Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

SmarterThanYou said:
i'm sure you have a link to prove your claim on the percentage difference? or will that be as big of a strawman argument as your last sentence is?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I've long abandoned the stats war on this issue. All that happens is that my sources are attacked and vilified. Instead I'll relay on common sense. Children desire the stability of a traditional family, and thrive best when have the benefit of both a mother and a father.
 
Damocles said:
If every child out there that could be adopted was, you may have a point. However many children grow up in migratory and unstable relationships because many are never adopted and they move between foster homes. Why do you want children to grow up without any parents whatsoever? Why would that be "better"?
Click to expand...
Again, when the pool of traditional families is exhausted, then I have no problem with gays adopting these perpetual foster kids.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Sorry, but I've long abandoned the stats war on this issue. All that happens is that my sources are attacked and vilified. Instead I'll relay on common sense. Children desire the stability of a traditional family, and thrive best when have the benefit of both a mother and a father.
Click to expand...

'common sense' often gets defined as 'that which I feel is right, regardless of facts'. you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
 
dixon76710 said:
Studies have shown that children with both their biological mother and father do better even than kids who are raised by their biological mother and stepfather. Not just any "man" but instead the biological father.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they've also shown that having a strict, but fair father and a nurturing mother produces the most successful offspring. Perhaps that's why liberal couples produce so many losers. *shrug*
 
Damn Yankee said:
Again, when the pool of traditional families is exhausted, then I have no problem with gays adopting these perpetual foster kids.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with government preferring a gay couple over ANY two people who could adopt a child. My brother and I could adopt a child. No justification whatsoever for favoring a gay couple over any two people. Rubbing genitals just like a real mom and dad doesnt endow them with superior child raising capabilities.
Doing so reveals the intent of gay marriage. Helping gays feel better about their chosen lifestyle. To win them respect from the rest of society and a shred of dignity for themselves. Not a proper role in government.
 
From the In Re Marriage case

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals...

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....
http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C4/43C4t757.htm
Click to expand...

Basically the judges decided gays have a constitutional right to respect from the rest of society and the dignity they lack and the courts want to use marriage to indoctrinate the rest of us to believe the same thing.
 
dixon76710 said:
Because it is absurd. This isnt retaliation against gays

§ 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;....

Its the dictates of biology. Gay judge in California made the same arguments. That the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman that has existed for 1000s of years has had the intent of discriminating against gays.
Ancient Romans celebrated homosexuality but their laws reflected the dictates of biology.



This wasnt retaliation against gays and neither are our current laws. Its biology
Click to expand...

Once again you are ignoring the key point. In the quote I posted there were some word in bold. Did you read them?

"Libertarians everywhere applaud this advancement of civil rights, but warn the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely,” said Catherine Sumner, LBGT policy advisor for the Libertarian National Committee."


Can you see what the actual stated goal is? "...the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely"
 
WinterBorn said:
Once again you are ignoring the key point. In the quote I posted there were some word in bold. Did you read them?

"Libertarians everywhere applaud this advancement of civil rights, but warn the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely,” said Catherine Sumner, LBGT policy advisor for the Libertarian National Committee."


Can you see what the actual stated goal is? "...the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely"
Click to expand...

This is almost turning comedic. He's seen that quote at least half a dozen times yet continues to ignore it or pretend its not there.
 
dixon76710 said:
You can marry your dog if you like, but we know when you refer to "marry" you are talking about government licensing, reglation and encouragement with tax breaks and governmental entitlements that go along with Government recognition of marriage. Thats what you want for the gays
And but for the potential of childbirth, government wouldnt likely even be involved. Tahts why its limited to heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
Do you have some evidence to prove this assertion?
 
dixon76710 said:
I have a problem with government preferring a gay couple over ANY two people who could adopt a child. My brother and I could adopt a child. No justification whatsoever for favoring a gay couple over any two people. Rubbing genitals just like a real mom and dad doesnt endow them with superior child raising capabilities.
Doing so reveals the intent of gay marriage. Helping gays feel better about their chosen lifestyle. To win them respect from the rest of society and a shred of dignity for themselves. Not a proper role in government.
Click to expand...

Having genitals that don't match doesn't endow them with superior child raising capabilities either. I have not seen anyone claim that the gov't should pick gays over other couple to adopt kids. But to pick a gay couple in a long-term relationship over you and your brother does make sense.
 
WinterBorn said:
Once again you are ignoring the key point. In the quote I posted there were some word in bold. Did you read them?

"Libertarians everywhere applaud this advancement of civil rights, but warn the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely,” said Catherine Sumner, LBGT policy advisor for the Libertarian National Committee."
Click to expand...

Your point? Libertarians dont oppose republicans because they wont eliminate marriage. They oppose them because they dont support extending marriage to gays.
 
WinterBorn said:
Having genitals that don't match doesn't endow them with superior child raising capabilities either.
Click to expand...

Correct, it is the biological connection to their children. Like I said in another post, a male lion will fight to the death defending his own offsrpring while he is just as likely to kill the offspring of some other males offspring. Its not the genitals, it is the biological connection that makes biological parents the preferred outcome.
 
dixon76710 said:
Correct, it is the biological connection to their children. Like I said in another post, a male lion will fight to the death defending his own offsrpring while he is just as likely to kill the offspring of some other males offspring. Its not the genitals, it is the biological connection that makes biological parents the preferred outcome.
Click to expand...

If we were talking about lions you might be right. I would happily die defending my step-daughter. My friends would definitally do the same for their two adopted children.

It is not genetics that makes a family. It is love.
 
Dixon, there are as many as 1,400 benefits afforded a married couple by state and federal gov'ts.


If they allowed gays to marry and they gained these benefits, what possible effect woul d it have on you?
 
dixon76710 said:
From the In Re Marriage case



Basically the judges decided gays have a constitutional right to respect from the rest of society and the dignity they lack and the courts want to use marriage to indoctrinate the rest of us to believe the same thing.
Click to expand...

so you don't believe that all individuals have equal freedom to choose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top