I liked Ron Paul until I heard he supports gay marriage.

Really, absurd for a liberterian to insist that government license and regulate homosexual relations that have never been licensed and regulated before. Liberterians want to USE government tax breaks and entitlements to normalize homosexuality. Social engineering by government mandate. Libeterian my ass.

 

Libertarians don't believe the government should be able to dictate the lives of individual citizens.

 

Ron Paul doesn't endorse gay marriage by any means, he is simply indifferent towards it.

 

Yeah, making it absurd that they insist the government dictate the terms of homosexual relationships

 

Making it absurd that they would deny marriage to citizens based on the gender of the couple.

 

Ah, so hes just saying what he needs to win some votes.

 

Perfectly rational.

§ 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;.......

ONLY applies in the case of a man and a woman. Only in heterosexual marriage, are parental obligations created. Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage while never having the parental obligations created by marriage between heterosexual marriage imposed. All the costs to society of marriages tax breaks and gavernmental entitlements, without any of the societal benefits to society. Pure, selfish, self interest.

 

Yet, infertile, elderly, and hey look at that, Gays marry.

Presumption of paternity does nothing to further your argument.

 

You might have a point if adoption didn't exist.

It does, so you don't.

There are also plenty of homosexual people that had kids before they realized they were gay.

 

I suspect with his libertarian ideology, he would like the federal goverment to just stay out of people's private lives. I am sure he does not want the federal government to have anything to with with any type of marriage.

An interesting question: if the government cannot tell gays not to marry, then presumably the government should also not be enforcing marriage.

 

The Bible does not condemn the drinking of alcohol. After all Jesus made wine at a wedding. It condemns being a drunkard.

 

Make a relevant point if you can. The adoption creates the parental obligations, not the marriage.

 

make a relevant point if you can. the CHILDREN in a heterosexual marriage create the parental obligation, not the marriage. rendering your argument, invalid. if the heterosexual couple were not married, the exact same parental obligations still exist.

 

Actually, its originally from the "Uniform Marriage Act" followed by many states.

 

which is a paternity law, not a marriage law. it doesn't apply to all MARRIED people, only to PARENTS and only if daddy is the daddy. if he's not the daddy, he has no responsibility.

like I said, long ago refuted.

 

???? Nooooo, children dont create parental obligations. Giving birth to the child creates the parental obligations in the case of the mother and being married to the woman who gave birth creates the parental obilgations in the case of the father. If a married lesbian woman gives birth to a child, her spouse has no legal connection to the child, whatsoever. No parental obligations or parental rights. And of course, in the case of a married gay men, no children are born. And if one of the gay men were to get a woman pregnant, his spouse has no legal connection to the child. Like I said, they want all the benefits of marriage even though their marriages never create the parental obligations. Only men and women can become husbands and wives who can become fathers and mothers to the children they have created.

And I used to date a woman who was an attorney working for the states Attorney General office. Her only job was trying to establish the identify of fathers of children on public assistance, who have no named father. No paternal obligations existed. Millions of children born to single mothers have no father obligated by law to support the child.

 

???No, you are still just as wrong as you were the first time you made the silly argument.
People under a certain age need parental consent to get married. Only applies in a tiny percentage of married couples and is still, none the less, a "marriage law".

 

Makedde seems to have some strongly held views about christianity, and seems to know very little about it.

 

Actually, it directly contradicts your silly logic, thus your reliance upon your favorite generic denial, viod of even a shred of substance, of "irrelevancy".

 

So I see.Thanks

 

It was relevant. You said:

First off, how does marriage create parental obligations for heterosexual couples?

Even if you ignore that, you still claimed that gays don't want parental obligations, when many gay people very obviously want to adopt.

I'm saying this very obvious fact and I'm actually against our government recognizing homosexual marriages.

I'm against the government recognizing heterosexual marriages, too.

 

Probably 100s of 1000s of kids out there whose daddy isnt actually the daddy, and yet the law makes him the daddy because he was married to the mother of the child.