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

[Ronsatron]

As I said above, it comes from firsthand evidence. If you are saying that it is “just your opinion” because I didn’t produce per-reviewed published scientific statistical population studies, then you must make the same complaint against the hyperemotional comment asserting the opposite, which I was responding to.

And I can assure you that for the saintly parents involved and for their sons who were tossed out like so much garbage by their so-called “lovers” because they were no longer healthy, pretty young boys, it was anything but “nice”.

So it IS just your opinion then? Why not just state that rather than promoting garbage that this is the common practice? So you have seen this happen it must happen to the majority of people? That is some warped thinking.

I am saying it just your opinon because that is exactly what it is.

 

[Alexia2000]

…

If indeed you are “considering Catholicism” you’ll have to first have the courage to reject this lie and accept the fact that a homosexual “partner” is not family and nobody can declare him to be. …

Quite a simple and easy thing to do; especially for those who are not in such a relationship for the last 15 – 20 years

 

[chrysostim83]

Petergee’s contributions seem to revolve around a definition. He claims that the term “homosexual partners” not only connotes but even denotes two people of the same sex who repeatedly sodomize each other, where the definition of “sodomy” is broad enough to include any complete sexual acts available to two people of the same sex. From there he asserts that this denotation by itself would not recommend granting and protecting visitation rights for homosexual partners. After all, the denotation is broad enough to include sexual friendships, where two people simply agree to use each others bodies without necessarily committing themselves to any promises at all.

The point, however, is totally irrelevant because, as the example of sexual friendships shows, Petergee’s proposed definition is incorrect.

Whatever the correct definition of “homosexual partners” may be, it involves two people of the same sex who, at the very least, habitually intend to seek each others good in each other’s company. If this is the case, then the USCCB directive quoted earlier would seem to suggest that it can be good to allow homosexual partners visitation rights.

What can be deduced from that last point is merely that “family only” policies don’t work for everybody and that hospitals ought to be able to disregard them when it seems necessary.

 

[Other_Eric]

Doesn’t love???

Genuine love may make of one the equivalent of a family member. Unfortunately, in the case of a same-sex couple, there is none to be found.

 

[Other_Eric]

Petergee’s contributions seem to revolve around a definition. He claims that the term “homosexual partners” not only connotes but even denotes two people of the same sex who repeatedly sodomize each other, where the definition of “sodomy” is broad enough to include any complete sexual acts available to two people of the same sex. From there he asserts that this denotation by itself would not recommend granting and protecting visitation rights for homosexual partners. After all, the denotation is broad enough to include sexual friendships, where two people simply agree to use each others bodies without necessarily committing themselves to any promises at all.

The point, however, is totally irrelevant because, as the example of sexual friendships shows, Petergee’s proposed definition is incorrect.

Whatever the correct definition of “homosexual partners” may be, it involves two people of the same sex who, at the very least, habitually intend to seek each others good in each other’s company. If this is the case, then the USCCB directive quoted earlier would seem to suggest that it can be good to allow homosexual partners visitation rights.

What can be deduced from that last point is merely that “family only” policies don’t work for everybody and that hospitals ought to be able to disregard them when it seems necessary.

It is hard to fathom how it is that one can imagine that a proposed example of a “sexual friendship” does anything to contradict Petergee’s eminently reasonable definition. Two people who “agree to use each others bodies without necessarily committing themselves to any promises at all,” are not, in any way “habitually intend[ing] to seek each others good in each other's company,” they are exploiting each other’s bodies for their own self-centered pleasure. Without even a promise of fidelity, they pervert the sexual faculty from one of life-giving, self-donation to one of crude, insular gratification, divorced from any responsibility.

Why would any serious Christian mean to implicitly condone this form of naked Pride? To enable it through privileged access that, until now, was only reserved for family and spouses? What other gross violations of the created order should Christianity be prepared to accommodate? How, after spitting in the Face of God all week, could any such “Christian” dare to attend the Mass, where every prayer could be nothing other than a black lie?

 

[chrysostim83]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The counterexample to Petergee’s definition went like this:

1. 
   *]The proposed definition of “homosexual partners” includes what I called same sex sexual friends
   *]Same sex sexual friends are not homosexual partners in the sense that is relevant to this thread
   *]Therefore, the proposed definition is incorrect.
   
   In other words, Petergee’s definition is wrong because it includes too much; it needs to be amended so as to exclude, at the very least, sexual friendships.
   
   Thus, this Christian had no intention of condoning a “form of naked Pride.” When I’m unclear, it would be nice if other people would ask what I mean before dumping a pile of rhetoric over my head.

 

[Other_Eric]

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The counterexample to Petergee’s definition went like this:

1. 
   *]The proposed definition of “homosexual partners” includes what I called same sex sexual friends
   *]Same sex sexual friends are not homosexual partners in the sense that is relevant to this thread
   *]Therefore, the proposed definition is incorrect.
   
   In other words, Petergee’s definition is wrong because it includes too much; it needs to be amended so as to exclude, at the very least, sexual friendships.
   
   Thus, this Christian had no intention of condoning a “form of naked Pride.” When I’m unclear, it would be nice if other people would ask what I mean before dumping a pile of rhetoric over my head.

1. 
   Well, I’m afraid you still are not clear. Either your “same sex sexual partners” are engaged in immoral sexual activity or they are not. If they are, then they are not, properly speaking, “friends,” under any understanding of that relationship the Church has ever had. Treating such a relationship as legitimate, even if only out of a sense of misplaced compassion, communicates that the relationship is normal and healthy as a matter of policy. It would be a lie.

 

[Aramis]

There’s an old Alaskan saying: Family isn’t your kin; Family is who you spend your holidays with.

The hospital’s a case where asking is problematic.

Heck, if I were in ICU, last people I’d want would be certain kinfolk. I’d rather they just let me (or my next of kin) list 10 people who may come see me.

 

[Petergee]

No one has abused you, but you enjoy playing the innocent, beleaguered Christian victim … this is a situation that does not concern you yet you complain about it at length.

I’m not complaining about the abuse, merely pointing out how boringly (albeit amusingly) predictable it is how those who seem to go through life terrified of ever being accused of being politically incorrect, try to bully and gag anyone who dares to point out that the Emperor has no clothes on.

God help us all if people like you ever get in charge.

It’s true the Father of Lies has a certain power in this world, but he has been defeated and his power is passing away. The Truth will out in the end.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Please point anything I have said which is not factual but merely personal bias and opinion.

***“No. Repeatedly sodomising somebody does not make one a family member.”

---

You changed the terms of the OP question. You instead clouded the issue by bringing in the term “sodomy”. This is a question about the definition of a family not what sexual acts or lack there of constitute a familial bond.

***“In what way? I simply stated a fact.”

---

Nope, actually that’s an opinion. You tried to charge and ‘dirty’ the situation with your response but its still and opinion.

So, you have not stated a 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.”

---

Biased, generalized, unsubstantiated personal opinion.
Again, not a fact.

***“Homosexual partners” by definition are two people who repeatedly sodomise each other. No assumptions necessary.”

---

Again not, a fact. Perhaps you should look up what the real definition of homosexual partner is, not simply the one you made up.

***“Homosexuals have always had the same rights as everybody else. It wasn’t until about 20 years ago that sonme of them started demanding so-called “rights” that nobody else has.”

---

Oooh a big ol’ double non fact here. They do not have the same rights as everybody else as you in this thread are advocating they shouldn’t. And in truth the modern gay rights movement found strength ansd cohesion in the early 1970’s. While written accounts of demand for acceptance stretch back into the 1860, there’s little doubt its been a thread throughout human history.

Yet again, not a fact.

***“Yes it does. What the so-called “couple” desire to to to each other is intrinsically disordered.”

---

Again, an opinion not supported by facts or science but a narrowly held view reinforced by ones own prejudices.

***““two people of the same sex who have repeatedly sodomised each other”

---

Refer to number one for this one. But this post is a favorite where you actually accuse someone else of using a red herring to distract from the issue. Pot meet kettle.

***“it’s very sad to see that even on a Catholic forum, simply stating these facts which are obvious from universal Natural Law,”

---

But you see you’re not speaking about Natural Law. Because the tenets of natural law are evident in nature. Since homosexuality and its expression is not unknown in the natural world, it does not violate natural law. Instead you chose to smash natural together with some personally defined morality combined with positive law i.e. man-made.

***“The question was asked (directed to me as much as to you or anyone else), “is a homosexual so-called “partner” a family member”?
*****I gave what ought to be the obvious and totally rational answer, “no”.”
**
Obvious. You’ve used that word more than once and I get the impression that you think by putting it into a sentence it gives it more weight. It does not nor does it make something a fact.

***“In fact the more society and its leaders urge homosexuals to sodomise, the more alienated they feel and the more they suffer.”

---

Again, trying to color the argument while in turn degrade it down to what you consider its basest terms. No one in society encourages “homosexuals to sodomize”. They do encourage them however to accept that fact that they are normal, they are not disordered and that they should seek out positive, healthy, loving and satisfying pursuits in their lives. Encouraging that will do nothing except create happy, productive individuals, the opposite of suffering.

So, at the risk of repetition, not a fact.

**

"If indeed you are “considering Catholicism” you’ll have to first have the courage to reject this lie and accept the fact that a homosexual “partner” is not family and nobody can declare him to be. "

**

Truly sir I have an abundance of courage. Courage does not come from burrowing into your personal fears, forging a system of beliefs out of that ignorance and living unshakably by that code. It is born out of investigation and free thought and consideration. When you burn away all that bias and fear in the crucible of investigative thought you’re left with actual untainted convictions and the courage to support them as the truth.

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
No. Repeatedly sodomising somebody does not make one a family member.
Doesn’t love???

Of course not!! What an absurd idea. I love many, many people who are not related to me by blood, marriage or adoption. Don’t you???

 

[Petergee]

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Petergee
No. Repeatedly sodomising somebody does not make one a family member. *
That has to be one of the most ignorant and stupid posts I ever seen here. Who is saying that a family member needs to have sex to be a family member? Wow, just Wow.

You have ignorantly and stupidly committed the commutative fallacy.
Saying “all cats are animals” does not equal saying “all animals are cats”.
Just as saying “sodomising someone makes you a family member” does not equal saying “the only way to become a family member is to sodomise somebody”.

 

[Petergee]

So it IS just your opinion then? Why not just state that rather than promoting garbage that this is the common practice? So you have seen this happen it must happen to the majority of people? That is some warped thinking.

I am saying it just your opinon because that is exactly what it is.

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.

 

[Petergee]

Petergee’s contributions seem to revolve around a definition. He claims that the term “homosexual partners” not only connotes but even denotes two people of the same sex who repeatedly sodomize each other, where the definition of “sodomy” is broad enough to include any complete sexual acts available to two people of the same sex. … Petergee’s proposed definition is incorrect.

Whatever the correct definition of “homosexual partners” may be, it involves two people of the same sex who, at the very least, habitually intend to seek each others good in each other’s company.

You are making yourself look more and more ridiculous the more you try to defend this preposterous assertion. There are many people of the same sex with whom I habitually seek each other’s good in each other’s company. I assure you I am not “homosexual partners” with any of them!

For a reality check, why don’t you ask the next 100 people you meet, “what does “homosexual partner” mean?”? I guarantee you nobody will tell you it means “two people of the same sex who, at the very least, habitually intend to seek each others good in each other’s company.” !!

It’s astonishing the absurdity some people descend to when they unthinkingly and stubbornly try to defnd the indefensible.

 

[Sophia86]

No. Repeatedly sodomising somebody does not make one a family member.

WHERE is your morality? It’s people like you who are what is wrong with this world. With statements like that, I really think you are beyond help.

EVERYONE deserves the right to be treated equally in this situation, whether one is gay, straight, of different ethnic background, religious beliefs, gender…regardless.

Who’s sexuality are you threatened by anyway… theirs or your own.

Pathetic.

 

[chrysostim83]

To Other Eric:

Well, I’m afraid you still are not clear. Either your “same sex sexual partners” are engaged in immoral sexual activity or they are not.

I never used the phrase “same sex sexual partners.” Please read my posts more carefully if you wish to respond to them.

Treating such a relationship as legitimate, even if only out of a sense of misplaced compassion, communicates that the relationship is normal and healthy as a matter of policy.

Again, read my posts more carefully. I am not in any way treating these mutually exploitative and degrading “relationships” as legitimate. I am merely pointing out that Petergee’s definition of “homosexual partners” is broad enough to include sexual friendship, and that this broadness is confusing the issue in his mind because he’s using the same term to discuss sexual friends (who clearly do not deserve visitation rights) and what the rest of us mean by “homosexual partners” (who might just possibly be entitled to visitation rights).

To Petergee:
Read my posts more carefully. I said that the denotation of “homosexual partners” involves the habitual intention of etc. I was not giving a definition, but only pointing to an important element in one. There can hardly be any doubt that the next 100 people I ask will not be able to attach a sense to “homosexual partner” which is relevant to this discussion. Most of them, like me, wouldn’t be able so much as to give an articulate definition. On the other hand, there can hardly be any doubt that most of them would agree that sexual friends (unfortunately, the only proper phrase I know for this concept consists of the f word followed by “buddies”) are not “homosexual partners” in the relevant sense.

The root of the trouble here is the fact that “partner” sometimes means “sexual partner” or “person one sleeps with” and at other times “partner” means something more like “person with whom one lives in a loving, committed, and long-standing relationship.”

When the OP’s question is properly understood, it refers to the second kind of partner, and therefore, your original remark, referring as it did to the first kind of partner, was totally irrelevant.

 

[Petergee]

***“No. Repeatedly sodomising somebody does not make one a family member.”

---

You changed the terms of the OP question. You instead clouded the issue by bringing in the term “sodomy”. This is a question about the definition of a family not what sexual acts or lack there of constitute a familial bond.

You seem to be the one trying to cloud the issue. My response was exactly apposite to the OP question and confined strictly to the facts about what is the definition of a family.

Definitely, you should look up what the real definition of homosexual partner is, not simply the one you made up.

***“Homosexuals have always had the same rights as everybody else. It wasn’t until about 20 years ago that sonme of them started demanding so-called “rights” that nobody else has.”

---

Oooh a big ol’ double non fact here. They do not have the same rights as everybody else as you in this thread are advocating they shouldn’t.

Ok then, name one right which everybody else has which homosexuals do not?

And in truth the modern gay rights movement found strength ansd cohesion in the early 1970’s. While written accounts of demand for acceptance stretch back into the 1860, there’s little doubt its been a thread throughout human history.

Nonsense. The idea that “homosexuals” are a distinct class of people began with the proto-Nazi movement in late 19th century Germany.

***“Yes it does. What the so-called “couple” desire to to to each other is intrinsically disordered.”

---

Again, an opinion not supported by facts or science but a narrowly held view reinforced by ones own prejudices.

No it’s a fact infallibly taught by the Church and supported by all unbiased scientific study, not to mention basic common sense.

***“it’s very sad to see that even on a Catholic forum, simply stating these facts which are obvious from universal Natural Law,”

---

But you see you’re not speaking about Natural Law. Because the tenets of natural law are evident in nature. Since homosexuality and its expression is not unknown in the natural world, it does not violate natural law.

You clearly have no idea what Natural Law is. It has nothing to dio with what animals do.

Instead you chose to smash natural together with some personally defined morality combined with positive law i.e. man-made.

You are the one trying to elevate your man-made law above the immutable Natural Law.

No one in society encourages “homosexuals to sodomize”. They do encourage them however to accept that fact that they are normal, they are not disordered and that they should seek out positive, healthy, loving and satisfying pursuits in their lives.

Same thing. Encouraging that will do nothing except create miserable, unproductive individuals, racked with suffering.

Truly sir I have an abundance of courage. Courage does not come from burrowing into your personal fears, forging a system of beliefs out of that ignorance and living unshakably by that code. It is born out of investigation and free thought and consideration. When you burn away all that bias and fear in the crucible of investigative thought you’re left with actual untainted convictions and the courage to support them as the truth.

Fine rhetoric but your comments here are nothing but biased opinions, Far from seeking the truth, you are doing your best to hide it and run away from it because you apparently find it too confronting and challenging to you.

 

[Petergee]

WHERE is your morality? It’s people like you who are what is wrong with this world. With statements like that, I really think you are beyond help.Who’s sexuality are you threatened by anyway… theirs or your own.

Pathetic.

Sorry but this comment makes no sense at all. Who are you to call me immoral, pathetic, beyond help or threatened by sexuality merely because I pointed out this fact?

EVERYONE deserves the right to be treated equally in this situation, whether one is gay, straight, of different ethnic background, religious beliefs, gender…regardless.

That’s exactly what I am saying! Regarding visiting rights in hospitals, a non-relative who sodomises the patient should be treated exactly the same as a non-relative who does not sodomise the patient.

 

[Petergee]

Petergee’s definition of “homosexual partners” is broad enough to include sexual friendship, and that this broadness is confusing the issue in his mind because he’s using the same term to discuss sexual friends (who clearly do not deserve visitation rights) and what the rest of us mean by “homosexual partners” (who might just possibly be entitled to visitation rights).

You seem to be the one who’s confused here, and trying to confuse others by clouding the issue.

To Petergee:
Read my posts more carefully. I said that the denotation of “homosexual partners” involves the habitual intention of etc. I was not giving a definition, but only pointing to an important element in one. There can hardly be any doubt that the next 100 people I ask will not be able to attach a sense to “homosexual partner” which is relevant to this discussion. Most of them, like me, wouldn’t be able so much as to give an articulate definition. On the other hand, there can hardly be any doubt that most of them would agree that sexual friends (unfortunately, the only proper phrase I know for this concept consists of the f word followed by “buddies”) are not “homosexual partners” in the relevant sense.

The root of the trouble here is the fact that “partner” sometimes means “sexual partner” or “person one sleeps with” and at other times “partner” means something more like “person with whom one lives in a loving, committed, and long-standing relationship.”

When the OP’s question is properly understood, it refers to the second kind of partner, and therefore, your original remark, referring as it did to the first kind of partner, was totally irrelevant.

No matter how much you tie yourself in such ludicrous convoluted knots, you will never be able to redefine “homosexual partner” in this way. I and many other people I know live in loving, committed, and long-standing relationships with people of the same sex. We are definitely not homosexual partners!

 

[Sophia86]

Sorry but this comment makes no sense at all. Who are you to call me immoral or threatened by sexuality merely because I pointed out this fact?..

…That’s exactly what I am saying! Regarding visiting rights in hospitals, a non-relative who sodomises the patient should be treated exactly the same as a non-relative who does not sodomise the patient.

Your ideals and beliefs clearly do not show morality. Your opinions are codswollop, and your manners in sharing them are discourteous and inconsiderate of others feelings.

To address your second statement, do you not think that it is possible for two people of the same sex then to share an emotional connection? If not, then how do you explain thousands upon thousands of people who are in loving monogamous relationships, just as heterosexual people are?

Does this furthermore mean then, that you agree that gay men “who do not partake in anal sex” should be allowed hospital visiting rights? And also for lesbians as there is also no sodomy involved there?

Why do you place the emphasis of “sexual conduct” on visiting rights anyway?