It proves their lives are at stake, which is what the original comment was in regards to. Lives at stake.

“They prove that hospital care is imperfect and sometimes medical professionals make mistakes.”

Like denying legal partners visitations rights? I doubt married couples routinely have this complaint. And that’s the point. Faxing over medical legal documents is cumbersome, and apparently didn’t make any difference. Which is part of our argument: Nothing short of marriage is good enough.

“The reason those two people died have nothing to do with the fact that they weren’t “married” to their homosexual partners; indeed, there is absolutely no reason to believe either of them would have fared better if they HAD been so “married.” ”

Wow, you can’t even be bothered to read what’s presented to you before you fire back. Only one person died, but the other could’ve.

“Do you really think the hospital in the second case gave the wrong meds simply b/c they wanted to spite the homosexual partner?”

No, Dick, they did so because they refused to listen to her partner or allow visitation — which could’ve been deadly under the circumstances, and that was part of my point. By refusing the allow visitation, and refusing to listen to our partners — medical professionals put our lives at risk. Just like the docs who gave the wrong medication, even after being told NOT to give her that medication, put her life at risk. If that woman had been the legally married spouse, she could’ve sued the doctor quite easily at the very least.

“They gave the meds they did b/c this is a stock response to such cases.”

NO. They gave the meds they did because they refused to acknowledge the patient’s partner, you are now LYING:

“But the hospital wouldn’t let me see Kristen and ignored my advice about her treatment. They ended up giving her the exact medication I repeatedly asked them not to give her.”

Would they have second guessed a straight spouse? Unlikely, not with medical malpractice and wrongful death suits hanging over their heads. With this case, because they’re not required to recognize the relationship, they’re allowed to ignore the only person who knows the patient’s medical history, and yes, Richard, that puts people’s lives at risk.

I find it amusing that there’s so much verbiage here about the need to distinguish the ‘respectable’ homosexuals posting here from the people running about dressed as women (and worse) at gay pride parades who inevitably get a negative reaction from mainstream America, yet at the same time there’s a constant effort to reduce everyone on the other side to Nazi thugs punching people and shooting them dead. Not very consistent, and not very honest.

Perhaps you should be less amused, Richard. You won’t find any of those observations at this site. There is no verbage about ‘respectable homosexuals’ here nor any reduction of others to Nazi thugs.

Comments that are obviously false, such as these, do not lend credibility to your arguments. Frankly, they make you seem like a ranting loon.

Right on, then. Enjoy your echo chamber.

[Few persons who comment are on moderation. Those who are (usually due to previous violations of comment policy) have to wait until their comments have been reviewed. This is done at the convenience of the moderators and may not meet the desires of those on moderation - which is a good reason not to be a troll in the first place.]

Those cases don’t prove that denying homosexual marriage kills people. They prove that hospital care is imperfect and sometimes medical professionals make mistakes. The reason those two people died have nothing to do with the fact that they weren’t “married” to their homosexual partners; indeed, there is absolutely no reason to believe either of them would have fared better if they HAD been so “married.” Do you really think the hospital in the second case gave the wrong meds simply b/c they wanted to spite the homosexual partner? They gave the meds they did b/c this is a stock response to such cases. That’s how medical professionals FREQUENTLY respond–via direct access to whatever abstract rules they know to apply, not to concrete data coming from non-medical professionals, married to the sick person or not.

Totally unconvincing.

Next I’m sure you’ll claim global warming is contributed to by the fact that homosexuals cannot marry.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/02/25/1476

So yes, people’s very lives are at stake.

Then there’s this case.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/hospital-visitation

One thing not noted in the boxturtle article, when hospitals ignore a spouse, they loose out on valuable health information that can literally kill the patient if the doctors are not aware, such as allergies and any medications they may be on.

And let me inform you of a few things you might not know:

No homosexuals are being systematically prevented from voting in whole regions of the country, so far as I can tell from the news.

Nor are they being systematically prevented from going to schools with heterosexuals, or from being judged on their job-related merits when they apply for positions and advancements.

Nor are they being systematically prevented from holding political office.

Nor are they being kept in impoverished ghettos by prejudiced social structures that ensure they will never achieve to their individual merits.

When homosexuals are facing all of those situations, let’s revisit the comparison. In the meantime, you’d do well to get off this desire to be the civil rights movement of the 1960s the second time around, because the facts don’t even REMOTELY support that claim.