 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mr. Fun:
"
"2) I have read about horror stories where a grieving gay lover was not allowed to see his/her dying spouse in hospitals."
Why didn't the person say that he was a friend? Trying to make a political statement during a time of tragedy? 
|
IIUC the issue is NOT that the hospitals denied it on the assumption that is was a stranger. Its that the blood relatives denied it, KNOWING that it was the gay significant other. Now in the case of a hetero non-marital relationship its one thing ("I dont want that slut visting my brothers bedside, i mean they could have gotten married if they were that close") but in the case of a gay one, where marriage was never an option, its another.
It seems to me that when two people have lived together for years, and desired to be legally joined in a relationship that would give them such visiting rights, and marriage is not an option, society owes them the ability to create such a relationship, that trumps the rights of blood relatives.
Should this relationship be called a marriage? Frankly, I dont know. My inclination is to be conservative (with a small "c") about this - make the smallest possible change that addresses the hardship in question, and see how it plays out. Thus allow some form of legally recognized commitment that allows for such things as hospital visitation, but dont call it marriage, or necessarily even include all the benefits of marriage. Then see what happens.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
Speaking of nonsense...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ide...5p-113368c.html
Gay marriage in New York?
It undermines the institution
By WILLIAM A. DONOHUE
NO To be for same-sex marriage is to be against marriage.
How so? Explain to someone who served in the armed services that the veterans' benefits he justly earned are now going to be extended to those who never served.
Explain to senior citizens who get discounts in many different venues that their benefits are going to be made available to everyone, regardless of age.
And then tell veterans and seniors that the new policy has no effect on them.
If something is special, it cannot be universally distributed. This is what our society must decide: If marriage is special, then it must be treated as such in custom and law.
If it doesn't matter, then let the politics of inclusion prevail. But history warns against such nonsense.
The mores, and later the laws, in every society in the history of the world - in both Eastern and Western civilizations - have reserved marriage for heterosexuals. Moreover, not one world religion has ever endorsed the idea that two men should be allowed to marry.
Given the extraordinary diversity of people that has existed over the centuries in so many different cultures, it is astounding that not one place on Earth has ever sanctioned the idea of two men getting married.
This alone ought to give the proponents of gay marriage pause. But not theleaders of the New York State Democratic Party - their arrogance allows them to declare the wisdom of the ages to be dead wrong.
Those who advocate same-sex marriage like to emphasize that all that matters is that two people love each other. But if a loving and committed relationship is the sine qua non of marriage, then a brother and sister who fall in love would qualify for marriage. Polygamy would have to be legalized as well.
And what if Tom and **** are courting and they both fall in love with Harry. Why can't Tom, **** and Harry get married? To deny them would be to discriminate.
If marriage is to be treated as if it were nothing more than an alternative lifestyle, cohabiting men and women will have less reason to marry.
Unfortunately, this does not bode well for children. The social science evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that children do best when raised by a mother and father in the institution of marriage. Indeed, the data show that the physical, psychological, emotional and social well-being of children is so much better served in this context that it is preposterous to argue otherwise.
In short, if marriage is special, it cannot be treated as if it were but one selection on a sociological smorgasbord. On the contrary, it must be granted a privileged position in society.
Donohue is president of the Catholic League
for Religious and Civil Rights.
Originally published on October 14, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, you guessed it: more of the same blah blah blah BS. Though, I hadn't heard the first couple of fallicies before. So now we're going to hurt seniors AND veterans?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
Azazel:
quote:
It seems that this is a thinly veiled attempt, esp. from various religious groups/people, e.g. Ben, to delegitimize any homosexual relationship.
|
How am I delegitimising? Don't they have just as much of a right to marry, as I do to my grandmother?
quote:
not the right thing to do for you, and your sanity, but also something that cracks the delicate family structure like a 10lb hammer through a baby's skull.
|
Exactly. However, I would say that recognising gay marriage will have the same effect. Now be careful, I am not speaking of relationships, but of marriage.
quote:
It's the reaction of the household members that destroys the bond.
|
It takes two to tango, Azazel. This is a tacit admission that endorsing gay unions will result in the destruction of families.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
molly:
quote:
I would hardly call an argument founded on denial of the franchise to certain groups (based on prejudice) a positive argument-
|
How are you being discriminated when you are allowed to marry any woman of your choice, so long as she agrees? Same franchise, same right as anybody else.
quote:
choose to ignore is that gay men and lesbians are not going to die out any time in the near future.
|
Yes, thanks to those who do have kids. 
quote:
You might care to read more about Malthus before dismissing my neo-Malthusian label for your reasoning.
|
Actually, I am fairly familiar. Please elaborate your reasoning.
quote:
Marriage in and of itself is no more nor less moral than the societal setting and the reasons for it.
|
Well, then please comment on the reasons behind marriage.
Secondly, why should we change the definition of marriage, if Canada has always done things this way? Are not the current restrictions neither moral nor immoral?
quote:
relationships between same sex partners were given the same value as those between men and women.
|
Did they call them marriage?
quote:
You should also realize that the Western Christian definition of 'marriage' is not the sole definition, and that secular marriages exist as well as 'sectarian' marriages,
|
Yes, I am aware. I don't see precedent in either to sanction homosexual unions.
quote:
and the application of religious prejudice to restrict the former has no place in a civil society.
|
So religions ought to be checked out at the coat closet before entering the legislature? I would presume your definition of religious prejudice to be vastly different from my own.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-10-2003 22:31
If you don't think friendships are discriminated against (lets leave grandmothers to one side), why would you think homosexual couples are discriminated against? Surely the only difference is a bit of rumpy pumpy - it's not like the government asks you if you have sex with your friends...?
|