Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Yet another story that shows why not allowing same sex marriage causes real harm to real families.
Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond had planned to take their three children on a family cruise. The Olympia, Washington couple had been together 18 years and with their children were looking forward to the holiday.But just as they were about to depart on the cruise from Miami, Florida. Pond, a healthy 39-year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami with Langbehn and the children following close behind.
But once Langbehn and the children arrived at the hospital the hospital refused to accept information from her about Ponds's medical history.
Pond ended up dying and her partner and children had virtually no contact with her prior to her death:
Langbehn says she was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family.A doctor finally spoke with Janice telling her that there was no chance of recovery.
Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Langbehn's request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor's acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither she nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival.
Soon after Pond''s death, Langbehn tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.
This is not an abstract. This is a real family in a real crisis and they were treated abominably. And there is one and only one reason for that: anti-gay bigotry. Let's hear those "pro-family" groups defend what happened to this family.
Comments
I'm appalled. Simply appalled.
I wish I were surprised.
Posted by: Dan | February 23, 2008 10:20 AM
This has nothing to do with them being in an "antigay state" but it has everything to do with these so called medical professionals not acting as simple human beings.
Posted by: yoshi | February 23, 2008 10:47 AM
What's the best way to get this into the mainstream media (with the families permission of course). Something like Digg just isn't going to get this out to the people that need to see it (the voters of Florida).
Is there an organization who has a press officer with enough clout to get this on the news of the big nationwide networks?
Posted by: David Durant | February 23, 2008 10:49 AM
What ever happenen to:
"First do no harm"? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 23, 2008 11:01 AM
How much money, if any, can these folks expect to receive if they had a good lawyer?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 23, 2008 11:21 AM
> How much money, if any, can these folks expect to receive if they had a good lawyer?
It's not about the money - it's about making sure people like this doctor are prevented from practicing medicine.
If I was out with a *friend* who collapsed, never mind my partner, and at the hospital the doctor wouldn't listen when I attempted to supply their medical history I would be insanely angry. There's no doubt in my mind that if the case is as simple as it is laid out above then the doctor should be struck off.
Posted by: David Durant | February 23, 2008 11:31 AM
This is wrong in so many ways. Even if Florida is an "antigay state" (which is already criminal in my mind) but they are also proving to be even more "antifamily" by punishing not just the partner but the children as well. This is a real human tragedy.
Posted by: JoH | February 23, 2008 11:34 AM
David said:
"It's not about the money - it's about making sure people like this doctor are prevented from practicing medicine."
It's always about the money, and it should be so.
Not only does this family, IMO, deserve compensation, but a large punitive judgement is the best way to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Anywhere, by anybody.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 23, 2008 11:39 AM
> It's always about the money, and it should be so.
I couldn't disagree more.
If the only way to motivate people is by the promise of more money or the fear of less money (ie being sued) then that's the sign of a very sick culture.
> a large punitive judgement is the best way to make sure
> this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
People should act correctly because they believe it is *right* not because of the fear of being punished financially for being *seen* to do it wrong. That concept will only drive the problem underground.
Posted by: David Durant | February 23, 2008 11:46 AM
I agree completely with David Durant. Lawsuits and the fear of lawsuits distort so many things in our lives. When I bought a new car a few years ago there were 10 pages on how to fasten the seatbelt, but not a word on how to set the clock or station presets on the radio. People don't sue because they are too stupid to set the clock, but they do sue if they are too stupid to operate a seatbelt.
My wife had kidney cancer. She was misdiagnosed for years, until the tumor grew up her vena cava nearly to her heart. Fortunately, she was finally diagnosed correctly, and today she is fine. Should we have sued the half-wit who told her that the lump on her kidney was "just a misshapen kidney, nothing to worry about?" Believe me, I'd like to, but we have no damages to sue for. I'm much happier that she is healthy than I would be if I had a hell of a good wrongful death suit.
Teachers who tell students they can't have a Jesus club, or that they can't read a Bible passage as an example of something that inspired them, are acting in fear of lawsuits.
It is important to be able to sue for damages, and to have people who harm others held accountable, but do I really need a warning label on a coffee mug that the coffee I put in it may be hot?
Posted by: BaldApe | February 23, 2008 12:00 PM
I'm with David. For a doctor to refuse to take a medical history from the only person present who knows the patient well enough to supply it, regardless of who that person is, is grossly irresponsible and unethical. A complete history can mean the difference between life and death for a patient. If that isn't a license-revoking offense, it should be.
Posted by: borealys | February 23, 2008 12:00 PM
David, that's the world we would like to live in, and wish we did, but the world we actually live in at the moment only responds to the treatment described by Ginger.
Hoping, wishing and praying for that world is not going to make it happen overnight, nor is it going to provide any sort of consolation or closure for that family if it does. They have been seriously wronged and it needs to be addressed in the only manner available at this time.
Posted by: Jeff | February 23, 2008 12:04 PM
I hate myself for having laughed at this, but...
Florida is an "ANTI-GAY" state? Have these people ever been to Miami? Thats like claiming California is anti-gay because of the attitudes of Jefferson-State hillbillies.
Posted by: Troy | February 23, 2008 12:21 PM
Posted by: Taz | February 23, 2008 12:24 PM
Troy - not to mention "The Beverley Hills Hillbillies" - You come back now y'here.
If it were so sad .... :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 23, 2008 12:29 PM
What kind of doctors did they see? This isn't some Phelps wannabe denying gay people access to a coffee shop, these are doctors entrusted with saving people's lives. Was there no one with any sort of human empathy that stepped around the admin rules to deal with the family? Disgusting.
Posted by: Adrian | February 23, 2008 12:32 PM
This story is very fishy. How did the hospital staff even know that this was a lesbian family? Maybe they were just a bunch of related or even unrelated people traveling together.
You should take what you read with a grain of salt, Ed.
You titled this article "Why Gay Marriage Matters, Again," but this incident has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Posted by: XYZ | February 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Ed,
I think this is a great real story to see where the rubber meets the road as far as the debate that has continued on this site about the Bible and homosexuality.
There are many laws in the book of Leviticus that talk about the sacrifices and who can eat them and what to do with them. One was that only the Priests could eat the bread. I cannot remember the exact story in the New Testament but Jesus looks at some Pharisees who were telling him some crap about the Sabbath and says essentially that the laws were made for the benefit of man not tradition. He quotes what David did in feeding his men the bread for the Priests as a good thing. This was in reference to when David was on the run from Saul and his men were hungry and he went to the Priest and asked for food.
What was the whole point? The object of God's concern was not the tradition or law being kept but the suffering of man to be eleviated. There are many more times where Jesus pointed out this to the Pharisees. In fact, many can say it was his most essential message: You guys are using this law to hurt people instead of helping them.
If this is correct then I can say without reservation that Jesus would see the pain in the heart of that woman and come and comfort her and let her see the person she loved without bringing up the gay issue. It reminds me of the woman with 5 husbands who asked him what mountain to worship on. He tells her to worship in spirit and truth. In other words these arguments over law and tradition are meaningless unless it leads to a revelation and relationship with God.
I think this is in line with the story about your aunt who took care of the man with AIDS and never judged him. I think we take so much time talking about the politics of all the agendas we lose sight of people's pain. I know I do it. I can think homosexuality is wrong and relate to someone like Priya who says people need companionship. The lonliness is more the issue for me and the that pain rather the the legalistic status of the relationship. This is what compassion is. It sees the pain not the right and wrong so much.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 23, 2008 2:27 PM
The point is XYZ that if they had been allowed to marry no one would have questioned whether or not she had the right to give medical history and visit her partner. It has everything to do with marriage equality, or I should say, the lack thereof.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 23, 2008 2:28 PM
David said:
"If the only way to motivate people is by the promise of more money or the fear of less money (ie being sued) then that's the sign of a very sick culture."
While I admire the idealism of your reply, I would say that "the sign of a very sick culture" is what happened to that poor family in Florida.
Have you ever been subjected to a Human Resources presentation on sexual harassment? I'd wager that everybody who works for a corporation of a certain size and larger has enjoyed at least one of these presentations as much as I have enjoyed mine.
Sexual harassment is a very real problem and not a nice thing in practice. But sexual harassment is not new - what IS new is that it is no longer swept under the table. And the ONLY reason why it is taken seriously now is because at least one victim took his employer to court and won a really, really big settlement.
Twenty or thirty years ago our culture never took the subject seriously, and now minds and attitudes have changed. Because of the power of the almighty dollar.
BalsApe said:
"It is important to be able to sue for damages, and to have people who harm others held accountable, but do I really need a warning label on a coffee mug that the coffee I put in it may be hot."
Ah, the infamous McDonalds scalding coffee case.
BaldApe, you wouldn't be seeing a hot liquid sticker if McDonalds had acted responsibly to begin with. They did nothing to correct a situation where they were dispensing virtually boiling coffee into paper cups to their customers. They hurt a lot of folks doing this and evidently couldn't care enough about it to fix the situation until someone who was, in fact, greviously injured sued the crap out of them, and won their case.
Now McDonalds isn't serving 2nd and 3rd degree burns with their coffee anymore, because they paid a large enough settlement to get their attention.
Why we see all these idiotic warning labels is a good question! I can't imagine that they protect any company who is putting out a needlessly dangerous product anyway.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 23, 2008 2:30 PM
"King" said " In other words these arguments over law and tradition are meaningless unless it leads to a revelation and relationship with God.".
People, their needs, wants, and desires are not meaningless. Your imaginary god character is meaningless. No one needs a relationship with an imaginary sky-buddy.
"King" said " I can think homosexuality is wrong and relate to someone like Priya who says people need companionship."
When you say something that hurts no and meets the needs of people for love is wrong you most certainly do not relate to me. Its not for you to be dictating to others how to live when they're not hurting you or anyone else in any way.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 23, 2008 2:37 PM
So... do these folks have the grounds to press a successful civil case or not?
Would the ACLU be interested in this case?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Florida's still a state?
Huh. Who knew?
When was the last time you saw a news story out of Florida that WASN'T reprehensible and fundamentally unAmerican?
Posted by: No Spam | February 23, 2008 2:43 PM
"This story is very fishy. How did the hospital staff even know that this was a lesbian family? Maybe they were just a bunch of related or even unrelated people traveling together."
Larry, you fucking dipshit, the hospital would've released the information or granted visitation if they were married. Because they are visciously discriminated against and not allowed the obtain that status, this incident happened. You are trying to minimize that. I can't wait until you get deleted again.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 23, 2008 2:45 PM
"People, their needs, wants, and desires are not meaningless. Your imaginary god character is meaningless. No one needs a relationship with an imaginary sky-buddy."
You missed what I was saying. My exact point is that people's needs, wants, and desires should be our focus not the rules and laws in themselves. Whether God exists or not, is up to legitimate debate and for each person to decide based on all availible evidence. Whether Christians should deliver and live out the right message of what they say they believe in is not up for debate in my mind.
I disagree with you in general but can see where you are coming from. It sounds a lot like what Charles Barkley said the other day. I agree with what he said even though I cannot say I am "for" abortion and gay marriage. If the goal is to shut the real bigots who are hurting people, I just think you are going about wrong. But I can see where you are coming from like I said.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 23, 2008 2:59 PM
Re Tyler DiPietro on XYZ
Well, Mr. Fafarman again slips his crap in again under his XYZ moniker. Apparently, gay bashing is another of his foibles, along with his denier activities. The problem with Mr. Fafarman is that he breaths out but he doesn't breath in.
Posted by: SLC | February 23, 2008 3:20 PM
I'm also wondering about the medical history ... what did she die of? Could it have been prevented if they had taken a full medical history? Was there even a chance?
Depending on the circumstances, in addition to a discrimination case, they could have a wrongful death suit on their hands.
The fact that they were so cold and callous is infuriating. What happened to "hate the sin, love the sinner." This was pure bigotry, and a more cruel than usual variety of it.
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 23, 2008 3:37 PM
"Teachers who tell students they can't have a Jesus club, or that they can't read a Bible passage as an example of something that inspired them, are acting in fear of lawsuits."
No. They are responsible teachers acting in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.
"...[McDonalds was] dispensing virtually boiling coffee ...They hurt a lot of folks doing this and evidently couldn't care enough about it to fix the situation until someone...sued the crap out of them."
Please. This is total b.s. and is the worst example of use of the judicial system. Getting a burn and DIEING are not equivalent.
Posted by: catalytica | February 23, 2008 4:11 PM
I bet catalytica has never had a second or third degree burn, much less one that covered a good portion of her body. I have. While not equivalent to dying, it's prety horrific. Suffice it to say, the treatment is just as painful as the initial injury, and the sensation is akin to feeling your flesh eaten away, layer by layer.
All that aside, the generous interpretation of this moronic doctor's actions is that he believed some terrible HIPAA and state confidentiality law advice his hospital counsel or (more likely) risk manager gave him. The more likely interpretation is that he used the HIPAA bogeyman as an excuse not to listen to or talk to the patient's partner. I'm not licensed in Florida, but I'd bet good money that Florida's medical confidentiality laws don't prevent a clinician from either taking information from or giving basic information to the friend who came into the hospital with an unconscious patient, absent an immediate family member coming in and denying access. HIPAA certainly doesn't.
While marriage rights would solve a lot of these problems, this jackass doctor and his ilk would act the same regardless - they'd just demand to see the marriage license before talking to the patient's partner.
Posted by: AnneS | February 23, 2008 4:37 PM
DIEING
Enough said.
Posted by: Matthew | February 23, 2008 4:43 PM
What happened to those people was horrible, but is this really a great argument for gay marriage? In addition to not wishing this fate on unmarried gay partners, I wouldn't want it to happen to unmarried straight partners or even polygamists.
The author seems correct to blame this on anti-gay bigotry, but marriage law is more likely an effect of public sentiment than the cause of it.
Posted by: David | February 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Ill second what was posted by Dan...
I really wish I were surprised. Things like this should not be allowed to happen.
This makes me winder hat would happen if I were in serious trouble, would my significant other be able to see me or be able to make decisions for my health or would he be told to stand in the lobby and wait till I die?
Posted by: Brian C | February 23, 2008 5:20 PM
"Please. This is total b.s. and is the worst example of use of the judicial system. Getting a burn and DIEING are not equivalent."
If you actually LOOKED INTO THAT CASE, you'd know that the lawsuit came about because the woman who sued was burned so badly by the coffee that HER LABIA FUSED TOGETHER.
Posted by: Collie | February 23, 2008 5:34 PM
The religious institution of marriage and its legal counterpart are unrelated. The government's interest in recognizing marriage has absolutely no dependence on the genders of the parties involved. It's only the religious idiots that deliberately confuse the two in order to institutionalize their bigotry.
I believe a good way to solve the problem is to do away with the legal concept of marriage all together. Let people enter into domestic partnership agreements all they want and let religious fools pretend they have all the answers as they wish. Gays don't really care that churches refuse to recognize that they are people, they are too busy fighting against criminal discrimination as documented in this case.
King of Ireland, the interesting thing about your point is that your faith and your God are not needed to justify the proper treatment of people, they are only necessary to justify your position that homosexuality is wrong. Gay people know right from wrong, too, and far more often I suspect that loving christians do in this case. If the hospital staff were gay would this have happened?
Posted by: craig | February 23, 2008 5:35 PM
Brian - Legally, your significant other should be allowed to see you, assuming your next of kin hasn't stepped in and told the hospital to keep him away. He's not entitled to unless he has your durable power attorney for health care decisions (or the equivalent), but the hospital can PERMIT him to see you under HIPAA and most state laws.
As for decisions, that's more difficult. Short of him going to court after the fact, you'll need to give him your durable power of attorney for health care decisions or otherwise designate him as your health care decision maker (forms are usually available from your State Attorney General or health department). The only protection you have is to carry around the paper work, give copies to your primary care doc, and/or file the paper work with the state registry (if your state has one). Hospitals don't generally ask to see marriage certificates or proof of blood relationships, but they do ask to see durable powers of attorney, etc. It's patently unfair for people who aren't allowed to marry, but it's the way it is.
Posted by: AnneS | February 23, 2008 5:38 PM
Dvid wrote- "What happened to those people was horrible, but is this really a great argument for gay marriage? In addition to not wishing this fate on unmarried gay partners, I wouldn't want it to happen to unmarried straight partners or even polygamists.
The author seems correct to blame this on anti-gay bigotry, but marriage law is more likely an effect of public sentiment than the cause of it."
I think you're missing the point. The goal of legal same-sex marriage isn't so bigots will have a change of heart. No law could accomplish that.
But this story is hardly an isolated event. These kinds of things happen to gay couples all the time, especially if their families are hostile to the relationship. A partner in a gay relationship has no legal standing as spouse. When one partner is on their deathbed and the family wants to, they can bar the other partner from the hospital room. During the 80's when the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst, this happened more times than anyone could count.
If the women in this story were married, the hospital staff might still be as hostile, but it would have made what happened illegal as well as reprehensible.
Posted by: Rick R | February 23, 2008 5:44 PM
Collie wrote:
Agreed. MacDonald's also had several prior suits from patrons who were burned. That means they knew they were putting their customers at risk but chose not to prevent it. They made a bad decision, and people got hurt as a result.
They totally deserved to get sued. In this case I think the jury found MacDonald's 70% liable and the burn victim, who required something like 6 reconstructive surgeries, 30% liable. They weren't treated unfairly and the suit was definitely not frivolous.
That said, I hope the family sues the pants off the doctors. I don't care if they "should" know better. They didn't, and their actions resulted in a lot of unnecessary pain and irreparable loss. If that were a straight family, my bet is that not only would those assholes be facing lawsuits, but they would have been fired as well.
Posted by: Leni | February 23, 2008 6:31 PM
Not sure if you will even post this or not because I am certainly not in the majority here, but I'm totally not in the least homophobic either.
But, well, I guess if it was important for them to be a family and be married then they should have been in a state where it is legal. what happened IS terrible, but to me it's the same as when there is a divorce in a family, both parents should still live close to the children.
If you don't think ahead and plan ahead and do what needs to be done for your family then you can expect disaster.
Posted by: azure | February 23, 2008 7:13 PM
In regards to the lawsuit against McDonald's, perhaps we should all consider the REAL facts of the case. http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html No, her labia did not fuse. McDonald's serves several million cups of coffee every year, and a tiny fraction of those people burn themselves. If you are so stupid that you do not understand that coffee is hot, then you have bigger problems.
Coffee is supposed to be hot. http://www.ncausa.org/ Just under boiling is the best temperature for coffee. Yes, that will burn you. And if you stick a sharp needle in your eye, it will hurt.
Reality check...
Posted by: LanceR | February 23, 2008 7:18 PM
My heartfelt prayers go out to this family. One way for gay couples to respond is to fill out durable power of attorney for healthcare, give a copy to your doctor, and carry it or information that you have one in your wallet. That doesn't help this family, but may help some other families in the future.
The form is easy to get online, and you just need to have 2 witnesses sign it. Also, put a copy on your refrigerator if paramedics are called to your house. Fortunately, in Southern California, while my partner has been at several hospitals, I have never had any problems getting information about her condition since it is in her chart that I have durable power for healthcare.
Posted by: boomerzeke | February 23, 2008 7:18 PM
Catalytica wrote:
I don't know what you think you're talking about, but AFAIK you are wrong. Students can form extra-curricular clubs based on religion on the same basis as they can form chess clubs or D&D clubs, and it does not violate the US Constitution. And forbidding them from using the Bible as a source is a clear violation of free speech. Some teachers and principals may still be confused about that, but if necessary I'm sure Ed can enlighten us with the specifics of cases where this was all clarified.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | February 23, 2008 8:01 PM
The major shortcoming of simply telling people to live in a state that recognizes their relationship or to carry around their documents as they go from state-to-state is that different states have different requirements for advanced directives and the law that governs is the law of the state you're in, not the state you're from. States usually recognize the validity of an out of state advanced directive, but not always. If you happen to draw a gun-shy or asshole doctor, nurse, or hospital counsel while travelling through another state, the fact that that state's courts will ultimately uphold your document won't matter.
A frequent road trip takes me from Maryland to Ohio by way of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. While the other states require only two witnesses, West Virginia requires two witnesses AND notarization. I'd be fine if I had an accident in West Virginia - my designated decision makers are my husband, then my father. Spouse, then adult children, then parents, then siblings is pretty much the default order, so unless my mother and father disagree, West Virginia's recognition of my AD wouldn't matter. But it would matter if I were a lesbian and designated my partner as my primary decision maker.
People shouldn't have to confine themselves to a single state in order to ensure that their life partners can make decisions for them and be by their sides when they're sick. Nor should they have to keep abreast of all the laws in all the states in order to be sure that their advanced directives will hold up when they travel. That's why marriage rights are so important.
Posted by: AnneS | February 23, 2008 8:07 PM
Many years ago I was travelling throught HK on route to Guangzhong. It was the middle of summer so when I ordered a coffee the girl behind the counter asked "hot or cold?". It took her three attempts to get it through my thick skull what the options were.
Coffee CAN be served cold. (With whipped cream, condensed milk in a tall frosty glass - delicious)
BTW - In China it's nearly impossible to get coffee, bring your own instant, along with your "durable power of attorney" form(s). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 23, 2008 8:13 PM
I am very blessed in that I live in Canada where gay marriage is legal. My brother and his husband won't have to go through systemic discrimination if - god forbid - one of them gets ill or passes away. They have the same rights as myself and my husband. O Canada!
Posted by: jenn | February 23, 2008 8:47 PM
A Massachusetts marriage would not have helped in this case, as Florida has a state version of DOMA in effect, so they do not recognize Same-Sex Marriages. The Health Care Directive or Power of Attorney is the only way to go. I had heard of a Virginia case involving whether their extreme anti-gay laws would even make a durable POA ineffective there, but I can't find it online. If so, then there are certain states that gays should definitely avoid. Given this situation, I'd start with Florida, despite Ft. Lauderdale's reputation as a gay playground.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 23, 2008 9:16 PM
Kehrsam - whats DOMA? Forgive my ignorance I'm a stupid foriegner, (another useful phrase in China along with "quick where are the toilets?")
Posted by: DingoJack | February 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Until gay marriage is made legal, legal/medical durable power of attorney is the best way to assign someone to your affairs should a calamity like this occur.
Posted by: Beth | February 23, 2008 10:10 PM
DJ: DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically says that one state need not pay "full faith and credit" to the marriages enacted by another state if said marriage contravene the public policy of the first state. So Florida ignores Massachusetts marriages between same-sex couples. The "Public Policy Exception" was more of an issue back in the day when 34 states had laws on the books barring inter-racial marriage, but still comes into play today.
A Federal version of DOMA was passed during the Clinton administration, which is why the IRS (for example) does not allow SSM partners married in Massachusetts to file as Married Filing Jointly for tax purposes.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 23, 2008 10:15 PM
DingoJack, the DOMA is the inappropriately named "Defense" of Marriage Act, a U.S. federal law that says the federal government and no state is obligated to recognize a same sex marriage performed in Masachusetts or any other state. As you can see, rather than defending marriage, it attacks marriage by refusing to recognize it when it takes place between same sex couples
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 23, 2008 10:15 PM
Thanks Priya Lynn
But wouldn't "equality under the law" mean either NO marriages are recognised or ALL marriages are?
I know logic isn't the law's strongest suit, but ...
Curious DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 23, 2008 10:29 PM
Troy -
It most certainly is an anti-gay state. Florida is one of the very worse states in the country for gay rights. Indeed, it's quite possibly the worse.
DJ -
Cold coffee rocks. My favorite brewing method, is cold pressed (put grounds in french press w/cold water, refrigerate over night). It keeps the volatile oils and much of the acidity out of the brew. It also makes a really strong coffee without overwhelming one with the bitters.
I also go for the sweetened condensed milk on occasion. Although I usually save that for the Vietnamese brewing. (Yes, I'm that weird about coffee, not only do I have a Vietnamese brewing basket, I have eleven different brewing systems.)
Posted by: DuWayne | February 24, 2008 12:06 AM
DuWayne - three questions:
a) What is a "french press"? (don't even think of saying La Monde)
b) How do you do Vietnamese coffee? (I didn't they were into coffee)
c) Does it help with your ADHD? (like natural Ritalin)
No wonder your still up post-midnight! -DJ (16:15 25/2 here)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2008 12:16 AM
Also the grounds are really good for Azaleas and Camellias. Lots of lovely N & slightly acid.
Posted by: DinjoJack | February 24, 2008 12:41 AM
DingoJack wrote:
Yes it would. Funny how it took you maybe 3 seconds to figure that out, and yet thousands of state and federal legislators still have not.
It's hypocrisy at its finest and it's completely unacceptable.
Posted by: Patrick | February 24, 2008 1:39 AM
LanceR said:
"If you are so stupid that you do not understand that coffee is hot, then you have bigger problems."
ld its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Thanks for the "hot" tip, Lance, I will keep that in mind as I read your reference, from a site dedicated to the proposition that liability lawsuits are all frivolous.
Here is a couple of items you have missed in your frantic search for ultimate truth:
* McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries [700 cases in 10 years some of them including injuries as serious as the Liebeck case] was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[11]
* McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180-190 °F (82-88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.
* Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
* Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
* Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
* The plaintiff didn't want the case to go to court:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for US $20,000 to cover her medical costs, which were $11,000, but the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in a New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured." McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000.[4]
Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[4]
Posted by: Gingerbaker | February 24, 2008 3:10 AM
Patrick - Perhaps for every 5 straight marriages you can claim 3 gay ones. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2008 6:45 AM
yes florida is an anti-gay state. You are confusing pro-gay with a government's tolerance for certain behaviors for economic gain, specifically the sexual tourism of Miami and the ridiculous amounts of money people bring to the state. People (gay men) come to Miami from up North to have sex with latinos (cubans, brazilians, PR, DR etc).
This occurs everywhere in the carribean. Strict sex roles for the inhabitants, different rules for the "white" vacationers
Posted by: ken | February 24, 2008 6:52 AM
So Floridians' attidute is: "Come and spend money to have sex - just don't expect us to provide basic human rights". Boy what a bunch of "assholes" Florida provides. -DJ
One of my favorite expressions (sadly becoming exinct) is:
"Ugly as hatfull of arseholes".
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2008 7:03 AM
I disagree. Legal domestic partnership agreements ARE marriages. If someone has to change names and accept a second class status, let religious folk be part of 'religious unions.'
Posted by: Ben | February 24, 2008 9:04 AM
Dingojack - DuWayne - three questions:
a) What is a "french press"? (don't even think of saying La Monde)
b) How do you do Vietnamese coffee? (I didn't they were into coffee)
In case DuWayne misses this....
a) This is a French press You mix the grounds with the water, then "press" a filter down and pour off the coffee. Very nice.
b) The Vietnamese picked up coffee from the French. Vietnamese coffee is a very fine grind (doesn't have to be from Vietnam), you pour the hot water over the grounds and wait patiently for it to drip out over sweetened condensed milk (due to lack of refrigeration way back when, the Vietnamese don't have the habit of using fresh dairy). It comes in two versions: hot -Ca Phe Sua Nong- or poured over ice -Ca Phe Sua Da. If there's a Pho restaurant anywhere near you, try it (unless you are diabetic, it is very sweet). Don't have more than one unless you are already well habituated to caffeine.
I don't know about its effect on people with ADHD.
Posted by: Graculus | February 24, 2008 9:22 AM
Graculus - Sorry I answered the French Press thing (in a half joking way) on the other thread to which you responded. If you read this ignore that.
a) Here it's simply called a "coffee plunger" I make coffee in it every day. In future I'll call it a "French Press", it sounds much more high-fallutin'.
b) The coffee grounds go in a filter paper right? The cold version (Ca Phe Sua Da) sounds pretty much what I had in HK. Fantastic on a hot day. Do you know what the Vietnamese name literally means? I suppose "Nong" means hot & "Da" means cold, or some such.
Have a Ca Phe Sua Nong (or two) on me. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 24, 2008 9:59 AM
DJ -
Ok, so someone else explained the french press and the Vietnamese coffee.
So, yes, it does help some with the ADHD, though not nearly as much as actual medication for it would.
Ironically though, it doesn't keep me awake - quite the opposite. Keep in mind that I am three time zones from Ed. For example, when I posted last nights coffee bit, it was actually just after nine here. That said, I am often up well past midnight anyways, because I am a pretty extreme insomniac - have been since birth. The ironic part is that if I don't do coffee, I have an even worse time sleeping at night.
Ben -
If the legal standard is changed, then it wouldn't be a second class citizen status. There are plenty of very reasonable reasons to change the legal standard that have nothing to do with the gay marriage issue.
Making civil unions the legal standard would make an inherently exclusive institution, non-discriminatory.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 24, 2008 11:49 AM
King of Ireland, are you sure that lesbianism is a sin? Far as I know the Bible doesn't have any specific law against it.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | February 24, 2008 11:57 AM
ah nevermind, my mistake. Romans 1:25-26
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | February 24, 2008 12:11 PM
David: That verse is often used by Fundamentalists for the proposition that God hates lesbians, but if you examine Paul's argument, it does not support this conclusion. Paul's argument here is that 1. Everyone is aware of God, and therefore rebellion is intentional (v 19); 2. The sin of rebellion is expressed as idolotry, the worship of anything other than God (vv 21-4); 3. The symptoms of idolatry are... (cue v 25 et seq).
So, some lesbian behavior is a symptom of deeper sin, but it is a logical fallacy to therefore conclude that all lesbian behavior is a symptom. The Bible does not have to be read in a simplistic and Fundamentalist manner. Jesus did not come to condemn anyone, save perhaps those so blinded by legalism that they could not understand that, "Love your neighbor as youself" bit.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 24, 2008 12:39 PM
DingoJack -
Hmmm.. that sounds familiar.. some sort of "3/5 Compromise".. where have I heard that before.. :P :)
Posted by: Patrick | February 24, 2008 1:25 PM
kehrsam: yes, agreed. lesbianism doesn't imply idolatry. But when Paul names lesbianism as one of the consequences of idolatry, isn't he implying that lesbianism is a bad thing?
Paul calls lesbianism a "degrading passion." [Romans 1:26] It's part of the lusts which are 'impure' and 'degrading of the body'. [Romans 1:24] To me this reads as condemnation of lesbianism as a sin.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | February 24, 2008 1:25 PM
A more detailed article on the original story.
David;
But when Paul names lesbianism as one of the consequences of idolatry, isn't he implying that lesbianism is a bad thing?It suggests he was trying to illustrate the sinfulness of his actions to the intended audience. In this case, an audience primarily of Jews, who did consider same sex relationships sinful.
It speaks to little about the actual commandments with regards to that action.
Posted by: Paul Schofield | February 24, 2008 2:06 PM
Coffee helps a bit for my ADHD, but its duration is far too short and the effects unpredictable for it to be a good substitute for actual stimulant medication. Oddly enough, I can take ADHD medicine or drink coffee as a sleep aid; it actually works better for me then any of the various prescribed sleep aids (ambien, lunesta etc)ever did!
My sleep improved once I went on ADHD medication, and in the coming months I picked up the coffee habit, they tend to go hand in hand ;)
Posted by: Tony C | February 24, 2008 2:10 PM
Paul Schofield:
Paul was the 'apostle to the Gentiles', not to the Jews. [Romans 1:5] How can you say that the audience of his letter were Jews?
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | February 24, 2008 2:54 PM
Ben,
Only some of them would be.
In addition to all the other rights it gives, marriage is a license for legal sex between the two partners. A legal domestic partnership agreement need not, and should not, include the sexual relations permission. Thus in the US a mother and her adult son could qualify for a legal domestic partnership agreement, but do not qualify to be married.
As much as I respect the position of those who argue for gay marriage, that still needlessly denies domestic partinership rights (inheritance, right to make medical decisions, and many, many others) to those who do not wish to have or to be thought to have a sexual relationship and/or do not qualify for a legal sexual relationship.
Those couples with a romantic relationship could add a private marriage agreement/celebration to their legal domestic partnership agreement if they wish public acknowledgement of their sexual relationship. The financial and other domestic benefits of marriage, benefits that make their lives more stable and secure while reducing the likelihood of one or the other becoming dependent on public welfare, should not be denied to two people merely because their relationship is not a romantic one.
Posted by: JuliaL | February 24, 2008 3:04 PM
Azure wrote:
Sure, Azure. And they should never ever travel outside of that one state (Massachusetts) that allows it. Because if marriage was really important to them, they'd be happy to never go more than 50 miles from home.
Because even if they did live in Mass, and were legally married, that marriage would have exactly zero validity in Florida.
Want to try again, and say something sensible this time?
Posted by: James Hanley | February 24, 2008 3:34 PM
Patrick - yep exactly. "..[we] hold these truths to be self evident..that ALL men are created equal." [emphasis mine]. Except of course if your black, gay/lesbian/bisexual, a woman etc.
DuWayne. - Boy was I surprsed when my question was answered on another thread by someone else. I wonder if you had a Jeckell/Hyde thing going. I know the west coast is a little different but...
A friend of mine came from a family that had a history of schizophrenia/depression. She also had paradoxical reactions of CNS stimulants/depressants. I wonder if there is some link?
Dope tends to make me really hyperactive. That why a don't inhale anymore :) -DJ
Posted by: DingjoJack | February 24, 2008 11:03 PM
I agree with that there should be a lawsuit. However, every person who voted against gay marriage and thus caused this litigation to happen should have to pay for the hospital's defense. They want to be anti-marriage? Let them. Let them be consequent in their actions. Let them put their money where their (figurative) mouths are.
Posted by: Bachalon | February 25, 2008 2:28 AM
"Paul calls lesbianism a "degrading passion." [Romans 1:26] It's part of the lusts which are 'impure' and 'degrading of the body'. [Romans 1:24] To me this reads as condemnation of lesbianism as a sin."
I think the overarching point that is missed by most is that it is listed with a bunch of other things. The idolatry point is good and what most people miss. The typical message comes across as, "Here are the things that God hates. Stop doing it and He will love you." I think it is more,"You do not have a correct perception of who God is and this is causing you to find your identity in other things that are harmful to yourself and at times others." It is all about the image of God in us.
This is why Science is limited in ascertaining knowledge. It cannot account for beauty. Beauty cannot be measured or verified. This is the chief loss when one seeks to turn Theology into a set of laws or rules. Theology is the study of the person of God. Rational thought brough many good things to this world. The Enlightement moved us forward as a human race in so many ways. But this line of thought can never account for beauty. Beauty is an Eastern thought that needs to re-emerge in these types of discussions.
The Enlightenment thinkers in my opinion threw out the baby with the bath water. Med-Evil religion was a bad thing. The Dark Ages sucked. But to discount God because some zealots gave Him a bad name with their use of religion to oppress people is short sighted. I think we should be less concerned with what we do right or wrong as to why we do it. When the Bible points out sins it is show us why we do things. It all gets to the heart. That is the essense of Romans 1 in my mind and I think Kehrsam has some good points that need to be explored.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 25, 2008 1:38 PM
"King" said "This is why Science is limited in ascertaining knowledge.".
Science is the best vehicle there is for ascertaining knowledge. Religion is undoubtedly the worst. If we relied on religion for our ascertation of knowledge we'd still be living in the bronze age thinking that evil spirits caused disease and that bloodletting was the cure.
King said " I think we should be less concerned with what we do right or wrong as to why we do it.".
That's absurd. While understanding why we do the things we do is important, ultimately what matters most is the right or wrong we do. This is what makes the world both a bad and a good place to live and nothing is more important. Getting wrapped up in imaginary beings only distracts us from making the world the best place it can be.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 25, 2008 2:09 PM
"Science is the best vehicle there is for ascertaining knowledge"
How does science account for beauty? Limiting everything to the material world just does not make sense. I understand your point about not wanting to go backwards. I am not saying religion is the best route. I am trying to seperate Theology and Religion. I think it is better to look at it from a Philosophical and Theological perspective than religious. Religion is essentially man made rules in the name of God. I think the divine is more sophisticated than that. To say that belief in God will lead us to the Bronze Age is a false dilema.
I do not agree with you but I do respect your point of view and think you do add some good insight into this whole debate. I think others are too hard on you.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 25, 2008 3:34 PM
What do you mean? "Beauty" is not some otherworldly magic essence that interacts with the material world in some vague, undefined process. "Beauty" is a property of (some) material objects. As such, it is open to scientific study--and we have performed studies on it. For instance, we can determine what different cultures consider to be beautiful. We can determine which portion of the brain is responsible for recognizing things as beautiful.
I don't understand what your question "How does science account for beauty?" even means. Are you asking why people have developed a sense of aesthetics at all? Are you asking how we determine what is beautiful? Are you asking how things gain the property of beauty? Why would science have a problem answering any of these questions?
Posted by: Skemono | February 25, 2008 3:43 PM
"King" said "How does science account for beauty?".
It accounts for it as a desire for something beneficial. Beauty in others is a sign of youth, good genes, and health and we are naturally attracted to that. Studies of beautiful faces show they are an average of facial features that exist in the general population. Computers have created beatiful faces by averaging the facial features of a wide variety of people.
"King" said "I do not agree with you but I do respect your point of view".
No, you're being patronizing, you don't respect my viewpoint or you wouldn't be promoting hate and bigotry by promoting the idea that its wrong to be gay.
"King" said "I think others are too hard on you."
Some like Duwayne have resorted to personal attacks rather than attacking the ideas I've promoted. That's wrong, but its no big deal, it ultimately discredits them more than it does me.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 25, 2008 4:11 PM
kehrsam said:
I don't see that argument being the obvious reading. I agree with your 1 and 2, but I think 3 is more like, 'and here are the specific vile (i.e. something God disapproves of) things they did once God gave them up', because of their idolatry. These are tough verses to parse as I've found different translations come across quite a bit differently, but most seem to make it pretty clear that lesbianism and homosexuality are not good things all on their own. I can see the point that these are both considered fornication, and that fornication is wrong because it's a form of idolatry perhaps, but I don't see how this categorization changes anything. I won't wager any guess as to who God loves or hates, but he doesn't seem to approve of lesbianism under any circumstances (I'm unaware of any other part of the bible that shows some toleration of lesbianism).
The words 'vile', 'unnatural', 'degrading', and 'shameless' are all used in the various translations I've found immediately adjacent or within Romans 26; not difficult to see how some people get the idea, incorrect or not, that God hates lesbians. And disparaging this interpretation as 'simplistic' isn't really fair, considering what it does say.
Posted by: Dave L | February 25, 2008 5:40 PM
Hmm .. so your imaginary friend for over grown toddlers (IFFOGT) doesn't like homosexuals? What is he/she/it's attidute on incest?
"Then Cain & Abel he begat
and they begat all of the rest to us
Which means they must be incestuous.
I'm gonna have pray about that!"
Creation Science 101 - Roy Zimmerman.
Posted by: DingoJack | February 25, 2008 11:08 PM
KoI -
Science doesn't account for beauty, rather it can explain many of the things that we find beautiful. It also provides abstractions that are in themselves awe inspiring. From a universe that is billions of years old, to all life on earth sharing the common origin of single cell organisms, the natural world is truly amazing.
Some people feel the need for spiritual or religious foundations to underpin everything. I'm certainly not going to knock it, I have my own somewhat theistic beliefs. This is not anti-science or a particularly bad thing, in and of itself. It can become rather a problem when those beliefs try to contradict evidence based explanations of the natural world. It becomes a serious problem when those beliefs cause one to make policy decisions, restricting the rights of others. It becomes even more dangerous when those beliefs cause one to decide to take the lives of others.
But you need to understand that people who do not have religious or spiritual beliefs are just as capable as you are, of discerning and enjoying the awe and wonder of the world and the universe around them. Too, people without faith are just as capable of morality, as the religious, if not rather moreso - see discussion at my blog.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 26, 2008 11:09 AM
I am appalled at the professional shortcomings of the physicians and the hospital. While patient privacy is important, I don't see how they could justify denying receiving information that could have saved the patient's life. It is either gross negligence or bigotry, and neither ought to be permitted in the medical community, regardless of the standards set by civil law.
(linked and blogged)
Posted by: SabrinaW | February 26, 2008 11:35 AM
"For instance, we can determine what different cultures consider to be beautiful"
Let me state again, I am no scientist but my understanding of what I have read about Scientic Theory is that it is objective and can only pertain to the material world. It has hypothesis, inquiry, and the like. How in the world can you apply this to trying to figure out what cultures think is beatiful? Beauty is such a subjective thing.
I think it was Immanuel Kant that wrote about beauty from a philosophical position. I have read some of what he wrote. To even begin to discuss this one would have to come up with a definiton of beauty. This is more of an artistic term than a scientific term in my opinion. I guess what I am asking is whether beauty is a material thing and are ability to appreciate it a function of the brain or could beauty be a transcendant thing inate in the soul of man.
This briges into a discussion of dualism I understand but I just cannot see why Science has to be the only way we discover "knowledge" I think knowledge is material and spiritual. To discount one dimension makes no sense.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 12:16 PM
"The words 'vile', 'unnatural', 'degrading', and 'shameless' are all used in the various translations I've found immediately adjacent or within Romans 26; not difficult to see how some people get the idea, incorrect or not, that God hates lesbians. And disparaging this interpretation as 'simplistic' isn't really fair, considering what it does say."
This is a fallacy. The Bible says God is love. It says that God loves the world. He does not hate anyone. The only verse that people could use to say that is in Romans 9 about Esau. It says God hated Esau. I have not checked this thorougly but that word does not mean hate in the sense we use it. It means less favored I am told. Also in this context in the original Old Testament passage Esau was talking about the Edomites as a people who were descendants of Esau.
Now I understand that many will say this is more proof of contradiction and just right off the Bible. But if one believes it is true then one cannot come to the conclusion that God hates anyone. If this is true then we have to assume in my view that God hates what these things do to the people who practice them.
The Bible says not to fornicate as someone stated. I was an atheist and fornicated when I was young. I got someone pregnant and we were wrong for each other. We got married and it fell apart. In short, I have not seen my son in 7 years because she will not let me. This has messed his life up and mine. My point? I know that God does not hate me and never did. I believe he saw what I was doing to myself and hated that. Now people can take issue with this interpretation but I think it makes more sense than saying God hates people when the Bible says over and over again that He loves the world.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 12:30 PM
"Are you asking why people have developed a sense of aesthetics at all?"
Where does this come from?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 12:32 PM
For God so loved the world, he drowned everyone in it.
Posted by: John | February 26, 2008 12:42 PM
"For God so loved the world, he drowned everyone in it."
If God does exist and is love can this be reconciled? It was not everyone. Noah and his family were spared. It states that God was grieved in His heart about what man had become. I think this is different than God got irrationally pissed and took everyone out who did not agree with Him.
What do you do with the passages that talk about how God came to earth and died for everyone? My overall point in this thread is that what seems harsh about God needs to be examined more thoroughly than most are willing to do. This includes some Christians who take things like the flood and go out and yell at everyone that all fags or sinners are going to hell not seeing that they are no better than the people they are yelling at.
I would make the argument that God is beautiful and made man to be beautiful and is grieved when man tarnishes that beauty through certain heart attitudes and behaviors. What I will never believe is that God is more grieved over the homosexual than the gossiper or even the hypocrite that sits in church.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 12:59 PM
Is it really much better to say God killed every man, woman and child (including those still unborn) on Earth...except for 8?
On CSI Miami last night they had this guy who killed 3 people because he thought they were wasting their lives away. That guy didn't seem all that reasonable.
Sorta like those Bhuddist priests who set fire to themselves to protest Vietnam. Except they didn't immediately get the Go to Heaven card.
Sounds like you're getting ready to dish out some relative morality.
Maybe he's less grieved.
Posted by: Dave S. | February 26, 2008 1:10 PM
Yes... killing people, even innocent children and the unborn by the millions, is morally okay as long as your name starts with a G and ends with a D... right?
Sure, you can point to other parts of the Bible that give conflicting messages, but then this becomes a further example of how the Bible is just another source of moral relatism.
From what I've found, people who think deeply about religious issues tend to choose the religious teachings that agree with their preconceived notions on what is moral vs immoral, not the other way around.
For example, KoI, among many others, considers homosexuality to be immoral and wrong according to the Bible... but there are Episcopalian Bishops (and their flock of followers) who would state otherwise... that it's just a part of the human condition that their interpretation of the Christian God is different from KoI's version. So who is correct? According to God, who holds the morally superior hand on this issue? All different sides hold conflicting, but allegedly correct, views on this issue. But this cannot hold true for such conflicting points of view, even though all of these sides base their conclusions on legitimate theological grounds based on their shared holy book.
Let's phrase this a different way... "What I will never believe is that God is more grieved over the heterosexual than the gossiper or even the hypocrite that sits in church."
To most of the people on this forum, straight or gay, the revised version makes as much sense as the first... none... but to KoI and his ilk, they are almost incapable of seeing homosexuality, even from a theological standpoint, as anything other than inherently immoral.
So I ask you this question, KoI, without reference to God or the Bible (in other words, without claiming "because Godsaysso"), why is homosexuality just as bad as the gossiper or the hypocrite sitting in church?
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 26, 2008 1:28 PM
"Maybe he's less grieved"
I think you might be right.
"Sounds like you're getting ready to dish out some relative morality."
It probably sounds that way to many. That is why to go tit for tat like it goes on here with Bible verses is usually not productive. Worldview is a better context for a discussion like this. Everyone's world view starts with a set of assumptions or as some call them, axioms. Mine is God created the world. This is found in the Bible. I believe the Bible is true. My quest is to undertand who God is?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 1:30 PM
KoI: Just out of curousity which Bible do you refer to?
Posted by: jba | February 26, 2008 1:43 PM
"So I ask you this question, KoI, without reference to God or the Bible (in other words, without claiming "because Godsaysso"), why is homosexuality just as bad as the gossiper or the hypocrite sitting in church?"
Trying to pin me down are you? This is a fair question. I believe it is an un-natural act. It seems to me that life is sustained by sex between a man and a woman. This is a law of nature. The vast majority of the population has an inate sexual drive toward the opposite sex that causes this to happen. I think to deviate from this is not natural.
I do have to admit I have not thought this whole issue out from the physcial standpoint. If I cannot use the Bible, then I cannot really intelligently explain why I think the inate attraction to the opposite sex is natural and to not have that is not natural. I do not want to give you some pat Christian answer. I do think we all need to have a basis for our morals though and mine is the Bible. If it is wrong then I am wrong.
These were excellent points and good questions that I will have to think about more. It is hard to sift through all the crap and get to the core of what the Bible teaches. Or for that matter any Holy book or Philosophy. So many people start their quest with a set of assumptions. I think it hinders their pursuit. If I asked you to put science aside and explain to me evolution could you do it? What assumptions do we all bring to our debates?
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 1:48 PM
KoI: "I believe it [gay sex] is an un-natural act"
What about all the non-human animals that do it?
Posted by: jba | February 26, 2008 1:50 PM
'KoI: Just out of curousity which Bible do you refer to?'
I believe the Protestant Bible is the correct version. More specifically, I read the NIV translation.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 1:51 PM
"King" said "I think knowledge is material and spiritual.".
The "knowledge" we've gotten from spirituality has been wholly worthless at best and terrribly destructive at worst. You don't need spirituality to appreciate beauty, spirituallity in no way assists with appreciating beauty.
"King" said "What I will never believe is that God is more grieved over the homosexual than the gossiper or even the hypocrite that sits in church.".
It never fails to amaze me how people can say something so profoundly offensive under the pretense of tolerance. How dare you equate gayness with being a gossiper or a hypocrite?! You are a bigot, you want to be a bigot, but you don't want anyone to think of you that way. Contrary to gossips and hypocrites there is nothing wrong with being gay.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 26, 2008 1:51 PM
doctorgoo
In another thread I tried to articulate this same sentinent in a much worse way.
Kudos to you for saying it as concisely as this.
Posted by: Leni | February 26, 2008 1:56 PM
"King" said " I believe it is an un-natural act. It seems to me that life is sustained by sex between a man and a woman. This is a law of nature. The vast majority of the population has an inate sexual drive toward the opposite sex that causes this to happen. I think to deviate from this is not natural.".
Two problems with this, the first is the commission of the naturalistic fallacy, assuming that what is natural is automatically good and what is unnatural is automatically bad. Its not natural to brush your teeth, or to get modern medical interventions for sickness. It is perfectly naturaly to get cancer and suffer horribly until you die. The idea that gayness is unnatural in no way suggests that it is a bad thing.
And it most certainly is not unnatural. Gayness exists in thousands of animal species and has existed in a minority of the human population througout history and across all cultures. Obviously it is natural.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | February 26, 2008 1:57 PM
Agreed.
I just don't think there's any reasonable excuse for what he said.
Posted by: Leni | February 26, 2008 1:58 PM
KoI: "I believe the Protestant Bible is the correct version. More specifically, I read the NIV translation."
Thanks. If I may ask a followup, why that version? What do you think is wrong with all the other ones?
Posted by: jba | February 26, 2008 1:58 PM
"Thanks. If I may ask a followup, why that version? What do you think is wrong with all the other ones?"
I think the Catholic Bible has some books that do not hold up to be counted as scripture. This is a loaded question. The best book I ever read on it was Evidence That Demands A Verdict. It has some holes but overall is good. But as a whole I think apolagetics suffers from a lack of understanding of the post modern world. To start with the assumption that there is a God and use the Bible to prove it with people who think the Bible is not true is not effective. I think it is much better to start with whether God exists or not and how we can tell without using the Bible.
That is easier said than done. Especially with a bunch of scientists. Most do a poor job including me at times. Mainly because we go into the debate with too many assumptions.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 26, 2008 2:17 PM
Science is supposed to be objective, yes. However, just because something itself is subjective does not mean that it is not part of the material world, nor does it mean that it cannot be studied in an objective way. We could do a rigorous study of a culture's artworks to see what patterns show up repeatedly; we could gather people from different cultures and perform the same test to find which pictures they consider most beautiful; etc. I'm not really a scientist either, so I'm probably coming up with very simplistic tests, but there are all sorts of ways to figure out what people consider beautiful.
Scientists study the subjective all the time.
Yes, the vast majority of the population has an innate sexual drive towards the opposite sex. So what about the rest of the population for whom this is not true?
Why is that "unnatural"? For that matter, what exactly do you mean by "unnatural"--it certainly occurs in nature. It is not artificially introduced in people, either; homosexuality is their natural state.
And why is deviating from the norm itself a sin? Are left-handed people, such as myself, sinners because they deviate from the norm of dextrality?
Posted by: Skemono | February 26, 2008 3:01 PM
The best possible way for children to be raised is in a traditional family with a husband and a wife. It is just sad that the state of the true American family has deterioriated to this point. We must encourage soceity to return to that tried and proven family unit.....
Before all you secular liberals start attacking me keep in mind...I am not a Christian nor am I a very religous person. I just see the world around me and know that children need the stability of a traditional family.
Ok lefties attack away !!
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | February 26, 2008 3:08 PM
So which is better, a loving stable nurturing environment where both parents are the same gender; or an angry, cold, possibly abusive environment where the parents are opposite in gender?
What about the cases where no children are involved, are gay relationships then equal to straight?
Posted by: Dave S. | February 26, 2008 3:15 PM
Do you have any evidence that this is better than a being raised by two women or two men? 'Cause I've got a hell of a lot of evidence that it's not.
And how do you "know" this? Are you just pulling it out of your ass? If children need "stability", then why are you so adamant about denying it to them by robbing their parents of the ability to get married? Could it be that you don't give a rat's ass about children at all, you just hate gay couples?
Posted by: Skemono | February 26, 2008 3:24 PM
Children need stability yes and as long as there are loving caretakers they will thrive. Single parents, grand parents, single-sex parents it doesn't matter, just a consistent loving and positive environment. I believe that children should have positive role models from both sexes but it does not need to be only at home. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, and friends can fill this void too so there is really nothing that proves that the "traditional family" can better meet the needs of child rearing.
Posted by: JoH | February 26, 2008 3:46 PM
KoI:
You'll probably find me asking you lots of these probing questions, just to challenge you. Sure, it's easy for me as an atheist to question Christianity and religion in general, but I've found very few Christians who are willing and able to question their own beliefs so thoroughly as well.
I think this is shameful. They hold strong beliefs about faith and morality, but do so mostly because an authority figure told them to. Sure, if their religious teachings differ too greatly from what they currently believe, then they usually find a different church to go to which agrees more with their prepossessed feelings on those matters. But in general, I find that they hardly ever explore their own religious beliefs as much as they should.
In fact, I'd go so far to say that a Christian (or any religious person) should ALWAYS examine their own religious beliefs, even more critically than any atheist ever could. How else are they to know if their own religious beliefs are actually just and moral?
If you can do this (which, for you KoI, I honestly think you can and are at least attempting to do so here on Ed's forum), then you might be able to understand why so many Christians find a way to keep their faith, but still be willing to push proper science standards (and not ID) in public schools... or why so many Christians fight for the separation of Church and State. Heck, you might even decide for yourself that the baggage of religion outweighs the benefits, which can be derived elsewhere, and decide to wade into the waters of nonbelief (scary thought, huh?).
As others have pointed out, homosexuality occurs in other species all the time. This is a very important point because these individual members of these other species don't have the cognitive abilities that humans have... so there's no way to claim that they are gay because they choose to be so, they do so because it's in their nature.
And even if homosexuality didn't occur in other species... if the purpose of EVERY man and EVERY woman were to procreate, then a heterosexual couple who chooses not to have kids would be just as unnatural.
Why is the Bible required for moral behavior? I'd point more to the so-called "Ethic of Reciprocity", which the Bible calls the golden rule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Understanding this concept is a natural result of a species that has developed the cognitive ability to think about their own actions beyond their present needs, and how their actions impact others. As the link shows, this concept in one form or another has been co-opted by virtually every religion. Heck, the entire second half of the Ten Commandments could be replaced with it! (But it's not like the writers of the Bible were worried about being too wordy... lol)
Having the ability of considering the morality of behavior is just the logical extension of having advanced cognitive abilities.
This really isn't a good question... Could you explain the law of thermodynamics without using science? Could you teach germ theory without using science? ... This question isn't good because you're comparing it to whether or not morality and moral behavior can be explained without religion, which I've shown can be (and probably originally was) independent of religion.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 26, 2008 7:02 PM
Why would medical practitioners, under any circumstances, fail to use medical history information?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | February 26, 2008 8:23 PM
Graculus - I didn't know I had a French press, so I called it a "coffee squasher."
Posted by: Monado, FCD | February 26, 2008 9:56 PM
KoI - What your basiscally saying is (correct me if I'm wrong): "I think homosexuality is wrong. I can't really say WHY I think this, I just do. The bible agrees with me therefore I'll believe the bible." Is that a fair summary?
PS sorry to hear about your family :(
Monado FCD - DJ says "Ditto".
HENCHMAN: Uhh ditto.
LAMARR: Ditto? Ditto? you provincial putz!
Blazing Saddles. :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 27, 2008 12:39 AM
Yeah, Ed, but what you don't realize is that if they hadn't been gay, they wouldn't have had this situation in the first place!
Posted by: Mat Wilder | February 27, 2008 1:18 AM
Mat Wilder - and if primates didn't evolve opposable thumbs, blogs would be unreadable.
theywouldlookalotlikethis. :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 27, 2008 2:05 AM
DJ, I got the impression that the primary reason why KoI thinks homosexuality is wrong is because, as a straight person, he personally finds it 'icky'... and therefore "unnatural". He's never had to think through it any further than that since religion has been a crutch for him, confirming this judgement without having to examine it.
But that's the difference... Sure, as a straight guy myself, I find that the homosexual act is either a very big turnoff (in the case of men), or a very big turnon (if it's two attractive women... lol).
But joking aside, the difference between KoI and myself is that he, for some reason, equates his feeling of ickiness to them acting 'unnatural', and therefore a behaving immorally... even if it's just a little immoral, on par with being a gossip or a hypocrite in church.
But I just take the ethic of reciprocity (aka... the golden rule) and recognize that I can't find anything that gay persons actual do is any different from anyone else. Therefore I have a 'live and let live' attitude. Afterall, if I had such a superficial difference, I wouldn't want to be discriminated against based on such a trivial reason, either.
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 27, 2008 8:20 AM
"This story is very fishy."
Why, because it rubs your beliefs the wrong way? Because it knocks down the wall of snide commentary that passes as rational thought among the homobigots?
"How did the hospital staff even know that this was a lesbian family?"
The family wasn't lesbian, the two mothers/partners were lesbians. The children are probably hetero. But why is that even important to you? The point here is that since the two were NOT MARRIED, the hospital/state rules did not allow the surviving partner to do all of things that a hetero "spouse" would have been allowed.
"Maybe they were just a bunch of related or even unrelated people traveling together."
But they weren't ... so what's your point? Are you trying to question whether the two were, in fact, in a committed relationship, raising children together? Do you think Ed made this stuff up just to yank your chain?
"You should take what you read with a grain of salt, Ed."
Again, what's your point? Do you think this entire episode was "made up" by some nefarious homosexual cabal intent on destroying the nuclear, American family? Seriously?
"You titled this article 'Why Gay Marriage Matters, Again' but this incident has nothing to do with gay marriage."
Except that it absolutely does ... the fact that you don't see that says nothing about the facts of the case, but it says an awful lot about your own blindness, lack of compassion and empathy, and willful disregard of facts that are "inconvenient" for you to recognize.
Posted by: Stephen | February 27, 2008 1:18 PM
"Heck, you might even decide for yourself that the baggage of religion outweighs the benefits, which can be derived elsewhere, and decide to wade into the waters of nonbelief (scary thought, huh?)."
Almost always does and anyone who cannot see that in the overall context of my comments on here is blind. I am more scared of Pharisees than "Secular Humanists" or whatever people are scared of.
Secondly, I have developed much of what I believe through great questions that have been posed to me over the years. It has been my challenge to my brethren for years to be able to think about the tough questions. I came on here many months ago under another name and was out to set Ed straight. I listened and see that he has some great points.
I have hundreds of pages on the Bible and Church History. Most of where I diverge with traditional Christianity on comes out of discussions like this. My goal is the same as yours: to get people to think about what they believe and question it. I am not saying I have all the answers. But I have thought out much of what I have said. When I have not I will admit it and have on here.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 3:50 PM
DJ, I got the impression that the primary reason why KoI thinks homosexuality is wrong is because, as a straight person, he personally finds it 'icky'... and therefore "unnatural". He's never had to think through it any further than that since religion has been a crutch for him, confirming this judgement without having to examine it.
Dude I used to want to beat the crap out of gays. I was a first class scum bag. The only thinking through I ever did on this subject was to realize I was wrong for my attitude toward gays. I thought it was wrong before I went into church and still do. "My religion is the only thing that stopped me from wanting to beat the crap out of them" I was a homophobe. Now I have lived in the same house as openly gay men and the subject never comes up. They were in church too. Many are afraid to come out.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 3:54 PM
"KoI - What your basiscally saying is (correct me if I'm wrong): "I think homosexuality is wrong. I can't really say WHY I think this, I just do. The bible agrees with me therefore I'll believe the bible." Is that a fair summary?
PS sorry to hear about your family :(
Monado FCD - DJ says "Ditto"."
No that is not what I am saying. I base my belief in what is true on the Bible. If someone who does not believe it is true then I have an obligation to try and back up what I believe without reference to it. In some cases this is easy and in others it is not.
The whole argument of Romans 1 is about their being no excuse for saying there is no God because of conscience and nature. Paul does not say, "The Old Testament tells us so." Sometimes he does and some times he does not. Hard to explain but I thought the man asked me a fair question. I do not have a answer that I would accept as intelligent and well thought out if I was you so I admit it and will try and come up with one.
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 27, 2008 4:03 PM
KoI - Sorry I'm a little confused.
You base what you believe to be true on the bible then you try and find evidence indepentant of the bible to back what the bible says? Is that a fair summary?
Just as a thought experiment, assuming that homosexeuality is a sin, what evidence could you collect to show this assertion IS FALSE?
I'm not trying to make fun of you or make you feel foolish; I'm simply tring to understand where your coming from, because I seem to be too dense to get it. -DJ
As for Romans 1 I'm certainly no theologian but if there is NO EXCUSE for saying 'there is no god' BECAUSE of conscience and nature, isn't that saying believe in god and ignore what your instinct and evidence is telling you? - confused DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | February 28, 2008 12:12 AM
"You base what you believe to be true on the bible then you try and find evidence indepentant of the bible to back what the bible says? Is that a fair summary?
Just as a thought experiment, assuming that homosexeuality is a sin, what evidence could you collect to show this assertion IS FALSE?"
I have read several apologetics books. I read them as I would have when I was an atheist. Part of Chritianity is to spread the message. I think it is obvious that many of us go about it the wrong way and come off as indoctrinated baboons who do not think. If I cannot explain something to me before I believed(would this made sense to me the atheist) then I need to explore it more.
I began writing to Christians about the essentials of the faith months ago. I got into a realized that I went in with too many assumptions that my be false. None of these diminishes my faith. But it does diminish my ability to intelligently present what I believe and why.
I am evolving in my thoughts about how best to express my faith
Posted by: King of Ireland | February 28, 2008 1:01 PM
It is easy to observe people's reactions to beauty, and to some degree even what's going on in their brains during that...
Science is certainly limited, but that's because it cannot prove. Neither, though, can anything else other than math and logic (and logic requires the assumption that the premises are true).
It requires, and does not even try to test, the assumption that God exists in the first place.
Even more beautiful faces are a little off the average, though.
By just doing it? I don't see a problem.
More importantly, it has been done repeatedly. Write less and read more.
First show us that more than one "dimension" exists in the first place.
In science, you see, you cannot simply make assumptions and build on them. You have to test your assumptions.
Why do you even bother? It is dead obvious that a worldwide flood never happened. Read morals out of the two interwoven flood stories all you like, but a literal reading is flat-out impossible.
If by "unnatural" you mean "only humans ever do it", you're wrong. It seems to occur in every vertebrate species that has been observed for long enough.
Hey, as Priya Lynn explained, you can't construct an "ought" from an "is" anyway. Ducks rape each other all the time, sometimes all the way to gang-rape and death by drowning. As I already mentioned, you should read more, and you should read first and write later.
BTW, I think doctorgoo is right about the origin of homophobia. I also think that's a big reason for why the Old Testament doesn't mention or even just imply the existence of female homosexuality at all.
Posted by: David Marjanović | March 11, 2008 3:03 PM
Re Liebeck v. McDonald's, some excerpts from
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rbrill/classes/BrillTortsF2007Eve/CoursePages/Course_docs/Supp_material/Coffee.html
... ... ... Also see Stephen J. Herman, America and the Law: Challenges for the 21st Century. Google Books has a "review."Posted by: Daniel Murphy | March 11, 2008 7:56 PM