![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 18:22:05
In reply to Re: Marriage definition » seldomseen, posted by rayww on November 9, 2008, at 9:40:49
Women were not allowed to inherit property in the past, and not all that long ago. Just ask Cokie Roberts about how her mother, Lindy Boggs, could not inherit her husband's estate even though she could take his seat in Congress. That legal concept has adapted as we've realized that women are in fact equal human beings (in general...I won't get started on true equality). Similarly, we've adapted laws to eliminate different rights based on race. Those are good things, right? We shouldn't leave the law as it was written just because that's what some could interpret was the intent, should we?
Gender and race are differences that can actually be measured to some extent. Sexual preference is a difference in behavior and feelings and cannot be measured tangibly within the human, as in by DNA or physical differences in organs. So why are folks of different gender and race allowed the privilege to marry, but not folks who only express a difference in behavior and thoughts? Can nose-pickers marry? How about parting your hair or not, on the right or not?
I believe God created us all equal. Any discrimination that occurs is a human concept, not a divine one, imo.
Oh, and by the way, most research on the subject demonstrates that children brought up by two parents of the same gender are no more likely to be gay than those brought up by a parent of each gender. In addition, they are no more likely to develop social or emotional problems than those brought up by a man and a woman as parents. They are no more likely to be abused. I'm not sure what children with same sex parents need to be specially protected from. Finally, same sex parents can and do have children through sperm and/or egg donations and adoption. There's no evidence to support that the population would disappear if folks of the same sex were allowed to marry.
gg
Posted by Deputy Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 19:00:55
In reply to Re: Marriage definition » seldomseen, posted by rayww on November 9, 2008, at 9:40:49
> I didn't find out there was such a thing as same sex attraction until in my teens. It didn't hurt me not to know about that disorder.
> You are twisting something and spinning it, please...
Ray, I understand you feel strongly about this issue, but please follow site guidelines, and please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. And please be sensitive to those who are attracted to others of the same sex.
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.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by turtle on November 9, 2008, at 20:36:52
In reply to Re: Marriage definition » seldomseen, posted by rayww on November 9, 2008, at 9:40:49
> When you replentish something you make it fertile and grow. If we replentish the earth with same sex marriage, it will stop. (duh)
>Very interesting!
I am a lesbian. I have a biological child who is very much loved and thriving in the care of both of her mommies. Who I am is much more complex than can be defined than by my choice of sexual partner alone, as you are more than the fact that you have sex with a man. I am not promiscuous, immoral, or trying to take anything away from you. I'm not contagious, the earth will not be wiped out by my getting Married. Separate is not equal, it's discrimination.
I wonder why you feel so threatened?
The big difference I see between us (other than our sexual orientation) is that I try my best to be supportive and understanding of differences in others, a trait I am happy to say I am successfully passing on to my child. She's only 3, but already she gets it.
I'm sorry that you are filled with so much anger and fear. That must be very difficult to live with.
I wish you Peace.
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 20:54:35
In reply to Marriage definition, posted by rayww on November 8, 2008, at 13:16:55
I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. But why limit it to two people?
A fair amount of trouble was caused in my family by the interference of the federal government into legal (at the time) polygamous marriages. My greatgrandparents happened to be children of second wives who were in one stroke of the pen made illegitimate and certainly didn't receive equal inheritances. If the definition of marriage is to be opened up, why limit it to two people? My ancestors had committed three member relationships (both happened to be three member, although I understand there were sometimes more) that seemed to work well enough for them.
It's always kind of bothered me that my poor respectable great great grandmothers had their marriages invalidated when Utah joined the Union. There should have at the very least been a grandfather clause, so to speak.
Posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 21:40:22
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by turtle on November 9, 2008, at 20:36:52
Posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 21:40:59
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 20:54:35
Posted by yxibow on November 9, 2008, at 21:45:40
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 20:54:35
> I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. But why limit it to two people?
>
> A fair amount of trouble was caused in my family by the interference of the federal government into legal (at the time) polygamous marriages. My greatgrandparents happened to be children of second wives who were in one stroke of the pen made illegitimate and certainly didn't receive equal inheritances. If the definition of marriage is to be opened up, why limit it to two people? My ancestors had committed three member relationships (both happened to be three member, although I understand there were sometimes more) that seemed to work well enough for them.
>
> It's always kind of bothered me that my poor respectable great great grandmothers had their marriages invalidated when Utah joined the Union. There should have at the very least been a grandfather clause, so to speak.It was a federal decision for Utah to enter the union. Its now enforced by Utah tightly.
Lots of things in the past were influenced by federal decision, such as I believe if you are part of our volunteer army, or the peace corps, that if you are an adult at 18, you should be able to drink at 18, and not overseas where its allowed to some extent, but here.
Alas, states that still were 18 with alcohol, again were threatened to remove highway funding. Nobody wanted potholes so slowly in the 80s the last states converted to 21.
As for gay marriage -- it was a single issue here, I'm not going to name the group that poured money into it because I'm trying to be civil -- its hard to though when you're arguing politics, because I believe it is a fundamental right for myself and does not invalidate anybody's heterosexual, homosexual, non-married cohabitation, marriage.
I'm agnostic. I don't believe religion should govern push button issues in our country and Lincoln would be turning over in his grave as well as our founding fathers who were largely secular. We are among the few Western countries where this is such a guiding principle.
Such as ...one nation indivisible... and then the 50s added one nation "under god" indivisible...
Far be it from me to define what people believe themselves in their religion, but as our country is a collection of cultures, no religion should dominate and inculcate values in our country. Religion should be a private practice, to comfort those who need a hope or definition of things that cannot be explained.
Some day this will change in this country, but not if values are continuously entering politics.
Our nation was founded under a fundamental separation of church and state.
Our nation also is an evolving nation, with evolving cultures that endured harassment, bigotry, and hate crimes and managed to succeed generations later.
And this evolving nation also includes gay and lesbian individuals such as myself, who should be recognized just as any other person.
And the rights bestowed, which are about 1,200, should be given to those who are in a loving commitment to each other.
I am the product of the second generation of Stonewall, and I now see the third generation, and it is curious how they forget what brought them there.
My OCD though went through lots of phases, was largely started by my sexuality. My parents are not particularly overtly sexual, I was never chastised by religion in the family. It was magical thinking and worry about what people at school would think about what was actually very private. Yes, OCD is a biological condition for life basically, but psychological issues are usually a trigger for it to break out.
I have gotten to a point where I take my sexuality for granted -- I would never "choose" to be so, I am so, I was born so. Who would choose to be such a minority in the country and face discrimination and finding a partner a difficult journey?
I chose to be a vegetarian -- that's quite different, that's another minority.
I didn't choose to be mentally ill -- who would choose to be that ? Its an extra struggle in your life. I was born with a tendency.
I have a religion but I'm not religious, I'm agnostic. I identify with the Jewish culture but I don't really go to temple. So I'm multiple minorities.
But to make an aside, I don't think people should define themselves by their illness, but rather by their strengths and interests. That's a projection, because I have a tendency to forget that. Anyhow, its just a side comment.
May we all some day live in this country, regardless of political views and "red" and "blue", not having multiple issues of a religious nature placed on ballots. You can't argue with religion and science and the separation of church and state all the same time.
All the millions that were spent on one proposition could have gone to charity or anything else.
Anyhow, good will to all men and women -- yes that is a religious aphorism, but I'll say it in a civil manner to extend across the aisles shall I say.
-- Jay
Posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 22:09:09
In reply to Or Grandmother clause, as it were? ;) (nm) » Dinah, posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 21:40:59
Posted by Nadezda on November 9, 2008, at 23:32:28
In reply to Marriage definition, posted by rayww on November 8, 2008, at 13:16:55
I agree with the points made by others, but also, marriage is a legal and social as well as-- or more than-- a religious event. As such, it doesn't matter what the Bible says about it, or what God hypothetically intended. What matters is that we have a legal institution, and cultural or social expectations, and rules that govern these. The rules and definitions can change over time, as with women's property rights, or women's not being property.
Moreover, having children is not by any means definitional of marriage; obviously, many married people don't have children, and never intended to. Does that make them any less married? Of course not. Since having children had nothing to do with their being "married," it clearly has no necessary relationship to the institution. As far as I can see, this stipulation is always mentioned primarily because it's the one aspect of marriage that gay people can't do (in a literal sense). It's used to create a seemingly essential barrier to their being married-- when there really is no per se difference between gay and heterosexual relationships.
While I see that some people of religious belief have a sense that it violates their idea of marriage, it doesn't violate mine in the least. There are some rights that simply shouldn't be subject to majority rule.
Nadezda
Posted by Bobby on November 10, 2008, at 0:08:22
In reply to Marriage definition, posted by rayww on November 8, 2008, at 13:16:55
His ring---her ring---and suffering. the God I grew up serving(well, attempting to serve) gave all humankind the choice between heaven and hell. So ,given the weight of that decision, I naturally assume that everything else falls under the catagory of secondary decisions. I have always taken the stance that when I die and have to answer for your sins----then I'll try to tell you what to do with your life-----until then--it's not my business--as I've got my hands full just looking after my own affairs. the masses frequently vote impulsively--and of course there's my buddy who swears that stupidity reigns supreme. However, I believe that Democracy, with all of it's shortcomings, is still the fairest way to represent the population as a whole. One overlooked aspect of such a vote is the financial ramifications---such as healthcare, ect... for these new unions. And we all know that the economics can rival religious convictions. It's a tricky subject matter to be sure. I find myself in a battle with my upbringings and the fact that I know decent folks on the left as well. In conclusion---I think there is some validity in the rights of the individual state governments. The people effected most should have their vote counted and perhaps people of like mind could gravitate to said areas. I'm trying to understand this based on the experiences that have shaped my being. Until a judgement is rendered--I'm siding with Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:11:42
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by turtle on November 9, 2008, at 20:36:52
Turtle, thank you.
The gay people I know would be excellent parents.
They have thought about their lives.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:21:12
In reply to Re: Marriage definition » seldomseen, posted by rayww on November 9, 2008, at 9:40:49
Humanity has replenished the earth, to the extent that we have wrecked it.
What is this word 'replenished' anyway?
Did the earth ever need replenishing?
Was that after Noah?
If I could organise the animals of this earth.......
Posted by caraher on November 10, 2008, at 10:54:36
In reply to Replenishing the earth, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:21:12
> Humanity has replenished the earth, to the extent that we have wrecked it.
>
> What is this word 'replenished' anyway?
>
> Did the earth ever need replenishing?
>
> Was that after Noah?
>
> If I could organise the animals of this earth.......That's one thing I think environmentalists chronically get wrong... the planet needs no saving. It was around long before us, and will continue long after we are gone. Ditto not just for the planet, but also for life on Earth.
The question before is is always what life on Earth will be like, and whether we have a part in that. And what that part will be.
And I see little danger of there not being enough babies to go around. We've been plenishing and replenishing quite effectively, thank you, and if even a sizable minority chooses to sit this process out we should be grateful for their decision, given the stresses we've placed on Earth's resources
Posted by Toph on November 10, 2008, at 12:44:57
In reply to Marriage definition, posted by rayww on November 8, 2008, at 13:16:55
Marriage is first a private promise between two people to remain faithful partners. Some feel the need to make this promise publicly. Others also involve their faith. Government got into the marriage business mainly because of the need to regulate property and other financial issues when the parnership prematurely dissolves through a broken promise or by death. None of the above provisions need be precluded to the application of a promise made by individuals of the same sexual orientation as they would have similar benefit.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 13:43:33
In reply to Re: Replenishing the earth, posted by caraher on November 10, 2008, at 10:54:36
I forget what proportion of mammalian species in Australia could do with replenishment.
My guess is that 1/3 has gone and 1/3 to go if climate science is right, but I just made that up.
That's not good. Life will survive, but not some of the ecosystems.
And when we have 12 billion people, how much factory farming will we need?
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 10, 2008, at 20:58:13
In reply to Replenishing the earth, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:21:12
Ya, and over-population is a MAJOR problem! Once again, 'Humans' have *&^%ed it all up. Use a (insert very, very bad 'F' word here) condom! Man to man, women and men, who give a sheet.People in Western countries seem not to care when an earthquake kills 30,000 people in Iran. Us 'Westerners' think we have a right to overpopulate, pollute, just trash the planet the way we trash a Big Mac wrapper. Well, good ole' Maama Nature is not liking it, and is fighting back. Hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, all components of Global Warming. (Oh, and for any doubters, go tell the folks at NASA that you think they are just all silly folks getting hot and bothered over some tiny thing. Heck, we don't need all that Science 'stuff', we got 'Little House on the Prairie' and Col. Saunders!!) Here are the words to a song that explains it all...it's a song called *ssh*l* (Everybody knows one of these..lol.:)
You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadilac El Dorado Convertable
Hot pink!
With whale skin hub caps
An all leather cow interior
And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights
YEAH!
And I'm gonna drive around in that baby
At 115 miles per hour
Getting one mile per gallon
Sucking down Quarter Pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fashioned non-biodegradable Styrofoam containers
And when I'm done sucking down those grease-ball burgers
I'm gonna wipe my mouth with the American flag
And then I'm gonna toss the Styrofoam containers right out the side
And there ain't a Goddamn thing anybody can do about it
You know why?
'Cause we got the bombs, that's why!
Two words: Nuclear F**kin' Weapons
Okay!?
Russia, Germany, Romania
They can have all the Democracy they want
They can have a big Democracy cake walk
Right through the middle of Tienemen Square
And it won't make a lick of difference
Because we got the bombs
Okay!?
John Wayne's not dead
He's frozen!
And as soon as we find a cure for cancer We're gonna thaw out "The Duke"
And he's gonna be pretty pissed off
You know why?
Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well, multiply that by 15 million times
That's how pissed off "The Duke"'s gonna be
I'm gonna get "The Duke"
And John Cassavetes
And Lee Marvin
And Sam Peckinpah
And a case of whiskey
And drive down to Texas
And-
(Hey, Hey! You know you really are an *ssh*l*)
Why don't you just shut-up and sing the song, pal?
You know, the whole time I thought I was that *ssh*l*
And it turns out it was him
What an *ssh*l*!
Jay :)
Posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 21:19:14
In reply to Re: Replenishing the earth, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 10, 2008, at 20:58:13
> People in Western countries seem not to care when an earthquake kills 30,000 people in Iran. Us 'Westerners' think we have a right to overpopulate, pollute, just trash the planet the way we trash a Big Mac wrapper.
> You know what I'm gonna do?
> I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadilac El Dorado Convertable.Um, yeah. I'm not going to do that. I'll just continue to give $ to the Red Cross whenever disasters strike vulnerable places in the world. Oh yeah, and I'm from the west.
Pleast don't assume or generalize about other folks. I'd really like to admire your passion, but I can't see past what I perceive as anger interfering with your message. And I think that's a shame.
gg
Posted by rayww on November 10, 2008, at 23:05:29
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by Dinah on November 9, 2008, at 20:54:35
> I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. But why limit it to two people?
>
> A fair amount of trouble was caused in my family by the interference of the federal government into legal (at the time) polygamous marriages. My greatgrandparents happened to be children of second wives who were in one stroke of the pen made illegitimate and certainly didn't receive equal inheritances. If the definition of marriage is to be opened up, why limit it to two people? My ancestors had committed three member relationships (both happened to be three member, although I understand there were sometimes more) that seemed to work well enough for them.
>
> It's always kind of bothered me that my poor respectable great great grandmothers had their marriages invalidated when Utah joined the Union. There should have at the very least been a grandfather clause, so to speak.I hear you Dinah. It was the Edmunds Tucker Act passed in 1887. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdmundsTucker_Act
Abraham Lincoln in 1862 signed a bill but didn't have the funds to support it, so chose to ignore it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Bigamy_Act
Mormons started practicing polygamy in 1852. My ancestry is similar to yours. In fact I wouldn't be here either.
I have often wondered if the government decided to relax the marriage laws if we would go back to 1852.
Let me just ask the gay community if they would tolerate Mormons practicing polygamy, not saying that we would, but how do you feel about that definition of marriage?
I don't mean polygamy like the Jeffs community. I mean where it is done right and legal, where no one has to hide behind closed doors, where we dress normal and work, and buy junk food and toys like everyone else.
I'm not saying I would like it. I'm just asking, trying to persuade a relational discussion.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 23:44:30
In reply to Try looking for half full? » Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 21:19:14
This is the sort of observation I'm always looking for, but since you mention John Wayne......
I saw the film about "Sands of Iwo Jima" (perhaps it was) in a Japanese hotel room, that was made when Wayne was way younger than I remembered him as a kid, and I was able to see that as a sign of a better, certainly more honest time.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 23:58:11
In reply to Try looking for half full? » Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 21:19:14
The sins of the West are mainly those of foreign policy.
When the surge was being discussed as a success, there was implicit a lack of empathy for those on the receiving end.I read an article by a marine from some book or other, and because he was there he had to have some empathy.
The problem I recall was that sh*tt*ng in a war zone is a real hazard: you simply can't go off by yourself.
So there they are in some Iraqi's front yard, sh*tt*ng on the ground, guns ready to use, and the lady of the house comes out and stares, and the marine thinks 'How would folks at home react to some guy in a foreign army sh*tt*ng in your front yard?'
Empathy not normally found in the political class.
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 11, 2008, at 0:10:09
In reply to Try looking for half full? » Jay_Bravest_Face, posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 21:19:14
GG, I am sorry, I was in a bit of a nasty dysphoric phase when I wrote that post, and have since taken some clonazepam and a zyprexa a few hours ago, and I can tell the *major* difference. I am sorry if it seemed a bit uncivil. You know, I honestly try to remain apolitical, but on the internet, it is so easy to just write a quick gut-reaction post.
I will say, and I have to be political here because this is just my viewpoint, that I am really touched (even as darn Canadian!!) over the American Presidential election. One of my favourite artists wrote the words "Gotta kick at the darkness 'till it bleeds daylight." Tough words to live by...but...it's all based on "Hope". (The name of another fave song:-) And..I don't know if it will all come true, but my "hope" is for the forgotten, the minorities treated like slaves,(I can't believe the amount of prejudice..everywhere..against Hispanics, and STILL against Afro-Americans!!) for women who have to put up with sexism in the workplace, poor people on welfare, and for all of the billions who live with poverty, one of the worst conditions humans have ever allowed to happen.
So, I can see half full...but it is still half empty for a lot of poor souls. These are the people I care about. I've got bipolar disorder and all, but heck, I get my medication free, the best of medical treatment, have a loving family and a clean warm bed..As far as I can say, EVERYONE deserves those things...it is not me I really worry about. I consider myself lucky. Like Bono sings.."I'm trying to throw my arms around the world".
Sorry for the mini-novel...lol..
Jay :)
Posted by yxibow on November 11, 2008, at 1:13:58
In reply to Re: Marriage definition, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:11:42
I think this was sort of hinted at, which I actually agree with. This planet is stretching its resources and has more than enough children. If more places allowed the adoption of children by loving gay and lesbian families, maybe unwanted children wouldn't go through multiple foster cares or become orphans.
Yes, we have all sides saying that well this would inculcate gay and lesbian ideology and the children would turn out gay -- I remember reading an article, about a typical gay and lesbian loving family and one parent saying, you know I don't mind if you turn out to be gay, and the heterosexual son looked at the parent as something like "what the heck, um sure, right..." like they were from Mars.
There have been many studies and everyone is entitled to believe, but children of gay and lesbian parents have grown up to be just as if they were brought up by straight parents, or even a single heterosexual parent, which is allowed in places.
Yes, they will face ridicule in some schools where people are not tolerant of homosexuality. And that is a tough thing to think about in growing teenagers. Its not to be taken lightly. But if enough people are adopted in this manner things might change.
Oh, but we can't teach anything about gay and lesbian people in our classrooms (which by the way California law allows for parents so worried to opt out, so the whole teaching of things more than a myth).Heck, black and white people were in different classrooms in some places not that long ago.
And for humour's sake I will end with a completely different note because well, I find hope here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43Vk
My 2c
-- Jay
Posted by Sigismund on November 11, 2008, at 3:09:33
In reply to Re: Population and gay and lesbian issues, posted by yxibow on November 11, 2008, at 1:13:58
I announced to my kids
'I'd be delighted if you turn out to be gay'
and they gave me the look.I have much less influence over the outcome of my kids lives than I would have thought would be the case in the 70s.
Our very young daughter used to dress the cat up in baby clothes and wheel it around in the pram.
Posted by rskontos on November 12, 2008, at 18:37:28
In reply to Re: Marriage definition » Dinah, posted by yxibow on November 9, 2008, at 21:45:40
Jay,
my sister and I were just recently trying to figure out what agnostic meant. You say you have religion, you identify with the Jewish religion you just don't go to temple. So is that mainly the definition. If you don't mind explaining, I would appreciate the education.
Thanks
rsk
Posted by rskontos on November 12, 2008, at 18:45:13
In reply to Re: Population and gay and lesbian issues » yxibow, posted by Sigismund on November 11, 2008, at 3:09:33
Hey Sigismund,
I love it when you get that look. It is like" how the heck did you get to this age all by yourself."
My son, 16, and I had this discussion about being gay. He said that if his son was gay he would not be upset at all. This son of mine amazes me.
Again, I think marriage is a partnership between two people. I have read the Bible yes. But the Church and the governement are two separate things here.
rsk
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.