Replies

First of all, be fair to CharlesWayneCT; I said this stuff, not him, so no need to drag him in.

OK, keep deluding yourself into believing that pointing out the absurdity of "sheep humping is a protected right" constitutes an unintelligent response.

I never said it was a protected right. I was speaking abstractly about the power of government to enforce morality.

Yeah, states have only had the power to marry since the Reformation. We got screwed immediately...give or take 500 years.

First of all, I never said it would happen immediately. Secondly, we didn't have governemnt involved in so many other aspects of life that your marital status become relevant. Was there any debate over whether same-sex partners should qualifiy for marital employer-based health insurance benefits? We're living in another world now.

1. You may be of the mind, but we have no data to support it.

Do you have any to oppose it? It's hard to quantify. I think it's reasonable to assume that having some parents is better than none.

2. Given the prevalence of drug/alcohol abuse and other destructive behaviors in the gay community, I think that's not a safe bet.

Speaking of supporting data, you have any credible data on this? More importantly, any proof that they're the same people that are trying to adopt? Most hard partiers, gay or straight, have no interest in raising children.

3. I believe most kids who have a single mom would be better off raised by my wife and me, so why don't we remake society's laws so that I'm their dad? All we'll have to do is set up a big federal check for me each month.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'm not touching this one for now.

I never said it was a protected right.

Um...something you can do anytime without government interference IS a protected right. You said it's no business of yours or government's if someone is screwing a sheep behind closed doors. Sounds like a right to me.

Do you have any to oppose it?

I think the thriving of the species in heterosexual family arrangements over the last 10,000 years or so is evidence we shouldn't screw with it. We don't have evidence that painting your kid purple won't help him have a better life, either, but I ain't making my kids the guinea pigs.

Speaking of supporting data, you have any credible data on this?

I've seen a number of studies and can dig a couple of more up, but for starters, Get Off My Honor by Hans Zeigler cites a 1998 study that showed a doubled rate of alcohol use and 14 times as much cocaine use among homosexual youth as heterosexual youth. I can find others, if need be.

More importantly, any proof that they're the same people that are trying to adopt?

Let me ask you this: Are you really trusting lib social workers to look all that hard? (Not that all of them are bad, but I'm just sayin', it ain't like they listen to Limbaugh a lot, you know?)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'm not touching this one for now.

I was. My point is that the fact that some kids may benefit should not be used to enable government to shaft us all. At best, we're talking about moving a very small number of kids from the fire to the frying pan, and doing so by allowing a tyrannical move by courts and extremists.

I mean, heck, if it'll get kids out of foster care and singl-mom homes, let's do away with the First Amendment while we're at it. It's for the children.

Seriously, if you think legalizing gay marriage will do anything to reduce government power, be advised I have a bridge for sale, and I'm letting her go cheap.