![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 36. Go back in thread:
Posted by rayww on November 9, 2008, at 9:09:20
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Sigismund on November 9, 2008, at 0:34:45
> I'm not fond of culture wars.
>
> If gay people want to marry who am I to tell them not to?
>
> But since it seems important to some people to keep marriage as a union (what on earth does that word mean?) between a man and a woman, why not have something that gives gay people exactly the same property rights (in particular) and any other rights but has a different name?Yes. That is exactly my point.
Union means as the Bible states, "be one".
Posted by Nadezda on November 9, 2008, at 15:08:10
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by rayww on November 9, 2008, at 9:09:20
When a man and a woman marry, they aren't "one"-- they're remain two people. So the "one" is metaphoric. As such, it can be applied to any two people, I would think.
I guess whoever HBGBLT or whatever acronym that is are, they've chosen "marriage"-- not garriage, or tarriage, or anything else. Since "m" is a free letter in the alphabet, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pick it. That it coincides with an already existing word, marriage, can then become an interesting coincidence.
Don't let it disturb your use of the word that you use. Just take it as a different word.
Nadezda
Posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 18:03:58
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Sigismund on November 9, 2008, at 0:34:45
> I'm not fond of culture wars.
>
> If gay people want to marry who am I to tell them not to?
>
> But since it seems important to some people to keep marriage as a union (what on earth does that word mean?) between a man and a woman, why not have something that gives gay people exactly the same property rights (in particular) and any other rights but has a different name?Separate but equal? We've seen how well that works. Different is different. It's a star-bellied sneech, and thus, it's the "best on the beach". That's not equal. Legally, I say it's got to be the same word. If folks want to also have a religious union, religions are free to call it whatever they want. But legally, civilly, I believe it's got to be the same if it's going to be truly the same, which in my opinion, it is. It's about human rights, not sexual orientation.
gg
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:07:50
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Geegee on November 9, 2008, at 18:03:58
Well clearly, I think we should all be embarrassed just to be alive and thinking of this, and that humanity is a joke.
But I do think about how Australian politics has been blessedly free of party fights about abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage, and in that sense I think it is a pointless diversion.
For example (maybe not a good one), how we say the Lords Prayer (Our Father vs Our Mother) is not nearly so important as equal pay for equal work.) I'm not suggesting that anyone disagrees with this.
The world has very real problems.
But you know, hell, really, of course I accept that gay people want and deserve to be equal. I just think the world imposes limitations. Big ones.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:09:30
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:07:50
In other words, I have no hope.
Although listening to Obama I was surprised to feel some.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:37:56
In reply to Re: How so? » Sigismund, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:09:30
>Although listening to Obama I was surprised to feel some.
When he said something to the effect that 'we will build (something or other) calloused hand by calloused hand', I found myself believing that was possible and might really happen.
You might call it rhetoric, but I would disagree. Our leaders should set a good example, starting with words.
Posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 14:03:43
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:37:56
> >Although listening to Obama I was surprised to feel some.
>
> When he said something to the effect that 'we will build (something or other) calloused hand by calloused hand', I found myself believing that was possible and might really happen.
>
> You might call it rhetoric, but I would disagree. Our leaders should set a good example, starting with words.Yes, his words really do evoke inspiring images that lead me also to have hope. And to feel more responsiblity for acting towards change as part of a larger effort.
I like that.
gg
Posted by fayeroe on November 10, 2008, at 14:20:24
In reply to Prop 8, posted by rayww on November 8, 2008, at 12:18:57
How do you feel about this administration's meddling in:
1. right to have our medical records kept confidential?
2. believing that being taught to NOT have sex will keep the kids from doing it?
3. trying to get rid of sex education in schools?
4. interfering with the rights of women when it comes to doing what we feel is right for our bodies?
5. funding something like a study about whatever and denying funds to help women NOT get pregnant.Just curious.
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 20:22:44
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 1:07:50
>Well clearly, I think we should all be embarrassed just to be alive and thinking of this, and that humanity is a joke.
I'm sorry about the tone of that.
Put it down to 4 hours driving, 4 hours of dentistry, some other pain, and a few very stiff drinks
Posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 20:35:49
In reply to Re: How so?, posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 20:22:44
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443
Keith Olbermann's special comment tonight. Text is good, but the video is best. So moving. So honest. So right. I'm eternally grateful to Mr. Olbermann for doing this.
gg
Posted by fayeroe on November 10, 2008, at 22:25:38
In reply to Couldn't say it any better, posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 20:35:49
Posted by rayww on November 10, 2008, at 22:31:42
In reply to Couldn't say it any better, posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 20:35:49
I don't think the vote for or against prop 8 was just about marriage, even though it was made to seem such. A friend of mine blogged the following:
"Did anyone ask the black community why so many who went and voted Obama voted yes on Prop 8? I did. I teach in an Urban school of 600. 49% are black- 43% Hispanic- whites and other groups are the minority. I asked the parents of some of my students who supported Prop8. Here is what they said. I was amazed. They said-The gay community comes in to our neighborhoods looking for young guys to take to the clubs and use them until they are older. They dump them back into our neighborhoods when they no longer care about these older boys. They treat them like used garbage. Too many women are raising children on their own or their momma's raising them. The gays do nothing to help the community. They don't go to their churches, their places of entertainment and they certainly don't live among the blacks. Black women are particulary angry at gays as man/daddy robbers. Black students are very cruel to gays and it requires a lot of work to protect the gay students at my school from the blacks who persecute them. These are some of the reasons for the vote."After reading this I realized the marriage issue was a small percentage of the vote. These voters were voting against the actions against their family and community. I think we would all agree the actions described here are disgusting and unacceptable, for both gay and straight.
So, what was the vote for? What percentage of gay people are looking for a permanent relationship? Look at what a hay day lawyers have when two try to divorce. Have gay people ever valued the right to divorce?
Had prop 8 failed to pass, would you find church goers protesting outside of gay people's sacred places? Don't think so. This is what we mean by one sided tolerance...it's only tolerance if I accept and condone their lifestyle, but its bigotry if I stand up for the sacredness of marriage that I believe in.
Posted by fayeroe on November 10, 2008, at 22:34:48
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 10, 2008, at 22:31:42
"Had prop 8 failed to pass, would you find church goers protesting outside of gay people's sacred places? Don't think so. This is what we mean by one sided tolerance...it's only tolerance if I accept and condone their lifestyle, but its bigotry if I stand up for the sacredness of marriage that I believe in."
No, they just kill them and hang them on a barbed wire fence out west.
Posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 22:41:18
In reply to THANK YOU SO MUCH! (nm) » Geegee, posted by fayeroe on November 10, 2008, at 22:25:38
Posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 22:44:11
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 10, 2008, at 22:31:42
rayww,
I respect that you have different feelings about this. I don't understand them, but I acknowledge your right to have them. I can't imagine someone viewing Mr. Olbermann's passionate and well thought out plea without feeling moved in some way. Perhaps you were if you viewed it. It doesn't have to change your mind. If you viewed it, what do you think about his words and feelings?gg
Posted by Sigismund on November 10, 2008, at 23:49:09
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 10, 2008, at 22:34:48
Just like in Annie Proulx.
Posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 0:00:16
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better » rayww, posted by Geegee on November 10, 2008, at 22:44:11
> rayww,
> I respect that you have different feelings about this. I don't understand them, but I acknowledge your right to have them. I can't imagine someone viewing Mr. Olbermann's passionate and well thought out plea without feeling moved in some way. Perhaps you were if you viewed it. It doesn't have to change your mind. If you viewed it, what do you think about his words and feelings?
>
> ggOf course I feel compassion for those sincere good people. How could I not after listening to him? But no amount of compassion can change what I believe is an offense to God. If you want to try to understand my position, this wiki article explains the awakening of the church to these issues. But no matter how I feel about the issues, it does not diminish history. Sodom was still destroyed. Immorality causes the break down of the family from all fronts: homosexual, lesbian, heterosexual. If you would like to try to understand why I connect these dots to the disintegration of the family... The vote for Prop 8 was not just about marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
Posted by Sigismund on November 11, 2008, at 0:23:56
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 0:00:16
My computer is slow because the kids have used up all the download time.
So I am still trying to download Keith Olberman's thingo.
And then I realised I had only the vaguest clue about what Prop 8 was about.
Perhaps someone can tell me.Sodom was destroyed because of sodomy?
It wasn't about breaking the rules of hospitality?
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 0:27:56
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 0:00:16
""In addition to opposing gay and lesbian sex, the church also opposes and campaigns against the extension of marital rights to gay and lesbian families that would, in its opinion, undermine the tradition of heterosexual monogamous marriage (Hinckley, Monson & Faust 2004). The issue of same-sex marriage remains one of the Churchs foremost POLITICAL CONCERNS.""
I respect your rights to believe in the teachings of the LDS church.
But I do not believe that we need to branch off into discussing our particular choices of church here on the Politics Board.
There is a Faith Board here. Am I correct in believing that your strongest objection to same sex marriage is founded in your religion?
I strongly believe in separation of church and state.
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 0:35:11
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by Sigismund on November 11, 2008, at 0:23:56
> My computer is slow because the kids have used up all the download time.
> So I am still trying to download Keith Olberman's thingo.
> And then I realised I had only the vaguest clue about what Prop 8 was about.
> Perhaps someone can tell me.Prop 8 is a proposition that the California voters passed to outlaw same sex marriage. All of the same sex marriages are null and void now.
>
> Sodom was destroyed because of sodomy?
> It wasn't about breaking the rules of hospitality?
:-)
>
>
Posted by yxibow on November 11, 2008, at 0:57:37
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 0:35:11
> > My computer is slow because the kids have used up all the download time.
> > So I am still trying to download Keith Olberman's thingo.
> > And then I realised I had only the vaguest clue about what Prop 8 was about.
> > Perhaps someone can tell me.
>
> Prop 8 is a proposition that the California voters passed to outlaw same sex marriage. All of the same sex marriages are null and void now.That isn't necessarily true. The marriages, which by the way brought hundreds of millions of dollars of tourism to a crushed economy, may very well be held up by the courts.
This will go through the court system, and it is theoretically possible to overturn a proposition with another proposition but it has to be narrowly and carefully written.
Constitutional amendments should not be passed by a majority, but a supermajority like in other states.
My 2c.
And yes, I believe in the separation of church and state.
You can't mix religion and politics in the same arena and not expect to but heads together -- some of our prominent founding fathers were deists, which doesn't mean agnostic -- "Deists believe that God's greatest gift to humanity is not religion, but the ability to reason." (Wikipedia)
-- Jay
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 0:59:05
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 10, 2008, at 22:31:42
"""Black women are particulary angry at gays as man/daddy robbers."
How on earth would a gay person rob a "babydaddy" from black women? Why would a gay man impregnate a woman? Have you personally talked to black women about that? Otherwise it is hearsay.
"Black students are very cruel to gays and it requires a lot of work to protect the gay students at my school from the blacks who persecute them."I do not understand your above paragraph.
How about the school teaching the blacks to not persecute the gay students? Tolerance and understanding works better than persecution.
I am just not getting your belief.
And about bringing church (LDS) into this, I would like to point out to you that there is a Faith Board here. Separation of state and church is very important. This has gotten very far from politics. (However, I do know that the LDS church
is heavily involved in poltical issues.)
Posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 11:36:55
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 0:59:05
> """Black women are particulary angry at gays as man/daddy robbers."
>
> How on earth would a gay person rob a "babydaddy" from black women? Why would a gay man impregnate a woman? Have you personally talked to black women about that? Otherwise it is hearsay.
>
>
> "Black students are very cruel to gays and it requires a lot of work to protect the gay students at my school from the blacks who persecute them."
>
> I do not understand your above paragraph.
>
> How about the school teaching the blacks to not persecute the gay students? Tolerance and understanding works better than persecution.
>
> I am just not getting your belief.
>
> And about bringing church (LDS) into this, I would like to point out to you that there is a Faith Board here. Separation of state and church is very important. This has gotten very far from politics. (However, I do know that the LDS church
> is heavily involved in poltical issues.)
>
>
>
The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of/from religion. Religion has been a part of politics only as far as religious/non-religious people make the decisions. Let's remember that the constitution was created before many of the churches. Moral issues belong to religion. It's politics that is interfering. And people turning their back on moral principles. Call it religion or not. Religion teaches moral principles better than government or schools do.
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 12:49:39
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 11:36:55
> > """Black women are particulary angry at gays as man/daddy robbers."
> >
> > How on earth would a gay person rob a "babydaddy" from black women? Why would a gay man impregnate a woman? Have you personally talked to black women about that? Otherwise it is hearsay.The above is still a question for you.....
> >
> >
> > "Black students are very cruel to gays and it requires a lot of work to protect the gay students at my school from the blacks who persecute them."
> >
> > I do not understand your above paragraph.I would still like for you to explain the above.
> >
> > How about the school teaching the blacks to not persecute the gay students? Tolerance and understanding works better than persecution.Well, if the school is working so hard to protect the gays from the blacks..how about spending that time fostering a more tolerant and understanding atmosphere for everyone. We lead by example, do we not?
> >
> > I am just not getting your belief.
> >
> > And about bringing church (LDS) into this, I would like to point out to you that there is a Faith Board here. Separation of state and church is very important. This has gotten very far from politics. (However, I do know that the LDS church
> > is heavily involved in poltical issues.)
> >
> >
> >
> The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of/from religion. Religion has been a part of politics only as far as religious/non-religious people make the decisions. Let's remember that the constitution was created before many of the churches. Moral issues belong to religion. It's politics that is interfering. And people turning their back on moral principles. Call it religion or not. Religion teaches moral principles better than government or schools do.
>
>Moral issues belong to religion.
That is just wrong. Moral issues belong to everyone, religious or not.
Please answer the questions that I posed to you in my post. Thank you.
Posted by Toph on November 12, 2008, at 16:41:52
In reply to Re: Couldn't say it any better, posted by rayww on November 10, 2008, at 22:31:42
> A friend of mine blogged the following:
>...How could you stay friends with someone who could say such a thing?
I read your reference to the wiki explanation of Prop 8. It says Mormons consider sexual immorality as the most abominable - above all sins including murder and blasphemy. I'm thinking that this explains the need to cleverly institute a way to get around cheating on your wife. Just marry all your lovers.
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.