Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

Damn Yankee said:
How is "Parental control of education" regulating the private lives of Americans?
Click to expand...

I like how you pick the ONE thing bolded that I wholeheartedly agree with, well there are a few others bolded as well. But the below have nothing to do with freedom of choice and all about regulating the private lives of Americans.

*Classroom prayer
* Prohibition of abortion
* Abstinence education (debatable, it could not be separate)
* Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
* Laws against pornography
 
dixon76710 said:
You can choose to marry your dog for all I care. You have all the freedom to choose anything you like. Just dont tell me you need government entitlements and tax breaks in order to exercise that freedom. Because you dont.
Click to expand...

and neither should hetero couples, however, if they are given entitlements and tax breaks, it would only be fair and equal to provide them to all, don't you think?
 
Damn Yankee said:
This is Solitary's all-too-typical straw man tactic. "Laws against" supposedly means "ban". We have laws against pollution, yet people are still allowed to drive cars and fart.
Click to expand...

it's pretty close to some of yours as well. had you said 'laws against some pornography' or something similar, we wouldn't be picking shit apart.
 
WinterBorn said:
Ok, then don't tell us you need the gov't entitlements and tax breaks in order to exercise your freedom to marry.
Click to expand...

Im not asking. Divorced since 1988. Much to set in my ways to consider marrying again. Like a gay man, I really have no interest in marrying a woman.
My brother and I own our business, real estate investments and assorted personal property together. We both have life insurance policies on each other, mutual provisions in our wills. Marriage with my brother would be better suited to my chosen lifestyle and Im not asking for the government to shower my brother and I with tax breaks and governmental entitlements to suit my needs. I recognize the institution of marriage is for the benefit of children and the women who give birth to them. Two guys who stick their dicks in each other are not somehow more worthy of promotion by the government than my brother and I. Two platonic friends. The millions of single mothers and grandmothers who now form stable households with children biologically related to both. Nothing special about being gay. Nothing that would justify treating two gay guys differently from ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who could benefit from a marriage.
This has nothing to do with equality. Gay marriage is all about mainstreaming homosexuality. Winning respect from the rest of society and some dignity for themselves.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and neither should hetero couples, however, if they are given entitlements and tax breaks, it would only be fair and equal to provide them to all, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Any distinction drawn in the law that results in discrimination, MUST, at a minimum be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Cutting down on the number of children born to single mothers left on their own to provide and care for their children and increasing the number of children born into a home with both their mother and father to provide and care for them is a legitimate governmental interest. Children raised by their biological parents on average do better than children raised by one or none of their biological parents.
The limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to this interest because of the obvious fact that ONLY heterosexual couples produce children. We cant know which couples will procreate, we do know that ALL those couples who do will exclusively be heterosexual couples. Platonic couples dont procreate. Closely related couples of the opposite sex shouldnt procreate, closely related couples of the same sex and gay couples all do not procreate. If you want to take marriage currently limited to heterosexual couples, and extend it to gay couples, you need some justification for not extending it to any two consenting adults who desire it.
 
dixon76710 said:
Any distinction drawn in the law that results in discrimination, MUST, at a minimum be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest. Cutting down on the number of children born to single mothers left on their own to provide and care for their children and increasing the number of children born into a home with both their mother and father to provide and care for them is a legitimate governmental interest. Children raised by their biological parents on average do better than children raised by one or none of their biological parents.
The limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to this interest because of the obvious fact that ONLY heterosexual couples produce children. We cant know which couples will procreate, we do know that ALL those couples who do will exclusively be heterosexual couples. Platonic couples dont procreate. Closely related couples of the opposite sex shouldnt procreate, closely related couples of the same sex and gay couples all do not procreate. If you want to take marriage currently limited to heterosexual couples, and extend it to gay couples, you need some justification for not extending it to any two consenting adults who desire it.
Click to expand...

more herpity derpity from a so called conservative. you might try familiarizing yourself with 'strict scrutiny' and basic fundamental rights of a free people. your so called governmental interest is crap in any of the instances you posed and a serious judge would laugh that argument right out of the courtroom.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and there it is, you're feeling that some people just aren't that worthy of respect and dignity because of actions you consider repugnant.
Click to expand...

I dont consider it repugnant. It just reall doesnt have any significance here. Nothing to even give rise to any governmental concern or justification for being involved in the first place. Has about as much significance to society as my relationship with my left hand.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and neither should hetero couples, however, if they are given entitlements and tax breaks, it would only be fair and equal to provide them to all, don't you think?
Click to expand...

It would be preferable if we simply made it equal by removing entitlements and tax breaks... The marriage penalty was wrong, so is a marriage benefit. I can understand giving tax breaks to parents, but just for shacking up? Not good enough.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
more herpity derpity from a so called conservative.
Click to expand...

Im not one of those "Conservapedia" type conservatives.

SmarterThanYou said:
you might try familiarizing yourself with 'strict scrutiny' and basic fundamental rights of a free people.
Click to expand...

"Fundamental right"????

Under a federal constitutional analysis, for a fundamental right to exist it
must be “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and
‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice
would exist if they were sacrificed.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702,
720-21, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 (1997) (quoting Moore v. E.
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S. Ct. 1932, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531 (1977) (plurality
opinion) and Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 2d

Courts in other
jurisdictions recently faced with the issue have concluded that there is no tradition
of same-sex marriage and no fundamental right to marriage that includes same-sex
marriage. E.g., Dean v. Dist. of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995); In re
Kandu, 315 B.R. 123, 140 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2004); Standhardt v. Superior
Court, 206 Ariz. 276, 284, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003); Baehr, 74 Haw. at
556-57 (plurality opinion), 588 (Heen, J., dissenting).
Nor is there a tradition or history of same-sex marriage in this state.
Instead, prior to and after statehood, state laws reflected the common law of
marriage between a man and woman.

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation,
childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf
Click to expand...
 
WinterBorn said:
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?
Click to expand...

The same effect that allowing my brother and I would have on you. Whats so special about being gay that warrants special treatment?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you're obviously under the hugely mistaken impression that government created the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Where would you get that impression? Marriage likely evolved about the same time human civilization did. I bet it was fathers wondering who and the hell it was who got their daughters pregnant and who the hell is going to take care of all these kids who came up with the idea.

In traditional Chinese thinking, people in "primitive" societies did not marry, but had sexual relationships with one another indiscriminately. Such people were thought to live like animals, and they did not have the precise concept of motherhood, fatherhood, sibling, husband and wife, and gender, not to mention match-making and marriage ceremony. Part of the Confucian "civilizing mission" was to define what it meant to be a Father or a Husband, and to teach people to respect the proper relationship between family members and regulate sexual behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage
Click to expand...
 
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...

Are you asserting that because I'm not the father to my three oldest children, that I don't have connection to them or that it isn't as strong as one that their biological father may have had?
 
Damocles said:
It would be preferable if we simply made it equal by removing entitlements and tax breaks... The marriage penalty was wrong, so is a marriage benefit. I can understand giving tax breaks to parents, but just for shacking up? Not good enough.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? After all the crap I get from my wife, "Honey do this, honey do that, ROAR YOU DIDN'T TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE LIKE I ASKED YOU, quit drinking that beer and stop smoking then stinky cigars and quit bringing those asshole friends of yours over!"

Man dude, the least I can get for all that hassle is a tax break!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Are you kidding? After all the crap I get from my wife, "Honey do this, honey do that, ROAR YOU DIDN'T TAKE OUT THE GARBAGE LIKE I ASKED YOU, quit drinking that beer and stop smoking then stinky cigars and quit bringing those asshole friends of yours over!"

Man dude, the least I can get for all that hassle is a tax break!
Click to expand...

Mott, its up to you to negotiate the benefits you get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top