Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair, if you guys go to a hospital that in any way accepts federal funds, then you do have visitation rights. Obama made that a requirement for any hospital that wishes to bill Medicare or Medicaid.
That was not the case for my partner and I. In 2009 he had a bleedout on his brain and had to be flown to UCSF in San Fransisco and the hospital refused our marriage, told me they needed his nearest relative. I had to contact his sisters in Redwood City so that they could go see him. We may have visitation rights now, but not the other protections we need and deserve. If he should die in the near future, I will most likely lose the house we own because of unfair taxation because we are not recognized by the federal government. He served time in Vietnam, I cannot use the VA hospital facilities even though other military spouses can, but I can go to college on his GI bill as his spouse. His health insurance is through the VA, because of DOMA they refuse to recongize our marriage license and we have a letter stating that.
Your expressing a level of disgust that doesn't seem normal, even for straight people. It's perfectly understanding that you personally have no interest being with the same-sex. However, when you start equating other people wishing to do so as comparable to sex toys and dead bodies, you've expressed an unhealthy aversion to homosexuality. Secure straight people aren't phased by gays. They may have no desire to be with the same-sex, but they don't feel the need to express their disgust all the time. Homophobes do.
I'm not expressing disgust. I'm pointing out lopsidedness. I'm not phased by gays either. It makes no difference to me who or what others are attracted to. My point is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. And yes, you are right, I see little difference in a man or woman being attracted to a love doll, a member of his/her own sex, or any other person or object. My claim is that what you call paraphilias should be as acceptable as any other form of sexual desire or orientation. And I'm being militant about it to make a point. Since you fail to acknowledge it or put two and two together, here are my two points without the hyperbole:
Everyone has their sexual "limit." Once the limit has been crossed, they are uncomfortable or even disgusted. What I'm saying is that someone "frowning on" homosexuality should not in and of itself warrant that person being called "homophobic." A phobia is, in its general and historical sense, something far more severe than a dislike for something. The word "homophobic" is simply a derogatory revenge word without basis in the spirit of the original suffix. It's simply designed to garner an emotional response. A phobia is a condition that manifests itself quite often with irrational or psychotic behavior. Call someone who becomes criminal because of his/her feelings about homosexuality homophobic. Call someone who burns down an apartment complex because there is a homosexual in it homophobic. Call someone who can't interact with a homosexual person in a social setting without breaking out into a cold sweat or becoming abusive verbally or physically homophobic. Call someone who wishes ill on others simply because they are gay homophobic.
But do not call someone who does not support the act of, or is turned-off in a sexual sense by homosexuality, homophobic. That makes no more sense than calling me whatever-phobic because I don't like or eat Brussels Sprouts.
I don't care what the accepted meaning of the word is. I'm saying that accepted meaning is wrong and unfair. You're lumping my dislike for something with criminal or discriminatory behavior. I'm saying it's wrong of you to do so, regardless of how broad an umbrella you want to make of the word.
The other, ancillary, point that I was getting at is the hypocrisy displayed by elements of the movement. You know very well that, if I were to walk through the mall hand in hand with my Real Doll, I would get jeered to no end--even by the most "diversified" of you. If I were to sit with her on the plush little couches and kiss her lips tenderly, I would get nothing besides hostile looks from passersby. I would probably even get physically threatened. I may well even end up in jail.
Yet why do you perceive my behavior with my doll as any less genuine than any other sort of relationship attraction? Who made you the judge to decide what flies and what doesn't? Homosexuality should be accepted, but Agalmatophilia should not? It should be treated as a psychosis that needs to be "corrected." Why is that? If we want to be a sexually liberated society, why are we so selective?
PS: and for those of you who (and you may or may not be homosexual) are outraged or disgusted by my relationship with my latex "wife," Rui... well now you know what its like to be homophobic, don't you?
PS: and for those of you who (and you may or may not be homosexual) are outraged or disgusted by my relationship with my latex "wife," Rui... well now you know what its like to be homophobic, don't you? (oh... but that's different? )
Tell me the very specific reason why marriage between two members of the same sex is correct but not a lesbian, her bi-sexual lover and the straight guy/girl she/he likes.
Tell me why, using your very precise logic, two men can marry but two brothers cannot marry.
Explain in detail why two women can marry but not three.
Using your standards, why is any argument made in support restrictions on who may marry whom not using the same arguments used to defend prohibitions on interracial marriage?
Pretty darn big assumptions you're making about what I believe.
If you're talking about polygamy, I'm all for it. It's got nothing to do with me, and I'm sure it will make the mormons pretty pleased.
Regarding 2 brothers wanting to get married, again I'm all for it.
I am, however, against marriage between a biological brother and sister. Too many genetic complications can result in the offspring.
Anything else?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)