[quote]H factor wrote:
I didn’t increase anything. [/quote]
You supported the increase of beneficiaries under a government recognized/structured institution…The same institution you just claimed to want to tear down as a libertarian.
Um, you’re the one that says STATE-recognized marriage should go…[but after swelling its ranks, oddly…]
So you turned having a STATE-RECOGNIZED marriage into a right…
So, where is my post about taking away, say, financial aid from gay students? Sorry, H-factor, I’m the one with an intellectual, conservative and libertarian stance on state recognized marriage. The ordering of reproductive sex has a HUGE impact on the welfare of the nation as a whole. General Welfare. Gay sex doesn’t.
Um, we’re talking about STATE recognized marriage. Not private ceremonies with a Wicca priestess, or Atheist life coach, telling the bride she can kiss the other bride. Go for it.
Well, no. Sorry, but you still have a very narrow understanding. In fact, you’re making my case. As a whole heterosexual will have sex, and when taken as whole, children will still be born. We will procreate regardless, but that’s both good and bad. Putting aside that we may not be procreating adequately anymore to replace ourselves, like much of the West, let’s both agree that we will procreate. The issue is in what manner. How heterosexual sex is ordered has a massive impact on the economic and social (criminality, multigenerational broken homes) health of a nation. Look at you welfare and entitlement roles…So the nation has a critical interest, for the general welfare of the entire public body.
Misrepresentation. See above.
See above. The model is the ordering of the reproductive sexes, so the reproductive act is happening more frequently in intact biological homes. This means seeing more men and women pairing up in committed homes. This means desiring to increase the frequency this model is encountered in everyday life by the opposite sexes. This means that even the infertile man and woman together serves as a model to young single men and women. In fact, your suggestion is counter-productive. Your suggestion would increase the number of uncommitted pairings of the opposite/reproductive sexes encountered, not decrease.
Things you can not possibly disagree with me on.
- Man and woman is the smallest reproductive unit. Naturally and spontaneously.
- Not just how many (which you only focused on) offspring are produced, but how this happens, in what circumstances it happens (both bio parents, or broken homes) is of critical importance.
- Heterosexual sex/the reproductive model, has an irreplaceable and absolutely critical impact on the nation as a whole (general welfare). Heterosexuality vanishes tomorrow, disaster. If we limit it to only intact biological homes vanishing–all remaining fathers stopped marrying the mothers of their children, and raising their own kids–disaster.
- Homosexual sex does not. Vanishes tomorrow? A curiosity in the news cycle.
The libertarian case for state recognition of hetero-marriage is easily made through the undeniable impact on the general welfare of the nation. And, if their ideology wasn’t so juvenile and short-sighted, they might see the impact on the nanny state. Again, take a look at the patrons of the nanny state. Knock on some doors in a poor trailer park (my people), or in a ghetto. Ask to speak to the fathers…Take a head count.
So yes, we have a vested interest in how hetero-sex is ordered in society. We don’t with homo-sex.
The only thing you have is emotionalism. That a thing that isn’t even remotely equal, should be declared so by Government. You claim to hold some libertarian ideal of no state recognized marriage, because you know it’ll never happen. You’re safe from seeing it actually transpire. In fact, you helped increased the voters who’d vote against such an action. No, you support it because you want the government to pretend the unequal is equal, out of some progressive sense of “fair.”