![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 46 to 70 of 127. Go back in thread:
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:34:23
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 10:16:03
You said, "Don't forget that the bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat."
I want to know where you got this idea.
Posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 10:38:33
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage..... to MKB » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:11:51
What makes you think that gay people should not be allowed to marry? I know several gay couples in stable long term relationships, why shouldn't they be granted the protection provided by marriage?
In England, it has been suggested that gay couples should be allowed to have civil partnerships. A civil partnership would occur in a register office rather than a church. It would provide the same legal protection as marriage but would not be called marriage. Personally, I don't think it matters whether it is called marriage or not.
Ed.
Posted by Bling Bling on December 13, 2004, at 10:53:31
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Bling Bling, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 10:34:23
> I want to know where you got this idea.
>
>I asked a question earlier that you haven't given an answer to yet. I'll be sure to "keep checking back for your answer."
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 11:56:10
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 8:47:58
Ed, you said, >Regarding God.... if there is a God I would not like to presume what 'its' view on gay marriage would be. Such information cannot be found in Leviticus.>
Since you are the one who mentioned Leviticus, I would like to make you aware of this verse from Leviticus 18:22ff-
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination...for by all these things the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you..."The above admonition is in the same chapter that condemns sexual relations among family members and with animals.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:03:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage..... to MKB » MKB, posted by ed_uk on December 13, 2004, at 10:38:33
Ok, let's calm down - stick to issues and not resort to personal attacks. (and this post, while in "babble" might *seem* to be a reply to one person, it is addressed to all)
Gay marriage rhetoric:
1) The phrase that seems to be used by most politicians is that (I am against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.) They also talk about the sanctity of marriage. The same phrases are being used by both the folks for and against an ammendment.
2) The only difference I can see is that what they (the politicians) are calling marriage (and sanctity) is church involvement. Assuming of course that they are willing to accept that civil unions grant next-of-kin status to the other partner.
Therefore:
3) The politicians are asking for an ammendment that would prohibit churches from 'sanctifying' gay marriages.
The latest state votes to not allow 'gay marriage' are actually voting against civil unions - the same thing more than half the country says should be allowed. They do not touch the writes of some religeous denominations to perform gay marriages.
Oh, the doublespeak.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:17:24
In reply to Gay marriage (rhetoric) and logic » ed_uk, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:03:05
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 12:26:02
In reply to Gay marriage (rhetoric) and logic » ed_uk, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 12:03:05
>3) The politicians are asking for an ammendment that would prohibit churches from 'sanctifying' gay marriages.>
No,...they do not want churches to be FORCED to perform gay marriages.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 13:38:01
In reply to the other side, posted by Jilly on December 11, 2004, at 21:01:31
Actually, I think Hil was always middle of the road. Just like Bill. He managed to fulfill several things on a conservative agends. Balanced budget. Welfare reform. He just didn't have what some consider the right "morals."
Hil, on the other hand, did actually do the stand-by-your-man bit, something every family value conservative should admire.
My guess is there aren't really two 'sides' - just good people (leaving out politicians) who have different priorities.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 14:32:51
In reply to Re: Gay marriage (rhetoric) and logic » AuntieMel, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 12:26:02
Interesting. I don't remember anyone saying that churches could be forced to do that. I don't recall that churches are forced to do *any* marriage, for that matter.
I am talking about rhetoric and logic, while (for now) taking no side.
From a speech by Bush:
" Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."
Mel's observations:
Marriage, in this country has two definitions, civil and religeous. The only one the government recognizes is the civil union. Religious weddings won't get you a hill of beans with the irs.
But according to the speech (and I've heard several like this) there won't be a ban on civil unions. So, the only part of marriage left is the religious part. Effectively, the only gay marriages the proposed ammendment would forbid would be the religious ones.
Mind you, I'm parsing words. But I do wonder if there isn't some greater meaning behind the words. I think so - but I haven't figured out what it is yet.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 15:46:35
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 11:56:10
>
> Since you are the one who mentioned Leviticus, I would like to make you aware of this verse from Leviticus 18:22ff-
> "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination...for by all these things the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you..."
>
It also states that eating shellfish is an abomination Lev. 11:10as is: planting two crops in the same field, getting your hair trimmed, and it states that you do not have permission to approach the altar of god if you have a defect in your sight Lev 21:20
I find that self explanatory
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 17:23:33
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 15:46:35
Hey, I wasn't using Leviticus to prop up my position. I wasn't the one who brought it up.
Posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 17:26:22
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 15:46:35
No blended fabrics.
Accepted animal sacrifices are spedified.
And slaves are ok - as long as they are heathens.
Ahhhh, Around my neck of the woods there are lots of people that like to cherry-pick the bible. Very common. Like dirt.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 18:00:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 17:23:33
> Hey, I wasn't using Leviticus to prop up my position. I wasn't the one who brought it up.
It wasn't really about Leviticus, it's about using the bible to justify homophobia.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 18:06:09
In reply to Re:Don't forget » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on December 13, 2004, at 17:26:22
> No blended fabrics.
>
> Accepted animal sacrifices are spedified.
>
> And slaves are ok - as long as they are heathens.
>
> Ahhhh, Around my neck of the woods there are lots of people that like to cherry-pick the bible. Very common. Like dirt.OY, it frustrates me. We all mess up, we all try really hard and still aren't perfect, but dang it if you're going to be sanctimonious
about something you BETTER be scrupulous..
There that's my view on the world : )I feel so much better now.
G
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 18:33:17
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 18:00:06
The issue being discussed is not homophobia. The issue is the definition of marriage. It seems to me that some folks would rather make accusations and throw out distractors than actually stick to the topic.
Let me make it clear: Defining marriage as between one woman and one man does NOT equal homophobia.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 19:14:51
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 18:33:17
>
> Let me make it clear: Defining marriage as between one woman and one man does NOT equal homophobia.It doesn't equal homophobia, no, however the denial of equal rights to gay couples soley because they are of the same sex is one aspect of institutionalized homophobia.
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 19:57:39
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 19:14:51
>It doesn't equal homophobia, no, however the denial of equal rights to gay couples soley because they are of the same sex is one aspect of institutionalized homophobia.>
Just curious...are you in favor of institutionalized murder?
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 20:33:16
In reply to Re: Institutions » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 19:57:39
> >It doesn't equal homophobia, no, however the denial of equal rights to gay couples soley because they are of the same sex is one aspect of institutionalized homophobia.>
>
> Just curious...are you in favor of institutionalized murder?
>
ahhh, the old just curious, which is sadly, rarely a sincere effort to hear anothers views, or a desire to get to know them better, but more of a leaping off point. I'm offended by pretense. I think it's time for my dinner.
Posted by jay on December 13, 2004, at 20:37:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » ed_uk, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 8:18:21
> There's already a substantial number of people, especially in Utah, who believe polygamy should be legal. That's next. What are you going to say about that?
You are trying to use an analogy that doesn't work...period. There are people who think all sorts of things, but gay marriage has been a long time, seperate issue, on the table. I've seen it bloom here in Canada, and it's an amazing thing I am very proud to be a Canadian for. There is absolutely no talk of 'polygamy' or any other sort, so please keep the issues seperate.Jay
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:11:20
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » MKB, posted by jay on December 13, 2004, at 20:37:46
> > There's already a substantial number of people, especially in Utah, who believe polygamy should be legal. That's next. What are you going to say about that?
>
>
> You are trying to use an analogy that doesn't work...period. There are people who think all sorts of things, but gay marriage has been a long time, seperate issue, on the table. I've seen it bloom here in Canada, and it's an amazing thing I am very proud to be a Canadian for. There is absolutely no talk of 'polygamy' or any other sort, so please keep the issues seperate.Exactly, there was a time, and not to long ago when women fighting for the right to vote, and were scorned with "What's next the vote for beasts?" And the bible was used to justify keeping women in their "place"
The church didn't even acknowledge that women might have souls until the 1900's.The Bible was used to justify slavery too
The thought that blacks were people deserving of their independence also horrified many "Law abiding church goin' folks"I need to add that my problem is not so much with the Bible it's with the things that have been done to people by others who claim to be adhering to its teachings
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:43:32
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » jay, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:11:20
>Exactly, there was a time, and not to long ago when women fighting for the right to vote, and were scorned with "What's next the vote for beasts?" And the bible was used to justify keeping women in their "place"
The church didn't even acknowledge that women might have souls until the 1900's.>The Bible was used to justify slavery too
The thought that blacks were people deserving of their independence also horrified many "Law abiding church goin' folks">I need to add that my problem is not so much with the Bible it's with the things that have been done to people by others who claim to be adhering to its teachings
I'm not trying to throw the Bible at anyone. I do know how to use it properly and I don't believe in shoving my beliefs down anyone's throat. I was "trolled," pretty well set-up by ed_uk throwing out his Leviticus reference and I fell for it.
I know others have a different view of this issue than I do, but I really have tried to refrain from demonizing people or overgeneralizing. A question was asked and I tried to answer it. I still think marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. This does not mean I am homophobic.
Whether legalizing same-sex marriages leads to other types of marriages or the abolition of marriage altogether remains to be seen.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:50:17
In reply to Re: Using the Bible » Gabbix2, posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:43:32
Okay MKB I much prefer learning of others beliefs too even when they are different from my own, (Within limits of course!) than feeling like I'm being set up, which I did there for a minute too Thanks for explaining,
I appreciate it.
Olive branch? : )
Posted by MKB on December 13, 2004, at 21:54:52
In reply to Re: Using the Bible » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 21:50:17
Of course.
Posted by Jai Narayan on December 13, 2004, at 22:14:51
In reply to Re: What do conservative Americans stand for? » Jai Narayan, posted by MKB on December 12, 2004, at 21:45:57
Boy or girl? I am so glad everybody is fine.
Where you there for the birth?
What a magical moment.
Granny.
jai
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 13, 2004, at 22:34:26
In reply to Re: Institutions » MKB, posted by Gabbix2 on December 13, 2004, at 20:33:16
> democracy has lost.
>
> Jai> I am going to make some statements that include generalizations based on the posts I've seen on this board.
>
> I am continually stunned by the vicious, unfounded, sensational, personal attacks on our President. They sound hysterical and mentally unbalanced to me.
>
> MKB> It's very sad that all the carnage in Iraq is for the benefit of buisnesses & shareholders in the US & UK.
>
> Bling Bling> I think Bush is the most divisive President we've ever had.
>
> KaraS> > Just curious...are you in favor of institutionalized murder?
>
> ahhh, the old just curious, which is sadly, rarely a sincere effort to hear anothers views, or a desire to get to know them better
>
> Gabbix2Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down or exaggerate or overgeneralize.
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
I thought those were good explanations of what people stood for. It may at some point be better to agree to disagree than to try to convert the other side...
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
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.