| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mr Reeth
   |
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Mr Reeth on 17/04/2010 16:00:53
 Originally by: Zions Child
I'm against gay people like myself getting rights that others do not have...
But that is what this is. That is what the entire gay rights movement is about.
There is nothing that is forbidden to gays that is not also forbidden to others, there really never has been. But the gay rights movement does not include others in their fight for equality, which makes it not a fight for equality at all. It's a fight for gimme gimme now. It would be like if Martin Luther King Jr demanded equal rights for blacks but then said screw the Indians and Puerto Ricans.
I think Obama allowing gays to visit their partners in the hospital is right but why not address the entire issue rather than pander to a special interest group? There are other people who can't visit their loved ones in the hospital. What about them? Is the "people who choose not to get married lobby" just not strong enough or not funded well enough?
There's quite a lot of faces I'd like to see before I cash in my chips. I'd hate my last thought on this Earth to be "****in hospital regulations!"
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:24:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Zions Child
Apparently, I stand corrected yet again. Our good friend Obama has pulled a fast one on hospitals.
I'm not saying he pulled a fast one. I'm saying he made a decision based on political pressure. The decision just happened to be a good one. And I am saying that he could have just as easily made it so that people could be visited by anybody they damn well pleased. Does that sound unreasonable?
Originally by: Zions Child
So, discussion about gays getting rights that others don't have is moot. Either way, it mostly helps gay people... And as for should gays get extra rights, of course not, but give us the rights we deserve damnit. I want to be able to get the legal equivalent of marriage. (Not marriage, because that's a word invented by a religion group that doesn't like gays... so screw you.)
I disagree that it is a moot point. Whether it's marriage or military service gays aren't the only ones being discriminated against. Allowing gays to be married is no small thing. I think we would have to totally reexamine what marriage is and where it should be allowed. Marriage was A but now it's B... if it's B can it also be C? Not that I am against that. I have no problem with gay marriage. My problem is with the political process being mostly reactionary, combative and fairly thoughtless.
And marriage as a custom is fairly universal. It's not tied to a single culture or religion but I'm guessing you already knew that and were just blowing off some steam at the end there.
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:45:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
There are no other groups that have these options denied to them other then homosexual couples. This is about recognizing civil unions. So crawl back under the bridge and learn to use that space between your ears for something other then holding air.
EDIT: And common law heterosexual couples which ultmately will piggyback when ever these changes become official.
Slade
And heterosexual couples that are not common law married.
And people who have no family, or at least none they'd like to see.
My uncle wasn't allowed to see my aunt in the hospital last year when she was in a car accident, thankfully a minor one. They are not married or even common law married but have been together for over 20 years and have two kids.
If Japan has the same "family only" rule then I die alone... actually I'm gonna go have to check on that.
Keeping anybody from seeing those they love in a hospital is just evil. It doesn't matter if they are spouse, lover or friend.
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:13:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
The homosexual rights movements is ultimately the last civil rights movement that will be necessary.
You sure about that?
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Zions Child
Obama said giving patients the right to permit visits from non-relatives may help people who have lost a spouse and donĘt have children, or members of some religious orders.
This is a quote. It is from business week. This means that the new executive order applies to all people who wish that non-immediate family is allowed to see/have power of attorney over them.
I failed at reading comprehension, (actually I don't think it was in the Washington Post article...) but either way, it makes the "gays are getting rights straights don't have" issue moot.
Of course gays are not the only ones being discriminated against. There are numerous people being discriminated against always. I was just happy about this particular victory as it is relevant to myself. Yes, I am a selfish bastard, but I do champion the cause of others when I can...
I'm gonna go ahead and admit something embarrassing. I didn't notice there was a second page to your news link. I stopped reading after "But opponents of same-sex marriage..." I thought that was the end and didn't care to finish the paragraph. 
Further reading does show that this extends further than I thought... so... ya... good job President Obama... never thought I'd say that.
|
| |
|