tdaxp

Eh? And you actually applaud that? This is shameful. It cannot in anyway be right to deny a person medical assistance because of their sexual orientation. Homosexuals are no less human than you are I. I don't think this law follows in Christ's example.

Posted by: Elwhor | Wednesday, March 30, 2005

I'm saddened that you support state power over personal liberty.

I don't remember Christ using the power of the state to compel fellowship. I don't remember Christ using the power of the state to enable the destruction of lives (as homosexuality destroys lives).

Last, as I blogged previously, there are no homosexuals in the Bible because homosexuality is a modern affliction. There are no pre-Modern records of it. And it hardly seems Christian to enable a mental illness that does not have to be!

Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, March 30, 2005

I guess "first, do no harm" doesn't mean "allow harm to pass."

This is disgusting. We don't deny treatment to people with other mental illness. If that's how you're choosing to define homosexuality, then I can play like that too.

Let's quit treating schizophrenics or manic depressives or Republicans. Surely we can wean these mental deficiencies from the gene pool through selective breeding and by allowing nature to run its course.

Except if you kill off all the mentally disabled, there'll still be new ones. And if you killed off all the gays, there'd still be new ones.

Again, this is disgusting.

Posted by: aaron | Wednesday, March 30, 2005

You are right that the prime concern is "Do no harm." You are also right that this prohibits causing harm in order to bring out a greater good, and that inaction is sometimes better than action.

The medical profession has a long history of containing contagions. This also extends to social contagions. A doctor who is treating a sexually abused child will move to limit this behavior by contacting authorities. In this way society limits the presumed harm of pedophilia. Beyond the concern for the individual child, another reason is that tolerating pedophilia anywhere may encourage it everywhere.

Certainly the statistical harm of homosexuality is worse than the statistical harm of pedophilia. Both are social contagions. Why not allow doctors to use their individual judgements in determining the appropriate course?

Consenting adults are given freedom to enter and leave relationships as they see fit. Why does this consential freedom not extent to doctors?

The "killing" paragraph is specious and, yes, disgusting.

Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Why does this consential freedom not extent to doctors?

Because doctors take the Hippocratic oath when they are licensed. The goal of their profession is to heal the sick. Jesus might as well have sent sinners away instead of forgiving and healing them. The policy you seemingly applaud divides people. It promotes and permits prejudice. Will you rejoice if homosexuals die because they cannot get access to medical assitance?

Imagine it this way: would you be supportive if society became totally godless and passed laws permitting doctors to refuse treatment to Christians? Would you defend a doctor's right to abdicate their licensed responsibility? If a muslim doctor has a moral problem treating a Christian brother how would you react?

If a doctor loses interest in looking after the sick he doesn't have to. But to discriminate against one group of people is totally unrighteous.

Please sir, don't work to divide people. You have every right to object to people's lifestyle as they have a right to object to yours. But we all have equal rights to exist.

Posted by: Elwhor | Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Of course I will support that Muslim doctor's right. And no need for so startling of examples. It was not that long ago that Shriner Hospitals refused to take Catholic patients. That was crumy of them. It was also their right.

The paragraph on losing interest is interesting. It is almost the reverse for lawyers. They may freely choose their clients, but once they are in a client relationship it may be hard for them to back out. That's because the bond, once formed, must be in the client's interest.

Everyone has an equal right to exist. Just as everyone has freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and right to their person and property.

Vertical controls, like the current Michigan law, are dangerous. Besides being a form of tyranny, they severe horizontal bonds. They replace civil society with government diktat.

Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, March 30, 2005

There is no need to argue the point since perversion is NOT assumed to be a natural and healthy thing by most sane people.

We also have freedom of association.
If someone has a policy that some don't like, they can simply not go there.
If it is a truly publicly offensive policy, he will suffer.
If not, he won't - nor will his customers from having PC shoved in their faces wherever they go.

Besides, this is at least honest.
Those of moral conviction tell their reasons up front.
Their holier-than-thou critics however, employ a blatant double standard.
Just ask anyone to the right of Moore or Chomsky in showbiz, media, or education.
They consider ostracizing, defaming, and discriminating against conservatives not only a right, but a duty.

To add insult to injury, they employ the same double standard in regards to race - but with even more arrogance and vitriol.
"Racial pride" in a minority is "hatred" in a caucasian.
Ethnocentric agendas, racial hiring quotas, racial political "caucuses", racial voting blocs, and even minority nazi movements (i.e. Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, Mecha and LaRaza) are the norm while conservatives are called racists.

Not too suprising from the Party that fought to keep slavery and segregation intact, but still quite absurd.

Posted by: Rightwingmac | Thursday, March 31, 2005

Whether or not homosexuality is seen as natural or healthy should hardly affect the rights of homosexuals. America is a free country, and that includes freedom from legislation by popular biases. Additionally, someone concerned about "natural" lifestyles should realize that the stronger the laws, the weaker the culture. If you beef up vertical (governmental) controls you weaken horizontal (voluntary) controls.

Advocates of racial specialness ("racism") are clearly dangerous. Racism is not a natural belief -- it did not exist before a few centuries ago. It is a revolutionary and caustic ideology that fortunately is dying away.

It is very unfair to tar the Party of Jackson with the legacy of slavery. I know of no prominent Democrats who advocate that position.

Posted by: Dan | Thursday, March 31, 2005