Conservative Paradox

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Conservative Paradox

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

cornopean wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

Are you suggesting that all marriages involve dependent minors?

no. many do. but all marriages have the possibility of producing such. and such children deserve the protection of govt.

Are you suggesting that two men can create a child? Or two women? (Sure, the women can get a sperm donor or the men can adopt.)

But more to the point; the government already makes efforts to protect children when the home environment is deemed unhealthy. Are you suggesting that more is needed with regard to same-gender couples who parent?

And since these couples can already adopt children, I think your objection doesn't hold. Your concerns over the suitability of the home environment for children might be an argument against letting same-gender couples adopt or have kids, but it does not seem to be a valid argument against allowing them to enter into a legal civil union analogous to marriage and carrying all rights and privileges extended thereto.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

Quote:

[quote="TrespassersW"]

cornopean wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

Are you suggesting that all marriages involve dependent minors?

no. many do. but all marriages have the possibility of producing such. and such children deserve the protection of govt.

Are you suggesting that two men can create a child? Or two women? (Sure, the women can get a sperm donor or the men can adopt.)

no.
I am saying that the govt needs to regulate marriage b/c marriages can produce children. if marriage were just about what two people are doing to each other, then there probably is no need to regulate it. but b/c more people are involved than just the man and woman, it needs to be regulated. children are entitled to the protection of the law.

Quote:

But more to the point; the government already makes efforts to protect children when the home environment is deemed unhealthy. Are you suggesting that more is needed with regard to same-gender couples who parent?

my worry is that gay couples would be allowed to adopt children if their relationship was defined as a "marriage".

Quote:

And since these couples can already adopt children, I think your objection doesn't hold.

gay couples can adopt children? I didn't know that.

Quote:

Your concerns over the suitability of the home environment for children might be an argument against letting same-gender couples adopt or have kids, but it does not seem to be a valid argument against allowing them to enter into a legal civil union analogous to marriage and carrying all rights and privileges extended thereto.

how do you understand a marriage? for me, saying that two men are married is like saying a square circle.

Anym
Forum Elder

Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

cornopean wrote:

Quote:

And since these couples can already adopt children, I think your objection doesn't hold.

gay couples can adopt children? I didn't know that.

After all those years of Rosie you still don't know that? Laughing

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

Quote:

my worry is that gay couples would be allowed to adopt children if their relationship was defined as a "marriage".

Are you worried about this based on the false information you distributed the last time this topic was discussed?

joeyjock
Forum Elder

Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject:

Ugh...Here we go again
Saving children from the horrors of having someone who loves them
EVERY study done the Pediatric medical and Psychological assocs
ALL OF THEM...without exception state that children brought up by two men or two women grow up no different than those with a mother and a father

Your "worry" isn't worry at all
It is pure unadulterated bigotry

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

cornopean wrote:

I am saying that the govt needs to regulate marriage b/c marriages can produce children.

With respect, that makes no sense. Your argument against marriages between persons of the same-gender--pairings which cannot create children--is that many marriages involve the creation of children?

I don't get it. And I have to agree with your detractors here; you are advocating for government taking a rather invasive role in our private lives, which runs contrary to your stated beliefs in a small, limited government.

cornopean wrote:

my worry is that gay couples would be allowed to adopt children if their relationship was defined as a "marriage".

Afraid they'll catch being gay? Wink

cornopean wrote:

Quote:

And since these couples can already adopt children, I think your objection doesn't hold.

gay couples can adopt children? I didn't know that.

The law and the number of obstacles to gay adoption varies from state to state. The following map shows states that don't allow gay persons to adopt in red.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/do....._color.pdf

More info here:

http://adoption.about.com/od/g.....issues.htm

cornopean wrote:

Quote:

how do you understand a marriage? for me, saying that two men are married is like saying a square circle.

If you refer back to my original comments on this, you should understand my position. I don't care whether you call it a "marriage" or not, but the government shouldn't be denying people the liberty to choose just because some people don't like another person's choice.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

TrespassersW wrote:

cornopean wrote:

I am saying that the govt needs to regulate marriage b/c marriages can produce children.

With respect, that makes no sense. Your argument against marriages between persons of the same-gender--pairings which cannot create children--is that many marriages involve the creation of children?

the real danger conservatives are attempting to prevent is children growing up in a household where the parents are of the same gender.
so I agree that same gender relationships cannot produce children but if they are able to label their relationship a "marriage", then what would keep them from adopting children? cons operate on the presumption that a mother and father is the ideal parenting relationship.

Quote:

I don't get it. And I have to agree with your detractors here; you are advocating for government taking a rather invasive role in our private lives, which runs contrary to your stated beliefs in a small, limited government.

well this intrusion is justified IMO b/c of the children who deserve the opportunity of growing up in a real family.

Quote:

cornopean wrote:

my worry is that gay couples would be allowed to adopt children if their relationship was defined as a "marriage".

Afraid they'll catch being gay? Wink

well this is one concern. the first concern is that there is no replacement for a man and a woman. the man provides something that the woman can't and vice versa. but yes...children that grow up in a gay household are more likely to be gay themselves..yes? and I regard the gay lifestyle as a serious health hazard.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

Quote:

what do you think of this guy's comments on marriage? it's Jeff Miron, economic prof from harvard. I always found his view fascinating even tho I am not sure it is adequate as far as children go.

The gay marriage debate has unleashed passionate responses from both opponents and supporters. Opponents believe gay marriage violates moral and religious values, while supporters believe bans on gay marriage are discriminatory.

Lost in the acrimony is the one thing both sides agree on: that government should define and provide civil marriage. Yet this is arguably the source of the trouble.

From a policy perspective, legal marriage is a collection of contractual arrangements between the government, the marrying couple, and their children (if any). In particular, marriage establishes default rules about inheritance, division of common property, and guardianship of children. And civil marriage bundles all these contractual rights and responsibilities.

Governments probably should define and enforce default rules about each component of the marriage contract, such as those about who is the legal parent of a minor child.

Governments can do this, however, without defining or “supplying” marriage. Indeed, governments already do so. If an unmarried woman has a child, government rules determine this mother’s rights and responsibilities with respect to that child, as well as those of the biological father. Likewise, government rules already exist regarding communal property and inheritances for people who are not married.

By exiting the marriage business, governments would avoid any necessity of taking a stand on gay marriage. This would calm the debate and polarization over this issue. Couples that wanted the particular bundle of contracts included in civil marriage could arrange for this through private contracts. Paradoxically, government exit from the marriage business might strengthen religious marriage, precisely the goal of many gay marriage opponents.

The approach outlined here is, without question, unlikely to occur. But it still provides a useful framework for thinking about gay marriage. Viewed from the “contracting” perspective, the main argument for civil marriage would be that this particular bundle helps vulnerable groups, like children. This claim does not seem particularly convincing. If it is, however, it presumably applies to children of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples alike. Thus, the contracting approach says that if governments do provide marriage, they should include gay marriage.

Would this then mean governments had to provide civil marriage for polygamous relations? Not necessarily. Governments might reasonably decline to provide polygamous marriage simply because such contracts could easily become hopelessly complicated and difficult to enforce.

http://jeffreyalanmiron.typepa.....riage.html

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

Quote:

I am not sure it is adequate as far as children go.

And what inadequacy might that be? Smile

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

cornopean wrote:

TrespassersW wrote:

cornopean wrote:

I am saying that the govt needs to regulate marriage b/c marriages can produce children.

With respect, that makes no sense. Your argument against marriages between persons of the same-gender--pairings which cannot create children--is that many marriages involve the creation of children?

the real danger conservatives are attempting to prevent is children growing up in a household where the parents are of the same gender.

Some of those same people used to openly make the same complaint about mixed-race households.

cornopean wrote:

...cons operate on the presumption that a mother and father is the ideal parenting relationship.

In a society based on personal liberty, is it really enough to take that liberty from others because of commonly held presumptions?

cornopean wrote:

Quote:

well this intrusion is justified IMO b/c of the children who deserve the opportunity of growing up in a real family.

We're not talking about cartoon people here; they are "real." And if you are sincere in believing that government has an obligation to keep kids from being born into bad situations, are we going to have government decide which heterosexuals can and can't marry? Or perhaps we can just let them decide who gets to breed.

cornopean wrote:

...yes...children that grow up in a gay household are more likely to be gay themselves..yes?

Got a study you can cite to support that?

cornopean wrote:

...I regard the gay lifestyle as a serious health hazard.

So is the redneck lifestyle; should we stop them from marrying and breeding? If I get AIDS from a blood transfusion, are you going to have the government take my children away?

Look... I don't like the idea of homosexual men raising children. Thing is, I'm wise enough to know that my idea of it isn't the actual thing. I'm operating on ignorance, and my personal discomfort with the idea of someone else's life is no basis for treating them as less of a human being.

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

cornopean wrote:

That was the point of my earlier statement:

Quote:

Of course, if government steered clear of attaching any special privileges to marriage in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue.

In my opinion, government should not be attaching any special privileges or treatment to a marriage license. Period. Let people contract to enter into civil unions if they choose, and call them what they choose, but keep government the hell out of it.

joeyjock
Forum Elder

Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 2108
Location: Fort Lauderdale

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject:

I don't get the concept of what is a "real" family
children who grow up in same sex households are NO more liely to be gay than kids who don't
there is NO study that finds the opposite to be true

Not that this has ANYTHING to do with this argument but would you think that children should be removed from households that have parents who are in the KKK?
from households where the parents have used drugs?
or are obese?
Tres is right ... your same argument had been used in families with bi-racial parents
children need people who love them and care for them
That's it...

Anym
Forum Elder

Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject:

if anything the children of heterosexual couples who show up on Jerry Springer,or Maury need to be taken away Laughing

TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject:

I have to side with joey here ("and the seventh seal was opened, and I beheld a pale horse, with a pale rider..."); when considering whom we should allow to parent a child, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I agree that a good father paired with a good mother is the best setting for raising a child, but that doesn't mean there aren't good settings that don't match up to that picket fence image.

If we're talking about adoption, those deciding who gets to raise the kid should be applying strict guidelines to all comers equally.

fellfire
Forum Elder

Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Conservative Paradox

cornopean wrote:

First, cons support a voucher system for funding education.

So you believe that both sides (libs and cons) agree that it is a legitimate "business" of the state to support education through taxpayer money.

cornopean wrote:

Second, with such a system, many more private schools would come into existence.
Third, these private schools would not be subject to the state laws regulating schools.

Well now, of course their would be more private schools, since now anyone who wanted to provide daycare for kids from 5 years old through 18 years old could open a "school". All paid for by the state. You wouldn't even have to teach anything since there would be no regulations on what you did.

This is the "conservative" non-interventionist approach? Interesting.

You don't see a problem with fraud,waste, and abuse on a profound scale with this?

cornopean wrote:

Fourth, one of these laws is that schools must use only certified teachers.
Fifth, hence many uncertified teachers would be able to get jobs at these schools.
Under the current system (which libs are fighting to preserve) uncertified teachers, who are nonetheless excellent teachers, are not allowed (here is the intrusion) to teach.

Ahh ... I see now. Of course you wouldn't want these schools to have to teach anything because you don't want these schools to be able to teach anything.

I am guessing you are one of those "uncertified, but nonetheless excellent teachers"?

cornopean wrote:

If you disagree, tell me exactly what proposition you take issue with.

My disagreements are with your second and third and your fourth and fifth.

You want to take money from taxpayers and provide it to anyone who hangs a school bell on their door - and leave it at that. The school does not have to teach anything, it could still claim to be a school.

You make an assertion that certifying the ability of a teacher to teach is a bad thing with only a statement of "uncertified, but nonetheless excellent teachers" while ignoring completely the other side of that: "uncertified and completely useless teachers".

What conclusion should I draw here? Do you feel anyone can adequately teach children, so there is no need for certification? Why do you think having someone prove they know how to instill knowledge in a child properly is any different then having someone prove they know how to install a boiler in a building properly?

Ultimately, you are saying it is "a wise and proper use of government" to take citizens money for the purpose of educating the citizens children and give it to anyone that care to claim they can do that job without verification.

	LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 4 of 7

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory