Should homosexual people be allowed to visit their partners in hospital when it's 'family only'?

[Alexia2000]

So much hatred, here; I am really scared of some of you; I am serious

We, in the United Kingdom, sorted the problem out years ago

• People in a Civil Marriage are partners with rights (the same rights as people in a Civil Partnership do)
• People in a Civil Partnership are partners with rights (the same rights as people in a Civil Marriage do)

Those rights for everyone, include the right to make medical choices for their partner/wife/husband

Works very well for us; problem solved

 

[chrysostim83]

I did read your posts carefully. You said that, according to your proposed new definition, sodomising each other is not an essential element of being “homosexual partners”, but that one element of being “homosexual partners” is living in loving, committed, and long-standing relationships with people of the same sex.

I pointed out that there are people who have this element who are definitely not homosexual partners according to the understanding of any reasonable person. How on earth have I misrepresented you?

A little formal logic might help here. (On the off chance that someone is not familiar with the symbols of formal logic, I will use “not-” for denial, “&” for “and”, “–>” for “if … then ___”, and “<–>” for “if and only if”. A “:” preceding “<–>” will indicate definition.)

Let HP stand for the sentence that two people are homosexual partners, F for the sentence that they are or should be considered family, S for sentence that they repeatedly sodomize each other, L for the sentence that they are in a loving, committed, long-standing relationship, X for the conjunction of the other sentences that would go into a correct definition of homosexual partnership, and finally V for the sentence that homosexual partners deserve visitation rights.

Here is what I take to be the upshot of your original statement:

1. 
   *]V <–> F (this represents a family only policy)
   *]HP :<–> S (your defintion)
   *]not-[S → F]
   *]Therefore, not-[HP → V]
   
   The validity of this argument is unquestionable, but the definition seems not to do justice to the concept denoted by HP. My objection amounts to this:
   1. 
      *]HP :<–> [L & X]
      *]L → V
      *]Therefore, HP → V
      
      Of course, this symbolic rendering doesn’t capture the nuances of either side, but it should clarify the logical form of our arguments.
      
      Now, where does the misrepresentation come in? In two places. First, your objection to having L as part of the definition of HP is that not-[L → HP], but this should have been obvious already because my definition of HP (whatever it is) includes X. I would certainly say that HP → L, but to demur from this statement because the reverse implication does not hold is an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Since the thought never crossed my mind that you would commit a fallacy, it was natural to assume you were interpreting me as meaning HP :<–> L.
      
      Second, there seems to be some equivocation in your use of the word “relationship.” This word has a vague denotation (like most words in the English language), but most people are acquainted with the difference between two people who are just friends and two people who are in a relationship. According to another usage, however, one can have a relationship with friends and family and the like. In proposing L as a component of the definition of HP, my intention was to use “relationship” in the first sense, while, on the other hand, your objection to L requires the use of “relationship” in the second sense. Since the distinction between these two meanings seemed clear from context, it was natural to assume the equivocation arose from carelessness.
      
      Have I represented your case justly?

 

[Ronsatron]

Still waiting for you to heap the same abuse on the poster who claimed, based only on stories he said he had heard, that it is common practice for the exact opposite to occur.

I do not recall the other user stating what they said was factual unlike you. You asserted that the following was not opinion, but fact.

“Actually it’s far more common for the so-called “lover/s” of the homosexual dying of AIDs or other STIs to completely abandon him and leave the horrendous job of caring for him through his last few agonising months/years to his long-rejected parents”

Do you still stand by this assertion?

 

[portarica]

Perhaps the problem is with the “family only” visitation policy.
If it is “family only” then, no, a homosexual lover isn’t family,
then neither is someone’s best friend of 20 years.

I have been in a number of “immediate family only” death bed situations and know that hospitals allow friends and distant cousins to visit. It is a little shameful that some catholics harbor some sort of deep disdain for other people to the point that they feel justified in voicing support for allowing the infliction of emotional pain on others for the sake of something that neither affects them or is in concordance with what Jesus taught.

Peace

 

[free2pray]

Excuse me, my refutation is valid. Your ideals are false, and the past few opinions and beliefs that you have expressed are offensive and more importantly most unfounded. “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof”. I do not see any proof in support of your argument? Subseqeuntly what I have said is supported and does not fit the above definition of a “straw man” argument. It’s actually looking more like you who fits the definition.

…

Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. What a fine example of this your actions are… Please can you explain what you on about here? And why are you trying to play people off against one another? I thought this was a discussion forum, not a playground for needless arguments? In serious response to your quote - Who has been given what here??

Really? Well many would say the same of you… “Religion is like a virus that affects the behaviour of its host in such a way as to propagate itself further.” –Jack Pritchard. Now who is the mindless sheep in this picture? Also I do not drift with the tide, I walk on transcendent water.

The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it. – Robert G. Ingersoll

Your posts lack any sense of grace or tack and are unfair, what if we responded to you with the tone that you have toward us, this is how we would sound if we did, (allow me this, i mean no offense) "Homosexuality is a mental disorder, that so affects the mind that sanity completely escapes them. They’re are mindless beasts overcome in their debased passions unwilling to see the purpose that Nature has set forth for sexuality, they’re are perverts and immoral and would infect the whole world with their perversity and hedonism… " and on and on. Do these statements make you feel good? Can i sway you by consistently insulting you? If your tactics for winning debates on this forums is to be as abrasive and belligerent as possible then no progress will be made. If you simply want to vent your bigotry toward those who believe in God then this is not the place for you.

All these things i have heard growing up in a liberal home (the stuff i underlined in what i quoted from you), things that would agree with your statements, and it was unbridled hatred for Christians! We would sit around our table and talk about how stupid we thought Christians were, how close-minded, and what bigots we thought they were. They were so intolerant in our eyes, but our own eyes were blind to the simple fact, that in our distaste for those ignorant, mindless Christians, we were guilty of all the sins that we pointed out in them and more so. We were “brainwashed” by a society that was rebelling against the traditional, and we didn’t stop to think that maybe some of the traditional was reasonable and true. We just threw it all out, just a bunch of typical post-moderns rebelling against modernism. I regret those years! We were the bigots! bigots against Christians, we were close minded! Closed minded to anything that they brought to the table, We were stupid! Stupid because our “logic” was based on our feelings and not on any solid proof, We were mindless just following the flow of society toward postmodernism. We thought we were so innovative and original for being rebels against Christianity even though the whole world was floating down that stream. We were the intolerant ones willing to defend any cause, any religious belief, as long as it was not traditional Christianity. How intolerant we were against Christians. Hypocrites! that’s what we were, the worst kind. So blinded by our irrational rage toward Christians and the traditional that we couldn’t see our own hypocrisy even though it dangled in front of our faces.

Though i doubt that you are exactly like i was in those days, i see alot of similarities in many other liberals that i speak to. If you care to evaluate your beliefs and attitudes toward Christians and Christianity i think that you will find that the things that you accuse us of are able to be found, in abundance, in your own life, I say this not to shame you or to attack you as a person, please don’t misunderstand, I think that because i was such a committed advocate for everything that was non-Christian i may have a perspective to offer you. That’s all.

There are Christians that struggle with bigotry, but for a Christian to say that they believe that there should be standards when it comes to sexuality is not bigotry. In your Zeal to win Civil Rights for homosexuals will you strip us of our rights to say that we believe that this world is immoral and must repent before God? May we have no say in morality? Are we brainwashed for saying that there are oughts and ought nots? You act like our arguments against homosexuality are unreasonable, that we are foolish somehow in pointing out the design of nature (or God if you prefer, for he designed Nature). <---- At least acknowledge that this is valid whether or not you think there are exceptions to this rule or not, but don’t act like we are stupid when almost all of the evidence supports our position, you can still argue for you side, you can say there are exceptions to these designs but don’t pretend like we are somehow ignorant and stupid bigots just because we don’t agree with you. Yours is not the only position that an educated person can make.

 

[edwest2]

Having worked in a large hospital for almost 10 years, the only restrictions were in the ICU and CCU. Isn’t it obvious that if courts can create same-sex marriage that they can create hospital visitation rights? Honestly, no one here has the power to do this.

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Other_Eric]

A little formal logic might help here. (On the off chance that someone is not familiar with the symbols of formal logic, I will use “not-” for denial, “&” for “and”, “–>” for “if … then ___”, and “<–>” for “if and only if”. A “:” preceding “<–>” will indicate definition.)

Let HP stand for the sentence that two people are homosexual partners, F for the sentence that they are or should be considered family, S for sentence that they repeatedly sodomize each other, L for the sentence that they are in a loving, committed, long-standing relationship, X for the conjunction of the other sentences that would go into a correct definition of homosexual partnership, and finally V for the sentence that homosexual partners deserve visitation rights.

Here is what I take to be the upshot of your original statement:

1. 
   *]V <–> F (this represents a family only policy)
   *]HP :<–> S (your defintion)
   *]not-[S → F]
   *]Therefore, not-[HP → V]
   
   The validity of this argument is unquestionable, but the definition seems not to do justice to the concept denoted by HP. My objection amounts to this:
   1. 
      *]HP :<–> [L & X]
      *]L → V
      *]Therefore, HP → V
      
      Of course, this symbolic rendering doesn’t capture the nuances of either side, but it should clarify the logical form of our arguments.
      
      Now, where does the misrepresentation come in? In two places. First, your objection to having L as part of the definition of HP is that not-[L → HP], but this should have been obvious already because my definition of HP (whatever it is) includes X. I would certainly say that HP → L, but to demur from this statement because the reverse implication does not hold is an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Since the thought never crossed my mind that you would commit a fallacy, it was natural to assume you were interpreting me as meaning HP :<–> L.
      
      Second, there seems to be some equivocation in your use of the word “relationship.” This word has a vague denotation (like most words in the English language), but most people are acquainted with the difference between two people who are just friends and two people who are in a relationship. According to another usage, however, one can have a relationship with friends and family and the like. In proposing L as a component of the definition of HP, my intention was to use “relationship” in the first sense, while, on the other hand, your objection to L requires the use of “relationship” in the second sense. Since the distinction between these two meanings seemed clear from context, it was natural to assume the equivocation arose from carelessness.
      
      Have I represented your case justly?

1. 1. 
      Your definition of HP fails because immoral sexual activity will always be a nonconstituent element of such a relationship. It is that which forms the principle reason for the relationship’s existence. Therefore, such a relationship cannot be recognized either formally or informally in any way by those who wish to preserve the Church’s Teaching on sexuality. Allowing visitation to a same-sex partner in the type of relationship you refer to as “HP” will therefore always be implicit acceptance of “S.”

 

[chrysostim83]

Your definition of HP fails because immoral sexual activity will always be a nonconstituent element of such a relationship. It is that which forms the principle reason for the relationship’s existence. Therefore, such a relationship cannot be recognized either formally or informally in any way by those who wish to preserve the Church’s Teaching on sexuality. Allowing visitation to a same-sex partner in the type of relationship you refer to as “HP” will therefore always be implicit acceptance of “S.”

I seem to detect the same fallacy and equivocation in your response that I found in Petergee’s, but instead of trying to pin them down, let’s look at some more apparent features of your reply.

First, you say that immoral sexual activity must be a constitutive (was “nonconstituent” a typo?) element of homosexual partnerships. This claim was refuted by pathia in post #115, and there are plenty of other examples of homosexual partnerships that don’t include immoral sexual activity (David Morrison, Julien Green as an old man). So, if the first claim means what I think it means, it’s a non-starter—but if you really mean “nonconstituent” then we may ignore at will the fact that immoral sexual activity will often be included in a homosexual partnership. Either way, then, it seems there is no need think of sexual activity as the thing that makes a partnership the sort of relationship that it is.

Second, you say that immoral sexual activity is the end of homosexual partnerships. That this is not so is shown by the fact that there are more efficient means to finding sexual accomplices. Since gay people who go into partnerships are forsaking these means, it seems a pretty straightforward inference that they are not simply or principally after sex when they commit themselves to a partner.

But even if we ignore these two problems with your reply, the denial of visitation rights still doesn’t follow. Since only an idiot would sleep with a sick person, we may be confident that gay partners don’t engage in immoral sexual activity when one of them is in the hospital. Hence, to allow them to visit each other in the hospital (regardless of the definition of “homosexual partnership”) does not give any sort of recognition to illicit activities.

 

[csuliman]

I am responding to the original post in the thread:

Of course same sex couples should be allowed to visit their lovers in the hospital! The hospital bed is not a time to impose your religious beliefs on someone. I have known Muslim men with multiple wives, should I refuse to allow the women to see their husband because I am personally opposed to polygamy?

I found the story about the Curate physician very moving (post #3). However, I found it sad how quickly he was dealt with by the hierarchy of the Church because he helped those with AIDS, especially considering the different treatment of molesters.

CS