__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

Indeed just because I make a point it does not necessarily invalidate someone else's point. Separate ideas can both be correct and ALL sides need to see and learn about other viewpoints. I can admit to not being aware of ALL points and viewpoints just as you must also.

To pretend that ALL hospitals do not allow "partners" to visit patients is so totally an exaggeration that you should be ashamed to use it as an argument that your "rights" are being "taken" from you.
To pretend that COMPANY FINANCED insurance refuses to cover your partner is unfair could be expanded to MANY other "relatives" also.

__________________
"Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively and without self delusion---In the long run these are the only people that count."Robert Heinlein

Actually, you did exactly that.
You invalidated YOUR previous point by resorting to the "life is hard" routine when confronted with the fact that your previous claim was false.


Hate to break it to you Adept, but when it comes to allowing discrimination against gays, or requiring the government to discriminate against gays, those "viewpoints" aren't complex at all.
There isn't much to "learn" from your viewpoint, except contradiction and ignorance of the facts.


To pretend that anybody actually said that is sheer idiocy.
If you had any sense of common decency, you would acknowledge your strawman argument and move on.
The only one who needs to learn about others "viewpoints" here is YOU when you can't seem to accurately or honestly acknowledge what they are.


Like your wife, for example.
I am always amused by this tactic that you are taking now. (And there is nothing to "learn" from it, because it's been seen a million times before.)

In marriage or "civil unions", people take one partner, presumably for the rest of their lives. They acknowledge a committment to that partner, and take an oath (whether it be verbal or legal) to assist that partner in numerous ways, including emotional, financial, etc, etc.

There is no comparison for "many other relatives".
You trying to compare me getting my partner on my insurance to a man trying to get his brother on his insurance is absurd and foolish. It shows that YOU do not understand the viewpoint of the committment between married partners / civil union partners.

There is no comparison.
I don't see "other relatives" signing up to ensure that the legal obligations and responsibilities that are seen in "marriage" are co-adopted into their "relative" scenario, do you?

And to another end, one REAL rational end to this absurd comparison you created is to question why marriage gets to be sooooo special.
If you truly feel the way you do about "other relatives", then kindly explain why marriage gets to have over 1000 rights and privileges legally enforced, but there is no such option for "relatives".

What ignorance on your part lead you to the flawed conclusion that I didn't see the argument you were trying to make?


1) NO. For the most part, they DO NOT.
If I moved to Kansas or Montana, do you think for one second that I could make an insurance company cover my partner the same way that they are REQUIRED BY LAW to cover a married spouse?
Rhetorical question. Your thoughts are independent of reality...

Trying a different tactic (to expose exactly what you are ignorant of), name me the legal document I can create (through a lawyer) that will force an insurance company to cover my partner at the same rate that the same company covers married spouses.

2) I swear. You keep jumping up and down that others don't get your point, when the truth is that you can't comprehend what other people are telling you...
SOME states, like the oft derided California, have explicit laws which require insurance companies to treat domestic partners like they do married spouses.
That example is ONE state, on ONE issue.
You have previously and ignorantly claimed that ALL the marital benefits can be acquired by domestic partners by simply signing legal documents.
That is false.
I gave you an example of how that is false, but you missed the point.
A) Not ALL marital benefits can be achieved by two people signing legal documents.
B) In some areas, some of the legal benefits ARE FORBIDDEN to gay couples by "DOMA" laws.
C) Even if a couple has the legal documents, that STILL doesn't mean that some hospital won't choose to ignore them, like this one did.
So that makes the legal documents essentially meaningless.


Since I specified "WIFE", I'll take it you are married to your mother then?
Why does'nt that surprise me...

Without sarcasm, let's put the facts out on the table.
In this case, the WOMAN WAS DYING.
If her husband had been in the waiting room, they would have tried to allow them to see each other. PERIOD.
If you had READ the article, you would have seen that they allowed a PRIEST to visit the woman and administer last rites. In fact, they WAITED on the priest to show up.
So don't give me this idiotic crap about other rules that aren't even in the same ball-park.

Not allowing kids into a hospital room is NOT the same thing as allowing a husband to visit in circumstances that a lesbian partner is not allowed to visit during.

That is why I said, quite explicitly, that if YOU were FORBIDDEN to visit YOUR SPOUSE under the same circumstances, THAT would be analogous.


Sarcasm is wasted on those too thick to comprehend.

Tell me.
If "life is unfair" is a valid response, then can I count on you to NEVER complain if you think Christians are discriminated against? Ever again?

"life is unfair" is a stupid response to the issue of denial of basic human rights.
If a racist offered that "response" to pointing out anti-black discrimination, you would rightly think the response simple-minded and foolish.
If an anti-christian bigot offered a response of "life is unfair" to your complaints of christian discrimination, you would see that argument as turgid and pointless.

But here you are. Pretending that it somehow means something...

I agree with all of the above, and I do admit when I do not know something about a topic. As I said, I am here to learn.

Now, if your post had stopped here, you would have done a lot to rehab your image. But it didn't.

Instead, you lash out with something that no one here has claimed, and try to ascribe it to me.

Why would you do that? Are you still trying to "win" instead of learn?

I have spent time in a hospital where my wife was not allowed to stay past visiting hours.

I have also spent time in a hospital where my wife was made to feel as welcome as any legal spouse. She was permitted to stay as long as she liked, and be present when doctors were advising me.

So, obviously, I would never have made the claim you suggest.

My company's insurance covers my wife and child exactly the same as it covers an employee's opposite-sex spouse. So, again, I would never have made this claim, either.

In my opinion, if you want to be taken seriously, this would be an excellent time for an apology. But that's just my opinion.