Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. Right there in the sentence before the one you want me to read. NOWHERE do they advocate for marriage for all because they only advocate for marriage for "gays".

Are you impaired in some way that we do not know about?

Here is what I have been trying to get you to read: "“The government’s power to define marriage has historically been used as a tool to retaliate against minority groups, and the right to marry is the newest frontier of civil rights. 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."

And you claim "NOWHERE do they advocate for marriage for all because they only advocate for marriage for "gays""???????

Now let me try one more time......."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."

Getting the gov't out of the question entirely IS advocating for all. The Libertarians are all about removing the gov't and the regulations from the entire equation.

 

[WinterBorn]

Just call it something else. Why do you feel the need to viscerally offend so many people?

I think the worry about offending so many people is a problem for those people. If they are viscerally offended when its called one thing, and fine with it if we just change the name, then they are either seriously deranged or are idiots following some bigotted fool.

 

[WinterBorn]

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. Now he can't man-up and prove his accusation.

Ah, another case of you attacking me when you lose the debate.

 

[DamnYankee]

False dichotomy.

 

[WinterBorn]

False dichotomy.

 

[dixon76710]

They get the same benefits as straight couples. We are not talking about friends, brothers, or single parents. The issue is marriage.

10 years ago, by definition "marriage" excluded two people of the same sex.

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

We are not talking about friends, brothers, single parents or gay couples. Matrimony, latin root of the word, Mater, "MOTHER". A woman needs a man to become a mother, and a man needs a woman to become a father. And if you want to disregard the meaning of the word and include homosexuals, YOU still need justification for the exclusion of friends, brothers, single parents or ANY two consenting adults who could benefit from marriage. Nothing special about gays that would warrant special treatment.

And there is no legitimate reason why gays can't marry and get the same benefits.

Ok, but you still need a legitimate reason for excluding friends, brothers, single parents or ANY two consenting adults who could benefit from marriage. Nothing special about being gay.

Married couple provide some benefit to our society, or so the claim goes, and so they get a benefit in return. Gay couples provide every benefitto society except unassisted childbirth, and that is not something we should be paying people for.

???? Gay couple cant provide the benefit to a child of both their biological parents present to provide and care for them. In fact they require that one of the biological parents be excluded. And they cant provide the benefit of establishing the paternity of a child.

Art. 185. Presumption of paternity of husband

The husband of the mother is presumed to be the father of a child born(procreation) during the marriage or within three hundred days from the date of the termination of the marriage.

 

[dixon76710]

Are you impaired in some way that we do not know about?

Here is what I have been trying to get you to read: "“The government’s power to define marriage has historically been used as a tool to retaliate against minority groups, .

And like I told you before, that is BS. This isnt retalliation against gays

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

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

§ 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;....
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/160.204.00.html

It a freakin grasp on the reality of the biological requirements of procreation. Gays by choice exclude themselves from the process, the process does not exclude them.

 

[WinterBorn]

10 years ago, by definition "marriage" excluded two people of the same sex.

And 40 years ago, in may states, the definition included references to race. That changed and so will this. Two consenting adults in a committed relationship should be allowed to marry.

We are not talking about friends, brothers, single parents or gay couples. Matrimony, latin root of the word, Mater, "MOTHER". A woman needs a man to become a mother, and a man needs a woman to become a father. And if you want to disregard the meaning of the word and include homosexuals, YOU still need justification for the exclusion of friends, brothers, single parents or ANY two consenting adults who could benefit from marriage. Nothing special about gays that would warrant special treatment.

The exclusion is their relationships. A straight couple and a gay couple both love each other, both are intimate with each other, and they both commit to a relationship with eahc other. The relationship is the same, it is the genitalia that differs.

Ok, but you still need a legitimate reason for excluding friends, brothers, single parents or ANY two consenting adults who could benefit from marriage. Nothing special about being gay.

Nothing special about being straight either.

???? Gay couple cant provide the benefit to a child of both their biological parents present to provide and care for them. In fact they require that one of the biological parents be excluded. And they cant provide the benefit of establishing the paternity of a child.

You have repeatedly stated that the child needs both biological parents. Have you seen the studies showing the results of two gay parents raising kids? The best one I saw showed children raised by two lesbians had higher test scores and lower rates of criminal activity than those raised by adoptive or biological parents.

This is as ridiculous as your claim about lions eating the young sired by another males.

 

[WinterBorn]

And like I told you before, that is BS. This isnt retalliation against gays

First you claim that my post says that Libertarians advocate for gays but do not advocate for all marriage. So then I repost and you dance to the side by saying it isn't retaliation against gays.

And if you are going to quote my posts, do try and get the relevant part of the post. I posted that quote from the Libertarian Party webpage to underscore that libertarians advocate for all marriages.

Here is what I have been trying to get you to read: "“The government’s power to define marriage has historically been used as a tool to retaliate against minority groups, and the right to marry is the newest frontier of civil rights. 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."

It a freakin grasp on the reality of the biological requirements of procreation. Gays by choice exclude themselves from the process, the process does not exclude them.

And try and grasp that the government has even less business putting its nose into procreation, and also try to grasp that the licencing of marriage has nothing to do with marriage. Legally it is irrelevant. People who cannot have children are allowed to marry. People who are too old to have children are allowed to marry. People who have had parts of their reproductive organs surgically removed are allowed to marry. This might (and its a big 'might') have been relevant in the 18th century when we needed to grow a population. But now it is completely irrelevant.

Plus, with the bonus of modern science, gays can have kids. If two lesbians and two gay men work out an arrangement, no heterosexual person need be involved.

 

[dixon76710]

And 40 years ago, in may states, the definition included references to race. That changed and so will this.

Well, thats because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Encouraging biological parents to provide and care for the children they create together is a legitimate governmental interest.

Two consenting adults in a committed relationship should be allowed to marry.

Thats not what we have in the 5 states that now recognize gay marriages. Closely related couples are prohibited and platonic couples face annulment or dissolution by state laws that do so for a failure to consummate the relationship.

The exclusion is their relationships. A straight couple and a gay couple both love each other, both are intimate with each other,

And what justification do you have for excluding non sexual couples. If you want to insist that the institution of marriage has nothing to do with procreation, how can you insist it has to do with sex? Childbirth gives rise to governmental concerns. Orgasms do not.

Nothing special about being straight either.

??? They are the only couples who procreate. The only couples where the law would apply.

§ 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;....

You have repeatedly stated that the child needs both biological parents. Have you seen the studies showing the results of two gay parents raising kids? The best one I saw showed children raised by two lesbians had higher test scores and lower rates of criminal activity than those raised by adoptive or biological parents.

I think you make shit up that fits with your views. The studies never compare to biological parents. And most of the studies select a smal # of wealthy lesbian women who have adopted a child or lesbians giving birth with artificial insemination, while the overwhelming majority of homosexual couples are raising a child from a previous heterosexual relationship. No comparison of criminal activity and instead a comparison of how they answer questions

 

[Rune]

Well, thats because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Encouraging biological parents to provide and care for the children they create together is a legitimate governmental interest.



Thats not what we have in the 5 states that now recognize gay marriages. Closely related couples are prohibited and platonic couples face annulment or dissolution by state laws that do so for a failure to consummate the relationship.





And what justification do you have for excluding non sexual couples. If you want to insist that the institution of marriage has nothing to do with procreation, how can you insist it has to do with sex? Childbirth gives rise to governmental concerns. Orgasms do not.




??? They are the only couples who procreate. The only couples where the law would apply.

§ 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;....





I think you make shit up that fits with your views. The studies never compare to biological parents. And most of the studies select a smal # of wealthy lesbian women who have adopted a child or lesbians giving birth with artificial insemination, while the overwhelming majority of homosexual couples are raising a child from a previous heterosexual relationship. No comparison of criminal activity and instead a comparison of how they answer questions

Damn you are fucking boring. Who gives a SHIT what you think about marriage gay or otherwise.

 

[dixon76710]

This might (and its a big 'might') have been relevant in the 18th century when we needed to grow a population. But now it is completely irrelevant.

You still havent even comprehended my argument. Marriage isnt to encourage procreation, it is to deal with it when it does occur. Procreation continues just fine without marrage. Only need to look at the black community in the US. LOWER rates of marriage and HIGHER rates of birth. Resulting in the majority of black kids now born to single mothers and the corresponding increase in poverty, juvenole delinquincy, drug and alcohol addiction and teen pregnancy.

 

[dixon76710]

Damn you are fucking boring. Who gives a SHIT what you think about marriage gay or otherwise.

Some of the posters seem to be nearly obssessed.

 

[WinterBorn]

You still havent even comprehended my argument. Marriage isnt to encourage procreation, it is to deal with it when it does occur. Procreation continues just fine without marrage. Only need to look at the black community in the US. LOWER rates of marriage and HIGHER rates of birth. Resulting in the majority of black kids now born to single mothers and the corresponding increase in poverty, juvenole delinquincy, drug and alcohol addiction and teen pregnancy.

And the marriage licences do absolutely nothing to encourage or discourage having children. If the point of marriage, indeed the reason only straights can marry, is kids, shouldn't there be more regulation towards raising those kids?

And can you show any real and valid studies showing kids raised by two gay parents are less likely to succeed or by happy, well adjusted people?

 

[dixon76710]

And the marriage licences do absolutely nothing to encourage or discourage having children.

Thats what I just said

If the point of marriage, indeed the reason only straights can marry, is kids, shouldn't there be more regulation towards raising those kids?

Current level of regulation seems sufficient.

And can you show any real and valid studies showing kids raised by two gay parents are less likely to succeed or by happy, well adjusted people?

No, the studies generally compare children raised by their biological parents to all others. Since gay couples dont procreate, there arent very many gay couples raising children to study.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, the studies generally compare children raised by their biological parents to all others. Since gay couples dont procreate, there arent very many gay couples raising children to study.

Oh really?

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."

 

[Minister of Truth]

Damn you are fucking boring. Who gives a SHIT what you think about marriage gay or otherwise.

Not you?

 

[dixon76710]

Oh really?
Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Really. No one claimed children raised by "heterosexual" parents do better. It is children raised by biological parents that thrive when compared to all others.

 

[WinterBorn]

Really. No one claimed children raised by "heterosexual" parents do better. It is children raised by biological parents that thrive when compared to all others.

What about children raised by step-parents? Or children raised by adoptive parents?

 

[dixon76710]

What about children raised by step-parents? Or children raised by adoptive parents?

What about them?