Britain Goes the Civil Union Route (Media Says it's Marriage). - Page 3

Loving gay marriages are far more useful than loveless heterosexual marriages. It's not only about procreation my friend.

 

So you don't have any source(s) to support the claims you've made and simply expect me to believe what you've claimed without any evidence. Should have guessed.

You are aware of Obama's 2010 change to the visitation laws, correct?

 

I was not. And still am not other than your claim of it.

 

I'm also still waiting for you to provide sources supporting your claim that all of the hospitals in the "bible belt" denied visitation as you've said and that those who accept medicare/medicaid do not now.

 

All of this, of course, is irrelevant to the rights of property owners. But I'm going along anyway.

 

But do you have any sources that support your claims?

The fact that Obama's action was necessary is proof that there were at least some hospitals that were denying visitation rights to homosexuals. All of them? I have no proof, but it's highly probable based on regional philosophies.

 

No it isn't. Non sequitur.

 

 

 

Thought so.

 

 

 

So now it's just your guessing and conjecture that we should base our right-restriction tendencies on?

 

BTW...that was another non sequitur from you.

Then how about this?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/19well.html?_r=0

 

There. There's proof that there was at least one hospital that was denying visitation rights to homosexuals.

 

Yes. And this refers to the same person as the previous article. There's also nothing in that article that indicates the visitation was denied because they were homosexual or that this was a systematic approach to homosexual couples or a policy of the hospital.

 

I'm afraid you're falling far short of a reasonable level of proof here.

Edited by MJ1970 - 2/8/13 at 1:53pm

You are so full of shit MJ and you know it. Still, just in case you really aren't playing dumb (which again I'm pretty damn sure you are), here's a few links for you to peruse. http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/jun/25/woman-sues-miami-hospital-after-being-denied-visit/ http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/20/713251/nevada-same-sex-couple-denied-hospital-visitation-despite-domestic-partnership/ http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-19/national/35439569_1_visitation-rights-visitation-policies-accreditation http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/tennessee-lesbian-denied-hospital-visitation-rights/discrimination/2011/12/20/32183

 

**** off. Your buddy made a couple of specific claims. He's yet to provide anything close to supporting those claims.

 

If you and your buddy want to make all sorts of claims and speculations you're going to be asked to support them with real evidence and facts and stuff. You don't like it, don't make the claims.

 

And, to this point...nether have you.

 

 

 

Several anecdotal examples. This still doesn't rise to proving the claims that were made by tonton.

 

The first is the same story as in the two links tonton posted. And this article says nothing different than: A social worker told them they were in an "anti-gay city and state." Which, at this point, according to article #2 from tonton, has been denied by the social worker. So right now we have a he said/she said situation.

 

The second appears to have been an policy/law mis-match but does not demonstrate any kind of systemic bigotry or discrimination.

 

The third sounds similar to the second. Not a case of systematic and deliberate bigotry and discrimination but policy and communication glitches.

 

The best case you have is the forth article.

 

But none of this still demonstrates a widespread, systematic condition of bigotry and discrimination...nor that all the hospitals in the bible belt (a bit of liberal prejudice demonstrated in tonton's claims) are doing this.

 

You ladies are reaching. Keep trying.

 

So far it looks you guys are the ones that are full of shit.

 

 

Of course none of this changes the fact that private property owners ought to be able to set the rules on their property. This is all just a red herring from that basic discussion.

Edited by MJ1970 - 2/8/13 at 4:07pm

So in other words, you think it's fine if a hospital denies a gay spouse visitation.  You think it's within the hospital's rights.  I say **** that, that's abhorrent.

 

No.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

I say them doing it is a bad thing and I wouldn't do it if I were running the place.

 

I say there are a lot of things people do with their freedom and within their rights that are objectionable.

So again, you value the freedom to discriminate more than the ability of a loved one to have hospital visitation rights.  Whether you would personally discriminate is irrelevant.  That's the red herring.  You still value the ability of the bigot to deny visitation more than that of the loved one to have visitation.

 

More simply, I don't believe I have any right to force anyone else to conform to my values.

Which is really the cowardly way of rephrasing it because it distances you from the very real consequences of your belief.  You believe in the right to discriminate.  Sugar coat it all you want, but it doesn't make your position any less vile.  You think the freedom to discriminate is more valuable than the cost to absolute freedom in preventing said discrimination.

 

If you like.  The other option is being a bully I guess. If respecting people's rights even if you don't like what they do with them is being a "coward" then so be it. I say it is respecting people's rights. I know you don't care much about that, but I can't do much about that.

 

 

 

I have not sugar-coated it at all.

 

 

 

I understand that you disagree.

 

 

 

Yes. And, if you were to take the time to move beyond your anger, bitterness and incessant desire to browbeat others into agreeing with you, you'd realize that you actually cannot prevent discrimination, all you do it push it under ground. You cannot make people good through the law.

 

I realize you disagree with me. That's fine. You are free and have the right to do so...and to express that disagreement.

 

People do a lot of shitty things with their freedom and within their rights. But we don't take those rights away because of that. In fact, you wouldn't want to live in the world as much as you pretend you do. That would be a world of tyranny and slavery.

 

One of your problems is simply your impatience and your unwillingness to change people through persuasion rather than coercion. You get tired of trying and just pull out a gun, put it to their head and say "do it my way."

 

Anyway...it's been real.

 

Edited by MJ1970 - 2/8/13 at 7:41pm

BEHOLD!  The world of tyranny and slavery in which same-sex lovers can visit their dying spouses in hospitals!  I'm wondering how much your willingness to wait and watch abhorrent behavior without stepping in has to do with your ridiculous belief that there exists an afterlife.  If justice isn't served in this world, you think there's a next world--some final greater divine justice.  Any of that ring truthful?

 

And cut the melodramatic bullshit--there's no literal guns to anyone's heads over this.

 

Straw man.

 

 

 

Trolling. Rather smug trolling actually.

 

 

 

Yes I do believe that ultimate justice will happen beyond our lifetimes.

 

 

 

Ultimately, all your government edicts are enforced at the point of a gun. That's just a fact. I know you don't like this inconvenient truth. But it is what it is.

And since you believe that there is an ultimate justice after we die, you have no qualms with living with severe injustices in the name of absolute freedom.  Well, some of us live in an evidence-based reality and without a single shred supporting the existence of an afterlife, let alone a deity that doles out justice, injustices shouldn't be so callously ignored.

 

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. But it was nice of you to combine a non sequitur and a straw man in one sentence.

Those words--they do not mean what you think they mean.  You think hospitals should have the right to discriminate, despite your own personal feelings on the matter.  That is an injustice.  You also think there will be an ultimate justice after we die, rendering these grave injustices on Earth merely temporary.  There is absolutely no way that your insane religious beliefs don't color your willingness to prioritize the rights of bigots to deny people the final chance of ever saying goodbye.  

 

Do you believe that divine justice will ultimately make up for any Earthly injustices?  Answer me that.

 

I know exactly what they mean. Sorry.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

What is? That I think that or that they have the right?

 

 

 

That is also correct.

 

 

 

Is it possible for you to write a single post without exposing your religious bigotry?

 

That issue aside, you have now committed the non sequitur fallacy. Just because I believe God will handle ultimate justice does not mean I sit idly by in the face of present day injustices. We just have different feelings about how those wrongs should be handled or dealt with. It surprises me that you are unable (or unwilling) to see that.

 

 

 

Yes.

Edited by MJ1970 - 2/8/13 at 9:21pm

That final answer renders you hopelessly biased and incapable of participating in adult conversations about real injustices.  As long as you cling to the fairy tale that a bearded man in the sky will right every wrong, you are blinded to the imperative of addressing time-sensitive injustices in our one and only lifetimes.

 

See...you have the freedom (and right) to be a bigot (and exercise it frequently) yet wish to deny others the same freedom and right because their bigotry is different from yours. And you don't even see the irony and hypocrisy in this. Hilarious...and sad.

Demonstrate that there exists your deity--let alone define one in a non-contradictory coherent manner, which you surely cannot do--and you can be free to argue to let the concept of divine justice influence your decisions over society.  Until then, you are a child turning a blind eye to real problems because your magic unicorn will set things right in the end.  Sorry, there's no place at the adult table for people who embrace such nonsense, deny science, and set humanity's progress back as a result.

I will as soon as evolution deniers and climate science deniers stop playing a role in deciding science funding and education decisions.  I will as soon as homophobic religious nutjobs stop trying to prevent gay couples from enjoying the same freedoms as straight couples.  I will as soon as nonsense gives way to reason.

 

This +1.

Claiming to be coming from a position of reason and intelligence generally comes from those who can back up that claim. You don't see that claim coming from very many religious fundamentalists.

Likewise, claiming exclusivity of coming from a position of morals and righteousness is stunningly arrogant, wouldn't you agree?

 

I'm not sure if you're being serious here. Most of the Old Testament seems pretty happy with polygamy.