need to beat the crap out of me, as they have to so many others. Should I want to get married again, I don't know if I'll be permitted to. If I die, my family would likely try to change my name to reflect my birth name on any stone that I might have as they don't accept me as anything other than their son.
So... to any who think that I wish to stifle any church from preaching what they will, I offer that I served in the military to prevent just that. If I were permitted, I would still be doing so today. It's ironic... I served to preserve the right to preach against what I was ultimately discharged for.
For those who think being GLBT is a sin, rather than a fact of birth, rest assured that I have given God my all to try and change... "even unto the point of death" having tried suicide many times thinking that death would be preferable to continue living a life of sin. God didn't give me strenght or healing to change. In the Goddess though, I have found that I can live the life I was given without shame or condemnation.
I wish that people could understand what it is like to be a part of society that so many people hate: To see people protesting people who are like you, dancing on their graves, getting beat up, etc. The closest that I can come to that is this: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1769/gayday.htm
It's certainly not real, but Beverly (owner of the site) has given a chance for some sort of experience (without having to worry about someone thinking you're really gay).
To those who are afraid of civil rights for the GLLBT community, I'm terribly sorry. I'm sorry for what you have been told about us, that you think we are in any way dangerous. I've heard the stories too: That we're child mollesters, that we want to raise kids to be gay, that we'll try to destroy your churches, etc. The sad truth is that the percentage of gay child mollesters is the same as for the straight community. There are sick people in both our communities. We don't want to raise GLBT children. Can you honestly believe we want our kids to go through the hell we've been through? If we did, we would certainly be sick. And we don't want to destroy churches. Certainly there are those of us who would have liked to see our home church accept us, but I think most of us realize that isn't going to happen. As far as going to another church, no-one wants to be where they aren't welcome.
I apologize if anyone has taken any offense to anything I've said, in this post or in any previous ones. I've tried not to offend, but I find that when it comes to being GLBT, some people take offense at our mere existence, let alone our demand for equal rights under the law. As far as being civil, I think that I've been polite and courteous though I might have pushed some people beyond their comfort zones.
Personally, when discussing important things, I like to be pushed beyond my comfort zone. It makes me think. If I'm not challenged, if I'm not called to task on my beliefs and merely recite what's taught to me without thinking it through on my own, then my beliefs aren't really mine. They're borrowed. They belong to some preacher or some book or my parents, but they aren't my own until I've been challenged, been required to give them some thought, and earned the right to call them mine.
Years ago, when I was a christian, I was writing a musical with a friend of mine. It was titled "The Inheritance". It was about someone who had been born into a Christian family. This person had an "Inherited" faith. He thought he was saved. He thought he was a Christian. But when put to the test, he found that what he had inherited wasn't really his. His own faith had to be learned and earned and tested on it's own. What his parents had "given" him only gave him knowledge, but nothing substantial.
It's the same for all of us. What we read in a book, what we hear from the pulpit, what we learn from a teacher... none of this is really ours until we put it to the test. When it comes to civil rights, writing papers about it in school is fine, but if you don't get out there and say something... challenge someone and be challenged yourself, you're just having an opinion and staying safe.
Anyway..... I've written alot, and it's probably becaus of the cr*p going on with my roommates, and I can't get to sleep. I hope though that maybe you can better understand, now that you have some context, my strongly felt beliefs. This isn't a theoretical position for me. It's my life, and constitutional ammendments and laws and churches are trying to tell me, and people like me, that we are less than human; not deserving of the rights that others take for granted.
Anyway, enough ranting.
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by James K on February 12, 2006, at 18:35:39
In reply to Just to put a face on the picture..., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 12, 2006, at 2:18:50
I'm leaving the main subject a little, but I wanted to say I was raised Southern Baptist in the suburbs. even though I was an extreme liberal politically and a punk rock kid. I had prejudices. When I moved into the city, I was able to see the difference first, during that sad time when I saw skelatal men walking around as they deteriorated, then when I worked in a major book chain with a liberal hiring practice. Then I met and knew gay,lesbian and even transgendered people, and I often was the last to figure it out, and was sometimes a minority. Now close friends have stood by me and supported me through this time in my life for no reason other than who I am even though the young me or my family would be "against" them. Same for my wife. Her background is much more conservative than mine, but once we were free and allowed to think for ourselves, we made the unconscious decision to take people as they came.
Since you told your story, I'll share mine. My wife is 30 years older than me. We are "in the closet" to our families after 13 years of obviousness. I wish when people cast aspersions on us, I could tell them "if we were opposite sex, would you have the same problem?". The first people who were honest enough to ask "Are ya'll partners or roommates were my gblt friends. And it was such a relief to tell the truth.
I hope none of this is somehow patronizing, I feel it is neccassary to step carefully when comparing one issue to the other. Mainly, though, you love who you love.
James
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 12, 2006, at 21:40:16
In reply to Re: Just to put a face on the picture... » deirdrehbrt, posted by James K on February 12, 2006, at 18:35:39
James,
Thanks so much for sharing so much of yourself.
It's kind of interesting. The first time that I realized that I could truly be who I was, as opposed to who people wanted me to be was at a *wedding / commitment ceremony* between two men.
The ceremony itself was a wonder. It was at a UU church in Portsmouth NH. I attended it pre-transition. Until that time, I had always feared relationships with men. I was afraid someone might *find me out*. I learned something very important that day that I think most straight men will never have the opportunity of learning. That is that a kiss between two men doesn't have to be sexual. It can mean 'thank you', it can mean 'I'm so happy you're my friend', it can mean 'I love you', It can mean so much, but straight men are (for the most part) terrified to find this out.
That lesson will stick with me forever. I also learned that day that there are really people who can choose to be themselves and be happy. It took me quite a few years to implement that lesson though. Overcoming fear and personal prejudice (against myself) took a while. I never had a problem with other people being GLBT, but having it pounded into my head that I was going to hell because of it was hard to get over.
Anyway, thanks for the post. I'm really glad you shared. When it comes to gay marriage, I think that people look at it differently when it has to do with someone they know and are fond of. It's sort of like "Well, you two really love each other, and I love you both, so it's OK for you". (assuming they are able to bypass their biasses enough to get to know you) On a theoretical level, they still believe it's wrong. The stereotypes and lessons from the church still stick.
It's tough. I think that part of my mission in life is to show people that I'm not a monster. I need to love people, and let them get to know and love me. One of my roommates is this huge man who doesn't like transsexuals, probably doesn't like gays either. He likes me though. I hope that someday he translates that to others. If he can like one LGBT, maybe he can like others.
Sharing and telling your story are important. It helps dispel the negative ideas that people have about who we are. We're first, and foremost, people, just like them, with mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters, and possibly children. We have dreams and loves and likes and dislikes. We want to live out our lives with the people we love around us. We want good jobs and to care for our families, and to live in a safe place. We want to be able to marry the person whom we love and choose to spend the rest of our lives with. We want to contribute to our societies, and to be recognized for who we are. Nothing different from anybody else.
Maybe, if minds can be opened, we'll achieve that. As for now, a large part of that dream doesn't exist. It's still a dream.
Blessings,
--Deirdre
Posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 10:07:36
In reply to Just to put a face on the picture..., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 12, 2006, at 2:18:50
Beautifully written. Thank you.
I remember something my grandmother told me. It was odd, but she was always refreshingly honest.
"I've always been prejudiced against <insert group> but I don't know why. I've never met one I didn't like."
It's funny how our upbringing still affects us years afterwards. Our brains tell us that what we feel isn't rational, but getting our hearts to agree with our brains isn't so easy.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 10:20:27
In reply to Re: ok » deirdrehbrt, posted by lynn971 on February 11, 2006, at 0:25:51
Goodness knows I'm not exactly a religious person of any persuasion.
I'm just a believer that religion is a very, very personal thing, between a person, his family and their maker.
There are large differences in beliefs even among different Christian denominations, never mind between Christians and non-Christians.
Catholics and protestants even have different versions of the ten commandments.
If we were ever to officially become a "Christian" nation then whos version of Christianity would it be? Isn't that why the Puritans left the Anglicans to come over here?
I am a firm believer that everyone should be allowed to practice their faith (within reason) and no one should interfere.
<"within reason" means as long as it doesn't hurt others>
But I believe that the practicing of faith should be done in private institutions [homes, churches, etc] and not within public schools or other non-religious places.
Taken a step further, 'civil' unions and church sanctioned marriages should be totally separate entities. To me.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 15, 2006, at 15:00:32
In reply to Re: please be civil » deirdrehbrt, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2006, at 23:50:08
We were having a nice discussion, no tempers flaring and you had to pbc it???
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.