• 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

Although I think homosexuality is a sin and that homosexual marriages shouldn't be allowed, I think this is a good thing. I also think close friends and family should be allowed to have hospital access and not just the wife/husband.
 
misterman said:
Here is one example I could find.

Gay Woman Fights over Hospital Visitation Rights in Miami court | CommonDreams.org

If you are saying every single hospital already allowed gay visitation, you're mistaken.

But even if you weren't - so what? If so, this order is pointless, and therefore not news. Unless you oppose gay visitation rights, you should not even bother posting on this thread. Why does it bother you that Obama issued this order if you don't oppose it? If you don't oppose it, why do you care if Obama simply made it official?
Click to expand...

Oh...and BTW...Im sure you are already aware of it...but that article you posted...her situation wouldnt have changed with this executive order. At least not what is represented in the article. If the partner didnt already have established a legal will and was in a coma...it would be kind of tough for the patient to give consent...right?
 
texmaster said:
Sex and race are genetic. Homosexuality has never been proved to be hereditary in any way shape or form so the association is dishonest to say the least.
Click to expand...

Whether sexual preference is chosen or not is completely irrelevant. But if you believe it is relevant, then you have to agree that it's okay to discriminate against religion because that's not hereditary either.

But of course that's different.
 
The hospital workers these days are so regulated regarding HIPAA laws that I doubt, in most cases, the denial is intentional or personal discrimination but more of "erroring on the side of caution." Anyone working in the health field can tell you how protective the HIPAA laws are and how strictly they are enforced. Often, their hands are tied.

It is good that they addressed this and it seems most all people are in agreement that it should be changed in this regard.
 
Cardinal said:
Whether sexual preference is chosen or not is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not when you want to compare it to the civil rights movement which focus was on gender and race.

But if you believe it is relevant, then you have to agree that it's okay to discriminate against religion because that's not hereditary either.

But of course that's different.
Click to expand...

If you ignore the laws against religious discrimination you would be right. :roll:
 
texmaster said:
Not when you want to compare it to the civil rights movement which focus was on gender and race.
Click to expand...

So why can a woman do what a man cannot do, marry a man, legally?

If you ignore the laws against religious discrimination you would be right.
Click to expand...

I thought part of your argument was based on genetics. Is being Methodist pre determined by genetics?
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Not when you want to compare it to the civil rights movement which focus was on gender and race.
Click to expand...

Except that civil rights did not focus on race before the 1940's and was "only" about gender. But then it was about race. And now it is about sexual preference. History changes.

texmaster said:
If you ignore the laws against religious discrimination you would be right. :roll:
Click to expand...

And now the laws are changing. Next?

The main thrust of your argument stems from the historical fallacy, which doesn't serve you very well. Perhaps you can see why from the above.

And what happened to the genetics argument. Did that suddenly just not matter anymore?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
So why can a woman do what a man cannot do, marry a man, legally?

I thought part of your argument was based on genetics. Is being Methodist pre determined by genetics?
Click to expand...

For the same reason groups of people cant marry...and brothers and sisters...and there are age limits, etc.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
That sounds like more interpersonal family drama than anything else.
Click to expand...

Yes, related to the gayness of the man in question.

And so was interpersonal drama in the Schiavo case. They didn't like their son-in-law. They thought he was trying to kill their daugther. It's all interpersonal drama.

Such would is the case where families are homophobic and don't want to allow the partner of the gay/lesbian to visit or to be part of medical decisions.
 
winston53660 said:
So why can a woman do what a man cannot do, marry a man, legally?
Click to expand...

Why can't a man marry a child? Why can't a man marry multiple people? Because it isn't recognized by the state.

I thought part of your argument was based on genetics. Is being Methodist pre determined by genetics?
Click to expand...

Homosexuality and religion are not a equal comparison. You might as well compare horses to fish. How you think you got to this honestly is humorous but still wrong.
 
Cardinal said:
Except that civil rights did not focus on race before the 1940's and was "only" about gender. But then it was about race. And now it is about sexual preference. History changes.
Click to expand...

Yet there must be some basis to quantify it as civil rights. Blacks had race and females had gender. Both are proven characteristics that cannot be changed. To pretend homosexuality deserves this classification you must be able to prove what they have proven and you can't.

And now the laws are changing. Next?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call 0-32 a law changing path.

The main thrust of your argument stems from the historical fallacy, which doesn't serve you very well. Perhaps you can see why from the above.
Click to expand...

there is no fallacy in the genetic absolution of race and gender. To pretend homosexuality deserves this same distinction without evidence is your own fallacy.

And what happened to the genetics argument. Did that suddenly just not matter anymore?
Click to expand...

It hasn't gone anywhere. Religion is not genetic nor did I ever claim it to be. You simply tried to falsely relate two separate subjects since you cannot disprove what I said about homosexuality.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
Why can't a man marry a child?
Click to expand...

Well for one thing a child is not allowed to enter in to a legally binding contract.

Homosexuality and religion are not a equal comparison. You might as well compare horses to fish. How you think you got to this honestly is humorous but still wrong.
Click to expand...

So your argument is not about being born genetically gay?
 
winston53660 said:
Well for one thing a child is not allowed to enter in to a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

LOL Really. Then explain how I worked as a bag boy for a supermarket at 16?

So your argument is not about being born genetically gay?
Click to expand...

I'm not following where you are going. Religion and race or genetics are as different as taxes and wildlife preservation.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Really. Then explain how I worked as a bag boy for a supermarket at 16?
Click to expand...


You couldn't or did not have the skills for a better gig?

Oh and you did not enter into a legally binding contract.

I'm not following where you are going. Religion and race or genetics are as different as taxes and wildlife preservation.
Click to expand...

Religion is a civil rights issue in that the government can not discriminate based on religion. And that under cuts your genetic argument about gays.
 
texmaster said:
LOL Really. Then explain how I worked as a bag boy for a supermarket at 16?
Click to expand...

Working as a bag boy is not a binding contract, but then you already know that.
 
Navy Pride said:
Do you remember the names he was called in here? Do you remember how a president of the U.S. was treated? Do you remember that some on the left wnated him murdered.....Did you know the left actually made a movie on killing him

Do you remember how the left treated a rela hero General Petraeus? What did they call him? General Betrayus..........
Click to expand...

God Dammit Navy. Most of "the left" was kinda pissed about that commercial as I remember it. How about not pulling out something some asshole does and try and attribute it to the whole group. You really don't want to go down that road, since there are no shortage of assholes on the right too.

This whole playing stupid politics games, trying to demonize by association any one you don't agree with is getting really old. Give it a rest and try and talk about, I dunno, the issues themselves...
 
texmaster said:
Yet there must be some basis to quantify it as civil rights. Blacks had race and females had gender.
Click to expand...

...and gays have sexual preference. Sexual preference doesn't need to be identical to race any more than race needed to be identical to gender to still qualify its holders as being denied civil liberties.

texmaster said:
Both are proven characteristics that cannot be changed.
Click to expand...

Which is completely irrelevant.

texmaster said:
I wouldn't call 0-32 a law changing path.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that gays have more protections in the law than they did, say, twenty years ago?

texmaster said:
there is no fallacy in the genetic absolution of race and gender. To pretend homosexuality deserves this same distinction without evidence is your own fallacy.
Click to expand...

Again, completely irrelevant to whether homosexuals are or are not in fact denied civil liberties. Homosexuals don't have to prove to you or anyone else that they were born homosexual.

texmaster said:
It hasn't gone anywhere. Religion is not genetic nor did I ever claim it to be. You simply tried to falsely relate two separate subjects since you cannot disprove what I said about homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Without moving on to another topic, try to stick to your own logic: why, if genetics and choice are important distinctions for you in this debate, are religious people allowed civil liberties when other people who you claim to have just as much choice are not? You haven't shown at all how they are different, except by moving on to another topic which I have shown is changing (protection of the law).
 
winston53660 said:
You couldn't or did not have the skills for a better gig?

Oh and you did not enter into a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

Actually I did. I was legally required to work for the pay I received.

Try again.

Religion is a civil rights issue in that the government can not discriminate based on religion. And that under cuts your genetic argument about gays.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't since its written into the Constitution. Homosexuality is not.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
If I want to be paid it certainly is. You are entering a contract to work for money. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Click to expand...

Look up the legal definition of a binding contract and get back with us when you have a clue. You were employed, that is not a legally binding contract.
 
TheNextEra said:
Look up the legal definition of a binding contract and get back with us when you have a clue. You were employed, that is not a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

Then how could I sue if I did the work and they didn't pay me?

Explain that one
 
texmaster said:
Yes it is. I can sue them for not paying me after I sign and do the work.

Try again.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't look up the legal definition. You haven't a clue what you are talking about now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom