Republicans Hate College Now, Apparently

[Rival]

This happens in places where same-sex marriage is illegal: a person is in the hospital and the hospital's "no visitors" policy makes an exception for close family. Often, "close family" will include a spouse but not a boyfriend or girlfriend.

On a number of occasions in the past, a head nurse or hospital administrator has used this sort of rule to keep a sick or injured person's same-sex partner from visiting ("he's your boyfriend, not your husband, so we don't have to let you in to see him").

When my father was dying of cancer, his hospital's policy let my mother stay with him around the clock because she was his wife. If some hospital staff member had kicked her out, this would have hurt her deeply. By opposing same-sex marriage, you're - among other things - saying that people in positions of power should have the ability to hurt same-sex couples in the sort of circumstances that my parents were in.

That's just one example. You're also saying that someone shouldn't be able to sponsor her same-sex foreign spouse for immigration purposes... IOW, that the people in that couple should be forced to live alone.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage is harmful - and IMO hateful - in many ways. For the most part, it means kicking people when they're down... hurting them when they're at their most vulnerable.

You are just making assumptions. I had no idea hospitals did this and I wouldn't support such a practice. I certainly can't say it's something I've ever experienced in a hospital. Also no, one shouldn't be allowed to marry just so that person can immigrate. That person should use the proper channels and be vetted.

 

[Rival]

Could be. In my experience, "friends" vanish the moment you mention you aren't a Christian anymore, they cast you aside, shun, and will even say you are demonically possessed. Don't have god in your life? There must surely be something wrong with you and there is no way you can be a moral person or having meaning and purpose in life.

Most people I meet in the UK are liberal atheists.

 

[Quetzal]

But winning is very very expensive.

Off topic question, wouldn't winning offset the legal costs?

 

[Nous]

Well, there is this survey....
Honesty/Ethics in Professions

That isn't evidence that lawyers are as a group any more criminal than engineers.

But it stands to reason, if the 'justice' system allows & even incentivizes fraud,
extortion, theft, & dishonesty. . .

Your premise is false. It doesn't stand to reason that the justice system allows or incentivizes fraud, extortion, theft or dishonesty. The laws criminalizing these acts are enforced against lawyers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are just making assumptions. I had no idea hospitals did this and I wouldn't support such a practice. I certainly can't say it's something I've ever experienced in a hospital.

If you weren't aware of the full ramifications of your position, then that might help to explain when people have negative reactions that you don't understand.

Another exercise that might be helpful:

- find out what rights and benefits come with marriage.
- consider the situations when those rights and benefits would be important.
- imagine what would happen to a couple or their family if those rights or benefits weren't there when needed.

Also no, one shouldn't be allowed to marry just so that person can immigrate. That person should use the proper channels and be vetted.

What did you say about making assumptions? I didn't say anything about marriages of convenience for immigration.

Sponsorship of a spouse *is* using the proper channels.

Here's an example of what I'm describing:

A Brit moves to Canada, builds a life, marries a Canadian, and has some kids (with dual citizenship, thanks to their British-born parent). Later, they decided to move to the UK (the British grandparents want to see their grandkids more often, say).

The way this would normally work is that the British spouse sponsors the Canadian spouse and they all move to the UK as a family.

However, if the British government doesn't recognize the marriage, then the Canadian would have to immigrate as an unsponsored individual, which could take years... or possibly never happen. In this scenario, if the government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and the couple is a same-sex couple, then either:

- the British grandparents have to go without seeing their grandkids in person, except for holidays, or
- the British-Canadian kids have to go without their second parent the majority of the time for years.

Hopefully at this point, you can see how what you're advocating breaks up families. I trust you can understand how people who have strong feelings about families would have strong negative feelings toward your position (and you, potentially).

 

[Rival]

If you weren't aware of the full ramifications of your position, then that might help to explain when people have negative reactions that you don't understand.

Another exercise that might be helpful:

- find out what rights and benefits come with marriage.
- consider the situations when those rights and benefits would be important.
- imagine what would happen to a couple or their family if those rights or benefits weren't there when needed.

Yes, hetero couples are more privileged than gay ones. This doesn't bother me. I see being gay a a cross to bear and an unfortunate circumstance. I'm against the normalising of homosexuality and I am going to do whatever I can to that end.

A Brit moves to Canada, builds a life, marries a Canadian, and has some kids (with dual citizenship, thanks to their British-born parent). Later, they decided to move to the UK (the British grandparents want to see their grandkids more often, say).

The way this would normally work is that the British spouse sponsors the Canadian spouse and they all move to the UK as a family.

However, if the British government doesn't recognize the marriage, then the Canadian would have to immigrate as an unsponsored individual, which could take years... or possibly never happen. In this scenario, if the government doesn't recognize same-sex marriage and the couple is a same-sex couple, then either:

- the British grandparents have to go without seeing their grandkids in person, except for holidays, or
- the British-Canadian kids have to go without their second parent the majority of the time for years.

Hopefully at this point, you can see how what you're advocating breaks up families. I trust you can understand how people who have strong feelings about families would have strong negative feelings toward your position (and you, potentially).

What does it mean to 'sponsor' though? The non-British spouse still should be vetted.

 

[metis]

Yes, hetero couples are more privileged than gay ones.

So, you believe that God made hetero's to be more privileged than gays? So, God must have lost part of the formula to make us "in His image" when it came to His making of gays?

BTW, just for the record, I'm a hetero.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, hetero couples are more privileged than gay ones. This doesn't bother me. I see being gay a a cross to bear and an unfortunate circumstance. I'm against the normalising of homosexuality and I am going to do whatever I can to that end.

So like I said: you're trying to hurt people. Those people won't like that, so expect a negative reaction.

You may be comfortable with what you're doing, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone else be comfortable with it, too.

What does it mean to 'sponsor' though? The non-British spouse still should be vetted.

An immigrant's sponsor is the person who promises to take care of the immigrant in their new country until they can become established. For non-refugees, there are generally restrictions on who can sponsor an immigrant: typically, a person can sponsor their spouse, but not their boyfriend/girlfriend.

This is separate from the security screening an immigrant would have to go through.

 

[Rival]

So, you believe that God made hetero's to be more privileged than gays? So, God must have lost part of the formula to make us "in His image" when it came to His making of gays?

BTW, just for the record, I'm a hetero.

As far as I'm aware, according to a theory, gay people are nature's/G-d's/whatever's way of controlling population. Sounds reasonable to me. Heteros have plenty of issues too.

 

[LuisDantas]

I ask again: How is your anti-lawyer passion any different than the racist's biogtry?

For one thing, people are not born lawyers nor judges...

The hypothetical individual in your previous post who was unfairly penalized.

That person being...?

 

[Quetzal]

That person being...?

The waters are muddled and we are quite off topic. I think we agree on more than I originally thought.

 

[metis]

As far as I'm aware, according to a theory, gay people are nature's/G-d's/whatever's way of controlling population. Sounds reasonable to me.

OK, so God supposedly made many people that would defy His order to "go forth and multiply"? Doesn't that strike you as being at least a tad fishy?

 

[Rival]

OK, so God supposedly made many people that would defy His order to "go forth and multiply"? Doesn't that strike you as being at least a tad fishy?

No. You can't be expected to multiply if you cannot.

 

[LuisDantas]

The waters are muddled and we are quite off topic. I think we agree on more than I originally thought.

While I agree on all counts, please allow me to point out that IMO any judicial system ends up managing if not creating some measure of unfair decisions, and I think that such a real fact ought to be considered when deciding how much effort and time to invest on said system.

I am all for avoiding those unfair decisions. But I see no realistic way to do that does not involve avoiding the recourse to the system itself.

 

[Nous]

For one thing, people are not born lawyers nor judges...

Regardless, the irrationality of your animus is no different than that of the racist.

 

[esmith]

The only reason that anyone is talking about Trump today is because of the effed-up electoral method of electing the President in the US. It it weren't for that, Clinton would be President.

and if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's *** when it hopped.

 

[Milton Platt]

Could someone explain this to me?

"As recently as two years ago, most Republicans and Republican leaners held a positive view of the role of colleges and universities. In September 2015, 54% of Republicans said colleges and universities had a positive impact on the way things were going in the country; 37% rated their impact negatively.

By 2016, Republicans’ ratings of colleges and universities were mixed (43% positive, 45% negative). Today, for the first time on a question asked since 2010, a majority (58%) of Republicans say colleges and universities are having a negative effect on the way things are going in the country, while 36% say they have a positive effect."
From - Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions​

I just... I can't comprehend how anyone could possibly see colleges and universities as a negative thing. Halp! Someone explain this to me!

You will note that Republican candidates tend to do much better with less educated populations.

 

[esmith]

You will note that Republican candidates tend to do much better with less educated populations.

You do realize that in many cases "book learning" is not all that is needed to survive in this world. There is something that sometimes far outweighs "education" and that is common sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Regardless, the irrationality of your animus is no different than that of the racist.

I would be offended if I thought you gave it any consideration.

 

[Nous]

I would be offended if I thought you gave it any consideration.

What do you claim is rational about your animus toward lawyers? You haven't articulated any rational reason for your hostility toward lawyers.