Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

[WinterBorn]

you're obviously under the hugely mistaken impression that government created the institution of marriage.

Don't sweat this quote. He found an article and only quoted the part that fit his argument. The bext paragraph spelled out that the LP believes the gov't has no place in the marriage business.

 

[cawacko]

you're obviously under the hugely mistaken impression that government created the institution of marriage.

He's mistaken about a lot. Whose troll is he? He sucks.

 

[Damocles]

Nobody's troll, man. He's either a new poster or somebody using a proxy server.

 

[dixon76710]

Which is exactly what it says in the libertarian party platform. I've linked to it twice now.

???No it doesnt. They are all for gay marriage. Been part of their platform since the 70s. Marriage is a purely voluntary relationship. It doesnt create any authority to regulate "personal" relationships. Only the couple voluntarily entering the relationship creates that authority.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

illiterate retards shouldn't try to play word games, they just suck at it.

 

[WinterBorn]

???No it doesnt. They are all for gay marriage. Been part of their platform since the 70s. Marriage is a purely voluntary relationship. It doesnt create any authority to regulate "personal" relationships. Only the couple voluntarily entering the relationship creates that authority.

No, Libertarians are all for the government getting out of the marriage business. But failing that, they agree banning gay marriage is discrimination and is unfair.

 

[WinterBorn]

???No it doesnt. They are all for gay marriage. Been part of their platform since the 70s. Marriage is a purely voluntary relationship. It doesnt create any authority to regulate "personal" relationships. Only the couple voluntarily entering the relationship creates that authority.

If the gov't is not regulating it, then how is it that gays cannot marry?

 

[Damocles]

???No it doesnt. They are all for gay marriage. Been part of their platform since the 70s. Marriage is a purely voluntary relationship. It doesnt create any authority to regulate "personal" relationships. Only the couple voluntarily entering the relationship creates that authority.

One more time for the incredibly and deliberately obtuse.

Libertarian Party Platform link: http://www.lp.org/platform

The pertinent section copied and pasted:
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.

With the sentence you need to read a few times bolded. The libertarian party is against the government licensing your personal relationships, which is what we've told you several times. Any further argument of they are "for licensing etc." is deliberate ignorance. I can't do any better than this other than getting your mother to read you the sentence.

 

[dixon76710]

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, .

Because it is absurd. This isnt retaliation against gays

§ 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;....

Its the dictates of biology. Gay judge in California made the same arguments. That the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman that has existed for 1000s of years has had the intent of discriminating against gays.
Ancient Romans celebrated homosexuality but their laws reflected the dictates of biology.

"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."

This wasnt retaliation against gays and neither are our current laws. Its biology

 

[dixon76710]

One more time for the incredibly and deliberately obtuse.

Libertarian Party Platform link: http://www.lp.org/platform

The pertinent section copied and pasted:
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.

With the sentence you need to read a few times bolded. The libertarian party is against the government licensing your personal relationships, which is what we've told you several times. Any further argument of they are "for licensing etc." is deliberate ignorance. I can't do any better than this other than getting your mother to read you the sentence.

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage,

And you still cant seem to grasp the meaning of the above sentence. Libertarians arent opposing Republicans because they wont eliminate all marriage laws, they are opposing them because we wont extend marriage to gays and doing so wins them votes, libertarian ideology be damned, they are more concerned with winning votes.

 

[Damocles]

And you still cant seem to grasp the meaning of the above sentence. Libertarians arent opposing Republicans because they wont eliminate all marriage laws, they are opposing them because we wont extend marriage to gays and doing so wins them votes, libertarian ideology be damned, they are more concerned with winning votes.

Again, you failed to read. Even in the story you quoted you ignored the sentence where they called for them to do the right thing and get the government out of our personal relationships by repealing the marriage licensing laws. You really are deliberately and carefully obtuse.

You are wasting my time. Words mean things, ignoring them doesn't make the meaning go away it just makes you ignorant.

 

[DamnYankee]

children are just as likely to become victims in hetero families as well. your argument is invalid.

Not on a percentage basis. Why do you want children to grow up without the benefit of a mother and a father?

 

[Damocles]

Not on a percentage basis. Why do you want children to grow up without the benefit of a mother and a father?

Let's use this stupid reasoning back at you.

Why do you want children to grow up without any parents?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not on a percentage basis. Why do you want children to grow up without the benefit of a mother and a father?

i'm sure you have a link to prove your claim on the percentage difference? or will that be as big of a strawman argument as your last sentence is?

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

I'm not referring to crimes, per se. Nor even the inherenbt instability of homosexual relationships. Not now anyway. I'm referring to the obvious fact that children are better nurtured with a stable household consisting of a man married to one woman, the mother of the children.

 

[dixon76710]

If the gov't is not regulating it, then how is it that gays cannot marry?

You can marry your dog if you like, but we know when you refer to "marry" you are talking about government licensing, reglation and encouragement with tax breaks and governmental entitlements that go along with Government recognition of marriage. Thats what you want for the gays
And but for the potential of childbirth, government wouldnt likely even be involved. Tahts why its limited to heterosexual couples.

 

[DamnYankee]

Let's use this stupid reasoning back at you.

Why do you want children to grow up without any parents?

I don't. I've long supported gay's rights to adopt, after the list of stable heterosexual couples has been exhausted.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not referring to crimes, per se. Nor even the inherenbt instability of homosexual relationships. Not now anyway. I'm referring to the obvious fact that children are better nurtured with a stable household consisting of a man married to one woman, the mother of the children.

If every child out there that could be adopted was, you may have a point. However many children grow up in migratory and unstable relationships because many are never adopted and they move between foster homes. Why do you want children to grow up without any parents whatsoever? Why would that be "better"?

 

[Damocles]

I don't. I've long supported gay's rights to adopt, after the list of stable heterosexual couples has been exhausted.

So you are saying that it is okay to make them "likely victims" at that point? Am I misunderstanding you or did you put forward an idea that was contrary to what you meant? I'm not trying to abuse you here, I am trying to find out if you really meant it was okay to then make those kids "likely" victims...

 

[dixon76710]

I'm referring to the obvious fact that children are better nurtured with a stable household consisting of a man married to one woman, the mother of the children.

Studies have shown that children with both their biological mother and father do better even than kids who are raised by their biological mother and stepfather. Not just any "man" but instead the biological father.