Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[zsdersw]

All adults do have the same rights. SSM is about couples, not individuals.

No it's not.

And it doesn't require redefining marriage.

Marriage has been redefined more often than the health status of eating eggs.

 

[DougK62]

All adults do have the same rights. SSM is about couples, not individuals.

Seems like a strange stance to take. Couples are made up of two individuals. The couple lacks the rights because of the individuals involved, correct?

 

[nehalem256]

There is not a separate Constitution and Bill of Rights for men and another for women.

And both men and women are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender.

No it's not.

Marriage is about couples. Do you have any idea what marriage is?

Marriage has been redefined more often than the health status of eating eggs.

BS. Even vastly differ cultures (India, China, Ukraine, Japan) all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[nehalem256]

Seems like a strange stance to take. Couples are made up of two individuals. The couple lacks the rights because of the individuals involved, correct?

All adults have the right to marry a single person of the opposite gender.

The couple lacks the right, but each individual still has the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. They simply choose not to exercise that right.

 

[zsdersw]

And both men and women are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Why only the opposite gender?

Marriage is about couples. Do you have any idea what marriage is?

A couple is composed of two individuals. Do you have any idea what marriage is?

BS. Even vastly differ cultures (India, China, Ukraine, Japan) all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage has been redefined throughout history more times than it is reasonable to count.

 

[Retro Rob]

If we took the point of view of allowing it to be a state issue you'd likely still have states that don't allow interracial marriage. And I hope everyone in here can at least see why that would be wrong.

Fair enough.

I guess we'll have to see then.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

BS. Even vastly differ cultures (India, China, Ukraine, Japan) all agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Vastly different cultures have also agreed that marriage can be between same-sex couples, as in Argentina, Belgium, South Africa, Portugal, the Nordic countries, etc. If you're going to go bringing different cultures into this as evidence that marriage is between one man and one woman, you can't ignore the cultures that disagree with that assessment. And are you making the claim that you'd like to see the USA base its laws on what is done in China and the Ukraine? Because that seems a bit... well, unAmerican, frankly.

 

[soulcougher73]

Interracial marriage is only a relevant point if you think that men and women are fundamentally the same.

What the hell does this have to do with a states right vs. a federal right? In fact what does this have to do with anything?

All marriage laws should be federal for hetro and SSM. Or just "marriage" as i like to call it in my enlightened smarter than you view

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Why only the opposite gender?

We've been over this ground many times with him.

You're arguing with a dishonest, Johnny-one-note asshole who simply recycles the same invalid "arguments" over and over as part of his endless spewing of hatred towards women and homosexuals. There is nothing you or anyone else will ever say that will ever get him to acknowledge his fallacious attempts at reasoning, nor stop with his pointless crusade.

 

[zsdersw]

We've been over this ground many times with him.

You're arguing with a dishonest, Johnny-one-note asshole who simply recycles the same invalid "arguments" over and over as part of his endless spewing of hatred towards women and homosexuals. There is nothing you or anyone else will ever say that will ever get him to acknowledge his fallacious attempts at reasoning, nor stop with his pointless crusade.

I know, but I enjoy bringing out his dumbass-ness for all to see.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.springvalleyhospital.com/patients-and-visitors/visitor-information "Visitors are limited to immediate family in intensive care units."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hosp...artners-effect/story?id=12642543#.UOsKEeS7OAg

LOL. That's your convincing list?

Many years ago, many hospitals had "family only" visitation. These policies have changed as social norms evolved over the years. Currently, these policies are virtually non-existent in the U.S.

Saying that many hospitals have "family only" visitation policies is...how should I say this...less than truthful.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

LOL. That's your convincing list?

Many years ago, many hospitals had "family only" visitation. These policies have changed as social norms evolved over the years. Currently, these policies are virtually non-existent in the U.S.

Saying that many hospitals have "family only" visitation policies is...how should I say this...less than truthful.

http://stonybrookmedicine.edu/patientcare/visitinghours

http://www.sacred-heart.org/visitorinformation/

http://www.emersonhospital.org/PatientsFamilies/FamiliesVisitors/VisitorInfo.aspx

http://www.huntingtonhospital.com/Main/HoursandParking.aspx

Was there a specific number you had in mind?

 

[nehalem256]

Vastly different cultures have also agreed that marriage can be between same-sex couples, as in Argentina, Belgium, South Africa, Portugal, the Nordic countries, etc. If you're going to go bringing different cultures into this as evidence that marriage is between one man and one woman, you can't ignore the cultures that disagree with that assessment. And are you making the claim that you'd like to see the USA base its laws on what is done in China and the Ukraine? Because that seems a bit... well, unAmerican, frankly.

Which one of those countries would you say is non-Christian . Also up until what ~10 years ago all of those countries agreed with the rest of the world.

I am saying that marriage being between a man and a woman has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact going by your list if anything christian countries are the ones support SSM.

 

[nehalem256]

http://stonybrookmedicine.edu/patientcare/visitinghours

http://www.sacred-heart.org/visitorinformation/

http://www.emersonhospital.org/PatientsFamilies/FamiliesVisitors/VisitorInfo.aspx

http://www.huntingtonhospital.com/Main/HoursandParking.aspx

Was there a specific number you had in mind?

And it would seem the best solution to the problem is to allow non-family members to visit. That way people without family, or who are not close to their family can have the people they care about around them when they are sick.

 

[nehalem256]

Why only the opposite gender?

Society has an intrinsic interest in sexual relationships between people of the opposite gender.

This interest does not exist for platonic relationships or SS sexual relationships.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://stonybrookmedicine.edu/patientcare/visitinghours

http://www.sacred-heart.org/visitorinformation/

http://www.emersonhospital.org/PatientsFamilies/FamiliesVisitors/VisitorInfo.aspx

http://www.huntingtonhospital.com/Main/HoursandParking.aspx

Was there a specific number you had in mind?

In your mind is "immediate family only" code for no gay partners?

Are you aware that hospitals are required by law to not deny anyone visitation rights on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

[thraashman]

LOL. That's your convincing list?

Many years ago, many hospitals had "family only" visitation. These policies have changed as social norms evolved over the years. Currently, these policies are virtually non-existent in the U.S.

Saying that many hospitals have "family only" visitation policies is...how should I say this...less than truthful.

And the policies that are changing didn't do so for societal norms changing, they did so because the President told them they needed to and in fact made it a requirement for medicare and medicaid patients. And family visitation is only one of many rights that gay couples are denied. Hell, a gay partner can't legally make any health decisions for their partner the same way a spouse can when they're in the hospital.

 

[soulcougher73]

Society has an intrinsic interest in sexual relationships between people of the opposite gender.

This interest does not exist for platonic relationships or SS sexual relationships.

And "society" is not always right as has been proven the case time and time again. Equal rights for all is the only way to go.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

And the policies that are changing didn't do so for societal norms changing, they did so because the President told them they needed to and in fact made it a requirement for medicare and medicaid patients. And family visitation is only one of many rights that gay couples are denied. Hell, a gay partner can't legally make any health decisions for their partner the same way a spouse can when they're in the hospital.

There has been a lot of change in visitation rights for gays, especially over the past decade....Obama's order was a direct reflection of this. If this order was done in the 60's, public reaction would have been completely different. Surely you see this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If gays now have equal rights when it comes to "family only" visitation, great. But that's only because of efforts to secure equality, so the issue itself is still relevant. There hasn't been any law passed as far as I can tell, nor any binding high court ruling. Just an administrative memo, which could have been undone quite easily by President Romney (shudder).

 

[zsdersw]

LOL. That's your convincing list?

Many years ago, many hospitals had "family only" visitation. These policies have changed as social norms evolved over the years. Currently, these policies are virtually non-existent in the U.S.

Saying that many hospitals have "family only" visitation policies is...how should I say this...less than truthful.

The homosexual partner of a hospital patient, up until Obama's EO, had equal rights to visit that patient as another immediate family member in the vast majority of hospitals, both religious and secular? Bullshit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The homosexual partner of a hospital patient, up until Obama's EO, had equal rights to visit that patient as another immediate family member in the vast majority of hospitals, both religious and secular? Bullshit.

I never said that. Try rereading what I said.

 

[nehalem256]

And "society" is not always right as has been proven the case time and time again. Equal rights for all is the only way to go.

So I assume you support "equal" marriage rights for objectsexuals as well?

 

[soulcougher73]

So I assume you support "equal" marriage rights for objectsexuals as well?

Nope been over this a million times. Takes 2 consenting adults to enter into any legal contract. Everyone knows this.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope been over this a million times. Takes 2 consenting adults to enter into any legal contract. Everyone knows this.

This is only relevant if you define a marriage to be just a contract.

The problem is that since you demand that the government recognize your contract it is not just a contract between 2 people.

As well as the fact that you probably have several contracts yourself with non-human entities.

How does allowing a man to marry his couch affect your marriage? Are you afraid that if we recognize object sexual marriages you will start feeling an overwhelming urge to co-populate with your toaster?