![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 40. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by caraher on November 11, 2008, at 4:50:27
Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY
It's interesting to note that just over 40 years ago Barack Obama's parents' marriage would not be recognized in many states. And it's worth remembering that historically marriage law has been more about property relations than morality.
Keith's remarks below...
---------------------------------
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
Posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 12:14:16
In reply to Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by caraher on November 11, 2008, at 4:50:27
I watched the video and felt compassion, but then I read this article and wondered what is going on in America? Can you help me understand this issue between what the gay community calls religion vs politics? Religion doesn't want to be involved but they are forced to stand up for principles, when religion itself is threatened. What I glean from my study is the gay mafia community is saying something like "if it doesn't work for us it doesn't work for anyone". Am I right?
This article from TIME suggests there is just as much political activism from gays as from religion. So, what we are growing is a divide that cannot be bridged except by tolerance, and is this tolerance one sided? Agree to disagree might be the only solution, and the best it can possibly be.
The Gay Mafia That's Redefining Liberal Politics
By JOHN CLOUD / BEVERLY HILLS Friday, Oct. 31, 2008
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854884,00.htmlA few weeks before Virginia's legislative elections in 2005, a researcher working on behalf of a clandestine group of wealthy, gay political donors telephoned a Virginia legislator named Adam Ebbin. Then, as now, Ebbin was the only openly gay member of the state's general assembly. The researcher wanted Ebbin's advice on how the men he represented could spend their considerable funds to help defeat anti-gay Virginia politicians.
Ebbin, a Democrat who is now 44, was happy to oblige. (Full disclosure: in the mid-'90s, Ebbin and I knew each other briefly as colleagues; he sold ads for Washington City Paper, a weekly where I was a reporter.) Using Ebbin's expertise, the gay donors none of whom live in Virginia began contributing to certain candidates in the state. There were five benefactors: David Bohnett of Beverly Hills, Calif., who in 1999 sold the company he had co-founded, Geo-Cities, to Yahoo! in a deal worth $5 billion on the day it was announced; Timothy Gill of Denver, another tech multimillionaire; James Hormel of San Francisco, grandson of George, who founded the famous meat company; Jon Stryker of Kalamazoo, Mich., the billionaire grandson of the founder of medical-technology giant Stryker Corp.; and Henry van Ameringen, whose father Arnold Louis van Ameringen started a Manhattan-based import company that later became the mammoth International Flavors & Fragrances.
The five men spent $138,000 in Virginia that autumn, according to state records compiled by the nonprofit Virginia Public Access Project. Of that, $48,000 went directly to the candidates Ebbin recommended. Ebbin got $45,000 for his PAC, the Virginia Progress Fund, so he could give to the candidates himself. Another $45,000 went to Equality Virginia, a gay-rights group that was putting money into many of the same races.
On Election Day that year, the Virginia legislature stayed solidly in Republican hands; the Democratic Party netted just one seat. But that larger outcome masked an intriguing development: anti-gay conservatives had suffered considerably. For instance, in northern Virginia, a Democrat named Charles Caputo (who received $6,500 from Ebbin's PAC) had beaten a Christian youth minister, Chris Craddock, by an unexpectedly large margin, with a vote of 56% to 41%. Three other candidates critical of gays were also defeated, including delegate Richard Black, who had long opposed gay equality in Richmond. Black had had no single donation as large as the $20,000 that Ebbin's PAC gave his opponent. "This was my ninth election campaign, and it wasn't unusual to have homosexuals involved," says Black, who now practices law. "But it was different, certainly, in degree. There had not been a concerted influx of money from homosexuals as a group before."
The group that donated the money to use against Black and the others is known as the Cabinet, although you won't find that name on a letterhead or even on the Internet. Aside from Bohnett, 52; Gill, 55; Hormel, 75; Stryker, 50; and Van Ameringen, 78, the other members of the Cabinet are Jonathan Lewis (49-year-old grandson of Joseph, co-founder of Progressive Insurance) and Linda Ketner, 58, heiress to the Food Lion fortune, who is running for Congress against GOP Representative Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina.
Ketner's is something of a long-shot bid her district has been reliably Republican for years but recently Congressional Quarterly described her "suddenly strong run" against Brown as "the biggest surprise" in this year's House races. Ketner, who was invited to join the all-male Cabinet as a way of diversifying it, declined to discuss her role in the group.
Among gay activists, the Cabinet is revered as a kind of secret gay Super Friends, a homosexual justice league that can quietly swoop in wherever anti-gay candidates are threatening and finance victories for the good guys. Rumors abound in gay political circles about the group's recondite influence; some of the rumors are even true. For instance, the Cabinet met in California last year with two sitting governors, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, both Democrats; political advisers who work for the Cabinet met with a third Democratic governor, Wisconsin's Jim Doyle. The Cabinet has also funded a secretive organization called the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), which a veteran lesbian activist describes as the "Gay IRS." MAP keeps tabs on the major gay organizations to make sure they are operating efficiently. The October 2008 MAP report notes, for example, that the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force fails to meet Better Business Bureau standards for limiting overhead expenses.
------------
I don't want to offend anyone who is gay, but I'm not even sure they are aware of this, or what they are doing by pressing their lifestyle on the GP.rayww
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 12:59:16
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 12:14:16
I'll buy more hams.
Posted by Toph on November 11, 2008, at 13:12:14
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 12:14:16
> ...What I glean from my study is the gay mafia community is saying something like "if it doesn't work for us it doesn't work for anyone". Am I right?
Jeez, I once felt pretty threatened by the Christian Coalition, now should I worry about the Gay Mafia? I don't know who they are, but I bet they look mahvalous.
Bada Bing.
Posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 13:12:34
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 12:59:16
fayeroe you are a ham. :)
Posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 13:15:04
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by Toph on November 11, 2008, at 13:12:14
> > ...What I glean from my study is the gay mafia community is saying something like "if it doesn't work for us it doesn't work for anyone". Am I right?
>
> Jeez, I once felt pretty threatened by the Christian Coalition, now should I worry about the Gay Mafia? I don't know who they are, but I bet they look mahvalous.
>
> Bada Bing.
>What a ham you are. So funny...ha, ha, ha!
Posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 13:23:50
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8, posted by rayww on November 11, 2008, at 12:14:16
I don't want to offend anyone who is gay, but I'm not even sure they are aware of this, or what they are doing by pressing their lifestyle on the GP.
Sounds as if someone put their money where their mouth is.
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64163.asp
Posted by yxibow on November 11, 2008, at 21:56:52
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » rayww, posted by fayeroe on November 11, 2008, at 13:23:50
> I don't want to offend anyone who is gay, but I'm not even sure they are aware of this, or what they are doing by pressing their lifestyle on the GP.
>
>
> Sounds as if someone put their money where their mouth is.
> http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64163.aspWell, I am offended. Its not a "lifestyle" or a "choice". I am gay, because I was born that way.
I first knew at 12, even if my parents were reacting that you don't know yet when I told them at 15 (you're too young or whatever) and there was the "no grandchildren" sigh and all that -- didn't really matter, my parents loved me, they were just going through a thought process that took probably 5 years before my mother was pointing out gay and lesbian issues in the news.
I had an *ssh*l* of a childhood psychologist looking back (later really it was pointed out that I had OCD) who, yes I really went too far and pressed his "Christian religious agenda" (if we are on the subject of that) on me when I said I was gay and told me to masturbate to women, like that was going to change anything about how I felt about the men of Melrose Place.
It was the psychological process that triggered the psychiatric inevitability towards biological OCD because I had "magical thinking" that if I masturbated people would know I was gay at school-- yes, it is an extreme OCD, but there was this spreading ick of semen and eventually everything bathroom like and washing hands and showers that lasted 7 hours, and hands that turned bone white, and finally hospitalization after graduation because I knew I couldn't go any further.
After hospitalization and day treatment, I volunteered and actually worked for a prominent doctor I cannot name, helping the program. I saw more money for a 17 year old than I would have seen before and it empowered my self-worth.
I became social and met a curious and interesting group of friends and had nightlife and companionship and a place of acceptance for the first time.
I went to college.
Yes, those days are long ago and people have moved on in their careers, I look at them of course with rosy lenses, and now with this huge complex somatoform "orphan" disorder
(meaning largely that I feel for people but I don't identify like, there are a lot of people with BP, or TRD, or pure OCD like I used to have and fought on my own -- this one is really different and one I don't know all the tools to extricate myself from and feel that self-worth again).
I feel separate but still distantly connected from the same peers by illness -- I need to be part of society but its been a long and arduous 7 years.
But this is getting into psychology and psychiatry, getting back to the statement -- some gay and lesbian people may be very angry, and they have the right to be, because in this country........where there should be the separation of church and state, one church decided that they had to "press their lifestyle on the GP".
And if you enter the political arena, you're going to get people angered and admittedly some potty mouth things and some people may go overboard, but these things are about single issue things that should be a fundamental right.
Personally I think that marriage should be a government contract for all.
You go to your nearest office, and you pay a notary and you get your certificate, and then you go to your church, temple, mosque, gardens of choice and have a religious service and an afterparty and rejoice in your own way.
The articles about the "gay mafia" -- yes, I read parts of that in the Advocate -- the headliner is a canard, a play on words -- it just means people behind the scenes, influential people in the gay and lesbian community who want to see our rights secured.
Yes, our rights. As humans, as human as anybody else. We have an old Constitution, Canada has a new and evolving one, the Charter of Rights and Freedom. And it was from that that gay and lesbian marriage was held up by the Crown Court as singling out a particular segment of society.-- Jay
Posted by fayeroe on November 12, 2008, at 9:56:33
In reply to Re: Keith Olberman on Prop 8 » fayeroe, posted by yxibow on November 11, 2008, at 21:56:52
yxibow, I've never met a gay/lesbian person who was trying to push their lifestyle on the GP. (or was that the GOP?) :-) And of course, I now say that I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends. And I do.
I grew up in the era where I didn't even hear about gay/lesbians and didn't know that there was an alternative lifestyle until I moved to Dallas, to work, at 16.(I'm 65) After I went to school and married, I lived in Lawton, Oklahoma and helped elect a gay mayor. He served 6 years on the City Council previous to being our mayor. My home was threatened, my children were threatened (had to take them to my parent's home for duration of campaign) and someone wired my pickup up. We had the election watch party at our house and received threats that night via telephone. I saw all of that as ridiculous posturing by homophobic and small-minded people, who probably didn't even live in the city limits. The election proved that Lawton has a lot of people who aren't prejudiced towards gays and I still consider it a victory for gays and friends with open minds. Dan implemented tons of programs for the city and worked the hardest on improving the city's education system. He was a fantastic advocate for all citizens. He had no prejudice towards anyone.
I'm very sorry that you've had such a hard time through your lifetime. I'm here. We need less prejudice in our country and I will always work against it.
I am also opposed to churches that tell me "our way or nothing". If we want to talk about someone pressing their lifestyle upon us...we can start with a lot of organized religions. But we can perservere over that nonsense. I have more pity than anger towards those organizations. It has to be hard to be perfect.
I also have a statement about anti=abortionists. I always ask my sisters how much they have donated to help the thousands of abused, tortured and homeless children who are born here every year. I also ask when was the last time they babysat and gave the mother a much needed break. They have no answer for that and I seriously doubt that 1% of the pro-lifers can say that they've pitched in to help those children and parents.
xoxo Pat
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.
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.