Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

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...

But you and most libertarians arent advocating for marriage for all and instead advocating for "gay" marriage.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh, so you do agree with a part of the social conservative agenda.:whoa:

Which other part disgusts you the most and we'll talk about that.
 
dixon76710 said:
But you and most libertarians arent advocating for marriage for all and instead advocating for "gay" marriage.
Click to expand...

Except that is not what we are doing. We are advocating for the gov't to get out of the marriage business completely. But until that happens, we believe the discrimination towards gays is wrong.

And Dixon, just repeating the same inaccuracy does not make it any more accurate.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I simply quoted the written agenda. That is what we were discussing, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Then can you provide any evidence that the intent was not to ban pornography? Social conservatives have tried that in numerous places.
 
WinterBorn said:
Except that is not what we are doing. We are advocating for the gov't to get out of the marriage business completely. But until that happens, we believe the discrimination towards gays is wrong.

And Dixon, just repeating the same inaccuracy does not make it any more accurate.
Click to expand...

After they first advocate for gay marriage. Contradictory goals revealing their true motives, winning the gay vote.
 
dixon76710 said:
After they first advocate for gay marriage. Contradictory goals revealing their true motives, winning the gay vote.
Click to expand...

You can make ridiculous claims all you want. You have been shown the platforms for the Libertarian Party. You willfully ignore them because some libertarians someplace else were all for gay marriages?
 
And Dixon, just as an FYI, not all the benefits denied gay couples are financial in nature.

Often only spouses can visit patients in ICU. And spouses often have extended visiting privileges in other parts of hospitals. Also, spouses are able to make decisions for the patient if he or she is unable.

Bereavement Leave is another benefit to marriage.

A spouse is able to authorize or deny after-death examinations and procedure, and can make decisions concernin burial or final arrangements.



There are more benefits, but these seem to be ignored all too often. There are gay couples who have been in monogamous relationships for 30 or 40 years, and see the family of one of them come in and make medical decisions or be able to see the patient while the partner cannot. Often those same families have had little or no contact because of their squeamishness about homosexuality.
 
Can you provide any evidence that the intent was a complete ban on pornography? It is you making the accusation. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
Can you provide any evidence that the intent was a complete ban on pornography? It is you making the accusation. :)
Click to expand...

There was no mention of any partial ban. It didn't say anything about laws against some pornography.
 
Damn Yankee said:
It didn't say laws against all porn either. Man-up and prove your position. :)
Click to expand...

When it says "Laws against pornography", unless you qualify the statement, the assumption is it means all. And spare me the "man-up" nonsense.

Plus, considering Conservapedia's description of pornography, it would be difficult to believe they only want it "regulated" so kids don't get their hands on porn.

"Pornography is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intent of stimulation. It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. (Jude 1:6-7 ) It destroys the mind as gambling does and, even worse, pornography leads to terrible crimes against women and children.[1][2] The Greek word πορνεία (porneía) appears several times in the New Testament as a sin that, unless repented of, will prevent one from entering heaven; however, such a word in Ancient Greek mostly referred to illicit sexual relationships (such as adultery and incest), prostitution, and also, in a broader sense, idolatry."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Pornography
 
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...

So lesbian women are not able to become pregnant?
 
WinterBorn said:
Except that is not what we are doing. We are advocating for the gov't to get out of the marriage business completely. But until that happens, we believe the discrimination towards gays is wrong.

And Dixon, just repeating the same inaccuracy does not make it any more accurate.
Click to expand...
You're never gonna get government out of marriage cause marriage is largely about property and property rights and lets face some facts son....she owns your ass! ;)
 
WinterBorn said:
When it says "Laws against pornography", unless you qualify the statement, the assumption is it means all. And spare me the "man-up" nonsense.

Plus, considering Conservapedia's description of pornography, it would be difficult to believe they only want it "regulated" so kids don't get their hands on porn.

"Pornography is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity used for the intent of stimulation. It usually consists of images depicting the satisfaction of the sort of "unnatural lust" which leads to damnation. (Jude 1:6-7 ) It destroys the mind as gambling does and, even worse, pornography leads to terrible crimes against women and children.[1][2] The Greek word πορνεία (porneía) appears several times in the New Testament as a sin that, unless repented of, will prevent one from entering heaven; however, such a word in Ancient Greek mostly referred to illicit sexual relationships (such as adultery and incest), prostitution, and also, in a broader sense, idolatry."

http://www.conservapedia.com/Pornography
Click to expand...
I remember an interview with Mary Carey when she was running for Governor of CA. She said she went to a Democratic convention and was pretty much ignored. Then she went to a Repubican convention and was treated like a rock star. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top