Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

[dixon76710]

I think the attempts to continue the ban on gay marriage is a waste of political capital for the conservatives.

I think the demands for gay marriage is a waste of polititical capital for the libertarians.

But then, I have never been a fan of social conservatism.

Nor I, but I agree with them on marriage

I am guessing the libertarians who argue the point with you must assume that governmental licencing of marriage will not go away, so we should allow gays to have the same access to the benefits and security that straights do.

????? It doesnt apply in the case of two people of the same sex.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

Along with the long list of rights, duties and obligations a husband has to to his wife and children.
"Maternity", Latin root of the word mater, MOTHER. A woman needs a man to become a mother. Been that way for thousands of years. BC Roman laws version of the above Texas statute.

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

The laws dont discriminate against gays, biology does.

 

[WinterBorn]

I think the demands for gay marriage is a waste of polititical capital for the libertarians.



Nor I, but I agree with them on marriage



????? It doesnt apply in the case of two people of the same sex.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

Along with the long list of rights, duties and obligations a husband has to to his wife and children.
"Maternity", Latin root of the word mater, MOTHER. A woman needs a man to become a mother. Been that way for thousands of years. BC Roman laws version of the above Texas statute.

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

The laws dont discriminate against gays, biology does.

So marriage is all about children?

And btw, the post you made about it being the same for 225 years? Have you ever heard of Logical Fallacies?

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.


http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

 

[Damocles]

Well, the opening post disagrees. Wikipedias page on libertarians disagrees.



And every libertarian Ive ever debated same-sex marriage with has disagreed in that they insited gay marriages be licensed, regulated and encouraged with tax breaks and governmental entitlements, even though in all our nations history prior to 2000, they had never been licensed and regulated before.

Well, you are seeing libertarians here telling you that you are flat wrong.

The government should not be licensing and regulating our relationships in any way other than to ensure that children are not victimized and adults have full knowledge and have given consent. In short, if there is no victim the government shouldn't be involved.

 

[dixon76710]

A FUCKING MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you proclaiming in extacy your favorite pass time, or would perhaps Fucking, A MEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! been a more appropriate phrasing?

 

[DamnYankee]

Its not simply appeal to tradition, but a tradition that has been tested and refined throughout the ages. And the definition of marriage has always included a man and a woman, and has never included two men or two woman. If you want your gay pals to have a licensed relationship, call it something else.

 

[DamnYankee]

Well, you are seeing libertarians here telling you that you are flat wrong.

The government should not be licensing and regulating our relationships in any way other than to ensure that children are not victimized and adults have full knowledge and have given consent. In short, if there is no victim the government shouldn't be involved.

But if gays are allowed to adopt then there are victims.

 

[dixon76710]

Well, you are seeing libertarians here telling you that you are flat wrong.

And the opening article and the wikipedia page on Libertarians say I'm right. Libertarians pandered to the LGBTers back in the 70s and 80s to win their votes, and their demands for gay marriage have been part of their platform ever since. Evidently so important to libertarians that the author of the article thinks that it will cause libertarians who might support Republicans, to not do so. Maybe they think they can siphon off enough Republican votes to get Democrats in who will institute gay marriage for them.

 

[dixon76710]

But if gays are allowed to adopt then there are victims.

Gay Man offers Adopted Son (Age 5 ) For Sex on Internet
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/shelbiana-ky/T3TR9CIUCAGAH2P9V

Male lion will fight to the death defending his own offspring. He is just as likely to kill the offspring of some other male lion, .

Children do better when raised by their biological parents, when compared to children who are not. Marriage encourages more children to be born into homes with both their mother and father to provide and care for them and fewer children born into the alternative of one or none of their parents present. Just not something that can physically be achieved in a same sex marriage.

This whole push for marriage and adoption for gays so they can try to ape the heterosexauals is ridiculous. I dont have a problem with government encouraging behavior that is beneficial to society. I have a real problem with government encouraging behavior for no other reason than helping those who engage in the behavior feel better about themselves.

 

[cawacko]

And the opening article and the wikipedia page on Libertarians say I'm right. Libertarians pandered to the LGBTers back in the 70s and 80s to win their votes, and their demands for gay marriage have been part of their platform ever since. Evidently so important to libertarians that the author of the article thinks that it will cause libertarians who might support Republicans, to not do so. Maybe they think they can siphon off enough Republican votes to get Democrats in who will institute gay marriage for them.

You said every debate you've had with Libertarians the Libertarian has supported gay marriage. Now you are having a debate with Libertarians who are telling they think marriage should be outside the hands of government. So how does that make you right that every debate you've had with Libertarians they've supported gay marriage?

 

[dixon76710]

So marriage is all about children?

The licensing and regulation of marriage is all about children.

And btw, the post you made about it being the same for 225 years? Have you ever heard of Logical Fallacies?

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way."

You didnt understand my argument.

 

[dixon76710]

Its not simply appeal to tradition, but a tradition that has been tested and refined throughout the ages. And the definition of marriage has always included a man and a woman, and has never included two men or two woman. If you want your gay pals to have a licensed relationship, call it something else.

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."....

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.....

A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity...

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx

I could demand for my cat, a dog license from our city hall, but she will still be a cat.

 

[dixon76710]

You said every debate you've had with Libertarians the Libertarian has supported gay marriage. Now you are having a debate with Libertarians who are telling they think marriage should be outside the hands of government. So how does that make you right that every debate you've had with Libertarians they've supported gay marriage?

So libertarians are free to depart from their parties platform. They are a minority.

 

[cawacko]

So libertarians are free to depart from their parties platform. They are a minority.

Do Republicans or Democrats stick to their party platforms?

 

[Damocles]

But if gays are allowed to adopt then there are victims.

Gays are allowed to adopt, and they sometimes even have their own children.

 

[cawacko]

Here is something from the Libertarian Party itself saying they want government out of marriage. Seems like the Libertarians on this board are in the majority when it comes to what Libertarians want, not the minority like you claim.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality

 

[Damocles]

So libertarians are free to depart from their parties platform. They are a minority.

What?

Can you read?

http://www.lp.org/platform

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

Read the bolded portion twice and you may get it. Libertarians do not believe that the government should be licensing your personal relationships.

 

[Damocles]

Gay Man offers Adopted Son (Age 5 ) For Sex on Internet
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/shelbiana-ky/T3TR9CIUCAGAH2P9V

Male lion will fight to the death defending his own offspring. He is just as likely to kill the offspring of some other male lion, .

Children do better when raised by their biological parents, when compared to children who are not. Marriage encourages more children to be born into homes with both their mother and father to provide and care for them and fewer children born into the alternative of one or none of their parents present. Just not something that can physically be achieved in a same sex marriage.

This whole push for marriage and adoption for gays so they can try to ape the heterosexauals is ridiculous. I dont have a problem with government encouraging behavior that is beneficial to society. I have a real problem with government encouraging behavior for no other reason than helping those who engage in the behavior feel better about themselves.

Using the same determination you use here heterosexuals should not be allowed to have children.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1790848...urts/t/police-woman-offers-sex-her--year-old/

TAYLOR, Mich. — A woman’s five children were in protective custody after she was charged with offering to let an undercover investigator have sex with her 7-year-old daughter.

The 33-year-old woman, from the Detroit suburb of Taylor, was arrested Friday night after bringing the girl to a hotel in Romulus, near Detroit Metropolitan Airport, where she had agreed to meet the investigator, the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department said.

The woman was prepared to offer her daughter “for pornographic photos and anything else that was available if the price was right,” Sheriff Warren Evans said. “She had indicated very clearly that that child would do whatever it was that the person who was going to meet the child wanted to do, and that she would see that the child complied.

“It’s a very, very disgusting case.”

The woman’s name was not released so the child would not be identified.

She was arraigned Sunday on five charges, including child sexually abusive behavior, illegal use of the Internet for child sexually abusive actions or materials and distribution of child sexually abusive material, sheriff’s spokesman John Roach said.

More at link.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well, the opening post disagrees. Wikipedias page on libertarians disagrees.



And every libertarian Ive ever debated same-sex marriage with has disagreed in that they insited gay marriages be licensed, regulated and encouraged with tax breaks and governmental entitlements, even though in all our nations history prior to 2000, they had never been licensed and regulated before.

it's ALMOST comical to watch some of you illiterates play this word game. Only extremists would take the idea of treating gay couples equally with heterosexual couples in marriage and equate it to government licensed and regulated relationships.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're still butt-hurt from me pointing out your logical fallacies.

 

[dixon76710]

Do Republicans or Democrats stick to their party platforms?

They also are free to depart from their parties platform. Still, in general Republicans are in favor of the current limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples and Libertarians are opposed to those limitations, specifically because the limitation excludes gays.