|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
my God... (Reply to this comment)
by jackai
how did I miss this, Doc??
I'm glad your story had a happy ending.
Jack
|
Jun 01 '07
12:05 pm PDT
|
|
Incredible story (Reply to this comment)
by ladyconsumer
And you're incredibly brave to have told it here. I'm glad that you did.
Mona
|
Jul 03 '06
7:59 am PDT
|
|
Thank you (Reply to this comment)
by coops32
I know this has been up for a while, but I am please Jeff added it as a link to his w/o so that I could read it.
Very moving story for me, another previously screwed up gal.
Thanks:)
Courtney
|
Jun 19 '06
1:46 pm PDT
|
|
I was supposed to be in this write off (Reply to this comment)
by artbyjude
and I live with guilt not being able to do it (I have all the others). This is an amazing and really wonderful story. Glad you decided to share it, although it could not have been real easy! This is the Doc I love the best...the honest real person that you are. Proud to know ya.
Jude
|
Apr 30 '05
10:45 pm PDT
|
|
Dear doc (Reply to this comment)
by pranapana
Having a child in the world that I could not watch grow up is not something I think I would ever be brave or strong enough to do - I really admire you for being able to do it. Working towards a time where less and less people here in SEA will have to do that because of poverty or stigma is something that has great meaning to me.
Thanks for sharing, I've never believed in discriminating between people for life-style choices, but I know lots who do, so at least now I can quote someone else's life experience when next challenged.
Your son is a credit to all three of his parents,
Renee
|
Apr 07 '05
9:49 pm PDT
|
|
Ditto (Reply to this comment)
by blackrose4eva
I believe gay parents should be given the same rights and acceptance as straight couples do. I mean, it's sad to know that you love someone so much but can't have children with them because they both have the same sex organs. =( I feel for you gay couples out there, if I knew I can't have kids with my boyfriend.
I knew a lot of gay people, almost all of them are very nice. They have a lot of love to give, and most of them I know adopted dogs and cats and they have proven their love. If they can adopt a child, can you imagine what a great family it would be? In addition, we want to teach our children equality of all races and sexual status. If the adoptiong agency only selects heterosexual couples, what does this tell the children?
Good review, btw. I would rate VH, but I usually don't rate =P
-blackrose4eva
|
Jul 14 '04
11:52 am PDT
|
|
I Knew There Was More To You Than..... (Reply to this comment)
by ruby950
your normal bottom line around here! It truly takes a special person to survive all that you have gone through in your lifetime. I hope that you have a forever friend in your son. And to those touting bible verses.....I believe in a kinder, gentler God, who would NEVER condemn true and honest love.
My best to you, Doc!
Deb~
|
Jul 05 '04
5:19 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Lori you are an amazing person (Reply to this comment)
by mjfrombuffalo
"All of the problems I have with the adoption industry (and it is that - an industry) have nothing to do with gay adoption." AA, please don't throw all adoptions into the same category. I believe you're adopted, don't know if you know that I'm adopted, but there's hundreds of kids in foster care in New York State alone awaiting adoption through nonprofit organizations that are not part of the private adoption system that I came through (and perhaps you too). (NYS Website for those interested - be they gay, lesbian, bi, or straight: http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/adopt/internet/InternetPhotoinq.asp )
I dated two different guys who happened to have been raised by lesbians. Trust me, they were definitely heterosexual. I know kind, loving, intelligent gays and lesbians who do (or will) make wonderful parents, probably doing a better job than the heterosexual couple who raised me. Wonderful piece, Doc - thank you for sharing your story.
|
Jul 05 '04
1:49 pm PDT
|
|
Psssst. (Reply to this comment)
by katybrighteyes
Is it gone yet?
Dayum. I read this the other day, then finally got the chance to come back and comment. Got over here and thought I'd entered the Haunted Forest. "Lions and tigers and bears... oh my!"
Love,
Dorothy
P.S. Awesome review, Doc. Can't wait 'til ya meet that dashing fella. :o)
|
Jul 04 '04
4:05 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by katmar
That was awesome. And so well-thought out and presented. It says all there is to say, and if "the right wing" can't understand it, then they really don't know the Bible, or probably Jesus. YOU GO GIRL!!
Marsha
|
Jul 03 '04
11:51 pm PDT
|
|
You're so fortunate (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
Your son wanted to meet you - my "daughter," for lack of a more appropriate word, doesn't want to have anything to do with me, and from the looks of it, never will.
Not to rain on your parade, but I wanted to applaud you for the loving decision you made so long ago.
Margaret
|
Jul 01 '04
8:45 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Wow (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
See, and the problem with that logic is that even if gay folks raised gay kids.. so what?
They act like that would be a bad thing....
Doc
|
Jul 01 '04
2:07 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Wow (Reply to this comment)
by kuuleimomi
It reminds me how people say gay adoption is wrong because their children will turn out to be gay too. And now we wonder, following the same logic, if heterosexuals produce straight kids, where do the gay people come from? ;)
Finn
|
Jul 01 '04
5:31 am PDT
|
|
Re: I'm only 16 but ........... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
No, thank YOU, KV.
It's kids like you that give me unlimited hope for the future.
Doc
|
Jun 30 '04
10:11 am PDT
|
|
I'm only 16 but ........... (Reply to this comment)
by joe-uncool
I go to a private school were there are some gay men and women, a couple are teachers. To tell you the truth I feel that most of these men and women are the kindest and most understanding people at my whole school. Again I do not know about "Gay Marraige" and a "Gay Childhood", but I can't see how it is harmful in any way. Just to let you know I am a practicing Christian with a strong religious background. While my mother and father are disgusted with the actions of gay people (not the people themselves), my sister and I are both accepting of gay people. The word f*g, lesbian, or gay may spit out of my mouth often but that is because of my up-bringing in a homophobic house. I recently told my aunt how I felt about it and she has the same opinion as me. That gay people are not primitive or weaker. Rather they have an open mind and a loving soul which is mandatory in a child's early days.
Thanks,
KV
P.S. Doc I am 16, and it is hard to make me cry, but I did. Very Impressive Article.
|
Jun 30 '04
6:40 am PDT
|
|
Re: Wow (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
it affects them in ways that many open-minded and gay-friendly people couldn't even imagine
Spot on. They are raised without all the BS bias. What I didn't say here.. that I should say here, but didn't want to embarass her.. well.. see this son raised by a lesbian couple turned out straight.
My daughter, raised by me, a hetero, is bi-sexual.
Funny, eh?
Doc
|
Jun 29 '04
9:24 am PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I also hope that we are still friends on this site
Of course. ;)
Doc
|
Jun 29 '04
9:21 am PDT
|
|
Wow (Reply to this comment)
by kuuleimomi
Thank you for writing this. I know, many people say that on usual reviews of some regular items on this site, but I really really do mean it. I did a slight research on gay parenting two years ago. I read all I could find about the influence parental orientation has on their children and I knew it affects them in ways that many open-minded and gay-friendly people couldn't even imagine. But I've never heard the real stories. Yours is truly inspiring. Thank you! I hope everything is well with you.
Finn
|
Jun 29 '04
2:01 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Heh.
All I'm sayin' is if there does turn out to be a God.. there's gonna be a whole lot of shocked 'Christian' bigots come judgement day.
ChucklingDoc
|
Jun 28 '04
4:55 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by LILvoyce
"How about this one... since we're making assumptions: if it's my "Christian duty" to correct a mis-quote about the Bible, then is it your secular duty to defend a mis-quote of the Bible?"
I think you are the one who needs to be corrected. What makes think that I am not a Christian? Because I choose not to judge a group of people who are God's children?
It is true I assumed that you were a "Christian" biggot. I was wrong, you are just a biggot. Sorry about my mix up.
-barbara
|
Jun 28 '04
4:33 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by LILvoyce
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Here is an article written by Rev. Jonathan Loppnow and Rev. Paul C. Evans.)
Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes. (See the discussion of Deuteronomy)
Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.
These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:
permits polygamy
prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
bans tattoos
prohibits eating rare meat
bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
prohibits cross-breeding livestock
bans sowing a field with mixed seed
prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath
Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.[1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is likely that the prohibition thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman came about for one of the following reasons:
Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive.
Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Lev. 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices, see 19:26-29.
Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament. Women could not be degraded by such an act as they were already not held in high esteem. there is a theory that the Hebrew people believed in a perfect order of creation and anything that violated that order was considered unclean or an abomination. A probable example would be that fish were considered the perfect sea animal, hence anything in the sea that did not have scales and fins was unclean. (Lev. 11:9-10) Cattle were the perfect cud chewing animal, hence anything that chewed cud, but didn't have hooves was unclean. (Lev. 11:6). If this theory is correct then the prohibition against male sex acts would be violating the role of the perfect ideal human: man. It would seem to mix the sex role of the imperfect woman with the ideal role of the man.
Even if the reader disagrees with the theories stated above they should take note that these verses are a part of the Hebrew scriptures often called the 'Holiness Code'. This 'code' is no longer followed by the Christian church.
In Leviticus 18:19 (which is just a few verses before the prohibition 'thou shall not lie with a man as with a woman') having sexual relations with a woman during her period is forbidden yet this is not proclaimed as a binding rule for today.
Also, 18:8 and 18:18 show that this code allows for polygamy yet this is now considered immoral.
19:28 prohibits tattoos yet they are not proclaimed as sinful by the Christian church.
19:19 forbids crossbreeding of livestock yet the church allows, farmers who do this very thing to worship in church.
19:19 forbids sowing a field with mixed feed, yet farmers are not condemned who plant hay and alfalfa.
11:7 forbids the eating of pigs, yet people unashamedly have a side of bacon with their eggs!
11:6 forbids the eating of rabbits (hares) because they don't have cloven hooves but they chew cud, yet some Christians love to eat rabbit.
11:9-10 forbids the eating of any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, yet shrimp and lobster lovers are not told to repent by Christians, nor is Red Lobster picketed!
23:3 instructs that the seventh day of the week is to be the Sabbath, not Sunday, yet the Christian church disregards this.
Deut 22 states that a woman is not telling the truth if she says she was raped but no one heard her scream.
It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."
Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."
Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."
Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."
There are those who recognize that Christians are under a New Covenant and yet state that the Old Covenant was divided into three parts, civil, ceremonial and moral. They then insist that the moral part of the Old Covenant remain in force. This distinction can nowhere be found in the Old Covenant itself. In fact, many guidelines clearly have both a civil/ceremonial use AND a moral one (See Leviticus 19:13). Who, then, has the authority to decide "this is morality, but this is civil procedure and this is ceremonial..."?
Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice. [2]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OCRT: Bible and Homosexuality
Source: Same Gender Sexual Behavior and the Scriptures
This paper is provided as a service of the Metropolitan Community Church of Topeka, authors Rev. Jonathan Loppnow and Rev. Paul C. Evans.
|
Jun 28 '04
4:23 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by katmar
I said when you "speak of things you don't understand, you should learn to keep your mouth shut." I did not say, "keep your mouth shut".
But maybe I should, since you don't make any sense, and you're apparently deaf to top it all off. Why don't you walk away from all this with some dignity?
|
Jun 27 '04
11:40 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Again. You have not heard anything that has been said to you.
I'm glad you are done with commenting here.
Doc
|
Jun 27 '04
10:12 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by katmar
Bearsybear,
You claim you are offering up "facts". Your facts are quotes from Leviticus, correct? If they are lines from Leviticus, they are facts, am I right? I just want to be clear.
Because if one follows that argument, then Doc is also offering up facts - quotes from Leviticus - so they must be true, too, am I correct?
Well, if you follow one fact, then you must follow them all, and condemn what God tells you to. You are condemning homosexuality because it's a "fact" from Leviticus. But other facts in Leviticus, which Doc pointed out to you, also require you to stone people, offer up burnt offerings, and have nothing to do with the handicapped. So why are you avoiding her valid argument? It's not an attack, it's an attempt at discussion. But only unbiased people can have a real discussion.
As for the Old Testament still being part of the Bible, you are right. But the point is this: in the OT, people lived by the law. Jesus died to free us from the law, and give us the Holy Spirit.
You need to sit with some really good teachers, and stop condemning what you don't understand.
And I'm not condemning you. Many people are ignorant in this area. That's why there's so much hatred in the world, especially among "religious" people. Jesus went into the temple and overturned all of the tables there. He pretty much said "screw you all" to the religious hypocrites.
The world is full of hypocrisy. We don't need anymore. I'm just asking that before you speak of things you don't understand, that you learn to keep your mouth shut, or you learn to open your mind. You don't have to like gays, but don't quote the Bible in order to diss them. On top of being a misrepresentation of the Scriptures, it's just also really old. Just dislike them quietly if you must. God doesn't like people who point fingers at others, especially his other kids, and especially when they twist his words to do so.
And I ask that you not come back at me with more of the rhetoric you spouted. You're not the only one speaking the truth here, buddy. God gave us two ears, but only one mouth. Maybe he wanted us to listen more than we speak.
It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it to be true. (Or something along those lines.)
You also lambasted several people who gave you links to sites. You said those were only other people's interpretations. Well, what is your opinion but an interpretation? If it's a fact, then you're stuck with what I said in the first few paragraphs. So start burning and stoning or you're going to hell with the rest of us queers!
Cheers,
Marsha
|
Jun 27 '04
2:16 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Good grief...
You are not reading what is being said to you...
YOU: You're the one who brought up the Bible with your incorrect statement
ME: My mistake.. I simply wasn't aware that anyone followed Leviticus in this day and age..
You haven't stated an opinion? What about this:
Don’t misquote the Bible in order to make your case … that’s blasphemy.
That is absolutely opinion, no matter how badly you want it to be truth.
By the way, last I checked the Old Testament is still part of the Bible.
The last I heard, the powers that be (Church-wise) said do NOT follow Leviticus. So perhaps you misunderstood me. Let me say that again: The folks who make the rules, who claim to know the will of God, do not consider the directions in Leviticus to be valid. Therefore, no, the Bible does not say anything about gays.. nothing that is supposed to be followed at any rate.
Yet you insist on using it as an example. So the answer to my questions is that you do, indeed, shun the handicapped, offer up burnt sacrifices, and get into the whole stoning thing.
How nice.
Doc
|
Jun 27 '04
10:25 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
And one last thing...
I guess your tolerance only extends to those who agree with you.
I do not "tolerate" gays. They are not in need of being "tolerated." I quite enjoy their equal inclusion in the human race....
Doc
|
Jun 26 '04
9:22 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I'll save ya the effort of scrolling back down...
Have you offered your burnt sacrifice lately?
Does your priest cut his hair or shave his beard?
Do you let the blind into your church? The lame? Any blemishes at all? Or worse yet... a flat nose? Heaven forbid they shall profane god's sanctuaries....
And hey, how's that whole stoning gig go over in your neck of the woods?
All in Leviticus my dear...and just as valid as your quote regarding gays.
Doc
|
Jun 26 '04
9:13 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
You're the one who brought up the Bible with your incorrect statement
My mistake.. I simply wasn't aware that anyone followed Leviticus in this day and age.. you know, since the new and improved really real testament came out.
So. Sidestepping my questions are ya? I mean, since you obviously do follow it still, against express orders from the Top Christians...
I figured as much.
Doc
Doc
|
Jun 26 '04
9:10 pm PDT
|
|
Gay Adoption (Reply to this comment)
by skbreese
Thanks for sharing your story. I don't know why some people insist that a family has to be a father, mother, and children. There is room in this world for all kinds of families and better to have a loving than abusive one. Sheila
|
Jun 26 '04
8:29 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm... (Reply to this comment)
by LILvoyce
bearsybear: http://www.weblicity.com/freedom/art12.html
I found this article very interesting as what the bible does NOT say about homosexuals. Can you deny these facts as well?
Is it your point to try and prove her wrong? Or is it your Christian duty to judge others? Shame on you..Tisk Tisk.
-barbara
|
Jun 26 '04
1:30 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
