![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 43. Go back in thread:
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:50:18
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by lynn971 on February 8, 2006, at 19:45:12
Lynn,
I honestly don't think that christians are losing all of their rights. They are though, losing some that other religions may have never had. I think that in many arenas, they are losing laws that specifically favor them.
Some of this loss I disagree with. Forcing a town to take down a monument of the ten commandments, etc. is, I think, wrong. However, if another faith with significant population wished to erect a similar monument to their faith, that should be supported.
Removing christian specific prayers as mandated prayers, is not wrong. Forbiding a christian student from mentioning Christ in an address is wrong.
If a pagan student is forbidden to wear his or her pentacle to school, I think that it is only fair that a christian be forbidden to wear a cross. They are both emblems of faith, and what is done for one should be done for the other. Personally, I think that all true emblems of faith should be allowed.
Christians have freedom to worship. Their ministers are able to marry their faithful. They are able to establish religious schools. They hold tax exempt status.
What is being lost is the expression of their religious beliefs in state sanctioned arenas. NO more teaching creationism in school, removing Christ from benedictions. (personally, I think this is wrong as long as other religions are allowed to mention their deities and are allowed to give benedictions) and other such things.
Again, I'm not anti-christian. I think horrible some of the things some christians have done, but christians should have every right to co-exist amongst others in a free country which promotes no religion above another.
That said, civil rights should not be based on the morality of any religion. Every person should have the right to vote, the right to work, the right to find housing, the right to worship whom they choose, the right to marry whom they choose.
No religion though, should be forced to marry a couple who they don't believe should be married. I don't want to force my morality on a church. It's a two-way street.
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 21:31:55
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » lynn971, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:50:18
My love for whom I choose to love can in no way diminish any relationship sanctioned and sanctified by any church.
The laws and constitutional ammendments attempting to be passes throughout the country and supported and even fostered by fundamentalist christians would have the committed relationships of GLBT people declared invalid and legally meaningless.
Please, PLEASE, explain the fairness of this in a country which supposedly is prohibited from imposing religious beliefs.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
In reply to NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
I agree with you.
Is NH, by chance, facing some close senate/house elections? That ammendment was put on a lot of state ballots during the presidential election - mainly in close states. Call me cynical.
My logical brain has a hard time with this one. Especially the argument that "marriage" is holy, but a civil union would be fine.
But - what is marriage? In modern times it is two things. It can be a sacrement, blessed by a church, but not recognized by the governemt. And it is also a civil contract, which *is* recognized by the state.
But both have the same name.
By outlawing "marriage" but at the same time allowing a civil union are we actually telling churches that they can't perform gay marriages?
Or are we actually using religious terminology to outlaw a civil contract?
If it is the first, my opinion is that the government should not tell churches what they can and cannot do.
If it is the second one, well - why not just be honest about it and say we don't want gay unions to be legitimized in any way?
Are we letting our personal feelings get in the way of what is the "right" thing to do?
---------------
Now - my emotional response.
My sister is gay. A couple of years ago she needed major open heart surgery and could have died. If her kids had wanted to, they could have legally kept her partner away from her while she was out of it.
I love my sister very much. This illness could have easily killed her - and the idea that she could have died without the person she loves near her... well it would have broken my heart.
Luckily her kids feel the same way as I do.
Many years ago one of my dearest friends died of aids. His partner of many years took care of him night and day until the end, where he died at home. If his parents had wanted to they could have taken over and he would have also died without the preson he loved near him.
That, too, would have been too much for me to bear to watch - especially since most of his other friends had disappeared.
How can either of those relationships diminish what my husband and I have together? If anything they are shining examples of love, and I can't see how love can ever be bad.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 12:08:52
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
AuntieMel,
Thanks for your post. I'm glad that you have such reasonable friends and family. It's sad, still, to see that even in the case of your sister, her partner essentially needed the 'permission' of 'family'. Because they can't get married, they aren't considered family in the eyes of the law, the hospital, whatever. That's terribly sad. That's exactly my point.
I don't know how to help people understand that simple fact. People who love each other so much are legally prevented from seeing each other at their dying hour, or when they are in desperate need of each other.
Thank you for your beautiful examples of open-minded friends and family. I just wish that the GLBT community wouldn't have to rely on others to demonstrate that our relationships are legitimate.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
> But - what is marriage? In modern times it is two things. It can be a sacrement, blessed by a church, but not recognized by the governemt. And it is also a civil contract, which *is* recognized by the state.
I agree. This is the root of the issue. And maybe it can't be solved without splitting the terminology. So that no government entity recognizes marriage at all, leaving it purely a religious sacrament. And all government entities recognize something else, civil union or whatever, which is what people (any people) would get a license for, and which would be open to anyone.
Although that still leaves plenty of room for argument. My not too far distant ancestors were second (or later) wives in polygamous marriages whose children were made illegitimate when Utah joined the United States, which led to disastrous economic consequences for my one step down ancestors. Should civil unions be limited to two individuals? Custom in many cultures would dictate otherwise. Is it fair to impose western values on polygamy?
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:35:55
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » deirdrehbrt, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 11:50:17
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:57:15
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
Good questions. Some would say that polygamy is the slippery slope that gay marriage would start.
Others say just limit it to two.
These days the children of your second-step ancestors would have as much right to inheritance as the first-step ones, so it isn't as important an issue as it was then.
But - even among religions there isn't just one answer. I heard a guy on the radio the other day - a talk show about this very topic. The guy was a (Christian, but I didn't catch which branch) preacher and he was talking about divorce. He said that according to the bible there is only one valid reason for divorce - adultery. If you are beaten within an inch of your life you can move away, but you can't divorce or remarry.
Another reason to keep civil and religious compacts separate, I think.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 13:34:41
An ability to discuss issues without getting personal.
I love it! Good job, guys.
Posted by ClearSkies on February 9, 2006, at 14:16:57
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
Way cool. Fun to watch!
:-)
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 15:24:56
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » AuntieMel, posted by ClearSkies on February 9, 2006, at 14:16:57
I think it's possible to discuss things without getting personal. I also think it's possible because all of us recognize that there actually *is* a problem.
I like the idea of separating the *sacrament* from the *institution*. The legal rights and priveleges would come from the institution while the sacramental aspect is conferred by the religion.
I don't have a problem with polyamorous or polygamous relationships though that's not my personal style, with an exception: The people involved in such a relationship ought to be able to support themselves as a family. I'll have to think about my position though, because there are monagamous relationships that don't support themselves well. hmmmmmm
Whatever the case, I hope that this country comes to realize that calling only heterosexual marriages legitimate does a disservice to a great many people.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 16:29:05
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 15:24:56
I think the problem that would come from multiperson legal unions would be the cost of benefits. But maybe they could fix that by increasing the base salary and having the benefits being a pre-tax deduction that each person pays for. I don't know.
My only requirement for legal unions would be the ability of all parties involved for informed consent. That would outlaw some of the most slippery slope forms of union.
The entire concept of separating the sacramental and legal aspects of what is now jointly known as marriage, and thus removing the emotional overtones of what it means to have a "marriage" seems so logical that I'm sure I'm missing something.
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 21:35:45
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2006, at 13:59:24
And fun too!
We have started having "political" discussions at the dinner table. World events anyway, and especially local events.
It's sort of fun because with little ears around, not only do I have to be civil, but I feel compelled to give both sides of every argument so that he can feel free to come to his own conclusions. No matter how strongly I feel about a topic.
I'm certain I don't come across completely impartially, but I do enjoy the mental stimulation of finding good things to say about opposing points of view.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 22:27:35
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 21:35:45
Dinah,
I like to stay open, but I'm glad that I don't have to come up with something positive to say about prohibiting marriage of other than heterosexual couples. Still, I'd never fight against a church's right to preach against this, only to try to pass laws against it. Oh yeah... I'd fight Rev. Phelps ability to protest funerals, etc. I think that's obscene.
--Dee
Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 23:47:27
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » Dinah, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 9, 2006, at 22:27:35
Well there are a few topics where I won't even try (racism, Hitler, etc.), and others where I can only say "some people believe". But even with those topics, I try to place them in context so that he at least understands the historical basis that had influences on the result.
For example, I in no way excuse the Holocaust or a quest for world domination, but I do explain the financial devastation Germany experienced after WWI and how that ripened the environment for what happened. And how important it is not to humiliate a defeated nation.
And I don't present the viewpoint of people who hate on the basis of race. But I do explain that the world changed around older people who were taught one thing in their youth and another now. And how reasonably decent people can try to do what's right, but how hard it is to overcome a lifetime of learning, and how confusing life can be when everything you thought you knew turns out to be wrong by current standards.
I guess it's along the lines of learning to reject actions while having a certain amount of compassion for how they came to be.
I don't know. Maybe it's wrong of me. But I guess it's got something to do with the religious idea of hating the sin but not the sinner, or the Montessori idea of being sad that someone made a bad choice. Or maybe just the hope for redemption.
I guess I don't want him growing up to hate.
Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2006, at 0:05:10
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » deirdrehbrt, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2006, at 23:47:27
Believe it or not, I actually pride myself on my cynicism.
But that's different than hating.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 1:29:16
In reply to Re: How cool is this???, posted by Dinah on February 10, 2006, at 0:05:10
Dinah,
Ok... I understand that, and I guess that's the way I try to live my life too. I can have compassion for another's beliefs. For example: I don't particularly like the current Pope, but I don't hold him accountable for having been involved in the Nazi youth movement in his childhood. That wasn't his choice, and I don't think that he holds to the beliefs promoted by that organization. I don't like his stance on alot of issues, but he's not making rules for me anymore. That's the Catholic church, which I'm no longer a part of.
My children still attend there, with my ex, but I think they have more liberal views. They can decide for themselves what they believe, though I hope they won't grow to reject me, and I don't think they will.
My oldest daughter is now in an inter-ratial relationship. When she first brought it up with me, I think she was trying to shock me, but I really don't have a problem with it at all, and let her know that. I'm kind of sad that she might have even thought that I might have a problem, but then again, she hadn't spoken to me in about four years so I didn't really have the opportunity to discuss dating with her.
As I've been thinking about things, I realized that I really need to consider my opinions about compelling a religious organization, as an employer, to hire people who live a lifestyle which is in opposition to that organization's beliefs. If I believe that organization should be free to uphold it's beliefs, shouldn't that extend to it's hospitals, schools, and the like? Isn't that still part of the church?
I don't know... there's lots to think about. Just as much as I don't want the religious right creating laws that interfere with my life, I don't think it's fair for the courts to tell a religious organization how they should be run. Freedom should be extended in both directions.
I've even come to terms with the Boy Scout's stand on homosexuality. There are legitimate alternatives. Spiral Scouts is a growing organization that is much more open. Still, I wish that GLBT people didn't have to search for alternatives.
Maybe one day society will be more sexually mature and less afraid of the differences among us. I hope so.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 8:43:14
In reply to Re: How cool is this??? » Dinah, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 1:29:16
"As I've been thinking about things, I realized that I really need to consider my opinions about compelling a religious organization, as an employer, to hire people who live a lifestyle which is in opposition to that organization's beliefs. If I believe that organization should be free to uphold it's beliefs, shouldn't that extend to it's hospitals, schools, and the like? Isn't that still part of the church?"
I guess that depends, but then I think there ought to be a line drawn between what is considered 'church' (tax exempt) and 'business' (tax paying.)
So many churches these days are also multi-million corporations. I doubt if anyone had this in mind when they made churches tax exempt.
As far as employment - and the benefits that come with it - I think if that school or hospital were to take *any* taxpayer money - even school vouchers or federal school loans - that it should also be subject to EEOC.
Luckily schools and hospitals are all short staffed enough that no one should need to work where they aren't wanted.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 10:39:37
In reply to Re: employment, posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 8:43:14
AnutieMel,
I suppose you're right... I just think I needed to think about it to figure out where I am. I wonder if the religious aid organization that provide services overseas are bound by the same laws?
I have'nt figured out my entire position, and I guess that's why I posted on this thread... it helps to hear other viewpoints to either solidify or modify my own.
Thanks for making me think.
--Dee
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2006, at 13:38:35
In reply to Re: employment, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 10, 2006, at 10:39:37
It's a complicated issue. Many, many shades of grey.
I think there would be room for a compromise of sorts if people could get past their emotions and talk.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2006, at 23:50:08
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:10:57
> I don't find that the sanctity of christian marriages means very much
>
> There are only two possible motives for the christian right to wish to deny the right to marry to the LGBT community:
> 1. to impose their religious beliefs on a country.
> 2. To stamp out a way of life that they do not agree with.
>
> for the religious right to say that their rules come from love is being disingenuous at best.I know this is an issue that's important to you, but please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
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
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
Posted by lynn971 on February 11, 2006, at 0:25:51
In reply to Re: NH Weighs in. » lynn971, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 20:50:18
Fair enough. I see your point.
I am just afraid that one day, christians will lose their rights to assemble in a church, or be arrested for preaching the gospel like in some countries.
Your friend,
Lynn
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 11, 2006, at 10:47:43
In reply to Re: ok » deirdrehbrt, posted by lynn971 on February 11, 2006, at 0:25:51
Lynn, I hope that never happens. I would fight it tooth and bone. As I said, I'm not anti-christian at all. I have tremendous respect for Christ and his teaching.
The ONLY thing that I object to is casting religious beliefs into law. Allowing gays to marry doesn't interfere with your practice of your faith, does it?
No-one has ever contested (with one exception that Ill get to) a preacher's right to say what they want from the pulpit. That one exception, which I whole-heartedly disagree with, states that they aren't allowed to speak of politics.... for or against a candidate from the pulpit. If a church does that, they lose their tax-exempt status. I think that law is a crock. A preacher should be able to speak out against a candidate that they view as dangerous or evil.
I don't remember if this is a state or national law, but some churches have gone so far as to give up their tax exempt status. That's sad, and maybe the churches should petition the ACLU to give them their freedom of speech from the pulpit.
In any event, I, nor people like me pose no threat to any religion's right to assemble or preach what they want. I have no issue with what you preach to your members. I do have an issue when a church legislates it's morals and denies a full 10% of the population the right to marry. I further object that they do so, claiming the sanctity of an institution (marriage) that in half the cases does not survive.
If the churches want a sacrament of marriage, they can have it. If they don't want to marry gay people, they don't have to. But there is no reason on the Goddess' green earth why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry in a church that permits it, or in a civil ceremony.
I challenge you to find a legitimate reason why gays being permitted to marry would threaten your relationship with your god or with your partner. It can't happen, not if you have a real faith and a real devotion.
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 11, 2006, at 11:40:57
In reply to Re: please be civil » deirdrehbrt, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2006, at 23:50:08
Dr. Bob,
You're tootin' it's important.
Gays have been KILLED for being gay. Gays get beat up in night clubs, on the streets, in schools, etc. Gays have protests at their funerals by anti-gay organizations. Schools that are supportive of gays get hate mail and protests. It's just as hard for the transgendered community.
As far as uncivil goes, I recommend a read from a very conservative fundamental web site. Please don't look at this if you are very easily offended.****CAUTION****
****This link contains uncivil and vulgar material directed at the GLBT community by a church****http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2006/20060204_leavenworth-high.pdf
****End of uncivil and vulgar material****
((((I'm hoping that pointing to a source of truly uncivil language isn't itself considered uncivil. I'm just trying to show the attitudes that I am fighting against.))))
This is today folks. This is what the GLBT community has to put up with. This is what we are fighting.
I know that not all churches are this bad, this hateful, this outrageous. Still, a great many of them are actively anti-gay. They attribute all manner of evil against us. They say that if gay marriage is permitted, that we are going to raise up children for NAMBLA, or to be gay themselves.
Again, this isn't ALL churches, but it is MANY churches.
Personally, in the face of what I see coming at the LGBT community, and what I read directed against me, and the people I love, I believe that I was being civil. I called no-one names. I threatened no-one. I questioned motives, and institutions, but I called no-one evil. Nor did I use vile or vulgar language.
If you can find a way to state desperately important things, highly charged things effectively but more *civilly*, please let me know. I believed I was challenging, and don't believe there is a way to present this material without being so.
If you want me to, I'll avoid posting about important and emotionally charged issues.
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 12, 2006, at 2:18:50
In reply to NH Weighs in., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 8, 2006, at 15:47:52
A little history about me...
In 1979, I joined the USAF. Partly... ok... mostly to prove that I could be a man... that I wasn't really going to hell because I knew I wasn't a man. I served through some troubled times. I became a supervisor, and had some wonderful people working for me.
When I left in 1983, I was ready to be promoted to Staff sergeant, and I had earned the Air Force Commendation medal. I had done well.
Later on, I joined the Air National Guard, partly I guess for the same reasons, and partly to save my marriage. While there, I again did work that I was proud of. I really would have liked to continue my career, but they became aware of my therapy, and my transgendered status. We trannies aren't fit to serve in the military. We're mentally ill, and may alter our genetalia. Both of these are grounds for dismissal.
During my time in the military, and outside, I spent 25 years in music ministry in my church. While I was in, I taught Vacation Bible School. I tried really hard to believe... In the Christian church, and that God would "fix" me. I realize now that it didn't happen because I'm not broken as the church defined it. Stuff happens, wires get crossed, and plumbing just might not match the brain. An accident of nature, but definitely not sin. Same thing with being gay or lesbian. Brains are wired just a bit differently. Nothing sick or sinfull... it's just the way they are.
I'll admit that I was later found to be Bipolar, and Borderline, which would have ended my career anyway, but that's not why I was discharged. (At least they gave me an honorable, but I'm prohibited from ever serving in any branch again.)
There is such prejudice and intolerance an hatred directed against the GLBT community that it's impossible to discuss it without passion. I loved being in the military. But even there I remember people telling gay jokes because "That's the only people we can joke about without getting into trouble". Those who were gay or lesbian couldn't say anything for fear of being outed. The "don't ask don't tell" policy meaning that you just had to suck it up and deal with it.
The safe person to go to would be the chaplain... maybe. Even there, the best you could hope for would be for them to say "Pray to god to remove this terrible curse from you" or something similar.
Finally, I've decided to live my life the way the Goddess meant for me to live it. I'm still frightened. Someone might decide they need to beat the crap out of me, as they have to so many others. Should I want to get married again, I don't know if I'll be permitted to. If I die, my family would likely try to change my name to reflect my birth name on any stone that I might have as they don't accept me as anything other than their son.
So... to any who think that I wish to stifle any church from preaching what they will, I offer that I served in the military to prevent just that. If I were permitted, I would still be doing so today. It's ironic... I served to preserve the right to preach against what I was ultimately discharged for.
For those who think being GLBT is a sin, rather than a fact of birth, rest assured that I have given God my all to try and change... "even unto the point of death" having tried suicide many times thinking that death would be preferable to continue living a life of sin. God didn't give me strenght or healing to change. In the Goddess though, I have found that I can live the life I was given without shame or condemnation.
I wish that people could understand what it is like to be a part of society that so many people hate: To see people protesting people who are like you, dancing on their graves, getting beat up, etc. The closest that I can come to that is this: http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/1769/gayday.htm
It's certainly not real, but Beverly (owner of the site) has given a chance for some sort of experience (without having to worry about someone thinking you're really gay).
To those who are afraid of civil rights for the GLLBT community, I'm terribly sorry. I'm sorry for what you have been told about us, that you think we are in any way dangerous. I've heard the stories too: That we're child mollesters, that we want to raise kids to be gay, that we'll try to destroy your churches, etc. The sad truth is that the percentage of gay child mollesters is the same as for the straight community. There are sick people in both our communities. We don't want to raise GLBT children. Can you honestly believe we want our kids to go through the hell we've been through? If we did, we would certainly be sick. And we don't want to destroy churches. Certainly there are those of us who would have liked to see our home church accept us, but I think most of us realize that isn't going to happen. As far as going to another church, no-one wants to be where they aren't welcome.
I apologize if anyone has taken any offense to anything I've said, in this post or in any previous ones. I've tried not to offend, but I find that when it comes to being GLBT, some people take offense at our mere existence, let alone our demand for equal rights under the law. As far as being civil, I think that I've been polite and courteous though I might have pushed some people beyond their comfort zones.
Personally, when discussing important things, I like to be pushed beyond my comfort zone. It makes me think. If I'm not challenged, if I'm not called to task on my beliefs and merely recite what's taught to me without thinking it through on my own, then my beliefs aren't really mine. They're borrowed. They belong to some preacher or some book or my parents, but they aren't my own until I've been challenged, been required to give them some thought, and earned the right to call them mine.
Years ago, when I was a christian, I was writing a musical with a friend of mine. It was titled "The Inheritance". It was about someone who had been born into a Christian family. This person had an "Inherited" faith. He thought he was saved. He thought he was a Christian. But when put to the test, he found that what he had inherited wasn't really his. His own faith had to be learned and earned and tested on it's own. What his parents had "given" him only gave him knowledge, but nothing substantial.
It's the same for all of us. What we read in a book, what we hear from the pulpit, what we learn from a teacher... none of this is really ours until we put it to the test. When it comes to civil rights, writing papers about it in school is fine, but if you don't get out there and say something... challenge someone and be challenged yourself, you're just having an opinion and staying safe.
Anyway..... I've written alot, and it's probably becaus of the cr*p going on with my roommates, and I can't get to sleep. I hope though that maybe you can better understand, now that you have some context, my strongly felt beliefs. This isn't a theoretical position for me. It's my life, and constitutional ammendments and laws and churches are trying to tell me, and people like me, that we are less than human; not deserving of the rights that others take for granted.
Anyway, enough ranting.
Blessings,
--Dee
Posted by James K on February 12, 2006, at 18:35:39
In reply to Just to put a face on the picture..., posted by deirdrehbrt on February 12, 2006, at 2:18:50
I'm leaving the main subject a little, but I wanted to say I was raised Southern Baptist in the suburbs. even though I was an extreme liberal politically and a punk rock kid. I had prejudices. When I moved into the city, I was able to see the difference first, during that sad time when I saw skelatal men walking around as they deteriorated, then when I worked in a major book chain with a liberal hiring practice. Then I met and knew gay,lesbian and even transgendered people, and I often was the last to figure it out, and was sometimes a minority. Now close friends have stood by me and supported me through this time in my life for no reason other than who I am even though the young me or my family would be "against" them. Same for my wife. Her background is much more conservative than mine, but once we were free and allowed to think for ourselves, we made the unconscious decision to take people as they came.
Since you told your story, I'll share mine. My wife is 30 years older than me. We are "in the closet" to our families after 13 years of obviousness. I wish when people cast aspersions on us, I could tell them "if we were opposite sex, would you have the same problem?". The first people who were honest enough to ask "Are ya'll partners or roommates were my gblt friends. And it was such a relief to tell the truth.
I hope none of this is somehow patronizing, I feel it is neccassary to step carefully when comparing one issue to the other. Mainly, though, you love who you love.
James
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.