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

[Petergee]

Wow Petergee, you seem to know it all! Each person you take down one after another like dominoes…but stop and think for a minute at how this looks. We are of the same religion yet interpret it MUCH differently.

My guide to interpreting it is the Church which God founded, and the men He placed in charge of it as His successors on earth, whom He promised He would always guide so that they never falls into teaching error. Where does your interpretation come from??

Funny when the people were stoning the prostitute that Jesus stopped them and told them if they had not sinned, they could cast a stone.

No He didn’t; He asked someone without sin to cast the first stone. He never said that it would be wrong to stone her. That is exactly what His enemies wanted Him to say, so that they could say He was contradicting God’s Law and so prove that He was not from God.

weird then, because by your definition that would be condoning her sins. You can throw rocks literally or figuratively. Not controlling someone isn’t agreeing with their sins, it’s respecting them as a person. You can offer advice and pray for them, but you should not control them.

I’d love to see the look on the traffic cop’s face when he pulls you over for speeding and you tell him that he has no right to control you, only to offer you advice and pray for you.

Oh and I have a question I have been just dying to ask someone that holds your opinions-when we look at the ten commandments-how many of those have you broken???

All of them, many times.

Oh and I have a question I have been just dying to ask someone that holds your opinions. Where on earth did you get the idea that if someone is a sinner (as we all are) then he forfeits any right to point out what sin is, and to try to avoid sin and help others avoid it?

How do you know that the person you’re spending all your time judging wasn’t a really good person who brought a lot of good things to the world and their sin of homosexuality was taken up with GOD

Homosexuality is not a sin. And I never claimed that anyone who commits sodomy cannot possibly do anything good. In fact I stated the opposite.

and he forgave this person, while YOU were spending a very long time in purgatory for judging???

Where did you get the idea that “judging” is a sin? Certainly not from anything that God or His Church have said. In fact, as they have so often pointed out, in very many situations it is a sin NOT to judge.

I’m not saying this would happen, but I’m just trying to say be really careful, because from all the teaching Jesus did, he seemed to REALLY stress peace and not judging others. This has been something that I have been really scared of doing

You REALLY need to read this:
“Judge Not”?? catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0702btb.asp

 

[Other_Eric]

Could you explain what it is about a hospital visit that relates to some type of intimacy in a way that sitting together in a darkened room in a social setting doesn’t?

I know you are a lapsed Catholic, but I did find a point of some interest, perhaps, to others on the thread. It is from the USCCB health directives:

It didn’t seem that it excludes black sheep and the like. It seems more interested in the ones who know the patient’s wishes.

I think, by definition, a “social setting” is one that isn’t intimate. It’s public. Medical care has traditionally been looked upon as a private affair. Restricting access to patients to validly intimate relationships is a way of preserving such privacy.

The health directives you cite from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops do not contradict what I am arguing here in any respect. The USCCB restricts the responsibility of medical decisions and the like to those such as “family members and loved ones.” That two people use each other’s bodies for self-centered genital stimulation makes of them neither family members nor “loved ones.” Implying that they are by accommodating them in that respect is a lie straight from Hell.

 

[Pug]

I think, by definition, a “social setting” is one that isn’t intimate. It’s public. Medical care has traditionally been looked upon as a private affair. Restricting access to patients to validly intimate relationships is a way of preserving such privacy.

The health directives you cite from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops do not contradict what I am arguing here in any respect. The USCCB restricts the responsibility of medical decisions and the like to those such as “family members and loved ones.” That two people use each other’s bodies for self-centered genital stimulation makes of them neither family members nor “loved ones.” Implying that they are by accommodating them in that respect is a lie straight from Hell.

It does not make a restriction to those two categories (family, loved ones). It only comments that those are the people who usually posses the requisite knowledge about the patient’s wishes. How a Catholic hospital might put that into practice is anyone’s guess, of course. The directive as stated does not make it seem like Pathia would have the same trouble in a Catholic hospital, at least one obedient to the directive, since Pathia was the person with the knowledge about wishes. And the directive is about people with knowledge about wishes about health care.

I meant social/dating as opposed to business, like a darkened meeting with power point slides. Since some parents restrict the ability of dating teens to see movies, I meant that movies are exactly the sort of place that hanky-panky is seen as happening. It is dark, no one is looking, there is no chaperon, there is a culture of drive-in fun, etc.

I don’t fully understand your privacy argument. The patient is more likely than the hospital to know who has a loose tongue.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

You’re begging the question. The fact that two people have sodomised each other does not make them a “couple”. Or a “family”.

It’s very sad to see that even on a Catholic forum, simply stating these facts which are obvious from universal Natural Law, exposes one to the kneejerk accusations of “homophobia” and “hatred of homosexuals”. The fact that pro-sodomy agitators routinely and immediately descend to such nonsensical name-calling and calumnies in itself proves that they know deep down that there is no logical justification for their position.

You’ve proven time and time again on this thread that you harbor some sort of irrational distaste for a matter that doesn’t concern you. I’ve read your posts on here but really it only took glancing at one to see where you’re coming from.

“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.”

If it wasn’t so offensive it would be laughable, actually, you know what, its still lauaghable. Still spouting the same old lies growing out of the same old cherished misinformation.

It’s the kind of uninformed nonsense I would have expected to hear in the mid eighties when at least people had the excuse of not knowing in better. In 2010 it works as a charming little bigotry detector.

Frankly I wish you’d just have the testicular fortitude to call a spade a spade and say what you really think i.e. gays give you the creeps, it grosses you out, you don’t get it or simply put ewwww. So, because you find this distasteful you take this incredibly harsh and unfeeling position. You see because this isn’t about religion, or the Church or anything else, this is about you.

It amuses me to no end that you state such awful things while trying to couch them in the language of piety and Catholicism and the toss out the word that really gets people hackles up on both sides, ‘sodomy’. Despite all that you’re really transparent and you just can’t stand that people on here are calling you out.

Where one stands in terms of natural law is not something that gets judged when you hurry through the ER in a hospital inquiring about a loved one.

You’re the one who’s not dealing in logic, you’re the one who’s been ‘knee jerking’ through this whole discussion. This isn’t about gay marriage, this isn’t about gay rights, this is about being human. The fact that you don’t get that says a great deal about you.

 

[Think_About_It]

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

Haha! Oh my science! Great first reply / representation of the faith. You’re just awful…

 

[Petergee]

In response to the ignorant abuse by “concerned apathy” (what an appropriate name, as is the fact that he’s considering converting to the sodomy-tolerant Episcopalian “church”), the only thing I have “distaste” for is such evil lies, and those whose only response to hearing the facts stated is to try to shout down the speaker with accusations of “bigotry, hatred, homosexuals creep you out, harsh and unfeeling” etc.

Yes indeed 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. I have personally witnessed first hand this situation in the case of two relatives and have heard of many more similar cases.

If it wasn’t so offensive it would be laughable that this person tells me

I wish you’d just have the testicular fortitude to call a spade a spade

and then in the same breath for some bizarre reason objects to me calling sodomy “sodomy”. What on earth would you like me to call it instead?

Where one stands in terms of natural law is not something that gets judged when you hurry through the ER in a hospital inquiring about a loved one.

That’s exactly when the vital questions of good versus evil come most into play. This is about being human. The fact that you don’t get that says a great deal about you.

A few years ago a very dear friend of mine became gravely ill. At some inconvenience to myself I arranged to visit her in hospital quite a long distance away, only to discover when I got there it was “family only”. I was disappointed but I accepted and saw the logic of it. Hospital staff don’t have the time to listen to each potential visitor’s story and claims and individually judge how deep each one’s friendship is. If a patient’s condition is such that the number of visitors must be limited, it’s much simpler and fairer to say “family is in, non family is out”.

But I bet if I said “Having an intimate non-sexual friendship with somebody does not make you a family member”, none of the politically correct prigs here (and the unthinking types they have dragged along with them) would accuse me of “hating” people who have intimate non-sexual friends, telling “bigoted lies” about them, etc. etc.

 

[Kaninchen]

Perhaps hospitals should just turn away excitable and loud people.

 

[Other_Eric]

It does not make a restriction to those two categories (family, loved ones). It only comments that those are the people who usually posses the requisite knowledge about the patient’s wishes. How a Catholic hospital might put that into practice is anyone’s guess, of course. The directive as stated does not make it seem like Pathia would have the same trouble in a Catholic hospital, at least one obedient to the directive, since Pathia was the person with the knowledge about wishes. And the directive is about people with knowledge about wishes about health care.

I meant social/dating as opposed to business, like a darkened meeting with power point slides. Since some parents restrict the ability of dating teens to see movies, I meant that movies are exactly the sort of place that hanky-panky is seen as happening. It is dark, no one is looking, there is no chaperon, there is a culture of drive-in fun, etc.

I don’t fully understand your privacy argument. The patient is more likely than the hospital to know who has a loose tongue.

It is true that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops does not restrict access to hospital patients to family and loved ones exclusively. This would be the reason I used the qualifier “such as” in my last response. Of course, if we are strictly construing the directive, it says nothing about visitors at all, merely who will have the right to make medical decisions. Further, in using a subjective term such as “loved ones,” it is obvious that the directive means to leave wide latitude for hospital staff to determine who it is that qualifies and who does not. Such discernment properly takes into account the moral character of the relationship between the patient and the potential visitor.

Irrespective of what sort of illicit activity goes on in a movie theater, the venue is still public. What is more, your attempted parallel fails here as well since movie theaters can and do restrict access to films based on objective criteria, like age. Likewise, hospitals are correct to limit access to patients they are attempting to make well. The objective criteria that hospitals have chosen is one of intimacy usually found, as the USCCB foresees, in family and “loved ones.” A same-sex partner has no legitimate claim to such intimacy and the hospital that refuses to recognize such an attempted claim acts to preserve the truth of what is and is not a genuine “intimate” relationship.

 

[Christopher68]

You’ve proven time and time again on this thread that you harbor some sort of irrational distaste for a matter that doesn’t concern you./QUOTE]

That’s exactly right, and that’s what I am not understanding about ‘petergee’ and ‘other eric’. No one is asking them to personally validate anything. By contrast, they are applauding efforts to provide discomfort, alienation, and suffering to someone during their time of greatest need.

 

[Other_Eric]

ConcernedApathy;6432142:

You’ve proven time and time again on this thread that you harbor some sort of irrational distaste for a matter that doesn’t concern you./QUOTE]

That’s exactly right, and that’s what I am not understanding about ‘petergee’ and ‘other eric’. No one is asking them to personally validate anything. By contrast, they are applauding efforts to provide discomfort, alienation, and suffering to someone during their time of greatest need.

Why should any Christian who fears God allow himself to be coerced into redefining what is right and wrong simply because someone may feel bad about it? People who engage in same-sex relations ought to feel discomfort, alienation and suffering because those are the fruits of their behavior. For my part, I will not abandon the idea that immoral behavior carries consequences with it.

 

[Christopher68]

Why should any Christian who fears God allow himself to be coerced into redefining what is right and wrong simply because someone may feel bad about it? People who engage in same-sex relations ought to feel discomfort, alienation and suffering because those are the fruits of their behavior. For my part, I will not abandon the idea that immoral behavior carries consequences with it.

Nobody is asking ‘you’ to redefine anything. Someone in a hospital who is being visited by the person most dear to them in the entire world - this does not impact you directly in any way. Why the hostility over something that is inconsequential to you?

 

[Petergee]

ConcernedApathy;6432142:

You’ve proven time and time again on this thread that you harbor some sort of irrational distaste for a matter that doesn’t concern you./QUOTE]

That’s exactly right, and that’s what I am not understanding about ‘petergee’ and ‘other eric’. No one is asking them to personally validate anything.

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”. Then UI get rained with all manner of irrational false accusations and condemnations by those who apparently have a distaste for simple facts.If you think for one moment that the Church disagrees with the facts I have pointed out, you either know nothing of the Church’s teaching on the subject or have some sort of denial complex.

By contrast, they are applauding efforts to provide discomfort, alienation, and suffering to someone during their time of greatest need.

Nonsense. Refusing to be bullied into the assertion by the powerful in our society that sodomy creates a “couple” or a “family”, is the loving thing to do to our unfortunate brothers and sisters who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder. Loving somebody doesn’t always mean giving him everything he demands. In fact it very seldom means that.
For all you know, being confronted with the fact that the assertion that “sodomy creates a “couple”” is a great big LIE, may be just the spark that a homosexual needs to begin repenting of his sin and finding true comfort and relief from his alienation and suffering.

I have seen this time and again in talking to drug addicts whose root problem is their acting-out of their homosexual disorder. Their alienation does not derive from “homophobia” as the loudest voices in the media constantly assert. In fact the more society and its leaders urge homosexuals to sodomise, the more alienated they feel and the more they suffer. Anyone who truly loves a homosexual will hate sodomy and urge him not to sodomise.

And especially in the case of a sodomiser who is gravely ill. perhaps dying, his need to repent of his sin becomes even more imperative and urgent.

 

[Other_Eric]

Nobody is asking ‘you’ to redefine anything. Someone in a hospital who is being visited by the person most dear to them in the entire world - this does not impact you directly in any way. Why the hostility over something that is inconsequential to you?

Indeed, we would have to redefine exactly what constitutes a legitimate relationship and even the virtue of love would need to be crudely redefined into the affection one has for the orgasms provided by another. In making the passions the supreme agent directing our behavior, your ethic of simply yielding to a same-sex couple’s irrational self-definition is nothing more than a sad concession to the great lie of our times: if it feels good, do it!

Additionally, I note that your claim that such a new, expansive definition of legitimate relationships, would have no direct on me is nothing more then homosexual agitprop. Lending implicit legitimacy to same-sex attractions guarantees that the Culture of Death has gained yet another foothold in the American psyche.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

In response to the ignorant abuse by “concerned apathy” (what an appropriate name, as is the fact that he’s considering converting to the sodomy-tolerant Episcopalian “church”), the only thing I have “distaste” for is such evil lies, and those whose only response to hearing the facts stated is to try to shout down the speaker with accusations of “bigotry, hatred, homosexuals creep you out, harsh and unfeeling” etc.

Yes indeed 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. I have personally witnessed first hand this situation in the case of two relatives and have heard of many more similar cases.

If it wasn’t so offensive it would be laughable that this person tells me and then in the same breath for some bizarre reason objects to me calling sodomy “sodomy”. What on earth would you like me to call it instead?
That’s exactly when the vital questions of good versus evil come most into play. This is about being human. The fact that you don’t get that says a great deal about you.

A few years ago a very dear friend of mine became gravely ill. At some inconvenience to myself I arranged to visit her in hospital quite a long distance away, only to discover when I got there it was “family only”. I was disappointed but I accepted and saw the logic of it. Hospital staff don’t have the time to listen to each potential visitor’s story and claims and individually judge how deep each one’s friendship is. If a patient’s condition is such that the number of visitors must be limited, it’s much simpler and fairer to say “family is in, non family is out”.

But I bet if I said “Having an intimate non-sexual friendship with somebody does not make you a family member”, none of the politically correct prigs here (and the unthinking types they have dragged along with them) would accuse me of “hating” people who have intimate non-sexual friends, telling “bigoted lies” about them, etc. etc.

No one has abused you, but you enjoy playing the innocent, beleaguered Christian victim so I understand your confusion. When you actually take a moment to state some facts, I will take the time to listen. As it is you have based most of your arguments on personal bias and opinion.

The scenario you describe of “Family in non family out” doesn’t fly because whether you are willing to accept it or not a partner is an agreed upon relationship between two consenting adults who care for one another. It is not asking the hospital to let in your bus driver, your podiatrist or your grocer, it is one adult another sick adult has declared to be their family.

Once again, this is a situation that does not concern you yet you complain about it at length.

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

 

[Petergee]

you have based most of your arguments on personal bias and opinion.

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

The scenario you describe of “Family in non family out” doesn’t fly because whether you are willing to accept it or not a partner is an agreed upon relationship between two consenting adults who care for one another. It is not asking the hospital to let in your bus driver, your podiatrist or your grocer, it is one adult another sick adult has declared to be their family.

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.

Once again, this is a situation that does not concern you yet you complain about it at length.

Please point out where I have complained about this situation or anything here. My only purpose ion this thread is to answer the OP’s question and to correct the fallacious and damaging statements some have made here.

 

[Jermosh]

Not true.

The two people can go to a lawyer and legally designate each other as legal guardians and then no one can stop them from visiting each other.

How do I know? One of my clients are a homosexual couple who have done just that.

Therefore, it is a moot subject

Actually this is not entirely equal, most do not carry around this contract, and it can be disputed by the family. It also entirely depends on the state, and then there is the monetary issue.

 

[Ronsatron]

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

How about this nice little comment?

"Yes indeed 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. I have personally witnessed first hand this situation in the case of two relatives and have heard of many more similar cases. "

Is this a well documented fact or just your opinion?

 

[Petergee]

How about this nice little comment?

"Yes indeed 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. I have personally witnessed first hand this situation in the case of two relatives and have heard of many more similar cases. "

Is this a well documented fact or just your opinion?

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”.

 

[SGHumanist]

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

Doesn’t love???

 

[Jermosh]

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.