Miami Hospital Barred Lesbian From Seeing Dying Partner

[Lisa0315]

As a T, I'd love to hear your story.

<sigh> Start a thread in DoH. This is not the place.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

It is not like racism because the church treats all sexual sin the same. The church would not marry a divorced couple no more than they would a same sex couple. The church would condemn a hetero couple living together the same as a homosexual couple.

Now, that is all that I am going to say. Those who think I am prejudiced will continue to think that unless I go against my faith. I am not going to do that, so think of me as you will. I mostly stay out of DoH threads because I cannot stand the hatred that goes on in them. I only came into this one because I wanted to offer positive support. I felt like it was a rare opportunity to be able to show compassion which I DO FEEL.

Lisa

 

[TheManeki]

It is not like racism because the church treats all sexual sin the same. The church would not marry a divorced couple no more than they would a same sex couple. The church would condemn a hetero couple living together the same as a homosexual couple.

Unfortunately, that does not sound very true. I (and probably most here) know divorced people who have remarried in rather fundamentalist churches, and the original divorces had nothing to do with the wiggle room of "sexual immorality" or "my unbelieving spouse left me" added my Matthew and Paul.

Additionally, you do not see churches crusading to stop divorce anywhere to the extent they are crusading to stop gay marriage. Which is weird, because a far greater number of heterosexual couples divorce than there are homosexual couples who wish to marry. That would seem to indicate that divorce is a much greater threat to marriage than gays. (Has it even been established exactly how gays threaten marriage, anyway?)

It is sad that many Christians cling to an interpretation that is unsupported by reality, claiming that it is an abomination for two homosexuals to publicly pledge their love and commitment to each other and forge a permanent monogamous relationship. The lack of real life support reminds me of the formerly popular interpretation that non-whites are inferior to whites, and that interracial marriage was an abomination unto God. It was also unsupported by anything in real life, and eventually was discarded. Hopefully this other spurious interpretation will as well.

 

[WatersMoon110]

It is not like racism because the church treats all sexual sin the same. The church would not marry a divorced couple no more than they would a same sex couple. The church would condemn a hetero couple living together the same as a homosexual couple.

It depends on the church. I know of Christian churches that marry both couples that one or both members have divorced from other people and same sex couples. And I know of churches that won't marry same sex couples, but still marry divorced couples. And I know of churches that won't marry either.

Now, that is all that I am going to say. Those who think I am prejudiced will continue to think that unless I go against my faith. I am not going to do that, so think of me as you will.

For the record, I don't think you are prejudiced.

 

[Aeris]

It is not like racism because the church treats all sexual sin the same. The church would not marry a divorced couple no more than they would a same sex couple. The church would condemn a hetero couple living together the same as a homosexual couple.

Now, that is all that I am going to say. Those who think I am prejudiced will continue to think that unless I go against my faith. I am not going to do that, so think of me as you will. I mostly stay out of DoH threads because I cannot stand the hatred that goes on in them. I only came into this one because I wanted to offer positive support. I felt like it was a rare opportunity to be able to show compassion which I DO FEEL.

Lisa

I dont agree that homosexuality should be seen as a bad thing, and although I believe that hating (not just disagreeing with what they are doing like you seem to be saying) someone because they are homosexual (or firing them, or not allowing them to see a dying loved one, or not allowing them to marry) is the same as racism, I do agree with you that the church should be able to decide who to marry and if they dont want to marry homosexuals then they shouldnt have to, but homosexuals should be able to be married legally, and should be free from other forms of discrimination. Theres lots of things that religion sees as wrong, and the people who do them still have the same legal rights and are free from the discrimination homosexuals have to deal with. Your beliefs seem to be reasonable, its seems like you disagree with what they do but dont hate them like some others do, you also disagree with senarios like this happening. IMO your beliefs arent like racism, but I do believe that some other peoples beliefs about homosexuality are like racism.

 

[NPH]

If we are not to legislate our beliefs on you, then, do not legislate yours on us.

Lisa, am I correct in assuming that in this sentence you are speaking of legalizing same-sex marriage in general rather than forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies? If you are speaking strictly about forcing them to perform the ceremonies then I agree with you and not really much of anyone is trying to do just that.

But if you are speaking about same-sex marriage in general then your statement does not hold at all. Legalizing same-sex marriage is not legislating beliefs upon you, unless you are being required to be part of one Since that's not happening then legalizing it has absolutely no effect on you or your beliefs at all.

Trying to keep/make it illegal though, is legislating your beliefs upon other people. The legality of same-sex marriage has no bearing on you or any marriage you may have whatsoever, but it has great bearing on those homosexuals who wish to be married.

Short version, it has no effect on you at all but great effect on others.

 

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, am I correct in assuming that in this sentence you are speaking of legalizing same-sex marriage in general rather than forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies? If you are speaking strictly about forcing them to perform the ceremonies then I agree with you and not really much of anyone is trying to do just that.

But if you are speaking about same-sex marriage in general then your statement does not hold at all. Legalizing same-sex marriage is not legislating beliefs upon you, unless you are being required to be part of one Since that's not happening then legalizing it has absolutely no effect on you or your beliefs at all.

Trying to keep/make it illegal though, is legislating your beliefs upon other people. The legality of same-sex marriage has no bearing on you or any marriage you may have whatsoever, but it has great bearing on those homosexuals who wish to be married.

Short version, it has no effect on you at all but great effect on others.

I am saying that I am against same-sex marriages based on religious principles. However, if the federal government or state government allows civil unions, then, all I ask is that the churches are not legally bound to rent our buildings, or force our ministers to perform ceremonies. I am also asking that if a Christian businessperson rejects the business of GLBT's, then, again, it should not be a lawsuit. For example, if a wedding photographer does not wish to make money on a same sex union, he should not be forced to provide those services.

At the same time, I have never been against GLBT's adopting children or having equal rights under the law. I do want to insure that the practice of religion is not given a hate-crime status which is very much on the table right now.

Now, this is a very fine line. If the business is given state of federal funds, then, religious beliefs may not play a role in whether or not services are provided. This would be the case of the two ladies and their children in this hospital.

So, sexual orientation/lifestyle cannot be used to exclude anyone from education, legal benefits, job applications, housing, or other federally funded or legislated activities. Yet, at the individual level, I believe it is right to allow religous beliefs to guide whether or not services are made available.

The wedding photographer example may or may not stand up to the scrutiny of civil rights. Churches, on the other hand, should. It may mean that many Christians will have to find other careers rather than be found guilty of discrimination from a legal pov.

Lisa

 

[Beanieboy]

That's very reasonable. Were I to marry, I wouldn't want to employ that photographer, and he wouldn't want to photograph the wedding. I see no problem.

The only problem comes when the photographer then wants NO photographer at the gay wedding.

Forcing someone to photograph you wedding is equally absurd, unless the person has agreed, and backs out because of "religious beliefs" the day of the wedding. Then, I think it becomes a matter of business and breaking a contract.

I also wouldn't want to marry in a church that didn't approve of it, nor would I want to go to that church ever simply to worship. There are churches that are gay affirming, and were I Christian, that is where I would spend my money.

 

[NPH]

I am saying that I am against same-sex marriages based on religious principles. However, if the federal government or state government allows civil unions, then, all I ask is that the churches are not legally bound to rent our buildings, or force our ministers to perform ceremonies. I am also asking that if a Christian businessperson rejects the business of GLBT's, then, again, it should not be a lawsuit. For example, if a wedding photographer does not wish to make money on a same sex union, he should not be forced to provide those services.

At the same time, I have never been against GLBT's adopting children or having equal rights under the law. I do want to insure that the practice of religion is not given a hate-crime status which is very much on the table right now.

Thank you. I am in agreement with you on dislike of legislating that people must do business with or participate in matters that they have personal disagreement with, excepting employees (imo, business owner decides who to do business with, not the employees). So I take it then that the statement I quoted dealt strictly with this aspect rather than same-sex marriage itself in general?

You state that you are against same-sex marriage due to religious beliefs but also are for equal rights for LGBT individuals. Given the opportunity to vote either for or against legalization of same-sex marriage how would you vote, as the two ideas are mutually exclusive in that case?

Just as a silly analogy, if a law were proposed to ban orange soda and most people felt that orange soda was somehow evil and sinful (include yourself for this purpose) would you vote to ban it? The existence of orange soda does not compel you to partake of it but the banning of it prevents those who do not share your belief from partaking of what they may find essential to their life, and it's mere existence does no one any actual harm. Why would anyone care that orange soda-lovers that don't share their belief regarding orange soda are drinking it?

The only problem comes when the photographer then wants NO photographer at the gay wedding.

Exactly. This is what I just don't understand. I can see not approving of something and refusing to participate in it, but I cannot see preventing anyone from participating ... particularly when the activity does no harm and actually produces much good.

I see it all as no different than if a (for example) muslim-majority nation passed a law banning christians from marrying each other because they believed that 'God' only approves of muslim marriages and that false belief (in this case christian belief) is sinful. It is just incomprehensible to me that people wish to restrict unharmful activities of others due to their unshared religious beliefs.

 

[Lisa0315]

Thank you. I am in agreement with you on dislike of legislating that people must do business with or participate in matters that they have personal disagreement with, excepting employees (imo, business owner decides who to do business with, not the employees). So I take it then that the statement I quoted dealt strictly with this aspect rather than same-sex marriage itself in general?

You state that you are against same-sex marriage due to religious beliefs but also are for equal rights for LGBT individuals. Given the opportunity to vote either for or against legalization of same-sex marriage how would you vote, as the two ideas are mutually exclusive in that case?

Just as a silly analogy, if a law were proposed to ban orange soda and most people felt that orange soda was somehow evil and sinful (include yourself for this purpose) would you vote to ban it? The existence of orange soda does not compel you to partake of it but the banning of it prevents those who do not share your belief from partaking of what they may find essential to their life, and it's mere existence does no one any actual harm. Why would anyone care that orange soda-lovers that don't share their belief regarding orange soda are drinking it?



Exactly. This is what I just don't understand. I can see not approving of something and refusing to participate in it, but I cannot see preventing anyone from participating ... particularly when the activity does no harm and actually produces much good.

I see it all as no different than if a (for example) muslim-majority nation passed a law banning christians from marrying each other because they believed that 'God' only approves of muslim marriages and that false belief (in this case christian belief) is sinful. It is just incomprehensible to me that people wish to restrict unharmful activities of others due to their unshared religious beliefs.

I have gone back and forth on the issue. So, far is has not come to a vote in my state, and I don't know that it will unless the Feds force it.

A candidate that was for civil unions would not be excluded from my vote, but I would want to know what allowances that candidate would make for the churches and believers against gay marriage. If that candidate was seeking absolute inclusion with no allowances for deeply held faith, then, I would vote against that candidate.

If the vote came to North Carolina, I am not sure what I would do. It would require much prayer to know what to do. I simply do not have an answer at this time and like I said, I go back and forth in my mind.

One of the many reasons I do not debate this topic is because I generally start off preaching to my brothers and sisters that homosexuality is no more a sin than adultery or pre-marital sex. I preach that the focus should be on cleaning up the sexual sin within our own congregations before pointing fingers at the outside world. However, it always happens that I am forced into a discussion in which people want to convince me that it is not a sin.

So, how DOES one hold a faith-based belief on sexual sin and be able to at the same time not discriminate in a legal sense? How does one go to the polls and vote on this issue so that the sense of justice and the ideal of faith are both met?

As I said, I go back and forth. It seems that a vote for civil unions is a vote to sanctify sexual sin. Yet, a vote against civil unions is denying people the rights under the law that they should be entitled to.

Perhaps the answer is to simply do away with the legal status of marriage altogether and focus on the individual rights. Make marriage a private institution and up to the conscience of the individual. Give tax breaks, and other legal benefits under one umbrella that has nothing to do with marriage.

Lisa

 

[stan1980]

Perhaps the answer is to simply do away with the legal status of marriage altogether and focus on the individual rights. Make marriage a private institution and up to the conscience of the individual. Give tax breaks, and other legal benefits under one umbrella that has nothing to do with marriage.

Lisa

That is actually a quite brilliant suggestion, Lisa, and could probably do with a thread of its own. I would love that to happen for various reasons.

 

[Maren]

I have gone back and forth on the issue. So, far is has not come to a vote in my state, and I don't know that it will unless the Feds force it.

A candidate that was for civil unions would not be excluded from my vote, but I would want to know what allowances that candidate would make for the churches and believers against gay marriage. If that candidate was seeking absolute inclusion with no allowances for deeply held faith, then, I would vote against that candidate.

If the vote came to North Carolina, I am not sure what I would do. It would require much prayer to know what to do. I simply do not have an answer at this time and like I said, I go back and forth in my mind.

One of the many reasons I do not debate this topic is because I generally start off preaching to my brothers and sisters that homosexuality is no more a sin than adultery or pre-marital sex. I preach that the focus should be on cleaning up the sexual sin within our own congregations before pointing fingers at the outside world. However, it always happens that I am forced into a discussion in which people want to convince me that it is not a sin.

So, how DOES one hold a faith-based belief on sexual sin and be able to at the same time not discriminate in a legal sense? How does one go to the polls and vote on this issue so that the sense of justice and the ideal of faith are both met?

As I said, I go back and forth. It seems that a vote for civil unions is a vote to sanctify sexual sin. Yet, a vote against civil unions is denying people the rights under the law that they should be entitled to.

Perhaps the answer is to simply do away with the legal status of marriage altogether and focus on the individual rights. Make marriage a private institution and up to the conscience of the individual. Give tax breaks, and other legal benefits under one umbrella that has nothing to do with marriage.

Lisa

Actually, there is no need for "provisions" of churches if gay marriage becomes a reality. Churches are already protected from a number of civil rights laws, which is why churches are not forced to marry anyone off the street and why they can give hiring preference to people who attend that church. Allowing gay marriage will not change these protections, churches will still be able to choose whom to marry based on their religious beliefs.

 

[NPH]

A candidate that was for civil unions would not be excluded from my vote, but I would want to know what allowances that candidate would make for the churches and believers against gay marriage. If that candidate was seeking absolute inclusion with no allowances for deeply held faith, then, I would vote against that candidate.

The allowance that should exist is one that I believe already does exist, doesn't it? Religions are not required to participate in any activity beyond those that have to do with government involvement (i.e. reporting income, not endorsing politicians). The only times I can think of where that freedom can and should be relinquished is when a religious organization operates with governmental financing (such as the catholic adoption agency deal).

IMO, the recent ruling by the Texas SC should quell this sort of worry. If a church can physically and emotionally abuse a 17 year old without any legal recourse available to the victim then I'm pretty certain they can say "we won't perform gay marriages" and face no consequence.

If the vote came to North Carolina, I am not sure what I would do. It would require much prayer to know what to do. I simply do not have an answer at this time and like I said, I go back and forth in my mind.

Kudos for being willing to admit time and serious thought to the matter rather than so many who wish to enforce the restrictions of their religion on those outside of that religion without giving it a second thought

One of the many reasons I do not debate this topic is because I generally start off preaching to my brothers and sisters that homosexuality is no more a sin than adultery or pre-marital sex. I preach that the focus should be on cleaning up the sexual sin within our own congregations before pointing fingers at the outside world. However, it always happens that I am forced into a discussion in which people want to convince me that it is not a sin.

Personally I would find adultery to be a far more egregious "sin" then the others listed because it actually causes harm to another person. But as we usually see, most people don't want to pay too much attention to "sins" that they might actually be guilty of Kudos again for pointing this out to folk.

So, how DOES one hold a faith-based belief on sexual sin and be able to at the same time not discriminate in a legal sense? How does one go to the polls and vote on this issue so that the sense of justice and the ideal of faith are both met?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? If we wish to keep the freedom of and from religion then we cannot go down a path where we make the rules of any particular religion/s the law of the land. As soon as we say it's ok for XXXX group of christians to legislate their specific religious belief upon everyone else then we can't be surprised when the Mormon's expect their beliefs to become law, or the muslims, or buddhists, or catholics, baptists, pentecostals etc ... We only remain free to practice religion so long as we allow everyone to freely practice their religious beliefs. Anytime any one particular religious belief is made into law then we no longer have freedom of religion, but freedom for some religions.

As I said, I go back and forth. It seems that a vote for civil unions is a vote to sanctify sexual sin. Yet, a vote against civil unions is denying people the rights under the law that they should be entitled to.

I would tend to say it's more a vote for "it's not my place to tell non-certain-christians what's right and wrong for them".

Again, best to stay out of other people's business lest you find them becoming interested in getting into your business

Perhaps the answer is to simply do away with the legal status of marriage altogether and focus on the individual rights. Make marriage a private institution and up to the conscience of the individual. Give tax breaks, and other legal benefits under one umbrella that has nothing to do with marriage.

As much as this might seem like a good idea, I don't think it would work very well (as I stated in your poll thread). Already people claim that same-sex marriage is an assault on the institution of marriage ... removing all legal status from marriage period would be met with howling and wailing of 'persecution'. Basically, the cure would be far more troublesome than the problem it is supposedly intended to cure.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I am saying that I am against same-sex marriages based on religious principles.

Just as racists are against interracial marriage because of their religious principles. Yet you are offended at the association. Why?

However, if the federal government or state government allows civil unions, then, all I ask is that the churches are not legally bound to rent our buildings, or force our ministers to perform ceremonies.

You mean marriages.


And again I will ask where you get the strange notion that any cleric of nay religion can be forced to marry anyone?

I am also asking that if a Christian businessperson rejects the business of GLBT's, then, again, it should not be a lawsuit. For example, if a wedding photographer does not wish to make money on a same sex union, he should not be forced to provide those services.

The photographer in question broke the law. The law in Arizona states that public business cannot reuse services to people just because they are members of a minority.

If that photographer had refused a couple because of their skin color would that not be discrimination?
If that photographer had refused a couple because of their religion would that not be discrimination?
If that photographer had refused a couple because of one or the other were handicapped would that not be discrimination?

At the same time, I have never been against GLBT's adopting children or having equal rights under the law. I do want to insure that the practice of religion is not given a hate-crime status which is very much on the table right now.

That is not a true statement. It is one of the more common lies the religious right tells however

Now, this is a very fine line. If the business is given state of federal funds, then, religious beliefs may not play a role in whether or not services are provided. This would be the case of the two ladies and their children in this hospital.

So doctors in private practice may refuse to see black people?

So, sexual orientation/lifestyle cannot be used to exclude anyone from education, legal benefits, job applications, housing, or other federally funded or legislated activities. Yet, at the individual level, I believe it is right to allow religous beliefs to guide whether or not services are made available.

So you agree that racists should have the right to refuse services to blacks or Hispanics?
That anti-Semitics should have the right to refuse services to Jews?
Or the handicapped
Or Muslims?
Or Atheists?
Or the elderly?
Or Japanese Americans?

Or would these things be examples of discrimination?

The wedding photographer example may or may not stand up to the scrutiny of civil rights.

Said photographer was found guilty just as if he had refused to photograph an interracial couple because he did not approve of interracial marraiges

Churches, on the other hand, should. It may mean that many Christians will have to find other careers rather than be found guilty of discrimination from a legal pov.



Lisa

“Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the victim is, and it is always wrong. There are no ‘special rights’ in America, despite the attempts by many to divide blacks and the gay community with the argument that the latter are seeking some imaginary ‘special rights’ at the expense of blacks.”
Julian Bond – Chair of the NAACP

 

[SallyNow]

What a travesty. A terrible, terrible travesty; the couple should be able to see each other in their last moments. It's not about being PC or making a point; it's basic human compassion.

Why so many lack compassion? So many who claim to be compassionate are even against the idea of compassion. I wonder if they are at all compassionate in real life?

I hope so. I enough hope left in humanity for that.

 

[Caylin]

<sigh> Start a thread in DoH. This is not the place.

Lisa

I'm bad with Acronyms, what is DoH? Why can't you just tell me here? You brought it up.

 

[Spherical Time]

You know, it's funny, but there are some people that say that they'd need to pray about this issue or that but when it comes down to it we all know which way they're going to vote.

I mean, don't get me wrong, Lisa and I have been here for very nearly the same amount of time and she's by far one of the most reasonable people on the "other side" of the issue from me. Still, she has a belief in x, y and z and she's going to vote those beliefs into law if she can. That's sort of the party line.

The only hope that I have is that she's willing to "divorce" the title of marriage from the government benefits. I'd be willing to agree to that, of course, but I think that we all know that the vast majority of people who believe in "one man/one woman" marriage also think that the government benefits are also a divine gift from God just for them. The ability to not testify against a spouse? Totally a religious thing.

 

[TheManeki]

I'm bad with Acronyms, what is DoH? Why can't you just tell me here? You brought it up.

It's another forum here at CF called Debates on Homosexuality. It always seemed kind of like Ethics and Morality to me, except if focuses exclusively on homosexuality and tends to attract many more fundamentalists.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Just as racists are against interracial marriage because of their religious principles. Yet you are offended at the association.


You mean marriages.


And again I will ask where you get the strange notion that any cleric of nay religion can be forced to marry anyone?




The photographer in question broke the law. The law in Arizona states that public business cannot reuse services to people just because they are members of a minority.

If that photographer had refused a couple because of their skin color would that not be discrimination?
If that photographer had refused a couple because of their religion would that not be discrimination?
If that photographer had refused a couple because of one or the other were handicapped would that not be discrimination?




That is not a true statement. It is one of the more common lies the religious right tells however



So doctors in private practice may refuse to see black people?



So you agree that racists should have the right to refuse services to blacks or Hispanics?
That anti-Semitics should have the right to refuse services to Jews?
Or the handicapped
Or Muslims?
Or Atheists?
Or the elderly?
Or Japanese Americans?

Or would these things be examples of discrimination?





Said photographer was found guilty just as if he had refused to photograph an interracial couple because he did not approve of interracial marraiges


“Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who the victim is, and it is always wrong. There are no ‘special rights’ in America, despite the attempts by many to divide blacks and the gay community with the argument that the latter are seeking some imaginary ‘special rights’ at the expense of blacks.”
Julian Bond – Chair of the NAACP

What if it was a child marriage? In one country (I could try to find it on wikipedia if needed), they allow marrying at the age of 9. Should a photographer be guilty of discrimination if s/he doesn't want to take photographs for moral reasons? Should we be able to say it is wrong? To say they should be allowed to marry? What is a doctor doesn't want to treat someone who he feels is a child rapist?

 

[yasic]

I do respect your views Lisa, and I do agree with you that no church or 'churchee' should have to take part in any ceremony, such as marriage, if it goes against their beliefs (with possible exception w/ government funding)

I am however puzzled by why you consider your views on anti-homosexual marriage to be any different than views on anti-mixed-race marriage. I honestly cannot find a difference between the two...