Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

[dixon76710]

So why do childless couples still get the benefits?

Because, while it is impossible to detect the ability to procreate, we know it only exists among heterosexual couples. While it is impossible to detect the ability to procreate, it is easy to detect the presence of a man and a woman.
In the olden days the young couple used to drop their drawers for the authorities so they could be checked for the presence of pubic hair and the presumed capacity to procreate that comes with puberty. Instead now they use an arbitrary age. For convenience.

And why do so few benefits actually have to do with children?

They have to do with creating and maintaining the nest. For the benefit of the children and the mothers who give birth to them.

No, I couldn't think of any reason why we don't allow gays to marry. Your arguments have all centered on the claim that children do better, on average, when raised by their biological parents. That seems to be a rather weak argument, considering the number of kids being raised by single parents, step-parents, and adoptive parents, and the number of divorces.

And EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you present advocating for gay marriage would apply equally to marriage between ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, and yet you want special treatment for gays.

 

[WinterBorn]

Because, while it is impossible to detect the ability to procreate, we know it only exists among heterosexual couples. While it is impossible to detect the ability to procreate, it is easy to detect the presence of a man and a woman.
In the olden days the young couple used to drop their drawers for the authorities so they could be checked for the presence of pubic hair and the presumed capacity to procreate that comes with puberty. Instead now they use an arbitrary age. For convenience.

No attempt is even made to determine the ability to procreate. And there are plenty of instances in which it is blatantly obvious that the couple is unable to procreate. And yet you still offer them the benefits of marriage. Also, since modern science can provide methods for gays to procreate, it destroys this reason for not allowing gay marriage.

They have to do with creating and maintaining the nest. For the benefit of the children and the mothers who give birth to them.

And few actually have to do with that either. And if that is the case, why do single mothers not get those benefits?

And EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you present advocating for gay marriage would apply equally to marriage between ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, and yet you want special treatment for gays.

No, I am not seeking special treatment for gays. It goes back to the fundamental reason for getting married. It is a long-term, loving relationship.

 

[dixon76710]

No attempt is even made to determine the ability to procreate.

Thats what I said. Ability to procreate, hard to determine, presence of a man and a woman is easy to determine. Remember?

And there are plenty of instances in which it is blatantly obvious that the couple is unable to procreate. And yet you still offer them the benefits of marriage. Also, since modern science can provide methods for gays to procreate, it destroys this reason for not allowing gay marriage.

Actually modern science can provide methods for my dog and I to procreate, or ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, and yet, you want special treatment because they are gay. Because they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad. Absurd. EVERY argument you put forth advocating for gay marriage would apply just as equally to any two people.

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...
Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Your views are a product of emotion and hormones. Mine are based upon reason and legal precedent.

And few actually have to do with that either. And if that is the case, why do single mothers not get those benefits?

Actually they all have everything to do with that. And single mothers dont get them because they were either never married to the childs father or they decided to divorce. She is left without any support from a spouse and her kids usually at most can hope for a child support payment.

No, I am not seeking special treatment for gays. It goes back to the fundamental reason for getting married. It is a long-term, loving relationship.

My brother and I can have a long term loving relationship but you would deny us those rights because we dont stick our dicks in each others butts. Not as worthy of governmental support as two 18 yr old boys, dumb and full of cum, anxious to ape the heterosexuals in a marriage. Yes, its special treatment for heterosexual couples because

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

and special treatment for homosexuals because excluding them offends them and we want to present homosexuality as an equal alternative to heterosexuality.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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

There is no right that says you can't be offended.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

Who the fuck are you to say that my 3 step-daughters thrived less with me, then they would have with their father?

 

[DamnYankee]

There is no right that says you can't be offended.

There is if you want folks to support you.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is if you want folks to support you.

Or we can show people it is the right thing to do, and have the courts back us up. The constitutional amendment will never pass.

 

[DamnYankee]

I don't support an amendment for gayriage. If you folks in Alabama want to marry your brothers or your sisters, I don't care. *shrug*

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't support an amendment for gayriage. If you folks in Alabama want to marry your brothers or your sisters, I don't care. *shrug*

Awww, ain't it cute when you try and use insults instead of arguments. FAIL!

Gay marriage will happen sooner or later. And after it does, those who spent all this time fighting it will be looked at the same way those who opposed interracial marriages are looked at now.

 

[DamnYankee]

No doubt you and your cousins will be thrilled. But its not about race, but behavior. *shrug*

 

[WinterBorn]

No doubt you and your cousins will be thrilled. But its not about race, but behavior. *shrug*

If you are going to use your accusations of "Strawman!" to avoid debating me, it would be best if you avoided posting strawman arguments.

I have never said it was about race.

 

[DamnYankee]

The stop equating a behavior to race.

 

[WinterBorn]

The stop equating a behavior to race.

I have not done that either. Learn to read or find a new hobby.

 

[DamnYankee]

Gay marriage will happen sooner or later. And after it does, those who spent all this time fighting it will be looked at the same way those who opposed interracial marriages are looked at now.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yep, that is what I posted. That sentence does not equate behavior to race.

That sentence predicts that people will view the homophobes in the same way racists are viewed now. It is a statement about the people who oppose homosexuals and the people who opposed integration. Both groups will be seen as ignorant, closed-minded people who based their views on fear, rumors and ignorance rather than on facts.

 

[DamnYankee]

Spin now, as predicted. LOL

 

[WinterBorn]

Spin now, as predicted. LOL

You make a ridiculous claim. I have to explain what a simple sentence actually means. And now you claim I am the one doing the spin?

lol SM, it always amazes me the lengths you will go to try and come up with some sort of "Gotcha!".

The sentence is exactly what I said it was. It was never equating behavior to race. You saw the word "black" in a sentence talking about homosexuality, and your knee-jerk reaction was to post some nonsense. Now you are trying your best not to look stupid. Good luck with that.

 

[DamnYankee]

Wow.

 

[dixon76710]

Gay marriage will happen sooner or later. And after it does, those who spent all this time fighting it will be looked at the same way those who opposed interracial marriages are looked at now.

Purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their children together is a legitimate governmental interest.

 

[WinterBorn]

Purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Encouraging mothers and fathers to raise their children together is a legitimate governmental interest.

Making sure kids are raised by parents who will provide a loving, stable home is a legitimate governmental interest. Sexual orientation has no bearing on that.