Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

dixon76710 said:
They also are free to depart from their parties platform. Still, in general Republicans are in favor of the current limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples and Libertarians are opposed to those limitations, specifically because the limitation excludes gays.
Click to expand...

I posted the platform, you are wrong. Libertarians are against the government regulation of personal relationships. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll try again. Same link. http://www.lp.org/platform

Same quote.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.
Click to expand...

I bolded the pertinent section, linked to the platform of the actual party, and copied/pasted the relevant area...

Read up before you start making claims about things like this. There's this thing called "google" it will help you.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's ALMOST comical to watch some of you illiterates play this word game. Only extremists would take the idea of treating gay couples equally with heterosexual couples in marriage and equate it to government licensed and regulated relationships.
Click to expand...

A realist. Its a fact. Not some extreme position. Marriages are licensed, regulated and encouraged with tax breaks and governemntal entitlements and you are insisting that this includes gays.
 
dixon76710 said:
A realist. Its a fact. Not some extreme position. Marriages are licensed, regulated and encouraged with tax breaks and governemntal entitlements and you are insisting that this includes gays.
Click to expand...

you're delusional. I am insisting that the government has NO authority to license or regulate relationships and/or marriage.
 
Damocles said:
I posted the platform, you are wrong. Libertarians are against the government regulation of personal relationships. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll try again. Same link. http://www.lp.org/platform

Same quote.



I bolded the pertinent section, linked to the platform of the actual party, and copied/pasted the relevant area...

Read up before you start making claims about things like this. There's this thing called "google" it will help you.
Click to expand...

Nah, you bolded the irrelevant section. Marriage is a purely voluntary arrangement.
 
dixon76710 said:
Nah, you bolded the irrelevant section. Marriage is a purely voluntary arrangement.
Click to expand...

Jeebus, you have to be deliberately ignorant. The section I bolded made it clear that Libertarians believe that the government shouldn't be licensing any relationships between consenting adults, yet you continue to pretend that "libertarians believe" something they do not. Take some remedial reading and get back to us. This is a worthless argument if you deliberately refuse to assimilate actual information and spout incorrect assumptions.
 
Damn Yankee said:
...Thus creating likely victims.
Click to expand...

Tell me in what way it is "likely" and we'll talk. We'll see if it is also "likely" that the same types of crimes happen when the parents are heterosexual. Using this criteria, heterosexuals should not be allowed to have children.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Its not simply appeal to tradition, but a tradition that has been tested and refined throughout the ages. And the definition of marriage has always included a man and a woman, and has never included two men or two woman. If you want your gay pals to have a licensed relationship, call it something else.
Click to expand...

It is simply an appeal to tradition. The same "but a tradition that has been tested and refined throughout the ages" argument could be made anytime someone tries an appeal to tradition.

It has never, but it can and will. And it will not change the marriage of a single straight person. It will not increase the number of gays. In short, they gain and no one loses.
 
dixon76710 said:
The licensing and regulation of marriage is all about children.



You didnt understand my argument.
Click to expand...

And yet, two straight people who are sterile are allowed to marry. Two straight senior citizens, long past child-bearing age, are allowed to marry.
 
cawacko said:
Here is something from the Libertarian Party itself saying they want government out of marriage. Seems like the Libertarians on this board are in the majority when it comes to what Libertarians want, not the minority like you claim.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality
Click to expand...

WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.

Like I said, absurd position. Simultaneously demanding that they expand marriage, and eliminate it.
 
dixon76710 said:
WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.

Like I said, absurd position. Simultaneously demanding that they expand marriage, and eliminate it.
Click to expand...

So tell us again what your whole point of posting on this thread is and what your problem with the opening post is?
 
dixon76710 said:
They also are free to depart from their parties platform. Still, in general Republicans are in favor of the current limitations of marriage to heterosexual couples and Libertarians are opposed to those limitations, specifically because the limitation excludes gays.
Click to expand...

You looked at Wikipedia, which is notoriously unreliable. Oddly, while DY will blast others for quoting it, he didn't seem to object to your quote. Users can edit or even write the info in that site.

You should have gone to the Libertarian Party's website.

"WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party praised Maine Governor John Baldacci (D) for signing a bill legalizing gay marriage and the Washington, D.C. City Council Wednesday for voting to recognize gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, opening the door to marriage equality in the District, but urged Baldacci and council members to take the proper approach to marriage equality and repeal government definitions and regulation of marriage entirely."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...aine-dc-marriage-bills-but-urge-better-policy


In other words, yes gay marriage is praised, but the libertarian preference is to remove the gov't from the entire equation. Which is, I believe, what the libertarians here have been saying.
 
WinterBorn said:
And yet, two straight people who are sterile are allowed to marry. Two straight senior citizens, long past child-bearing age, are allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

So. Its called a bright line drawn in the law. Not necessarily for its precision, but instead its ease in identification. Its impossible to determine a couples capacity to procreate. Its easy to determine if they are made up of a man and a woman.

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
dixon76710 said:
WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.

Like I said, absurd position. Simultaneously demanding that they expand marriage, and eliminate it.
Click to expand...

Well that was sneaking and dishonest. Why didn't you post the next paragraph??

"“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."

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-applaud-steps-toward-marriage-equality

In other words, Libertarians believe the gov't should not be involved at all.
 
dixon76710 said:
So. Its called a bright line drawn in the law. Not necessarily for its precision, but instead its ease in identification. Its impossible to determine a couples capacity to procreate. Its easy to determine if they are made up of a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing here, but if a 75 year old man and a 75 year old woman get married, it ain't for children.
 
dixon76710 said:
WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.

Like I said, absurd position. Simultaneously demanding that they expand marriage, and eliminate it.
Click to expand...

you're obviously under the hugely mistaken impression that government created the institution of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top