Rough Libertarian Critique of Conservatives

dixon76710 said:
What about them?
Click to expand...

You seem adamant that only the biological parents are qualified to raise their kids, and use that as the basis for banning gay marriage. So I thought you could give your thoughts on step-parents or adoptive parents.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I see you've met Straw Man. :)
Click to expand...

Starting in this thread now,SM? Which way will you go now? Rant about the maineman shit 5 years ago? About my changing my account name 4 years ago? What will it be this time?

Get in with the topic or go wait for me in the War Zone little a good little 'tard.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I see Solitary aka Winterborn losing badly here so lashing out at me with name calling and personal insults. :)
Click to expand...

Would you care to join in the discussion or just take pot-shots?

The discussion has been about gay marriages.
 
WinterBorn said:
Starting in this thread now,SM? Which way will you go now? Rant about the maineman shit 5 years ago? About my changing my account name 4 years ago? What will it be this time?

Get in with the topic or go wait for me in the War Zone little a good little 'tard.
Click to expand...

We'll make up a subject. He'll be a Sith Lord and you a Jedi Master, and then he can call you all sorts of names for being a lame defender of civilization instead of a serious power broker. Game on!!
 
Threedee said:
We'll make up a subject. He'll be a Sith Lord and you a Jedi Master, and then he can call you all sorts of names for being a lame defender of civilization instead of a serious power broker. Game on!!
Click to expand...
Couldn't we play house instead? DY can be the Daddy and Winter can be the Mommy and the rest of us can be their little brat bastards?
 
WinterBorn said:
You seem adamant that only the biological parents are qualified to raise their kids,
Click to expand...

Never as much as even implied such a thing. Children, on average, simply do better when raised by both their biological parents in a marriage.

WinterBorn said:
and use that as the basis for banning gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Laws dont inquire as to the sexuality of those who seek a marriage license. Gays, like 51 year old divorcees such as myself, to set in my ways, dont have any desire to marry a woman.

WinterBorn said:
So I thought you could give your thoughts on step-parents or adoptive parents.
Click to expand...

??? "My thoughts" Nothing wrong with them. Both likely preferrable to a single mother without sufficient financial means. Does nothing for your arguments regarding gays.
 
dixon76710 said:
Never as much as even implied such a thing. Children, on average, simply do better when raised by both their biological parents in a marriage.



Laws dont inquire as to the sexuality of those who seek a marriage license. Gays, like 51 year old divorcees such as myself, to set in my ways, dont have any desire to marry a woman.



??? "My thoughts" Nothing wrong with them. Both likely preferrable to a single mother without sufficient financial means. Does nothing for your arguments regarding gays.
Click to expand...

Except your entire argument against it has been parenting.

So if that isn't an issue, we can count on your support?
 
WinterBorn said:
Except your entire argument against it has been parenting.

So if that isn't an issue, we can count on your support?
Click to expand...

??? You lost me there. The nuclear family, mom and dad raising the kids they create together in a marriage. Simply the preferred model. The kids tend to do better than those who are not raised by both their biological parents.

§ 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;....

is only applicable to a man and a woman. Gays arent banned from the process, they generally choose not to partake.
 
Last edited:
dixon76710 said:
??? You lost me there. The nuclear family, mom and dad raising the kids they create together in a marriage. Simply the preferred model. The kids tend to do better than those who are not raised by both their biological parents.

§ 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;....

is only applicable to a man and a woman. Gays arent banned from the process, they generally choose not to partake.
Click to expand...

This definition mostly works. However, many women upon get married, will run into me (a few times), and wind up having a child which wouldn't exactly be the husband's paternal child. :cool:

:3d:
 
dixon76710 said:
??? You lost me there. The nuclear family, mom and dad raising the kids they create together in a marriage. Simply the preferred model. The kids tend to do better than those who are not raised by both their biological parents.

§ 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;....

is only applicable to a man and a woman. Gays arent banned from the process, they generally choose not to partake.
Click to expand...

You keep referring back to paternity and children. Ok, its generally better if the family is a Mom & Dad and the kids they create. Its a lovely little "Leave It To Beaver" scene, but hardly realistic.

And it is not a reason to deny the benefits to gays who wish to marry. It is not illegal for that "perfect" family to be split by divorce. It is not illegal for children to be born out of wedlock. But you want to maintain the status quo of it being illegal for gays to marry. Illogical.
 
WinterBorn said:
You keep referring back to paternity and children. Ok, its generally better if the family is a Mom & Dad and the kids they create. Its a lovely little "Leave It To Beaver" scene, but hardly realistic.

And it is not a reason to deny the benefits to gays who wish to marry. It is not illegal for that "perfect" family to be split by divorce. It is not illegal for children to be born out of wedlock. But you want to maintain the status quo of it being illegal for gays to marry. Illogical.
Click to expand...


??? Illogical? How so? No more illogical than all the birds each spring pairing off into couples made up of a male and female to build their nests. Perfectly logical. What would be illogical would be two males building a nest, trying to ape the heterosexuals. Even more illogical is those two male birds demanding the same governmental tax breaks and entitlements given to the heterosexuals to help them build their nest, to help them ape the heterosexuals.
 
dixon76710 said:
??? Illogical? How so? No more illogical than all the birds each spring pairing off into couples made up of a male and female to build their nests. Perfectly logical. What would be illogical would be two males building a nest, trying to ape the heterosexuals. Even more illogical is those two male birds demanding the same governmental tax breaks and entitlements given to the heterosexuals to help them build their nest, to help them ape the heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

So your claim is that all 1,400 benefits given to married couples is solely based on reproductive capabilities?
 
dixon76710 said:
Yes, and here all along you thought it was their ability to have an orgasm.
Click to expand...

So why do childless couples still get the benefits? And why do so few benefits actually have to do with children?

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top