Opposition to same sex marriage ruling

[msop04]

But msop04, there was harm because a group of our citizens were being denied basic civil rights, not to mention the benefits of spouses under state and federal laws. Homestead rights, marital deduction inheritance under the federal tax code, spousal rollovers for IRA inheritance, tenants by the entireties creditor protection... I mean I could go on and on. Not to mention basically being made to feel like a second class citizen.

Kenny compared the denial of same sex marriage to Nazi gas chambers. That's HARM.

Do I think it's right?? NO. As I've said, I couldn't care less, as it doesn't affect me in any way and others can be happy to reap the benefits that straight people have been given for years. But it's not physical harm -- it's not imprisonment or being gassed.

 

[msop04]

This discussion is pointless unless you can give an example of how someone's religious beliefs are restricting your civil liberties.

Uhm, Hello!:
Anyone home?

Elephant in the room ... gay marriage bans.

Newsflash, Kenny!!! Gay marriage bans were overturned last week!!!!!

...needs something else to gripe about. Wait for it...

 

[kenny]

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Now, I'm assuming you're joking??

No, I'm not.
I'm dead serious.

Someone can't say they believe in human rights if they oppose marriage equality.

But then it would not surprise me if they've been taught all their lives that gays and lesbians are not human.

Then they can say they support human rights since all true humans are straight.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Excuse me?!

I have reported your post. Apparently people cannot even have a civil discussion on this site.

I might have explained my support for civil rights for ALL including gays, but you just don't deserve it after making a post like that.

 

[kenny]

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Excuse me?!

I have reported your post. Apparently people cannot even have a civil discussion on this site.

Your post is WAY more offensive than mine ... claiming to support human rights while denying them.
It's high time someone had the balls to hold up a mirror to you.

 

[msop04]

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Now, I'm assuming you're joking??

No, I'm not.
I'm dead serious.

Someone can't say they believe in human rights if they oppose marriage equality.
But then it would not surprise me if your organizations teach that gays and lesbians are not human.

Then they can say they support human rights since all true humans are straight.

Did you just say that only straight folks are human?? WHHAAAAATTT???!!! Come on now, Kenny! Let's get with it...

:: le sigh :: Bless your heart! (I'm Southern, so I can say that with sincerity...)

 

[msop04]

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Excuse me?!

I have reported your post. Apparently people cannot even have a civil discussion on this site.

Your post is WAY more offensive than mine ... claiming to support human rights while denying them.
It's high time someone had the balls to hold up a mirror to you.

Oh my...

Pot, meet kettle... and such as that.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Not to mention I never said what Kenny accuses me of.

 

[Matata]

Kenny compared the denial of same sex marriage to Nazi gas chambers. That's HARM.

Do I think it's right?? NO. As I've said, I couldn't care less, as it doesn't affect me in any way and others can be happy to reap the benefits that straight people have been given for years. But it's not physical harm -- it's not imprisonment or being gassed.

While I concede that the numbers of LGBT persons in the US who have been killed because they are LGBT is nowhere equal to the numbers killed by the Nazis, the number of LGBT persons murdered in the US has markedly increased beginning in the 1990s through today. So there is validity to the point Kenny was trying to make. The Nazis extermination plan was focused on the mentally ill, physically handicapped, and gay/lesbian before they widened their net to include the Jewish population. LGBT population has suffered physical, emotional, financial harm in this country because they were/are seen as less than.

 

[iLander]

Imdanny used the word legitimate; legitimate prescription.

He said it in the context of this thread, which centers on the refusal to provide services due to religious or personal beliefs.

That's what I based my response on.

Your friend had issues with what he felt were not legitimate prescriptions, which is an entirely different situation. By doing so, you're projecting your friend's experience onto imdanny, almost implying that his prescriptions are not legitimate. ETA not sure you realized you were doing that?

I love you iLander. You understand me.

Of course! Hugs, to you, my friend.

 

[chrono]

Please chill. This thread is too important to be shut down.

 

[iLander]

I have been prescribed controlled substances a couple times in my life and those drugs are a blessing when you have a legit need.
But drug abuse can lead to crime and other social problems.

I, for one, am glad that pharmacists are part of the chain that ensures good medicine by scrutinizing prescriptions, and not just order-fillers.

They are not qualified to diagnos. I don't think you are aware of the questions they ask in their internal routine investigations. I'll give you the article I found sometime. They ask questions they could not possibly answer. Then if the person filling out the form with subjective ignorant answers refuse the prescription he or she files a report on the person with the DEA. This happened to a woman who had been going to the same doctor and the same pharmacy with same prescription for eight years. How on earth does a pharmacist understand a patient's private medical record. How on earth can that pharmacist have presumed to know anything about that patient's medical record? How on earth did said pharmacist know better than that patient's DEA listened doctor. You don't need pain or anxiety medication on a regular basis. You might be singing a different tune if you couldn't get a legitimate prescription filled because a corporation's unqualified employee up and decided one day that he or she knew better than your doctor.

Did it ever occur to you that there may be a reason said pharmacist stopped filling this pt's meds "all of a sudden?" As far as understanding a patient's medical records, I don't even know where to begin to answer. Rx records are a huge part of a patient's medical record. It's not difficult to look at a pt's rx history and have a pretty good idea of what's going on there, medically speaking. We are also not totally ignorant of the patient's other scripts filled at other pharmacies, like in the past. Each state has a controlled substance database that is accessible to ALL medical professionals that have a license in good standing and have registered with said state. Although we don't diagnose (however, this may change soon in some states), a huge part of our schooling is dedicated to diagnosis, as well as treatment. (never really knew why it was necessary for me to be able to read an EKG, but I was sure required to know how...)

We take an entire 3 semester of classes solely based in therapeutics (that's about 15-18 hours of studies FOR EACH CLASS, totaling about 50 hours -- depending on pharmacy school). Our last year is spent in residencies doing nothing but diagnosing and developing treatment therapies. I don't wanna diagnose -- it's not something that intrigues me. I don't want added liability and/or responsibility... I have enough now. I wish we could just fill and not question so much, but that isn't an option anymore. We don't make the rules, but we are required to follow them.

There isn't a wall between pharmacists and physicians/other health care professionals, and the pt's record isn't private in the sense that other medical professions don't/can't have access to it. We form a team in health care. We discuss pertinent issues regarding our patients on a regular basis. This is important for all involved. It's not a matter of "knowing better" as much as it's a matter of pt care and abiding by the law. The DEA and state pharmacy boards are stricter than ever, no doubt about it -- and are becoming increasingly so each year... There is a set of checks and balances, and we must abide by those to the letter. Pharmacists aren't the only ones feeling the pinch of stricter rules... physicians/dentists/etc. are being monitored as well.

It seems your perception of what is required to be a pharmacist may be lacking and somewhat "old school"... and that's okay, as you're not the only one. We, as a profession, have to work each day to help the general public understand that we don't just "lick & stick"... We aren't little monkeys in white coats trained to count by fives and run a cash register. We fill in good faith, but are in no way required to fill anything if it is questionable by the laws of our federal and state boards, much less threaten our licenses.

If you are so concerned about pharmacists and pharmacy protocol, maybe you should start your own thread about that.

 

[iLander]

Please chill. This thread is too important to be shut down.

I agree, Chrono. But some of the comments are just so

 

[liaerfbv]

I believe in human rights just like anyone else, for the record.

No you don't.
You oppose marriage equality for gays.

Excuse me?!

I have reported your post. Apparently people cannot even have a civil discussion on this site.

Your post is WAY more offensive than mine ... claiming to support human rights while denying them.
It's high time someone had the balls to hold up a mirror to you.

I do think there's a difference between human rights and civil rights in the US. I felt we were all having a civil discussion about differing beliefs. Please let's try to resolve this so we can continue.

Edited for typos.

 

[kenny]

Kenny compared the denial of same sex marriage to Nazi gas chambers.

Wrong ...

Here's my post.
Notice the part in bold.

"No.
It's not that simple.

I hate Nazis and Hitler not because their views are wrong (though they are), but because of what they did.
Yes, people get to think/believe whatever they want, but they don't get to put their thoughts/beliefs into action to harm others, be it in a gas chamber or a voting booth.

Obviously I'm not equating opposition to marriage equality with murdering 6 million innocent people.
But the extreme example makes it easier to see the flaws of respecting anyone's views.

People denying civil rights to others should NOT be tolerated, and considered simply a different and morally-equal perspective.
It's wrong, as our highest court has ruled."

 

[msop04]

If you are so concerned about pharmacists and pharmacy protocol, maybe you should start your own thread about that.

I'm not concerned, as I know what I speak of regarding that topic... I'm trying to make people have a better understanding before crucifying those in the medical profession (specifically mine). That is all.

 

[msop04]

Kenny compared the denial of same sex marriage to Nazi gas chambers.

Wrong ...

Here's my post.
Notice the part in bold.

"No.
It's not that simple.

I hate Nazis and Hitler not because their views are wrong (though they are), but because of what they did.
Yes, people get to think/believe whatever they want, but they don't get to put their thoughts/beliefs into action to harm others, be it in a gas chamber or a voting booth.

Obviously I'm not equating opposition to marriage equality with murdering 6 million innocent people.
But the extreme example makes it easier to see the flaws of respecting anyone's views.

People denying civil rights to others should NOT be tolerated, and considered simply a different and morally-equal perspective.
It's wrong, as our highest court has ruled."

I'm still trying to figure out what your b!tching about now, Kenny... Like you said, our highest court has ruled -- IN YOUR FAVOR.
What is it going to take to make you happy... or even content?? I'm guessing you'll always have a huge chip on your shoulder, which is sad for you. I wish you the best, but I fear even that will not be sufficient.

 

[kenny]

Diamondseeker 2006 I want to apologize.
I reread this thread and I made assumptions.

Technically you're right when you say you didn't say what I accused you of saying.

I'm sorry.

 

[kenny]

Kenny compared the denial of same sex marriage to Nazi gas chambers.

Wrong ...

Here's my post.
Notice the part in bold.

"No.
It's not that simple.

I hate Nazis and Hitler not because their views are wrong (though they are), but because of what they did.
Yes, people get to think/believe whatever they want, but they don't get to put their thoughts/beliefs into action to harm others, be it in a gas chamber or a voting booth.

Obviously I'm not equating opposition to marriage equality with murdering 6 million innocent people.
But the extreme example makes it easier to see the flaws of respecting anyone's views.

People denying civil rights to others should NOT be tolerated, and considered simply a different and morally-equal perspective.
It's wrong, as our highest court has ruled."

I'm still trying to figure out what your b!tching about now, Kenny... Like you said, our highest court has ruled -- IN YOUR FAVOR.
What is it going to take to make you happy... or even content?? I'm guessing you'll always have a huge chip on your shoulder, which is sad for you. I wish you the best, but I fear even that will not be sufficient.

I'm bitching about the widespread belief of the view which was posted in this thread:
"Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)"

There is a pervasive, but incorrect, idea that all beliefs are equally okay.
They're not.
Beliefs are not okay when they lead to actions that harm others.

There is an everyone-gets-an-award PC-brainwashing thing going on in our society.

Some things are more honorable and moral than others.
IMO it is moral to tolerate diversity and call out anti-diversity.

 

[iLander]

Kenny, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think . . .

 

[kenny]

Kenny, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think . . .

But I CAN make the horses more thirsty.

 

[msop04]

I'm bitching about the widespread belief of the view which was posted in this thread:
"Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)"

There is a pervasive, but incorrect, idea that all beliefs are equally okay.
They're not.
Beliefs are not okay when they lead to actions that harm others.


There is an everyone-gets-an-award PC-brainwashing thing going on in our society.

Okay... but what if someone thinks the way YOU believe isn't okay. You say that everyone should be seen as equal by the eyes of the law, but yet you say all beliefs aren't equally okay? Where does that leave anyone who has any specific beliefs at all?? Who is right and who is wrong?? See how that works?? Belief systems are very complex. They are personal.

What you have been saying is that if someone believes differently from you, then it isn't acceptable. I really think I agree with about 90% of what you're saying most of the time, but just try to take the focus off of yourself and your beliefs -- it's hard, but it really does go both ways.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Kenny compared the denial of same sex marriage to Nazi gas chambers.

Wrong ...

Here's my post.
Notice the part in bold.

"No.
It's not that simple.

I hate Nazis and Hitler not because their views are wrong (though they are), but because of what they did.
Yes, people get to think/believe whatever they want, but they don't get to put their thoughts/beliefs into action to harm others, be it in a gas chamber or a voting booth.

Obviously I'm not equating opposition to marriage equality with murdering 6 million innocent people.
But the extreme example makes it easier to see the flaws of respecting anyone's views.

People denying civil rights to others should NOT be tolerated, and considered simply a different and morally-equal perspective.
It's wrong, as our highest court has ruled."

I'm still trying to figure out what your b!tching about now, Kenny... Like you said, our highest court has ruled -- IN YOUR FAVOR.
What is it going to take to make you happy... or even content?? I'm guessing you'll always have a huge chip on your shoulder, which is sad for you. I wish you the best, but I fear even that will not be sufficient.

msop04, I do not insert myself into arguments often, but it just seems as you are coming from a place of huge privilege to say that.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Diamondseeker 2006 I want to apologize.
I reread this thread and I made assumptions.

Technically you're right when you say you didn't say what I accused you of saying.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Kenny. I was very upset that you said that because I thought I made clear in my first post that in regard to civil rights, I support them being extended to everyone.

I am sad that people cannot have a civil discussion unless everyone agrees on every single thing, however.

 

[iLander]

If you are so concerned about pharmacists and pharmacy protocol, maybe you should start your own thread about that.

I'm not concerned, as I know what I speak of regarding that topic... I'm trying to make people have a better understanding before crucifying those in the medical profession (specifically mine). That is all.

Since you are not getting the polite implication I am trying to make, I will be more explicit; your long, LONG posts are a thread jack. I will not post further, because I will return to the subject of this thread.

 

[iLander]

Kenny, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think . . .

But I CAN make the horses more thirsty.

Nah . . . they'll just drown themselves.

 

[msop04]

If you are so concerned about pharmacists and pharmacy protocol, maybe you should start your own thread about that.

I'm not concerned, as I know what I speak of regarding that topic... I'm trying to make people have a better understanding before crucifying those in the medical profession (specifically mine). That is all.

Since you are not getting the polite implication I am trying to make, I will be more explicit; your long, LONG posts are a thread jack. I will not post further, because I will return to the subject of this thread.

I know they were a threadjack, and I apologized for that... I got very long-winded, as I am quite passionate about it. I'm sure you've never done the same.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If you are so concerned about pharmacists and pharmacy protocol, maybe you should start your own thread about that.

I'm not concerned, as I know what I speak of regarding that topic... I'm trying to make people have a better understanding before crucifying those in the medical profession (specifically mine). That is all.

Since you are not getting the polite implication I am trying to make, I will be more explicit; your long, LONG posts are a thread jack. I will not post further, because I will return to the subject of this thread.

She didn't even start that discussion on pharmacists! Why gang up on her? Just skip her posts.

 

[kenny]

I'm bitching about the widespread belief of the view which was posted in this thread:
"Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)"

There is a pervasive, but incorrect, idea that all beliefs are equally okay.
They're not.
Beliefs are not okay when they lead to actions that harm others.


There is an everyone-gets-an-award PC-brainwashing thing going on in our society.

Okay... but what if someone thinks the way YOU believe isn't okay. You say that everyone should be seen as equal by the eyes of the law, but yet you say all beliefs aren't equally okay? Where does that leave anyone who has any specific beliefs at all?? Who is right and who is wrong?? See how that works?? Belief systems are very complex. They are personal.

What you have been saying is that if someone believes differently from you, then it isn't acceptable. I really think I agree with about 90% of what you're saying most of the time, but just try to take the focus off of yourself and your beliefs -- it's hard, but it really does go both ways.

Repeat, beliefs that lead to harm to others are the wrong ones ... whether it is I who hold them or others.
(How many times do I have to repeat this?)

If you oppose gay marriage, then don't do it.
If you oppose eating pork, then don't do it.

Others eating pork or gay-marrying doesn't harm you and is frankly none of your beeswax.

 

[kenny]

Diamondseeker 2006 I want to apologize.
I reread this thread and I made assumptions.

Technically you're right when you say you didn't say what I accused you of saying.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Kenny. I was very upset that you said that because I thought I made clear in my first post that in regard to civil rights, I support them being extended to everyone.

I am sad that people cannot have a civil discussion unless everyone agrees on every single thing, however.

I'm sorry I upset you.
Many people feel very strongly about this topic and emotions are amplified.