[tdadams]

Hypothetically speaking, if I wanted to smoke pot or have "unapproved" sex, two activities which harm no one and should be of no concern to the state, how does it serve to reduce the pervasiveness of government to empower the government to arbitrarily dictate that I'm not permitted to do those things?

You have some wacky logic.

[fooman]

I would be all for pot smoking AFTER we got rid of ALL government transfer payments.

This means unemployment medicare medicaid soc security would all be privatized.

POT makes people lazy and creates health care costs.

[puroresu]

Because private behavior has public consequences. Suppose I told you I was going to jump off the roof of my house. You might say, "Go ahead, it's your private affair and it's none of anyone's business."

But suppose I added a few details. Suppose I said, "If I get injured jumping off my house, I want you to pay my medical bills." And if you don't, I'll get the government to force you to do so. Then, suppose I demanded that the public schools teach your kids that jumping off a house is a viable and good lifestyle option, and that only bigots disapprove of it. Suppose I dragged the Boy Scouts into court, demanding that they present people who jump off houses as role models for the kids, and demand that the government shut them down if they fail to do so.

So I ask you: Will yesterday's sodomy ruling satisfy gays? Will they say, hey, all we wanted was to be left alone, and we'll take full personal responsibility for any diseases we might catch.

Nope, they'll demand subsidies, demand that kids be taught their lifestyle, demand that any private club or property owner that disapproves must be suppressed by the state. How long now till landlords are forced BY GOVERNMENT to rent to gay couples? Yesterday's ruling unleashed a tidal wave that will lead to bigger and more intrusive government. Far bigger than a little state sodomy law.