It is the case that any adult can draw up a health care proxy document (sample forms available free on the 'net; no need for 'enough money for legal fees') and name whomever they wish as their medical decisions proxy should they be incapacitated. These documents are honored by medical personnel. Anyone can be named - your neighbor, your friend, your partner. The 'google' reference is simply wrong, unless filling in a couple of names on a form is regarded as exceptionally 'difficult'.

I question many of the other 'difficult of impossible' items on that list, too. Joint adoption? It's been happening. Name change? Anyone can change his or her name for any reason. The list has been compiled by people who have a clear bias, and it isn't entirely accurate.

The other thing I question is the bizarre wholesale feeding frenzy taking place on a forum member who a) disagrees with those who happen to be frequenting the thread and b) has the temerity to say so. So he makes an argument you don't like or agree with. Isn't this a discussion forum? Or is it really just a mutual admiration society where no one is allowed to disagree? I was told this was an interesting place full of different opinions and ideas, but what I see is a single, very narrow perspective on politics, morality, ethical issues, and religion. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the prevailing point of view is personally attacked, insulted directly and by insinuation, and driven away (proudly) by the very angry regulars.

If disagreement on an ethical or political issue makes you foam at the mouth, shouldn't you question yourself? Or is forced groupthink the true agenda? Or is this just a forum for returning to the schoolyard - oh, wait - some members did that explicitly, didn't they? Some of the same members who also have imperfect spelling?

I just moved back from Canada, where there was and continues to be a lot of discussion about gay marriage. There was some very good debate, and people who disagreed could agree to disagree. I thought that might be the case here.

I can see that most frequent posters regard themselves as extremely broad-minded and tolerant. But if only one opinion is tolerated, that's about as provincial as it gets. Why isn't anyone here permitted to disagree with changing the definition of marriage? (Some black leaders and black groups have gone on record against gay marriage, and against the idea that it's a civil right. Why not discuss why they took that position?) Why don't we question the existence of 'diversity' and 'tolerance' programs? Aren't they an artificial imposition of someone's principles on everyone else? Does anyone here feel nervous about being 'reeducated' until our views match the prescribed politically correct one?

I don't want to debate any of these topics here, because instead of logical discussion/argument there will only be ad hominem attacks and spurious accusations. From here on I think I'll just lurk on the borders of Orwell-land.

So wait, we can discuss gay marriage, but if someone disagrees with us we arent allowed to discuss it with THEM? Okay, some people ARE attacking him, but as far as I can tell, the majority of posters are simply arguing and discussing the fact that his position is unacceptably discriminatory and homophobic.

I haven't attacked the poster in any way, but 9th continually ignores my posts. The only ones he seems to address are the ones which he finds insulting.

WTF with this permission to disagree crap? Most posters are asking 9th to defend his viewpoint, not demanding that he not state it or even that he change it. Nobody has demanded that he leave and I would expect that if polled, 100% would demand that he stay.

There are plenty of minority viewpoints here and being a long-termer means you've lived through having the minority view a couple of times. It's hard, you're actually asked to defend yourself. And if you can't defend yourself, people don't take you seriously. (While if you do, even those that disagree will respect you.)

Now, I will say that at this point, I don't respect 9th, or at least his views on this because I find being a homophobe to be on par with being in the KKK or being a neo-nazi.

I can live with any interpretation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the comparison to the KKK or neo-nazi's holds any water at all. Both of those groups advocate violence against their target groups, I haven't done anything of the sort. I choose not to overlay homosexuality with nonscientific information, but to look at it as what it most likely is, a genetic permutation in some part of the genes controlling phermone or other chemical receptors. I make no connection between that chemical shift and the person as a whole, and have no malice toward homosexual individuals.

I often don't respond to posts I don't agree with because I first spend my time responding to ones where I have a different opinion to offer. I generally don't bother to simply post an agreement, although I may make a point to from time to time now. Ali, the only time you posted anything that someone could respond to in this thread was that last post right before my massive one which was dedicated to as complete of an explanation of my view as I could fit in there.
If there was someone else arguing my point as well I'd probably be able to respond to more people directly, but as it is I'd have to spend way more time then I have right now on just this thread.

I just don't see how you can advocate discrimination against people based soley on their gender, ESPECIALLY based on their gender in relation to anybody elses. To me, that is simply, completely, utterly, and wholly wrong.

Well then, if you only have limited time to respond, I personally vote that you respond to my post. ;)

How am I discriminating based on gender?? I really don't think homosexuality is the case of a woman's mind being born into a man's body (or the other way round), but even if it was it still wouldn't be gender discrimination. You are basing your argument on the idea that the legal bond of marriage is based on love, I don't believe that. A gay man can marry a woman even if he doesn't love her (I'd take your side completely if someone suggested making sure gay men couldn't sire children), but you say that because he loves another man that he should be granted the extra right of marrying him instead. That's a big point of disagreement between us and unfortunatly I don't think that's going to change.:neutral:

So you're saying it's an ''extra" right for people to marry someone they love rather than just getting married to anyone?

I don't understand your argument.

What youre saying is sexist, at the essence of the term, because it says that we can decide who can do what with who based on gender.

That, boys and girls, is discrimination, plain and simple.

:haha: Ah, this is why you and I will probably NEVER see eye to eye on things Ali, you just posted exactly what I think and then proceded to say you don't understand it at all. I'm not comfortable with love taking a place in legality, we can't even figure out what the damn thing is but we'll legislate based on it? Besides, just look at what you said, 'the right to marry someone you love', you think that would make any sense in the constitution??

For someone so young you seem very cynical 9th.

So you think no one should get married then? Or people should only get married to 'benefit' one another in a financial sense? What?

I think Ali's point is that you're calling it an EXTRA right to be able to marry someone.

EDIT: or maybe not, but its MY point, thats for sure.

There are lots of married people on this site who're conservative or liberal, and I doubt any of them considered it an 'extra' right to marry the one they love instead of someone who might have been more 'suitable' for whatever reason there could be.