Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[zsdersw]

So we are in agreement here. Heterosexual relationships are more important to society.

I wouldn't say that, no.

If "ability to procreate" is not sufficiently different than WTF is?

The fact that one kind of relationship is necessary for the continuation of the species and the other is not seems like a pretty f-ing big level of disparity.

And what relevance is that to "marriage"?

How many homosexual people I know is irrelevant to the definition of marriage.

Try reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

No, but it is relevant to whether or not your opinions on homosexuals in general and homosexual relationships in particular are informed or ignorant.

 

[zsdersw]

Nope...wrong again. You just make up shit. Intellectual honesty doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

No, you're wrong again. You said that within the last 10 years there has been huge strides toward making hospital visitation not just for immediate family. The tone of that post and others on the matter suggests that hospital visitation is not a real problem; that homosexual partners can visit each other in the hospital as freely and easily as any heterosexual partner or immediate family. That is not the case.

Understanding the connotation of what you type is definitely not your strong suit.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, you're wrong again. You said that within the last 10 years there has been huge strides toward making hospital visitation not just for immediate family. The tone of that post and others on the matter suggests that hospital visitation is not a real problem; that homosexual partners can visit each other in the hospital as freely and easily as any heterosexual partner or immediate family. That is not the case.

Understanding the connotation of what you type is definitely not your strong suit.

Holy cow.

I never said that hospital visitation wasn't a real problem. It is.

And I never said that homosexual partners can't visit each other in the hospital as freely and easily as any heterosexual partner or immediate family.

I stand by my statement that there has been huge strides in the area of hospital visitation within the last 10 years. Any "connotation" you perceive beyond that is all you.

Consider this...maybe it's you who has difficulty understanding what I type. Just a thought.

 

[zsdersw]

Holy cow.

I never said that hospital visitation wasn't a real problem. It is.

And I never said that homosexual partners can't visit each other in the hospital as freely and easily as any heterosexual partner or immediate family.

I stand by my statement that there has been huge strides in the area of hospital visitation within the last 10 years. Any "connotation" you perceive beyond that is all you.

Consider this...maybe it's you who has difficulty understanding what I type. Just a thought.

You said:

"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."

Does that suggest that hospital visitation for people who aren't "family" is not really a problem anymore? Yes. Are homosexual partners generally not considered "family"? Yes.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You said:

"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."

Does that suggest that hospital visitation for people who aren't "family" is not really a problem anymore? Yes. Are homosexual partners generally not considered "family"? Yes.

There's a Obama "order" that prohibits visitation rights discrimination based on sexual orientation. You obviously know this as you've previously linked this info in this thread. This "order" has been in effect the past 2 years and applies to all hospitals that receive Medicare/Medicaid beneifits (which means that this order applies to virtually ALL hospitals).

You apparently are determined to argue against points I'm not making. I'm done playing that game. Peace.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Comparing marriage to race. Bad idea, Charles.

Go ahead and try to explain why. You won't get anywhere.

Because it's not popular (or, something you don't agree with) it's nonsense?

No, it's nonsense because it's nonsense.

Like I said to you earlier, stop voting for the religious right because that's what you're doing... and then you whine about the policies they want to eliminate or implement.

What are you talking about? I never vote for the religious right.

Mind control it is.

You don't seem to have any problem putting forth your views here. So I guess whoever is "mind controlling" you isn't doing a very job, are they?

Calling it nonsense is s clear indication of you all trying to subvert one's line of thinking.

No, it's called me expressing my own viewpoint. That doesn't preclude you from having yours.

If your positions are too weak to stand under scrutiny, then I'd say that's a problem with your positions.

YOU don't think its reasonable or fair for someone to believe contrary to what's socially acceptable. Mind control 101. Crusade-esque thinking.

The only thing worse than bullshit is whiny bullshit.

I repeat: you can think whatever you want. Nobody is trying to control what passes for your mind.

LOL, you're killing free and contradictory thought and want to supress religious speech.

Don't lie about my positions. I've never once said anything of the sort.

 

[zsdersw]

There's a Obama "order" that prohibits visitation rights discrimination based on sexual orientation. You obviously know this as you've previously linked this info in this thread. This "order" has been in effect the past 2 years and applies to all hospitals that receive Medicare/Medicaid beneifits (which means that this order applies to virtually ALL hospitals).

You apparently are determined to argue against points I'm not making. I'm done playing that game. Peace.

What about the recent years before that order? That's still covered under your "in the last 10 years" schtick.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

zsdersw and Doc, you guys are talking past each other. Doc is correct that a new ruling means same-sex couples can't be discriminated against. zsdersw is correct that it wasn't always this way, and that the allowance is informal and could be changed rather easily by a Republican administration.

 

[Moonbeam]

How about if we approach this another way. Would it be acceptable to people on both sides of the argument if we just took the government out of "marriage" completely? So then if you wanted someone to have control over your property, make choices for you if you're incapacitated, etc. you'd just fill out the appropriate contracts to delegate that out. Is this fair?

Of course not. Marriage isn't just a contract. It's a ritualistic public vow and celebration surrounded by a big industry that contributes to the economy. It is also psychologically important in relationships. Marriage is a spiritual union that people can feel when they marry that is absent in the signing of a legal contract. You may not get it but others do. Marriage isn't always easy but the more you put into it the better the results. It is also a source of pride for children. There is only love.

 

[DougK62]

Of course not. Marriage isn't just a contract. It's a ritualistic public vow and celebration surrounded by a big industry that contributes to the economy. It is also psychologically important in relationships. Marriage is a spiritual union that people can feel when they marry that is absent in the signing of a legal contract. You may not get it but others do. Marriage isn't always easy but the more you put into it the better the results. It is also a source of pride for children. There is only love.

I didn't suggest getting rid of "marriage" completely. Leave it in the churches. Everybody wins.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I didn't suggest getting rid of "marriage" completely. Leave it in the churches. Everybody wins.

Yeah, and don't let a gay man refer to his "partner" as a "husband," because that would just make me uncomfortable. Why is he disrespecting my views by insisting on having his own?

God, this debate is fucking stupid. This is the shit we're reduced to as a country. Fighting over what to call gay unions and threatening to legislate the completely unlegislatable (like guns and pot) while our economy goes to shit all around us? Good thing we can point the finger at our neghbors instead of working together to fix actual problems!

And all because of those homophobes... :sneaky:

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It doesn't have merit at all. It is not demonstrably factual or exclusively the only viable course for society to follow.



I'll say what I want about her wrong ideas, and I don't care if you have a problem with that.

Close minded much? Yes, the definition of man vs. women has been completely raped. It has changed society in a lot of bad ways. Does that mean there aren't good? No, of course not. But a lot of society has changed for the worse.

More "support groups". More pissed off people. More segregation. More conflict.

The change in role has been very detrimental. I could careless if gays go on their merry way and marry. But the culture change has been for the worst. The rest of the world continues to point and laugh at us.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Of course not. Marriage isn't just a contract. It's a ritualistic public vow and celebration surrounded by a big industry that contributes to the economy. It is also psychologically important in relationships. Marriage is a spiritual union that people can feel when they marry that is absent in the signing of a legal contract. You may not get it but others do. Marriage isn't always easy but the more you put into it the better the results. It is also a source of pride for children. There is only love.

The original genetic/evolution foundation of humans disagrees with you. Not that I'm arguing against it since I just proposed to my GF :sneaky: But it really is true.

 

[nehalem256]

I wouldn't say that, no.

I'm not saying heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal

So if heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal and you are saying that heterosexual relationships are not more important...

are you seriously suggesting that homosexual relationships are more important to society?

And what relevance is that to "marriage"?

It illustrates a clear difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship.

And I don't know maybe society has a reasons to care about pro-creation?

 

[Retro Rob]

Go ahead and try to explain why. You won't get anywhere .

Simply put, it fails because banning interracial marriage was denying humans an institution the state recognized to be between a MAN AND WOMAN. Race not found in that. Discrimination was clear.

Gay marriages are new, the provision was never there. The state institution of two men marrying never existed. I don't see how something can be denied to them when it was never even offered. A woman can't cry discrimination if she not allowed to play in the NBA. It's a men's league.

You would have to change what marriage is to cry discrimination. Whether that will be done we'll soon find out, but its politically advantageous to equate the two, but logically false to do that.

 

[nehalem256]

Go ahead and try to explain why. You won't get anywhere.

Comparing a distinction between race and gender is silly. To consider this a valid comparison you have to believe either that:

(1) There is no fundamental difference between men and women

(2) There is a fundamental difference between blacks and whites.

And this is exactly what established legal precedence says:

It found the plaintiffs' reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loving v. Virginia, finding an anti-miscegenation law, failed to provide a parallel: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

 

[zsdersw]

Close minded much? Yes, the definition of man vs. women has been completely raped. It has changed society in a lot of bad ways. Does that mean there aren't good? No, of course not. But a lot of society has changed for the worse.

More "support groups". More pissed off people. More segregation. More conflict.

The change in role has been very detrimental. I could careless if gays go on their merry way and marry. But the culture change has been for the worst. The rest of the world continues to point and laugh at us.

Not closed-minded at all. Her contention is that society must go back to Leave It To Beaver in order to avoid some purported downfall.

She's just another in a long line of cantankerous bitches throughout history bemoaning a society that has passed them by.

 

[zsdersw]

So if heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not equal and you are saying that heterosexual relationships are not more important...

are you seriously suggesting that homosexual relationships are more important to society?

I'm saying we aren't in agreement. Not being equal and not being more important are not mutually exclusive.

It illustrates a clear difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship.

And I don't know maybe society has a reasons to care about pro-creation?

Society has reasons to care about more things than just procreation, and doesn't need to cling to "that's the way it's been done in the past" as the reason to continue choosing to not care about anything other than procreation.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Simply put, it fails because banning interracial marriage was denying humans an institution the state recognized to be between a MAN AND WOMAN.

The state once recognized marriage as only being between a white man and a white woman.

Gay marriages are new, the provision was never there.

Marriages between non-whites were once new; the provision was never there.

The state institution of two men marrying never existed.

The state institution of a black and a white marrying never existed.. until it did.

I don't see how something can be denied to them when it was never even offered.

Like... freedom for slaves? Or interracial marraige? Or women's suffrage? Or... a zillion other things?

You would have to change what marriage is to cry discrimination.

Marriage changes all the time. Go look in your Old Testament and then try to tell me marriage in the US today is anything like it.

 

[Retro Rob]

The state once Blah blah blah... deflective whiny crap....

Thank you, you've actually helped make my point. If something needs to be done, change it. I don't recall saying that they should be denied marriage on these grounds, did I?

My contention was that marriage was never offered to persons of the same sex, so its not discrimination, period. You can bring all the whining BS from a gazillions years ago to deflect all you please, but the point remains. Discrimination not found.

 

[sandorski]

Simply put, it fails because banning interracial marriage was denying humans an institution the state recognized to be between a MAN AND WOMAN. Race not found in that. Discrimination was clear.

Gay marriages are new, the provision was never there. The state institution of two men marrying never existed. I don't see how something can be denied to them when it was never even offered. A woman can't cry discrimination if she not allowed to play in the NBA. It's a men's league.

You would have to change what marriage is to cry discrimination. Whether that will be done we'll soon find out, but its politically advantageous to equate the two, but logically false to do that.

Was it really? Why are/were all those States rushing to put Man/Woman into their Law then?

 

[sandorski]

Thank you, you've actually helped make my point. If something needs to be done, change it. I don't recall saying that they should be denied marriage on these grounds, did I?

My contention was that marriage was never offered to persons of the same sex, so its not discrimination, period. You can bring all the whining BS from a gazillions years ago to deflect all you please, but the point remains. Discrimination not found.

It is discrimination, sorry. One day you might realize it. Regardless Gay Marriage will become the Norm and today's opposition to it will become an Amusement to future generations.

Hey, at least you will be remembered.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It is discrimination, sorry. One day you might realize it. Regardless Gay Marriage will become the Norm and today's opposition to it will become an Amusement to future generations.

Hey, at least you will be remembered.

Laws do not (and should never) modernize with what is fashionable at a given time. If the people deem it worthy of changing, than get out there and try to change it amongst the people and voting.

And no - it is not discrimination. Shouldn't you be off pulling some more race cards or something?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Don't misquote me. It makes you look like an irrational jerk (instead of merely irrational).

Thank you, you've actually helped make my point.

Uh, no, sorry, I have not, as evidenced by you not actually responding to most of what I wrote.

My contention was that marriage was never offered to persons of the same sex, so its not discrimination, period.

Yes, that was your contention. No, I did not help you make your point, and no, it is not valid.

In fact, you have things exactly backwards. Something being restricted from one group in the past is the very definition of discrimination.

Again, what you are saying is the equivalent of saying this: "Voting was never offered to women before, so it's not discrimination that they aren't allowed to vote."

Even a child can see that this is nonsense.

Go pray at something -- thinking appears to be beyond your capabilities.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Laws do not (and should never) modernize with what is fashionable at a given time.

Sorry, but yes, they do. Not often, but regularly.