![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2008, at 9:59:01
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 13:23:50
I want to be clear that the statement about gays pushing their lifestyles upon the GP is not mine. That was lifted out of another post for illustration.
Posted by healing928 on November 12, 2008, at 11:26:48
In reply to Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by caraher on November 11, 2008, at 4:50:27
I believe that marriage is a sacred institution
between a man and a woman. I dont support gay marriage, because I believe is sending the wrong message to our children and society as a whole. I dont look to what is politically correct, I look to what I believe is acceptable to my God. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, which creates the formation of families and is God's plan for His children.I do believe that gays should be able treated equally, but will stand with my strong beliefs of how sacred a marriage is.
Posted by Toph on November 12, 2008, at 15:45:19
In reply to Marriage, posted by healing928 on November 12, 2008, at 11:26:48
> I do believe that gays should be able treated equally, but will stand with my strong beliefs of how sacred a marriage is.
>You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I always thought your god was a loving god. I'm reminded of a retired coworker Wren who had a life partner Miss Hart. Wren was the most caring, gentle and generous supervisor, one who you invariably could sway into helping the most desperate child or homeless person even when the budget wouldn't allow it. Her partner was my daughter's 3rd grade teacher. Ms. Hart inspired my previously shy daughter to not be ashamed of her intelligence something young girls are prone to do for whatever reason. Before having Ms. Hart she would come home crying if her teacher read her essay out loud. I'll never forget at the end of the third grade Audra standing confidently in front of the entire school and all the competetive parents winning the Spelling Bee beating out the 4th and 5th graders. She never could have accomplished this with out Ms. Hart. And I would never have survived 20 years of social work without Wren. I could give a sh!t if they sleep together. I only wish my two marriages were as blessed as theirs is. And you'll never convince me otherwise that God didn't have a hand in bringing these two wonderful women together.
Posted by Sigismund on November 12, 2008, at 16:03:51
In reply to Re: Marriage, posted by Toph on November 12, 2008, at 15:45:19
Who was it who said that the keenest pleasure of being in heaven would be to watch the torments of the damned?
Posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 16:58:07
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 13:23:50
>
> Sounds as if someone put their money where their mouth is.
> http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64163.asp
>There is nothing wrong with putting your money where your mouth is, or putting your mouth where your money is, as Keith Olberman did, as long as you can afford it.
When I give to a charity I shop around, and when I give my money I make sure that the majority of it goes directly to the people, not the administration. In a welfare state, the government decides who needs charity, then forces the people to give their money to the government, and they distribute it at a high cost to you the taxpayer. If I want to donate my money to one particular cause, and you want to donate your money to another that's just fine.
http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17964159/detail.html This article on CNN today, tells about a man who had to resign his position because he dared to donate his money to the charity of his choice.
Any time a person freely gives their money to a cause it is considered charity. When an institution gives money donated by its members, it's called something else. The Mormon church gave $2500 to cover the cost of incidentals, and yet it is portrayed as having donated millions. That is not true. It is a lie. People freely gave to a cause they themselves believed in.
I have no problem with what the GLBT do in private in California. It's their life. They have rights, just like we have rights. Good for us both.
But why does GLBT want to steal from us something that we hold so sacred? Marriage for 6000 years has meant man and woman/women. It is one thing that no one has dared mess with. Why now? It just shows how arrogant and brassy we have become. It's like spitting in the face of God and then challenging Him by saying "na na na what are you going to do about that"? Well, personally I wouldn't want to find out.
This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God. I mean do you really think that if there is a God you would never be given the privilege of meeting Him? And, by the way, there will be no such thing in heaven as GLBT.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/34/32#32
Personally, I thrive on the scriptures. They give me hope and direction. I don't need to wonder what is right or wrong. I have it downloaded to my iPod. I can randomly select any chapter, even with my eyes closed, and as I listen can be taught through the spirit, and feel at peace. Peace can be found on this issue too. fwiw,the Mormons believe that marriage is eternal, that family relationships survive and continue on. This life is a great place, and I love it here, not in a hurry to have it over, want to make the best of the time I have, and invest a lot in my family. The family is sacred. Marriage is sacred, and when you say it is sacred to GLBT too, I say they don't even know what sacred marriage is, or how offensive it is to God to want to change it to mean unnatural affections.It appears the GBLT community think that all they have to do to make it right is make it legal.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rom/1/26-27,31#26I know there are many good people on both sides of this fence. I also know there are many not so good on both sides. This scripture describes those not so good. I don't know who here believes in the Bible, but I'm sure many do. And it doesn't take religion to have a belief. It is good to believe and have hope.
I honestly would never try to change you. You have the right to be you. Certain rights are given us by God himself, and to be you is God's greatest gift. Be you.
Posted by Sigismund on November 12, 2008, at 17:05:28
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » fayeroe, posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 16:58:07
>Marriage for 6000 years has meant man and woman/women.
Yes, and I think we should accept that, because clearly people feel very strongly about it and it is in no one's interest to fight forever about it.
This has more or less nothing to do with how I feel about the issue, but much more about what the limits we have to face in living with each other.
Plus, I think we should respect tradition, where appropriate, because there is often wisdom in it.
Having said that I was very impressed with what Keith Olberman had to say.
I'm also impressed by the sex lives of clean living people, the ones you hear about on the news.
Posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2008, at 17:15:04
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » fayeroe, posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 16:58:07
"I know there are many good people on both sides of this fence. I also know there are many not so good on both sides. This scripture describes those not so good. I don't know who here believes in the Bible, but I'm sure many do. And it doesn't take religion to have a belief. It is good to believe and have hope."
How about a scripture that describes all who are good?
By the way, because I am part American Indian, I believe in a higher power that is spiritual but not religious. I look to the elders of the Navajo tribe to help me on my journey through my life. I don't believe that your way is better than mine nor do I believe that my way is better than yours.
Faith board?
Posted by Sigismund on November 12, 2008, at 17:15:50
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by Sigismund on November 12, 2008, at 17:05:28
Although marriage has not always been sacred within Christianity.
My knowledge of medieval theology is almost non-existent, but I seem to recall that the sacrament of marriage was held in MUCH lower regard for.....well, I'd be guessing it was for 1,000 years.
Posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 17:23:16
In reply to Re: Marriage, posted by Sigismund on November 12, 2008, at 16:03:51
> Who was it who said that the keenest pleasure of being in heaven would be to watch the torments of the damned?
That is so not true. There will be many tears in heaven. Even God sheds tears. The greatest sadness will be over those not there yet. And, nobody gets to watch, because it is nobody's business. That is such a cruel thought whoever said it.
Posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2008, at 17:24:45
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » fayeroe, posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 16:58:07
"But why does GLBT want to steal from us something that we hold so sacred? Marriage for 6000 years has meant man and woman/women. It is one thing that no one has dared mess with. Why now? It just shows how arrogant and brassy we have become. It's like spitting in the face of God and then challenging Him by saying "na na na what are you going to do about that"? Well, personally I wouldn't want to find out."
Are you serious about gays and lesbians stealing the "sacredness" of YOUR marriage? Is your hold on your idea of "sacred marriages" so tenous that you're threatened?
Please show me a undisputable source that supports your ideas of gays and lesbians stealing anything from you.
Posted by rskontos on November 12, 2008, at 18:32:52
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2008, at 17:24:45
I have to say that I believe in the Bible, but I also have my own thoughts. And I have to say I honestly don't think that gays marrying have anything to do with my own marriage. But then I am and always have been an individualist. I am not gay and never have been. I have had many friends over the years that were/are gay.
I always thought gays marrying was also about them having the same rights as other citizens have, health care, being able to be included in decisions if their mate gets sick, etc. I am not trying to reduce this to simple terms but expand on the reasons I thought it was important.
I also think to take away a right that has been given after so many years is just plain wrong. To say to a couple that has been married, oh now you are not married anymore is just wrong too.
We live in a country that rights are rights. Once a law is a law, or a right like marriage is , I don't think it is right to allow political groups the ability to push referendums through to alienate those rights because they don't agree with them. This should have been argued more effectively prior to the enactment of allowing gay couples to wed. Now that it has been done, it should be consider the law of the land, the end.
Let God in Heaven decide now. Man is not judge and jury on Earth. If you feel so strongly about the issue of marriage being stolen leave it in God's hands, since the laws took it out of yours instead of trying to keep pushing the issue.
Because now the mess is even bigger. Too many people are hurt and rightly so.
rsk
Posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 20:09:06
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2008, at 17:24:45
> Please show me a undisputable source that supports your ideas of gays and lesbians stealing anything from you.
No source will be indisputable. To my understanding, GLBT can already be legally bound, but how do they separate? Is there a legal process to do that? Maybe we should be talking about divorce in the same breath as marriage? Also, who's last name do they use, and what about their children's last name? Do they pay alimony if they separate and are not the biological father or mother? There are many aspects to gay marriage/divorce that I don't understand. The GLBT as a community do not generally want to settle "till death do us part" with one partner. By extending marriage to their community won't help. I think we are opening up a can of worms, and once they escape they'll infect the whole society, like worms on the Internet, they spread their virus, shutting us down, whether we want their inflection or not. (Inflection: A turning or bending away from a course or position of alignment).
Look at what heterosexual immorality has done to the sanctity of marriage. The family is already weakened. There are many single parent families struggling to survive (and my heart goes out to them). There are many delinquent children, abused, neglected, misused. Whatever happened to the basic rights of children to be:
well bred
well fed
well led?Heterosexuals who abuse marriage are not right in doing so, but we seem to be stuck there.
However, there are many marriages that are working, and families that are strong, even though not perfect.
I guess my best indisputable argument/source would be the definition of inflection: A turning or bending away from a course or position of alignment. Pure marriage, where father and mother love each other, are loyal to each other, and who love and nurture their children: physically, spiritually, emotionally, would be the position of alignment for marriage. Once marriage is inflected by false educational ideas it begins to drift off into any and all directions. Alignment to me means aligned with something. Sort of like At-one-ment.
I think we can be aligned with the universe, and in sync with nature in the perfect world. I know life is life though, and many inflections alter our alignment with deity, but that's what I'm after.
LBGT marriage is thus an inflection.
Posted by seldomseen on November 13, 2008, at 4:32:12
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » fayeroe, posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 20:09:06
Also, who's last name do they use, and what about their children's last name?
****Heteosexual couples have to work this out too.Do they pay alimony if they separate and are not the biological father or mother?
****Alimony is typically paid to the spouse after the divorce and is settled by the court. I think you are talking about child support, which is also something heteosexual couples that adopt children have to work out******The GLBT as a community do not generally want to settle "till death do us part" with one partner.
*****I think if that were true, then the whole gay marriage issue would not exist. ******
By extending marriage to their community won't help. I think we are opening up a can of worms, and once they escape they'll infect the whole society, like worms on the Internet, they spread their virus, shutting us down, whether we want their inflection or not. (Inflection: A turning or bending away from a course or position of alignment).****Infect with what? A departure from tradition? I think some traditions/alignements need changing****
Posted by rskontos on November 13, 2008, at 9:30:12
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » fayeroe, posted by rayww on November 12, 2008, at 20:09:06
I am the product from a woman/man marriage and I was in no way protected in this union. My father watched as my mother who was ill and never rec'd help really hurt all three of us. Now that we are older my father says I really felt sorry for you children. I asked him why did he not do anything, he said I did not want to turn her anger on me.
So I don't think marriage in the traditional sense has a corner on the best results of producing the best children as you indicated. I agree children need to be protected but I don't think there is evidence that gay couples are more neglectful or less capable to be good parents. There are and have been less that stellar parents in traditional marriages. So I am not sure that arguement is completely sound but the principal of children's rights is a good one.rsk
Posted by fayeroe on November 13, 2008, at 11:17:22
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by seldomseen on November 13, 2008, at 4:32:12
> Also, who's last name do they use, and what about their children's last name?
> ****Heteosexual couples have to work this out too.~~~~My youngest daughter's children all have her maiden name. She is the last of her father's family that will have children. Not one single person that knows of the situation has voiced any unrest with this decision. No, her husband doesn't mind.
>
> Do they pay alimony if they separate and are not the biological father or mother?
> ****Alimony is typically paid to the spouse after the divorce and is settled by the court. I think you are talking about child support, which is also something heteosexual couples that adopt children have to work out******
>
> The GLBT as a community do not generally want to settle "till death do us part" with one partner.
> *****I think if that were true, then the whole gay marriage issue would not exist. ******~~~~~~I have gay friends that have been together 35 years..right here in TEXAS. A RED state.
>
> By extending marriage to their community won't help. I think we are opening up a can of worms, and once they escape they'll infect the whole society, like worms on the Internet, they spread their virus, shutting us down, whether we want their inflection or not. (Inflection: A turning or bending away from a course or position of alignment).
>
> ****Infect with what? A departure from tradition? I think some traditions/alignements need changing***
>
Posted by rayww on November 13, 2008, at 12:21:18
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by rskontos on November 13, 2008, at 9:30:12
> I am the product from a woman/man marriage and I was in no way protected in this union. My father watched as my mother who was ill and never rec'd help really hurt all three of us. Now that we are older my father says I really felt sorry for you children. I asked him why did he not do anything, he said I did not want to turn her anger on me.
>
> So I don't think marriage in the traditional sense has a corner on the best results of producing the best children as you indicated. I agree children need to be protected but I don't think there is evidence that gay couples are more neglectful or less capable to be good parents. There are and have been less that stellar parents in traditional marriages. So I am not sure that arguement is completely sound but the principal of children's rights is a good one.
>
> rskI am sorry that you have had such a bad experience, and feel for so many others who have too. It is outright disgusting, and I'm not sure anything can be done to compensate for their loss.
Do you see gay marriage as a compensation for heterosexual screw-ups? Many (gay) come from good families who have been kind and generous to them. They aren't in a same sex relationship because of wanting to revolt from home.
One issue is not connected to the other. There are arguments for and against on both sides. That is why you can't justify gay marriage based on screwed up heterosexual marriage. You have to examine marriage for marriage sake, and as I suggested before, see the "inflection" that totally changes the outcome at the other end. In order to see that detail you have to be able to see the broader picture; where were you before you were born, why are you here, and where will you be after you leave? Will you have the same desires then as now? Based on eternity, our 80 years plus or minus, is a tiny speck.
Then there are questions about God/Jehova/Alah/Jesus. Who is He? Why did he create a mistake like me? Or did he? Was I meant to be exactly who I am? How might I have changed course? Those are questions that everyone asks at some point as they travel their path through life. And it isn't necessarily the path of least resistance that counts the most.
Talk about screwed up, the world's religions with all their various and differing beliefs certainly fit there. But just because something good gets screwed up doesn't mean it still isn't good for someone.
The idea that if gays can't have marriage then it should be banned for everyone, or that all marriages should be performed by the government magistrate is screwy lewey.
Just because somebody changes the meaning of a word that I love to mean something vile and disgusting, like the word "screw", doesn't mean I have to stop saying it. Thong, thong, thong. Marriage, marriage marriage.
Posted by Nadezda on November 13, 2008, at 22:14:21
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rskontos, posted by rayww on November 13, 2008, at 12:21:18
You say:
"Just because somebody changes the meaning of a word that I love to mean something vile and disgusting, like the word "screw", doesn't mean I have to stop saying it. Thong, thong, thong. Marriage, marriage marriage."
Could you explain what precisely is vile and disgusting about gay marrriage-- if that is, in fact, as it seems, your point?
Because I would beg to differ with you.
Plus, rskontos wasn't justifying gay marriage on the basis of the failures of heterosexual marriages, but merely pointing out that heterosexual marriage is not an ideal form. So setting it up as an idealized or idealizable norm and claiming that gay marriage is a falling away from this norm has no particular basis in reality.
Nadezda
Posted by rayww on November 14, 2008, at 1:52:13
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by Nadezda on November 13, 2008, at 22:14:21
> You say:
>
> "Just because somebody changes the meaning of a word to mean something vile and disgusting, like the word "screw", doesn't mean I have to stop saying it. Thong, thong, thong. Marriage, marriage marriage."
>
> Could you explain what precisely is vile and disgusting about gay marrriage-- if that is, in fact, as it seems, your point?Well, I guess I made my point with my "pop up". Some words just slip out when you least expect them to. I have expressed my opinion about marriage. I think I have expressed it well enough. I have nothing against homosexuals, or lesbians. It is their life. Let them do with it what they please. I associate with all people and get along. I accept them, and I don't harbor feelings of hate or anger. All's good. I am still for prop 8, and I really doubt anything will change my mind. Inflecting the word "marriage" with a new meaning would have the same effect as other inflections on words that change their meaning. A thong is a shoe, a screw is a screw, and marriage is marriage. It belongs to tradition. GLBT have the rights of married folk, I don't see why they think they can alter the word, "marriage" to mean something opposite to which it was intended. Marriage has always meant Father and Mother. Seldom do a man and a woman marry and not get pregnant. It's not always a choice, it just happens. And not just once or twice. It's natural and meant to be, it's the whole purpose for life. You get born, then as you grow you learn how to be a mommy or a daddy by watching your own mommy and daddy. You play house, as though you were the mommy or daddy, and learn how by developing those healthy emotions. You learn when you are a child that there will be certain things you will have to do with your life in order to become a mommy or a daddy when you grow up. You sacrifice and save for that special time, and one day it will happen, then the life cycle begins anew. There are a lot of people who still cherrish those basic values of life. They are the ones who want to protect marriage and family, and keep it straight, meaning father, mother, and children. They also value cousins, aunts and uncles. They look forward to being grandparents. They are the ones who don't want marriage to be mocked by the sealing of a woman to another woman, or man to a man. Let them live the way they want, but don't call it marriage.
Posted by fayeroe on November 14, 2008, at 5:41:47
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » Nadezda, posted by rayww on November 14, 2008, at 1:52:13
> > You say:
> >
> > "Just because somebody changes the meaning of a word to mean something vile and disgusting, like the word "screw", doesn't mean I have to stop saying it. Thong, thong, thong. Marriage, marriage marriage."
> >
> > Could you explain what precisely is vile and disgusting about gay marrriage-- if that is, in fact, as it seems, your point?
>
> Well, I guess I made my point with my "pop up". Some words just slip out when you least expect them to. I have expressed my opinion about marriage. I think I have expressed it well enough. I have nothing against homosexuals, or lesbians.Could've fooled me!!I'm not feeling it!
It is their life. Let them do with it what they please.
Except marry!
I associate with all people and get along. I accept them, and I don't harbor feelings of hate or anger.
hmmmmmmmmm? I am definitely not feeling this one!
All's good. I am still for prop 8, and I really doubt anything will change my mind.That is apparent because of the questions here that have gone unanswered. I'm still waiting on how gay people are stealing black babydaddys!
Inflecting the word "marriage" with a new meaning would have the same effect as other inflections on words that change their meaning.Marriage means a union between two people! Right? How do you feel about interracial couples?
A thong is a shoe, a screw is a screw, and marriage is marriage. It belongs to tradition. GLBT have the rights of married folk,
Can't have insurance, can't visit in hospital and make decisions for mate, etc. etc. etc.
I don't see why they think they can alter the word, "marriage" to mean something opposite to which it was intended.How so?
Marriage has always meant Father and Mother. Seldom do a man and a woman marry and not get pregnant.
You're kidding!
It's not always a choice, it just happens.
Why is so much money spent on birth control?
And not just once or twice. It's natural and meant to be, it's the whole purpose for life.
No, the purpose of life is to be a good person, be tolerant, be loving, be honest, fair, etc!
You get born, then as you grow you learn how to be a mommy or a daddy by watching your own mommy and daddy.
hmmmmmmm. Children of gay couples don't get to watch and learn how to be a parent! They don't have grandparents and aunts and uncles..female and male role models?
You play house, as though you were the mommy or daddy, and learn how by developing those healthy emotions.
Gay couples don't buy playhouses?
You learn when you are a child that there will be certain things you will have to do with your life in order to become a mommy or a daddy when you grow up.
I can't believe that you think that everyone is hellbent upon being a mommy or a daddy. I can't believe that you think we're put here to procreate, come hell or high water!
You sacrifice and save for that special time, and one day it will happen, then the life cycle begins anew. There are a lot of people who still cherrish those basic values of life.
Those of us who don't have children are?
They are the ones who want to protect marriage and family, and keep it straight, meaning father, mother, and children. They also value cousins, aunts and uncles. They look forward to being grandparents.
Children of gay parents don't value their relatives and don't look forward to marrying and becoming grandparents?
They are the ones who don't want marriage to be mocked by the sealing of a woman to another woman, or man to a man.
I don't believe that you really are tolerant of as much as you say you are. In fact, I bet you do not have one gay friend. Not one that trusts you.
Let them live the way they want, but don't call it marriage.
Marriage! Still in the Sarah Palin groove. Ignore questions and say the "talking points" over and over.
Posted by Nadezda on November 14, 2008, at 10:03:13
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » Nadezda, posted by rayww on November 14, 2008, at 1:52:13
You also write:
"...There are a lot of people who still cherrish those basic values of life. They are the ones who want to protect marriage and family, and keep it straight, meaning father, mother, and children...."
If you're suggesting that I don't "cherish basic values of life," you're greatly mistaken.
You think that: (in your words)
"I have nothing against homosexuals, or lesbians. It is their life. Let them do with it what they please..."
This is directly contradicted by many other things that you say, though.. Didn't you say in the post before that that gay marriage is "vile and disgusting"? And in this post, that nothing could change your mind about prop. 8? Yet to many gay people, the chance to get married is something they greatly value. How then can you say, "let them do...what they please..."
What does it mean to have nothing against people, when you have apparently a very low opinion of their life and want to prevent them from having the rights and benefits of a very important social institution? Not everyone believes in your religion. This is a pluralistic, not a theocratic society. Luckily, in my opinion.
We live according to humanist, not religious, values. Those may include, but are not limited to, or identical with, many core beliefs shared by most religions.
As a result, the principles of any particular church or churches are not the basis for our legal institutions and social practices. You're free to express your own personal opinion. I, to the contrary, very much hope that our society is not structured or run according to interpretations or strictures of the Bible. This has nothing to do with whether the Bible is a very significant text, or whether or in what way it's a good basis for moral decision-making. It's a belief about how our morality and our society are best constituted.
But just as nothing will change your mind about prop. 8, nothing will change mine.
Nadezda
Posted by rayww on November 14, 2008, at 12:15:59
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 14, 2008, at 5:41:47
There are pockets here and there, and I happen to live in one of them. My friend's son is gay. I still love him and don't try to change him. I'm still best friends with his parents too. Another good friend has a son who grew up with mine. Still good friends. I can count half a dozen that I have personal connection to. I also know some who probably are, but don't practice it. Just like some people never marry, some others refrain from acting out their gay impulses. I live in a different world than you do. I don't see it like you do (obviously).
In my world people go to church on Sunday and they live the Gospel during the week. Living the Gospel requires restraint and self discipline. It requires sacrifice and service. It requires honesty and integrity, and adherence (like glue) to basic principles. It is a different world, but one I feel secure in. The whole world could fall apart, and I would feel secure, have hope, and feel the love of God.
I accept your arguments on each point, and agree with the can be's. But no matter how wonderful and perfect it can be for you and for children, it can not be marriage. I'm sorry if you read me as though I'm not tolerant, because I am tolerant. I appreciate that you are willing to discuss this with me here.
It's not about equal rights. It's about right and wrong. It's not about the U.S. Constitution. (btw, I'm Canadian) We in Canada have a different system than you in the U.S. Up here we just hope. :-)
In answer to your question, that I don't think needs an answer, but oh well, "I'm still waiting on how gay people are stealing black babydaddys!"
If I must....the grownups go into black communities and steal young boys, who I believe haven't experienced yet, and get them hooked on being gay. They use and use them until they are old enough to be daddys, then discard them, but by then they have no desire to be daddys....Surely you must have figured that one out.
That to me just shows how narrow your focus becomes when skewed. It's like you can't even see the other side. Sex becomes so paramount that it probably overshadows everything...compulsively. It becomes almost an OCD when acted upon.
Like the good senator from Idaho. He couldn't even go to the bathroom without, you know.
Me, I am uncomfortable talking, even writing about it (sex). It should be private, not openly disarming.
But as long as we're disarming it...let me just say sex can become obsessive compulsive for anyone who abuses it. Take me for example. I learned that if I even flirted with it I could become obsessed. I have had to stay from even the appearance of evil, but I doubt you would understand that. Yet in my marriage sex has been wonderful. The only time it wasn't was when I was flirting with ideas like that it was OK to have really good friends outside of marriage. Any really good friend I ever had eventually became a lust. I can see more clearly now that I'm past 60. I am very lucky and feel protected by an unseen power in my life, that I have been able to recognize what was happening before it happened, and put a stop to it. I see gay marriage as something like that, see what is happening before it happens. Many others can see clearly also, and many more rely on faith and answers to prayer that seem to be guiding them on this one. There is an unseen power in the universe, that one I was talking about earlier, that tries to sync everything together. And it's not the one world government either.
Why do you think the world is unraveling right now? It is so out of sync with nature and the whole universe, going against laws of order, but you likely can't see that as I can.
I am not trying to talk you into my or out of your lifestyle. I totally 100% accept you and your ideas without denial of anything. But marriage.
Marriage is what holds the world together. You should be glad that we are holding it together for you.
Look at Barak Obama, Sara Palin, Mitt Romney, and say "thank-you for holding the traditional family together". When you take a close look at their families you get a real good feeling.
Have you ever considered showing appreciation for traditional family?
Posted by rayww on November 14, 2008, at 14:26:38
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by Nadezda on November 14, 2008, at 10:03:13
> But just as nothing will change your mind about prop. 8, nothing will change mine.
It is good that we can agree to disagree then. Thank goodness for a democracy that leaves us free to do just that. Have you noticed that as soon as the president is elected, the people (generally speaking) get behind him with support? It's called majority rule. The same applies here. If the majority rules in favor of same sex marriage, or whatever you want to label it, the law and the people stand by the decision. It becomes difficult when an issue such as this crosses over into religion because some say it isn't religious, but others say it is a basic god-spelled-out doctrine. The great war will be between god-spelled-out doctrine, and whatever you call the rest of it. We have a growing divide, and it will continue to spread. People are gathering now. I doubt there will be fence sitters.
How would allowing gay marriage narrow this divide? It certainly won't make it not a sin to those on the side of god-spelled-out doctrine. Hey, but if the majority vote for it I'll live with it. If it comes time to ban religion, or ban marriage all together there will be a civil war. Not one born of hate, but of love. Love for God, love for our wives our husbands and our children, love for liberty. I'm sure you could say the same. Maybe we'll both be on the same side of the divide. Maybe there will grow a side that wants to ban marriage and religion all together, make both illegal, and kill those who get caught doing it. Hey, anything's possible. Hopefully those suber radical extreme ideas won't creep into our society because of not allowing gays to marry people of the same sex.
There isn't much more that can be said on the subject, except prepare for what is to come. I, with my obsessive compulsive nature need to pull myself away from the computer too.
Posted by caraher on November 14, 2008, at 15:37:02
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 14, 2008, at 5:41:47
> Marriage! Still in the Sarah Palin groove.
I know this isn't what had in mind, but the mention of Palin reminds me of some comedian's gag about her opposing gay marriage because she firmly believes "marriage is a sacred bond not between two men or two women, but two unwilling teenagers"
(The reference is to her pregnant daughter's announced shotgun wedding... did they go through with that?)
Posted by rayww on November 14, 2008, at 17:34:56
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by Nadezda on November 14, 2008, at 10:03:13
> As a result, the principles of any particular church or churches are not the basis for our legal institutions and social practices. You're free to express your own personal opinion. I, to the contrary, very much hope that our society is not structured or run according to interpretations or strictures of the Bible. This has nothing to do with whether the Bible is a very significant text, or whether or in what way it's a good basis for moral decision-making. It's a belief about how our morality and our society are best constituted.
I like what you said about the Bible. It is a basis for moral decision-making. Nothing by force, just there to use as a guide if you choose. It is a belief about how our morality and our society are best constituted. You have expressed that very well.
Thank you.
Posted by fayeroe on November 14, 2008, at 21:04:19
In reply to Re: a sacred bond, posted by caraher on November 14, 2008, at 15:37:02
> > Marriage! Still in the Sarah Palin groove.
>
> I know this isn't what had in mind, but the mention of Palin reminds me of some comedian's gag about her opposing gay marriage because she firmly believes "marriage is a sacred bond not between two men or two women, but two unwilling teenagers"
>
>
> (The reference is to her pregnant daughter's announced shotgun wedding... did they go through with that?)I doubt it. The election is over now.
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.