Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
WTF are you talking about?
If you go a few pages back, I said I think hospital visitation rights should be an individual case-by-case basis and an individual's medical record should say who they want to admit, be it their lover, their favorite uncle, their platonic best friend since childhood, whomever. I'm against one-size-fits-all "It MUST only be blood or contract-signed romantic partners!" hospital visitation rights, but that has nothing to do with the ridiculously over-the-top hypothetical you suggested. I don't think anyone should just be able to visit someone in the hospital, but nor do I think there should be blanket "These are the only people who can come for everyone!" rules either.
How do you prove it? Marriage is that contract. If someone is not willing to marry, why are they willing to sign a different contract that marries them? How is that other Contract different and better?
There are times with Medical Conditions you must prove concretely you have the rights you need to demand. Blood Family can override any Contract, but, actual marriage. If you don't have Family or Spouse proven who can vouch for visitors, it's a risk to take anyone else's word for something. In my scenario, the patient has been unconscious/in a coma since before admittance. How do you tell the difference between the rapist and the real lover?
I honestly, genuinely don't know what you're talking about here.
In times of medical emergencies, the patient's medical record should specify (through setting up ahead of time with their insurance company or whatever) who they want to visit them in the hospital. That may include blood, that may include their spouse, or that may not. If a person specifies that when they're in the hospital, he or she doesn't want family (who the person hasn't talked to in 10 years) or spouse (who the person has been separated from for 3 years) to visit him or her but his or her closest friends or whoever, they should absolutely have that right. Blood and marriage should not get priority as a "one-size-fits-all" solution; who-gets-to-visit-you-in-the-hospital should be taken on an individual basis based on what the one-day-will-be-sick person wants.
I really have no idea what you're talking about in terms of contracts and the like.
Let's speak slow for the dull-witted:
"T h e n h o w d o y o u r e s o l v e d i s p u t e s ?"
You don't honestly believe there wouldn't be a large population who didn't have everyone set up in advance on their medical chart? For 20-somethings 6 months can have a lifetime of changes, Healthy folks may not visit the Doctor for 5 or more years, how often is the average person hospitalized? Your Doctor doesn't update your Hospital records, only your office visit files. You get admitted into the Emergency room, they're worried about your care, not finding out who's approved.
<Sigh> There is nothing wrong with Marriage except the exclusivity of it and Tax benefits. If you choose to make another person your other half, your should be able to bind it legally, so everyone sees you as one in your dealings, if you don't want it that's fine.
What a thoughtful contribution.
Well, since you're such a master of reading comprehension, I'm sure you will kindly point out the portions of my post you quoted that mention bigotry or prejudice, or anything talking about heterosexual marriages leading to procreation and the government promoting that. You were bringing up and arguing against issues I didn't even address.
My post was focused on the fact that there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and privileges associated with marriage in this country, that saying that same-sex couples have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples is flat out wrong, and that it's incredibly naive to suggest that government should have no role in enforcing the legal contract of marriage and regulating the benefits that result from that.
Which is not going to happen.
Thus, in practice, your position equates to maintaining the status quo of unequal treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals.
I wasn't using the quote function in that instance to argue against either of you. I was just using it as a sort of jumping off point from where the discussion was. As if to say, "hey, here's what you were writing about, here's my view."
it's the quote function, not the argue function. I wasn't using it there to argue, merely offer my opinion as part of the discussion.
Are you rich? Otherwise it's not worth my time.
I think you really misunderstood what I was trying to say so lets try and simplify it.
"When people can't speak their views no matter how wrong their thoughts are in the eyes of other people it is bad because then instead of a proper societal dialogue they will just hide these thoughts and make no mistake they won't cease to exist even if no one speaks about them in the open."
"I don't personally care about Card's views" = I don't agree with his views and thoughts (guess that really was hard to infer from it..not that i'm a native speaker of english either so that might explain it a bit..)
The point that I was trying to make was that it is better if things are talked about in the open and that a culture of open communication without prejudices or blatant dismissals of dialogue is encouraged.
Different cultures are different, equality is something that I don't think most of the world is ready to really achieve yet..I wish we were, there are a lot of things in this world that need working on (gender and sexuality wise) but to even arrive at that point there needs to be a real development in the human condition in the social platform.
What I write and say should tell you that I advocate a world where anyone can speak what is on their mind and not be condemned instantly by existing cultural restrictions(instead they should be acknowledged and offered a dialogue that comes from another point of view..and it should be a conversation and not a battle of words).
Last edited:
But you put a lean on his wages, taking 60 percent of bugger all till he dies? That shit is supervillian evil.
Although if you're taking 60 percent and his exwife is taking 60 percent... Who takes net and who takes gross? Unless you're both insistent that you take gross and Mach5 has to borrow from a loan shark %20 of his wages to dole out to you two, until you claim that any money he borrows is yet further wages you both want to cut %60 off.
Seriously, the exwife racket is very profitable but if 11 seasons of Murder She Wrote proved anything, the mortality rate is banapantscrazyballs.
Although if you're taking 60 percent and his exwife is taking 60 percent... Who takes net and who takes gross? Unless you're both insistent that you take gross and Mach5 has to borrow from a loan shark %20 of his wages to dole out to you two, until you claim that any money he borrows is yet further wages you both want to cut %60 off.
Seriously, the exwife racket is very profitable but if 11 seasons of Murder She Wrote proved anything, the mortality rate is banapantscrazyballs.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I love it when bigots hide behind stuff like "hey it's just a political opinion". I'd laugh in the face of someone trying to justify a law against whites and blacks marrying (which btw used the same word for word arguments that the anti-SSM today are using) and be like "why are you upset with me about that!??!?! It's just a political opinion!". No, tax rates are a political opinion. Even healthcare
You don't try and actively stop other groups of people from marrying each other in a way that never effects you in any real unless you're driven by something darker. OSC has said and written some UGLY things about gay people.
And now that society is moving past his bigotry, HE's asking for "tolerance".
Tt's like someone turned the lights on and roaches are scurrying away from the lights.
People really seem to have a problem facing the consequences. Nobody's throwing your bigoted ass in jail for saying hateful things. You have the freedom to be a hateful bigot (and I do say hateful when you look at the things OSC has SPECIFICALLY said about this issue).... and other people have the freedom to be disgusted by it, not buy things that benefit you, and ask others not to.
You don't try and actively stop other groups of people from marrying each other in a way that never effects you in any real unless you're driven by something darker. OSC has said and written some UGLY things about gay people.
And now that society is moving past his bigotry, HE's asking for "tolerance".
Tt's like someone turned the lights on and roaches are scurrying away from the lights.People really seem to have a problem facing the consequences. Nobody's throwing your bigoted ass in jail for saying hateful things. You have the freedom to be a hateful bigot (and I do say hateful when you look at the things OSC has SPECIFICALLY said about this issue).... and other people have the freedom to be disgusted by it, not buy things that benefit you, and ask others not to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Has he admitted that he's wrong? Convicitonlessly flipflopped his opinion to reflect the vocal majority like a good sheep?
What if Orson released a gay sex tape to counter all this bad press?
"I tried it, there were some extremely curious moments, but it's not for me right now."
What if Orson released a gay sex tape to counter all this bad press?
"I tried it, there were some extremely curious moments, but it's not for me right now."
He's a writer so he'll write a book instead, he'll watch a few films and read a couple of books for research's sake. Ender's game re-written that way.
