If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
Jay,
But I try not to blast people for speaking up in this forum, Oh? I beg to differ from personal experience. Check what you posted during the last 24 hours or so. And while we're at it, learn to spell my name. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
Jose wrote:
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your medical power of attorney. In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different. By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married. But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose. Jose I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US ) John |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
So do it at the federal level -- problem solved. All you have to do is
convince the government of the US that "shariage" is the same-sex equivalent of "marriage", with all the same legal rights and privileges. If I run a hotel that grants pilots a 20% room discount, r.a.p participants an additional 10% discount, and married couples a 30% discount plus a free airplane flight, I am fully within my rights to charge a non-pilot, non-poster, sharaged couple the full price and deny them an airplane flight, no matter what the US government says. And I don't even know if "convincing the the government of the US that 'shariage' is the same-sex equivalent of 'marriage'" means anything. The government can grant priviliages for itself, but not for me. It can't force me to give a discount to boaters if I also give a discount to pilots. The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy, same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children. I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that they actually had the "same rights and priviliages". It would have no impact on me at all, any more than changing the word for "breakfast" to "hotel" would. Then why are you so worked up over it? Let them use the label, and move on. Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )
I am not gay and have not run into this personally. However I have friends who are, and have. I'll ask around. I =have= had the experience where certain powers of attorney which I held (non-medical) were not respected, because the paperwork got misplaced (at least that was the excuse). In the power-of-attorney cases with which I am familiar, it can get sticky, and that's the last thing you need if faced with a bigoted administrator, a dying loved one, and other logistical problems. And in any case, this would only cover medical issues. There are a host of other areas (such as real estate held between spouses). Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy, same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children. I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that they actually had the "same rights and priviliages". A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their *actions*. It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong. It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions is morally wrong. That is a very slippery moral slope, indeed, and the two instances are not on the same philosophical level. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
POL Thrown out of an FBO...
A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their *actions*. Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit! Their appearance merely made it hard to hide that fact. And homosexual couples are not being discrminiated on the basis of their actions, but rather, on the basis of who they are. Sexual orientation is not a choice. You didn't choose to like girls, you just did. It's built in to you just like your race is. It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong. Exactly. "Nowadays, anyway". But back then it was an abomination, a vile smear on the elegant institution of marriage. It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that... That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me). =Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you really mean it to be as sweeping as all this? ...discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions... .... which is not what it's about (see above). Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on. And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is =loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world. They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's what marriage is about). I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of? Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com... A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their *actions*. No, in both cases the couple is judged by the same *combination* of their actions (namely, the action of being a couple and having sex together) and their physical characteristics (namely, whether their races or genders match or not). --Gary |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:48:09 GMT, Jose
wrote: Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your medical power of attorney. In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different. By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married. But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose. You might want to throw common-law wedlock into the pot as well: Marriage per se, without any jumping over broom-handles. Don |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Thrown out of an FBO...
On 14 Nov 2006 07:20:26 -0800, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals? For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them. Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"), give them the rights of family members, and move on. But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important. Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been taken. Come up with a new one, and move on. -- There is a Libertarian solution to the problem. That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to marriage. Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever community will provide the emotional and social support for your marriage. Separation of marriage and state and all that. Don |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
POL Thrown out of an FBO...
There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.
That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached to marriage. That only works if all the other parties (that is, everyone who deals differently with married couples) agree, every time. So long as different words are used, it's still easy to discriminate. Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I think old planes should be thrown away !!! | Tristan Beeline | Restoration | 6 | January 20th 06 04:05 AM |
Rocks Thrown at Border Patrol Chopper | [email protected] | Piloting | 101 | September 1st 05 12:10 PM |