![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 53. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by snoozin on February 28, 2005, at 19:38:56
OK, this is bugging me. I don't understand why the concept of gay marriage is so offensive to some people. Just because you don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean other people shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to have a loving union with all the same rights given to straight couples. They are not *special rights*, because others already have them.
What is more important, the sanctity of marriage or the sanctity of human life? If it's human life that is more important(as I think it should be), then allow humans to live their lives in dignity, pursuing happiness, gay or straight or whatever.
Should the sanctity of marriage be put above the health and welfare of the spouses? Should a woman stay in a violent marriage just to honor marriage?
Humans must come before institutions.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 0:16:20
In reply to Gay Marriage, posted by snoozin on February 28, 2005, at 19:38:56
> OK, this is bugging me. I don't understand why the concept of gay marriage is so offensive to some people. Just because you don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean other people shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to have a loving union with all the same rights given to straight couples. They are not *special rights*, because others already have them.
>
> What is more important, the sanctity of marriage or the sanctity of human life? If it's human life that is more important(as I think it should be), then allow humans to live their lives in dignity, pursuing happiness, gay or straight or whatever.
>
> Should the sanctity of marriage be put above the health and welfare of the spouses? Should a woman stay in a violent marriage just to honor marriage?
>
> Humans must come before institutions.
>
As I see it, this has nothing to do with a woman staying in a violent marriage. I clearly see your point and understand your longings for union. Don't get me wrong. I do understand. I may not agree, but that is not the issue either.The issues go far deeper than what meets the eye, or the passion, or the need for social benefits. The real issues are difficult to define in a way that is understood by all people. But I'll try:
Outcome #1
A marriage is a contract that carries within it the power to create. If marriage ended at death that wouldn’t be an issue, but what if it doesn’t? Mormons (myself included) marry in the temple for time and all eternity. We believe heaven is organized and governed according to family, with Adam and Eve at the head of our particular one.Outcome #2
The nation we call America was carved with blood, sweat, and tears. God inspired our founding fathers with the outcome in mind of freedom, especially freedom of religion.A contract was drawn up under the divine inspiration of God. Gradually one by one, each state that wanted to belong to the union signed up and formed the country we lovingly call the “United States of America”. Policies were established in support of the contract, and procedures were outlined. There were rules and regulations to abide by in order to maintain unity and protection under the umbrella of the Constitution of the United States. Policies, procedures, measures and outcomes. Mission statements, vision statements, leaders and management. Laws and punishments. Justice and Mercy.
Is there a constitution for the contract of marriage?
Is there a constitution for the contract of the Union of States?The constitutions and contracts were perfect in the beginning, but the amendments, and the amendments to the amendments have all but destroyed the original intent and perfection of both.
The Bible contains our constitution for living. Has anyone ever opened the Bible and outlined the contracts for living that are so clearly described therein? It clearly defines the outcomes, the business plan, the procedures and policies. It cites hundreds of examples of outcomes of those who chose to live true to the contract and of those who didn’t. Far too often, instead of empowering our own faith to live according to the principles, we ignore the issues and waste our energy by debating the nature of God, and then we discount what we read because we can’t seem to figure out exactly who He is and rationalize the whole story must have been fabricated.
When we have a desire, it needs to be measured by the contracts and constitutions. You have the right to be gay if you choose. You do not have the right to change the constitutions.
God will listen to your prayers. Will you listen to his answers?
Under the constitution you have the right to be gay. You have the right to have friends, to get a job, to have a mother and a father. You have the right to belong to a family who loves you or hates you. but when you say you want gay marriage, you are talking about changing the whole constitution of life as outlined in the Bible.
The issue isn't just about gay union.
Posted by snoozin on March 1, 2005, at 8:10:07
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » snoozin, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 0:16:20
> Mormons (myself included) marry in the temple for time and all eternity. We believe heaven is organized and governed according to family, with Adam and Eve at the head of our particular one.
<<I totally respect what you are saying. I was trying to take it outside of a religious context, because I *know* gay marriage doesn't sit well within most religious doctrines. And I would never, ever want someone to do something that goes against their religion.I was speaking as an attorney, who sees marriage as a legal contract for legal purposes only.
>> God inspired our founding fathers with the outcome in mind of freedom, especially freedom of religion.
<<I agree, I *always* want there to be freedom of religion. Even though I'm not particularly religious, this is a very important concept for me.>>You have the right to be gay if you choose. You do not have the right to change the constitutions.
<<Well, I'm not gay, but I do believe sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. I think it's something people are born with. And under that premise, then God has created some people as gay. And if God did that, then being gay can't be bad or wrong.>> but when you say you want gay marriage, you are talking about changing the whole constitution of life as outlined in the Bible.
<<Perhaps that is so. I am definitely not an expert on the Bible. But I was talking within the context of legal institutions here in the U.S. It is a secular legal institution which is why merely being married by a religious cleric is not good enough in the eyes of the government, you must also have a license issued by the state.It's a two-pronged procedure for most religious people. Marriage within the context of religion and marriage within the context of the legal system. You can get married without a religious ceremony here in the U.S. but you can't get married without State approval.
But I certainly don't disagree with your views of marriage within religion. I respect them very much.
>
> The issue isn't just about gay union.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 10:07:16
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by snoozin on March 1, 2005, at 8:10:07
Does religion conflict with politics? The point I was trying to make was that the Bible can be viewed as a business plan for life.
>>I was speaking as an attorney, who sees marriage as a legal contract for legal purposes only.
<<The main problem with making something legal is that it then must be presented in the classroom and taught to all children.
Those who practise functional marriage (not the abusers of the contract) may not want our children taught anti religious themes in the schools. Evolution is anti-religious because it denies the existance of a God. Gay marriage is anti-religious because it denies the contracts of God. The Bible is as legal a contract as ever there has been on earth. We bind ourselves to its constitution and principles by baptism, and renew the contract each Sunday through the ordinance of sacrament. It is a binding contract because God has to keep his part of the agreement if we keep ours. God cannot lie, nor can he deceive.
I suggest we view the Bible as a legal document complete with constitution, bylaws, business plan, with clearly outlined procedures, outcomes, and measures, a most clever strategic plan for not only this life, but eternity.
How can legal stand alone? Surely there is something to measure legal by. Can we measure legal against the US Constitution? And what principles guided its creation? The ones found in the Bible. In whom do you trust if you can't trust God? Do you trust legal? Man? Man's ability to reason and create law?
I submit that we can trust God and the Bible whether or not we label it religious or political.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 12:47:33
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » snoozin, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 10:07:16
Religious folks can bind to a contract with god if they want to. No one here is trying to deny that.
It is a contract you enter into with free will, and others of us with free will chose not to do so. Just as your temple marriage is something you enter into in free will.
I get very confused sometimes by the arguments of some of our religious folk. On one hand the argument is for a strong family and for the government to not interfere with personal religious choice. On the other hand they often (not saying you do) argue that the school curriculem should fit their religion.
Does that not deny us our right to choose no religion for us and our children?
You also say:
<<<Is there a constitution for the contract of the Union of States?
<<<The constitutions and contracts were perfect in the beginning, but the amendments, and the amendments to the amendments have all but destroyed the original intent and perfection of both.
But it is precicely a constitutional ammendment that would be needed in the Unites States in order to DENY a person the right to gay marriage. Currently that decision is left to the states.
Most of the ammendments in the constitution were inacted to *provide* protection of rights - civil rights, right to vote for non-property owners, right for women to vote, etc. I'm not sure why you would say that this ruins the "perfection" of the constitution.
The argument against gay marriage is not religious in nature, although that is often used as a rallying point. Because no one has tried to say that any denomination is *required* to allow this. Religious institutions are free to make their own rules now, and that isn't threatened.
The real argument boils down to economics. The things that will be denied if there is such an ammendment are property rights and next-of-kin status.
And remember - if there is such an ammendment then it will be taught in school and discussed in school. Right now it is a topic that isn't in the curriculum.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 12:50:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » snoozin, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 0:16:20
Disclosure: I am straight, female, and have been happily in a monogomous marriage for more than twenty years.
Though there are times around April 15 I've thought about getting a divorce to save on taxes.
Posted by snoozin on March 1, 2005, at 13:16:25
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » snoozin, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 10:07:16
> Does religion conflict with politics?
<<Yes, unfortunately, I think it does. That doesn't, however, mean they can't coexist.
>>The point I was trying to make was that the Bible can be viewed as a business plan for life.
<<I like that idea in a religious context. My personal problem with that is I don't view our English language translation of the Bible to be the word of God. This is my own personal belief and I would never impose it on others. But it's probably the reason I don't think our government and laws and secular ethics should be defined by the Christian Bible.
> Those who practise functional marriage (not the abusers of the contract) may not want our children taught anti religious themes in the schools.
<<I can understand that. But I do think kids are smart enough to know the difference between what they are taught about religion in the context of their private family lives and what they are taught in school as a member of our society.>> Evolution is anti-religious because it denies the existance of a God.
<<I think evolution is *proof* of God. First there was nothing, then God created light. Analagous to the Big Bang Theory. We were created from dirt. Evolution. To scientifically explain God or what He has created is not blasphemous to me. It is pretty cool proof of God. :-)>>Gay marriage is anti-religious because it denies the contracts of God.
<<I understand your view, but I just can't agree. I'm sorry.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:34:15
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 12:47:33
I always enjoy your views. It is hard to predict the outcomes and consequenses of things that have not yet happened. We have a responsibility to anticipate and examine (from all angles) possible scenarios and visualize what might happen. Seldom do we have access to all the facts and figures. I have access to my gut feelings and my own accumulated wisdom, coupled with inspiration from God and the scriptures. With some decisions we have to rely on faith, discernment and other spiritual gifts, as well as the facts and figures.
It is quite an experience to try to communicate and share ideas openly between friends of various beliefs or non beliefs.
Should society feel an obligation to present belief in God as an option to the children? It seems the powers against God try to remove his name from all education. Freedom gives us the option to believe as we choose. The only problem as I see it, there actually is a God. Many have seen him. In a court of law this would be called evidence and witnesses.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:43:01
In reply to Re: and in case it is in doubt » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 12:50:05
Disclosure: I am straight, female, and have been happily in a monogomous marriage for more than thirty five years. I am a self-educated Canadian, so what do I know about American politics? My US History teacher (I attended high school in U.S. for a couple of years) openly admitted he was in teaching just for the money.
Posted by snoozin on March 1, 2005, at 15:19:26
In reply to Re: and in case it is in doubt » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:43:01
Shows you what I know. I thought you were a male. "ray", you know. Sorry. :-)
> Disclosure: I am straight, female, and have been happily in a monogomous marriage for more than thirty five years. I am a self-educated Canadian, so what do I know about American politics? My US History teacher (I attended high school in U.S. for a couple of years) openly admitted he was in teaching just for the money.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 13:34:15
It is indeed hard to predict outcomes. But I also think it's crazymaking to try to think of all the scenarios. So I try to concentrate on figuring out what the most likely outcomes will be.
And, not knowing what you call all the facts, and what I would call the future, we do have to rely on our gut.
My gut tells me that if gay marriage is not prohibited then the marriages are likely to be much as most heterosexual ones are now. Many would work and be stable. Some would contain abuse and cheating, and there would be some divorces. What the numbers would be compared to current hetosexual ones are I don't know. Probably worse at first, then as society adjusts they would be about the same.
My gut also tells me that if things started going towards your worse-case scenarios there would be a point where huge numbers of people in both the gay and straight worlds would object and a line would be drawn.
The other question: "Should society feel an obligation to present belief in God as an option to the children?" I personally believe that no, society has no right teaching that to children, just as it has no right teaching that there is no god.
If god were brought into schools then the naturally curious kiddos would ask questions about the nature of god. At that point, they are likely to be taught that nature accordint to the particular teacher's beliefs. And as we all know there are as many different views on that as there are teachers. Even among Christians the views aren't the same.
So - best for all to let the schools stick to math, science, history, liturature and so on.
Teaching religion is the parents' job. (In my opinion of course.)
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:07:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
Then bright ones, let us solve the problem.
My gut tells me there is only one way to solve it. As you said, let parents teach their children.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:13:43
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 15:23:34
We will soon see this day, in fact it is here already, and it will only get worse. That is my own political prophecy.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:26:05
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:13:43
http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/10/35-36#36
Another scriptural twist to the idea. There are definately two scenarios here.
1. Gay marriage could certainly set parents and their children against one another
2. Belief in God could put families against each other too if one believes and another doesn't.Have you ever read the Bible, or parts of it? Why would or wouldn't you choose to read the world's most famous book?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 17:10:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 16:26:05
Why would it set parents and children apart, or families against each other? I guess it's possible it *could* but no reason that it *should* or *would*.
We (the two of us) can reasonably discuss things here and would probably get along quite well in person. I don't see any reason other people couldn't do the same thing.
And, yes I've read a fair amount of the bible. In varying translations. I've always found it interesting that different translations can have quite different meanings.
I've also found it interesting that there are such a large number of people that only follow the parts that agree with their own morality.
Do you eat shrimp?
Sorry. Bad question - that could be taken as baiting and that's not what I intend.
Posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage, posted by AuntieMel on March 1, 2005, at 17:10:06
You are detail oriented and quite analytical while I can barely remember the topic. If you're baiting me, I'm hooked. Now, why would you ask if I eat shrimp?
You are right about the meaning changing in the different translations of the Bible. Would you say the Bible is the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly? What about the Book of Mormon? After 175 years it is finally being published. http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s03/hardy.html
Now, what was the topic? Is there a connection between the two books? When read together, even the shrimp issue is easier to understand.
Posted by gromit on March 2, 2005, at 0:15:26
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
The people who sue to remove the word "God" and stop kids from praying in school if they want are no less wrong that the people who want to ban gay marriage IMO.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:30:06
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
You make me sick. I have nothing more to say.
Ed.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
The world would be a better place without idiotic bigots like you.
Ed.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:34:01
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
Ray and I are having a reasonable discussion, I think. I haven't seen the bigoted rantings I've seen from other people.
I think it's actually a good thing to discuss it in a reasonable matter - but from different perspectives.
It's rare, I know, which is why I think it should be encouraged.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 1, 2005, at 19:07:46
Well, now we're getting back to the basic fact that I'm a non-believer.
Though for a believer I would think that a correct translation would *have* to be better than an incorrect one.
As for the Book of Mormon I have to claim complete and total ignorance, so it wouldn't be right for me to give any opinion.
Shrimp? The same book of Leviticus that is cited by those that say homosexuality is wrong also bans eating shellfish.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:43:12
In reply to Re: books, shrimp and translations » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
under the picture of the church sign there is a small link to the 'church sign generator' it's a lark.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 12:05:40
In reply to Re: books, shrimp and translations » rayww, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 11:40:15
The Supreme Court is hearing a case about having the ten commandments on display on public property. The case originated down here in Texas, so I've been following it.
One thing I've learned is that different denominations even within Christianity have their own version of the ten commandments.
The wording on the monument in Austin is the wording used by Lutherans, but rejected by Catholics and others.
I knew there were different wordings, to a degree, but never knew different denominations had "official" wordings.
Interesting.
Posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 12:09:04
In reply to Re: diff translations - church and state » AuntieMel, posted by AuntieMel on March 2, 2005, at 12:05:40
Hi,
I just wanted to apologise for my posts, I was really upset when I posted and was also quite angry.
Ed.
Posted by rayww on March 2, 2005, at 12:30:55
In reply to Re: Gay Marriage » rayww, posted by ed_uk on March 2, 2005, at 7:41:40
> The world would be a better place without idiotic bigots like you.
>
> Ed.
Hey, I agree, the world would be a better place without idiotic bigots.
One of the wisest people I know is Dr. Suess. I don't actually know him, but know his work. Another person I admire is/was Walt Disney. Another C.S. Lewis.
These people all wore labels. Some labels we give ourselves, some others give us. We all seem to own our fair share of them.The problem I have with labels is that I can grow up under the umbrella of truth and wisdom in the home of a loving family. I can then go on into the next generation, and mirror what I learned in my home and so on to the 12th generation. We can live lives of community service, minding our own business, doing all that we can to help others, and someone will still label us idiotic bigots, homophobics, GDMormons, or whatever. Are you asking me to stop minding my own business and venture into yours?
I have not taken offense to the label you gave me because I know who I am.
The political issue over gay marriage is one deserving of clear and careful examination. What are your opinions and ideas for resolution? At best we can only hope for some kind of compromise, meaning both sides of the debate will have to give up something.
There are likely bigots and idiots on both sides of the debate, but there are also many who have tollerance and an open mind. Dr. Suess still said it best.
http://www.uulongview.com/sermons/bellies_with_stars.html
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.