• 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

Erod said:
This is about like passing a law that you won't be pulled over for doing 72 mph on a 70 mph highway.

Obama is grandstanding.
Click to expand...
You'd probably care more if you were barred from seeing someone you loved.
 
texmaster said:
Civil rights refers to race or gender not homosexuality.

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

"Civil [and political] rights" are rights which protect individuals. What you fail to understand is that these rights are usually denied to not just one individual but an entire group (like for example blacks, women and homosexuals). "Civil rights" have come into play in cases regarding employment laws, mental illnesses and discrimination against the homeless.

Your misconception comes in believing that what is known as "The Civil Rights Movement" in America was a regionalized issue owned by America alone. It was a global movement. Peasants in Latin America demanded higher wages and a stop to the discrimination against them. Africans of all races started liberating their countries from European colonialism because of the lack of rights they had.

No. You're just wrong on this.
 
Last edited:
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...

You don't know that. To say so is completely dishonest to say the least.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I don't doubt you. I've heard of this, just never seen it neither has my wife who works in the industry.
Click to expand...

My sister graduated from nursing school in 1984. She has worked in hospitals in Boston, San Antonio, and Virginia Beach. SHe has seen the restriction in all three locations. So it exists, Rev.
 
VanceMack said:
Sometimes society makes rules based on right and wrong. Go figure...
Click to expand...

And it is wrong to bar homosexual couples from hospital visitation rights as well as medical decisions just like heterosexual couples get.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It describes those who are complaining about the order in this thread to a T.
Click to expand...

Ah...CaptainCourtesy...moderator extraordinaire...the all knowing voice of reason...

No one is complaining about the executive order and if you werent so stuck on your own need to be right you would see that. This executive order is of itself biased. It doesnt address 'all' poor picked on critters...it only addresses homosexuals. Strike one. It doesnt have much by way of value or import...strike two. And finally...using for example the article posted that illustrated the plight of gay partners...it only addresses conscious and cognizant adult patients in their visitation and consultation rights. It does nothing for people in comas or that are mentally incapacitated...that still requires a legal will...an option that already EXISTS. Strike three.
 
winston53660 said:
And it is wrong to bar homosexual couples from hospital visitation rights as well as medical decisions just like heterosexual couples get.
Click to expand...

You are as blinded by "yeah...the president cares about us gay people" as the others here are. This executive order doesn't change a thing. But it made you 'feeeeeel' better. So hurry to the polls!

An adult patient can already do all these things. An unconscious or comatose patient still cant.

Huuuu freqin zah! No...seriously...good for you! The president signed an executive order that says you can do what you are already doing...you SHOULD be thrilled. He gets to pretend he cares and he actually has done something...you get to pretend it is a step towards being 'normal'...life is AWESOME!!!
 
VanceMack said:
You are as blinded by "yeah...the president cares about us gay people" as the others here are. This executive order doesn't change a thing. But it made you 'feeeeeel' better. So hurry to the polls!

An adult patient can already do all these things. An unconscious or comatose patient still cant.

Huuuu freqin zah! No...seriously...good for you! The president signed an executive order that says you can do what you are already doing...you SHOULD be thrilled. He gets to pretend he cares and he actually has done something...you get to pretend it is a step towards being 'normal'...life is AWESOME!!!
Click to expand...


Wow gays really freak you out.
 
winston53660 said:
Wow gays really freak you out.
Click to expand...

Wow...logical arguments that you cant fight REALLY freak you out!

Like I told the good captain...I dont CARE about this executive order, nor do I give two shakes of a tinkers damn about people that happen to be gay. I point out the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS>..that you and yurn just got punked by the pres and you are throwing a party about it...and you cant STAND that.

Hey...use the 'homophobe' word next...thats the next step in the playbook...right? Cept...uh oh...it doesnt work with me.
 
VanceMack said:
Hey...use the 'homophobe' word next...thats the next step in the playbook...right? Cept...uh oh...it doesnt work with me.
Click to expand...

Well if it walks like duck.......
 
winston53660 said:
Well if it walks like duck.......
Click to expand...

Riiight...

Look...I get it. Really I do. I dont blame Obama...he's a charlatan. He knows that when you got nothing and your polls are continuing to sag, throw the people a few breadcrumbs and pretend you are actually doing something and the easily manipulated will be reinvigorated. I get it...its an age old ploy...goes back to the "emperors new clothes" days...but really...the ONLY way those kind of ploys work is when you have eager and willing dupes. And when it is pointed out that they are intentionally blind and willing participants in the scam...something they knew all along...the dupes get pissed.

Believe me...I get it...
 
VanceMack said:
Riiight...

Look...I get it. Really I do. I dont blame Obama...he's a charlatan. He knows that when you got nothing and your polls are continuing to sag, throw the people a few breadcrumbs and pretend you are actually doing something and the easily manipulated will be reinvigorated. I get it...its an age old ploy...goes back to the "emperors new clothes" days...but really...the ONLY way those kind of ploys work is when you have eager and willing dupes. And when it is pointed out that they are intentionally blind and willing participants in the scam...something they knew all along...the dupes get pissed.

Believe me...I get it...
Click to expand...

Well at least Obama is putting a positive light on being gay instead of supporting things like the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Times they are a changing:cool:
 
winston53660 said:
Well at least Obama is putting a positive light on being gay instead of supporting things like the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Times they are a changing:cool:
Click to expand...

What Federal Marriage Amendment?:confused:
 
texmaster said:
I didn't switch anything. You want to change the law. I am showing you the will of the people is not with you to change the law. How is that so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

I understand that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. You, apparently, do not. If, however, you are arguing from an angle purely of practicality, then it still fails because laws are changing to become more tolerant of homosexuals. Do you deny this?



texmaster said:
I am equating your lack of specific requirements for changing the law based on your general claims of homosexual acceptance can be expanded to any number of sexual orientations. I wish you would actually stop and think about your argument even if its only for a second.
Click to expand...

Genetics is a red herring, so is your slippery slope fallacy.
 
winston53660 said:
Well at least Obama is putting a positive light on being gay instead of supporting things like the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Times they are a changing:cool:
Click to expand...

Suuuuure he is.

have another crumb and get back in line...
 
Navy Pride said:
What Federal Marriage Amendment?:confused:
Click to expand...

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) (also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would have limited marriage in the United States to unions of one man and one woman. The FMA would also have prevented judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples, as well as preventing polygamy. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the support of two thirds of each house of Congress, and ratification by three fourths of the states (currently thirty-eight). The most recent Congressional vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage in that body. The Senate has only voted on cloture motions with regard to the proposed Amendment, the last of which was on June 7, 2006 when the motion failed 49 yea to 48 nay votes, falling short of the 60 yea votes required to proceed to consideration of the Amendment.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment]Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Why doesn't Obama have the stones to advocate for the legalization of gay marriage or abolish marriage altogether?

He's not only a vacuous fool, but ostensibly he's a coward as well.
 
61 Electric Bron-Yr-Aur said:
Why doesn't Obama have the stones to advocate for the legalization of gay marriage or abolish marriage altogether?

He's not only a vacuous fool, but ostensibly he's a coward as well.
Click to expand...

He has stated he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. So why would you say he doesn't have the "stones to advocate for legalization of gay marriage"? Of course, so you can attack him. :roll:
 
Cardinal said:
I understand that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. You, apparently, do not. If, however, you are arguing from an angle purely of practicality, then it still fails because laws are changing to become more tolerant of homosexuals. Do you deny this?


Genetics is a red herring, so is your slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

I know its easier to pretend by falsly classifying an arguement you don't
Have to answer but it won't get you around reality. Gay marriage is 0-31

Even during the biggest election win for liberals it still went down. Do you
Deny this?

And you are once again inncorrect in your futile attempt to falsly classify an arguement
Instead of having the courage to address it. You want to change the law.
I'm asking you for factual backing supporting your argument to change
The law and your only response is an emotional one which is a true logical
Fallacy. When you have reasoning beyond an emotional arguement and
Actually have factual evidence that homosexuality is more than a lifestyle
Choice let us know.
 
aps said:
He has stated he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. So why would you say he doesn't have the "stones to advocate for legalization of gay marriage"? Of course, so you can attack him. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's a step in that direction without saying it is. Besides, his word is worthless. He's blatantly lied to the American people more times than Willie Mays was an All-Star.
 
VanceMack said:
Ah...CaptainCourtesy...moderator extraordinaire...the all knowing voice of reason...
Click to expand...

This is true. Good for you to realize that.

No one is complaining about the executive order and if you werent so stuck on your own need to be right you would see that.
Click to expand...

Actually, YOU are complaining about the executive order and if you actually read and admitted to what you wrote, YOU'D see that.

This executive order is of itself biased. It doesnt address 'all' poor picked on critters...it only addresses homosexuals. Strike one.
Click to expand...

So what? It's up to those other "poor picked on critters" to fight their own battles. That's your first failure.

It doesnt have much by way of value or import...strike two.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It does exactly what it states. That is your SECOND failure. You're on a roll.

And finally...using for example the article posted that illustrated the plight of gay partners...it only addresses conscious and cognizant adult patients in their visitation and consultation rights. It does nothing for people in comas or that are mentally incapacitated...that still requires a legal will...an option that already EXISTS. Strike three.
Click to expand...

And that is irrelevant. It still closes a loophole that can be used to prevent gay partners from visitation. Good. Now your failure is complete.
 
texmaster said:
Gay marriage is 0-31

Even during the biggest election win for liberals it still went down. Do you
Deny this?
Click to expand...

It's a slow and arduous war that has its wins and its losses, just like most struggles. Sometimes it can seem pretty bleak until you consider that twenty years ago there were no states at all where gay marriage was permitted and even considering the notion was preposterous.

The rest of your post is gibberish and can be safely ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom