• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: gay partners should have hospital access

I agree with this.....It is not really a problem though...All one has to do is get a power of attorney....In fact most legal difficulties gays have can be handled this was way.

I agree. It dispels the lie that gays can't leave their **** behind to their partner or have their partner visit them in the hospital unless they are married.
 
It won't stick. If this is simply Federal policy then it can be re-written if the GOP come back to power, and you know they'll do it.

I suspect people have been denied in the past over this, but whether or not it still happens is irrelevant to the security this will bring to homosexual couples who might not be taken seriously by the health establishment. I also like what this implies for equal protection at the Federal level.
the gop will have a hard time rewriting this........
 
Thats theory not fact.

You can't just dishonestly throw out Southern states and guess they have denied gays.

Oklahoma is a southern state?
 
His highness has declared it, so let it be so.

While I agree that this isn't a bad thing, the method to make it so is... disgusting.
why? what's so disgusting about it?
 
um.....schiavo's parents had no legal standing.

Yet a man who was in another relationship with another woman and has children with that other woman does?
 
I agree. It dispels the lie that gays can't leave their **** behind to their partner or have their partner visit them in the hospital unless they are married.
it's not a lie that gay partners have no legal standing currently unless they have a specific instrmument detailing that right. not so for married couples.
 
Power of attorneys, wills, and other legal documentations should be made available to couples... :shrug:

So just because the religious right hates gays, we should just all respond by acting like a 5 year old and doing away with state recognized marriages entirely.

A village cant exactly survive for long if it constantly reorganizes village life to suit the village idiots.
 
it's not a lie that gay partners have no legal standing currently unless they have a specific instrmument detailing that right. not so for married couples.

SO your saying that my girlfriend can visit me in the hospital a specific instrument detailing that right?
 
Were they denied before in recent times? I know they used to have this issue. I am just asking, because I don't know, and I know thats not the case in many nj hospitals.

I work in hospitals...this is such a non issue. Ive NEVER seen anyone denied visitation if the guest requested it. Ever.

"Ive decided its high time gay people can wear jeans without asking permission. Front page news baby! We are movin and shakin now!"

Hey...why has Barrack Obama come out in favor of domestic partenrship but opposed to gay marriage?
 
Civil rights refers to race or gender not homosexuality.

And no it isn't well founded speculation. Its speculation based on your own bias.

You just pretty much proved my speculation Tex.
 
So just because the religious right hates gays, we should just all respond by acting like a 5 year old and doing away with state recognized marriages entirely.

I do not think he said anything about doing away with state recognized marriages.

A village cant exactly survive for long if it constantly reorganizes village life to suit the village idiots.

But isn't that what gay marriage supporters want?
 
You just pretty much proved my speculation Tex.

Thats your answer? The only thing you proved is your lack of facts to support your claims.

To claim right wingers hate homosexuals only displays your ignorance for all to see.

It certainly explains your pre judgment of southern states.
 
the prez, prophet like, proclaims from his mountaintop---let patients pick who will pay respects, who will pull plugs

such leadership, such vision, such courage!

LOL!

but, if you whisper that his next supreme court nominee is, in fact, a lesbian...

ooh, you're gonna get it!

washingtonpost.com

obama's just out-of-touch enough to do it

he passes health care with TWO HUNDRED AND NINETEEN, enfuriating folks from florida to phoenix

he floats AMNESTY, apparently out of the country when bush/mccain got their clocks cleaned over the issue

and he's just san francisco enough to appoint a gay to the supremes

party on, progressives

rapidly over that presidential precipice
 
To claim right wingers hate homosexuals only displays your ignorance for all to see.

.

Well it does seem the right wing is willing to discriminate against gays simply for being actively gay. After all who is it that supports the FMA and wants to restrict adoption, foster parenting, etc.
 
I work in hospitals...this is such a non issue. Ive NEVER seen anyone denied visitation if the guest requested it. Ever.

"Ive decided its high time gay people can wear jeans without asking permission. Front page news baby! We are movin and shakin now!"

Hey...why has Barrack Obama come out in favor of domestic partenrship but opposed to gay marriage?
because the word marriage is religious in nature.
 
How do you have a debate with someone from the left when the first thing that comes out of their mouth is your hust a homophobe or a bigot......You hate gays.........Thay is the type of intelligence we on the right have to deal with...........
 
It is irrelevant as to whether the practice of denying gay partners visitation is widespread or not. My research shows that it is not, but it DOES happen. What this does is prevent it from happening at all. Without this mandate, this sort of thing might still not be widespread, but it STILL could occur. Now, it cannot. I see that as a good thing.
 
because the word marriage is religious in nature.

Huh? Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.....You can get married by a judge or a justice of the peace which has nothing to do with religion..........
 
Last edited:
Well it does seem the right wing is willing to discriminate against gays simply for being actively gay. After all who is it that supports the FMA and wants to restrict adoption, foster parenting, etc.

ANyone (right or left) that things homosexuality is wrong and doesnt deserve redefining marital and family discriptions? Bill Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage act? Barrack Obama when he stated his support for domestic partnership but opposition to gay marriage? Any NUMBER of liberals that dont support gay marriage? For starters?
 
How do you have a debate with someone from the left when the first thing that comes out of their mouth is your hust a homophobe or a bigot......You hate gays.........Thay is the type of intelligence we on the right have to deal with...........

How do you have a debate with someone from the right when the first thing that comes out of their mouth is "socialist" or "unpatriotic"....you hate America....that is the type of intelligence we on the left have to deal with....

This is why you always look so foolish Navy.
 
How do you have a debate with someone from the left when the first thing that comes out of their mouth is your hust a homophobe or a bigot......You hate gays.........Thay is the type of intelligence we on the right have to deal with...........

Point out who in this thread called people homophobes or bigots, NP. I've read the entire thread and haven't seen it. Please stop making stuff up.
 
It is irrelevant as to whether the practice of denying gay partners visitation is widespread or not. My research shows that it is not, but it DOES happen. What this does is prevent it from happening at all. Without this mandate, this sort of thing might still not be widespread, but it STILL could occur. Now, it cannot. I see that as a good thing.

This is yet another appeasement act.
 
Back
Top Bottom