Nevada Hospital Denies Gay Couple Visitation As Partner Has Pregnancy Complications

...ok, you peaked my interest, go ahead and give me your definition...I'm sure in your mind, someone on welfare would be an evolutionary marvel and proof of survival of the fittest...


Kabuki Joe

 

Because I've actually read the 14th amendment. Obviously you haven't.

LOL Laws against pedos from marrying. Wow am I going to have to spell out everything obvious to you?

Its not there. Homosexuality or sexual preference is never listed, spelled out or described anywhere in the 14th amendment. OF course its about expanding it since the wording isn't there. How can you be this clueless about the subject?

LOL You don't worry me in the slightest based on your pathetic track record on this topic.

IT was originally designed for a specific purpose. To provide blacks with the ability to be citizens. Its also been used for racial and gender discrimination.

Now what.

You really have trouble reading don't you. Your criteria for denying them doesn't exist in the equal protection phrase he used to justify gay marriage. I suggest you read more carefully next time.

I understand its easier for you to fabricate requierements that don't exist but don't think for a second I wont catch you doing it

 

Only a consenting adult may enter a legally-binding contract. Keep trying. This is getting fun!

 

Your perfect ignorance of basic constitutional principles is perfectly astounding.

 

the definition of marriage, runs headfirst against the term gay. Didnt think you'd need it spelled out for you. yes I know it exists, so does military intelligence, full grown midgets and jumbo shrimp. All Oxymorons themselves.

I'm aware.

And you are not entitled to watch people pass on marriage because they dont like what it is...and pretend someone is denying them their "rights". Those "rights" are available to any man and Woman in the USA. Dont like that criteria? Wish it was something else?too bad, doesnt make it discrimination, and doesnt turn it into someone denying you anything. The rights are there for you to take at any time.

 

And this is Social Engineering that you seem ok with. it's puzzling to me after the stances against it that you took prior, but it's the same thing. Our society has deemed a certain age to be acceptible for this in our culture. Other nations may (and do) differ, so it's not a set in stone precedent of humanity.

No, our culture has decided that for us, and our society, this is what is acceptable.

Dont be so quick to dismiss all forms of Social Engineering. The values of the majority of any society have merit as to what they wish to be.

 

No it doesnt prove that at all. it only serves to remind us that people are shortsighted and at times fickle. they take vows in the moment, and then realize they may not have fully been ready. this in no way reflects on Marriage itself, the institution. it reflects on people of unsound moral values, and sometimes simple bad judgement.

it happens to Gay people as well. of course the numbers are going to be lower, as gay unions are a newer thing, and a smaller segment...but Id be willing to bet over time that the ratio would be consistant.

Traditional family? No mom and Dad? No offense intended to any single moms, but No it's not.

Wrong again. While Homosexuals can imitate natural conception by using science and the help of others it is an expensive process. For Women it is less costly, as they have the eggs and can carry and only need a sperm donation, but men pay more either through adoptions or surrogates. So while they "can"..it's not the norm for them to do so.

Jumping through dollar siogns and hoops attempting to mimic the natural act of conception done between a man and a Woman is not the same thing at all.

Didn't sink in the last time I set you straight on this I see. Oh well, keep peddling your BS but you have 0 in common with what black people went through. Quite a good example of how you dont even know what real discrimination is. You continue to spit in the faces of people who were REAL victims of discrimination by trying to tie your CHOICES together with their NON CHOSEN TRAITS that got them treated unfairly.

 

Actually, it makes it a privilege with 1400 privileges attached to it.

 

I feel no need to entertain that question specifically. Suffice it to say that a majority of states have decided that they have a compelling interest to license certain activities while not others.

 

Yes, obviously.

 

Your continued childish response to my devastating assessment of your question is noted.

 

A child does not have the intellectual capacity to understand complex legal issues. In my view it is perfectly reasonable for government to intervene to insure that children are not taken advantage of. Unlike the arbitrary stipulation to gender in the marriage statutes which is based largely on popular opinion, the age of majority is based on a thoughtful, objective analysis of the facts. Ergo, not social engineering.

 

In other words, you have no argument.

 

"Child" is the social Engineering.

the definitions of a child can vary. For our culture, we set an age of 18 (mostly, some seem to list 19, and others 21. Seems very inconsistant if we are going on facts)..others have different ages.

I agree with that.

We'll disagree here on a couple points. As I mentioned before, i dont find the rules of Marriage to be "arbitrary" at all..and secondly the age of Majority differs throughout the world, and Im not so arrogant as to assume only in the USA was this decision reached based upon facts.

it IS social Engineering. Our nation, and many others consider it to be 18, that is the ruleset we have decided upon. However there are many who consider it another age entirely.

Heres the world list so you can see how other cultures differ from ours. Im sure many of them claim to have reached this same conclusion through their own "objective analasys of the facts" as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

 

No. The only social engineering I can think of regarding children is that we can make a man fight for his country at 18 but make him wait until he's 21 for a sip of alcohol.

I think most people would agree that most people have entered the final stage of their maturation process by age 18. Though it seems an arbitrary number, it is based on certain scientific facts. Certainly there are very mature 15-year-olds and childish 45-year-olds. But the mean suggests that by the age of 18, a person has come into possession of most of their intellect and can understand complex legal concepts--at least to the extent necessary to be held liable for such understanding via the contracting process. This is why we don't let children make legally-binding contracts, and why children can not consent to things like medical procedures and sexual contact. So, again, certainly one size does not fit all, but setting the age of majority at 18 does not constitute social engineering, but rather governance based on thoughtful analysis. In other words, there is a rational basis for the law.

There are many other limits to human activity that may seem arbitrary and thereby akin to social engineering, but if we examine them carefully we come to find that there is a rational basis for them and they therefore do not constitute social engineering.

Let's please be specific. "Rules of marriage" is vague and differs from the law. Certainly there is a social tradition that recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. And that's fine. And there are probably 1,000 different traditions out there as well. But none of those traditions have any bearing on the law whatsoever in a constitutional republic that exists for the reason of defending human liberty. Where we encounter the difficulty is when the government co-opts that social tradition--as it has done--and makes law in its context that contravenes constitutional principles and guaranteed protections. The government should not be--and does not need to be--involved in marriage to any degree, but to the extent that it is involved, to the extent that we, the people, give it the authority to be involved, it must do so dispassionately, equitably, and without regard to popular opinion or notions of propriety. Otherwise, we are simply not the free people we presume to be.

Sure, based on a number of different factors to be sure. But when viewed objectively, 18 is old enough to possess the intellectual capacity to take responsibility for one's actions and understand legal concepts to the extent that one can enter a legally-binding contract.

There is a rational basis for the decision. Thus, not social engineering. Look, we do need rules to live in a civilized society, but in order for us to be free, those rules need to be based on rational, objective viewpoints, rather than merely popular opinions. There is a rational basis for setting the age of majority--and certainly it is open to discussion. There is no rational basis for government involvement in citizens' personal lives to the extent of licensing an interpersonal/romantic/sexual relationship IF WE DESIRE TO LIVE AS FREE MEN.

I don't dispute that different cultures have different rules, and different ways of arriving at them. But we are unique--we are the only nation on Earth where government derives its authority by way of consent of the governed. We operate under a different set of rules altogether. Our premise is that man yearns to be free and it is freedom that makes life worth living. Thus, every law we make should be weighed against a singular objective standard: does it defend liberty? If the answer is "no" then it's time to go back to the woodshed and stroke the beard a bit longer... Thus in this context, the only true standard for law can be harm (see my sig line). Law in the context of defense of liberty must carefully balance competing interests to insure that the greatest amount of liberty is maintained for the greatest amount of citizens. I might want to guzzle a twelver and speed down your residential street in my '68 Chevy, but my right to exercise my liberty in that manner is trumped by your right to not get run over by me. So in this balancing act of competing interests, the overwhelming potential for harm to your physical person or your property rightly outweighs my right to move upon the earth in a manner of my choosing. So, in the case of the many and various marriage statutes, what I am not seeing is the harm the law seeks to address. I do not see competing interests. What I do see is an overreaching, authoritarian nanny state which presumes to "know what's best for its citizens." The only expense? Liberty.

 

Good post Bow, obviously there are some things we disagree with but your civility, and well worded discussion are heard and appreciated. We wont all agree on any subject from time to time, but thanks for the thoughtful discourse.

 

You are quite mistaken. I've not only read it, but I've also taken the time to understand how it has been applied. You obviously haven't.

LOL does not improve your arguments.

Well, apparently I have to quote back to you what you originally said. I didn't ask you what prevents a pedo from marrying. I asked you what prevents this from performing the action below right now:

A ruling in favor of same-sex couples doesn't get rid of the laws against marrying a child incapable of providing legal consent, and those laws don't prevent the person who wishes to have such a marriage from suing in court to have them overturned.

I am not clueless. But I'll humor you and ask that you explain to us exactly what the 14th Amendment does, since you think you're such an expert.

Shall I quote back to you your reasoning why the 14th doesn't cover "homosexuality" or "sexual preference"? Apparently so, since you can't seem to remember what you wrote in prior posts or even the same post.

You say above that it's "never listed", "spelled out" or "described anywhere" in the 14th Amendment.

Blacks are never listed, spelled out or described anywhere in the 14th Amendment. Neither is race or gender. The closest you get is the mention of slaves way down at the end of Section 4, but that section has nothing to do with the equal protection clause in Section 1. The mention of slaves in Section 4 is not race specific, and that mention is exclusively about not paying any claim for loss due to emancipation.

By your reasoning, the 14th shouldn't actually cover blacks, race, or gender either, since they aren't specifically mentioned.

You asked what would prevent a "pedo" from pressing their claim in court that they deserve equal marriage. My answer was responsive to the context of that specific question.

I'm not persuaded that you understand anything about the application of the 14th Amendment through case law.

I am persuaded though that you aren't really interested in having an honest discussion, but merely in trying to provoke people so you can get an adrenaline fix from conflict & confrontation. This kind of behavior is why I've ignored you for so long.

 

You really enjoy loosing don't you?

Once again you hung your hat on "equal protection under the law" as the sole reason for allowing gay marriage wiping out all current laws that ban gay marriage. The same thing would happen to pedos and any law that bans their sexual practice.

Another FAIL.

This really is too easy. But keep on digging that hole! LOL

 

Another cowardly block copy of my arguments without addressing a single one of them.

Go ahead, run away again with your tail between your legs as usual.

 

Likewise. This is a good exercise and I appreciate your thoughtful replies. Reasonable people can disagree.

 

If you had you wouldn't make such moronic statements fabricating language that doesn't exist.

I never said it did. Your arguments make me laugh.

because its not what you originally asked. Nice try though.

Of course it does. You obviously have a hard time remembering he based his argument for gay marriage SOLEY on the statement: equal protection under the law

Its too bad you didn't read carefully before embarrassing yourself yet again.

Actually its worse than I thought.

Which has nothing to do with his argument. If you think you are going to derail this point you've just lost, think again.

LOL Wow you truly are clueless on this aren't you? Every single definition I posted had federal cases in front of the Supreme Court as interpretation therefore it is LAW now.

Nothing exists like that for gay marriage.

And the FAILS just keep on coming! LOL You didn't even pick up on that? How sad.

Wrong again since you fabricated a requirement that doesn't exist in the 14th amendment or the clause Robot used soley for gay marriage.

Its not my fault you weren't smart enough to read his actual argument before you jumped in and embarrassed yourself yet again.

I actually cited case law and the definitions from those cases. You have cited NOTHING. It takes one heck of a delusional mind to think you're on top here.

I understand. You can't argue the actual point or admit you defended an extremely narrow argument made by someone else that I exploited and you are running for cover.

You are the one who isn't honest enough to read his actual argument and instead insert new requirements that don't exist anywhere in the 14th amendment or his argument in a sad attempt to circumvent pedos.

Next time read the argument you are defending before making a complete fool out of yourself once again.

 

You should probably quit while you're, mmmm, behind. Let's review some very very basic legal concepts: civil marriage--that is the legal part of it, and cultural marriage--that is the social tradition part of it, are 100% mutually exclusive. Each exists on its own without need of accession from the other. Now, what THIS discussion involves is strictly the civil part of what we call marriage, that is to say, the legal part of it. At its most essential element--regardless of the minor variations and codicils in the many and various states--it is a contract. It forms a financial and legal union between two previously unconnected individuals. Now, there are some basic requirements that must be met in order for a contract to be made. I'm a former paralegal so I kind of know what I'm talking about here. In order for a contract to be valid, you must have at minimum three things: intent, consideration, and capacity. Intent: The parties involved must intend to make a contract, and to fulfill their obligations therein; Consideration: There must be some mutual exchange between the parties; Capacity: Each party must be mentally competent, in possession of its faculties, and must have reached the age of majority. Also, the contract may not be executed with either party under duress.

So, now we have established that any consenting adult citizen may enter a contract. Who can not enter a contract? A retarded person, a drunk person, a mentally deranged person, or a MINOR. So as long as the requirements are met, requirements that exist by some rational basis in law, every consenting adult citizen does indeed have a right to enter a contract. But not with a child. So, sorry, priests who wish to marry their victims will have to wait until they're 18. Due to the special deference we pay religion in this country, they can apparently continue banging them to their heart's delight, however. I digress.

So, yes, my position correctly asserts that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law is the sole reason government may not place artificial barriers to entry into the contract of lawful civil matrimony. The arbitrary stipulation to gender is one such barrier. There are others, as well, but this discussion is concerned with gender.

 

You'll note that I have engaged other posters on this forum thoughtfully and thoroughly. I'm not going to waste my time addressing your posts point-by-point, however.

 

You know what else is easy? Pointing out the holes in your argument.

Gay marraige does nothing to allow or support pedophilia. If you can't tell the difference between two consenting adults and an adult raping a child...I suggest you stay away from children.

In order to legalize pedophilia all age of consent laws would have to be wiped out. Marriage and legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with said consent laws.

Keep trying, that argument grows thinner and thinner the longer you do.

 

Actually, my argument is: that a majority of states have decided that they have a compelling interest to license certain activities while not others.