There is one drug when consumed that absolutely has been proven to lead to an increase in violence by users. And that drug is: Alcohol. No other drug known to man (despite anecdotal evidence) fits that pattern.

So, outlaw alcohol?

The best argument against government meddling in abortion is simple: any government strong enough to outlaw abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory.

And again #80,”blowhards arguing against personal choice.” Again, your personal choice stops when it affects others rights to life, liberty, et al. Period. Why is that hard to understand? I guess it’s as confusing to you as unwrapping a condom…..

You have the syntax and word choice of a man, so I’m going to say…what if you created a kid you wanted? It is, after all, half you. And the woman decides to abort it? You get no say. What about your rights? Saying a woman can decide to kill a baby and no one can say boo is not libertarian.

Where are the Libertarians on all this?

1) Me: People should make their own choices; whether I agree or not with their choice isn’t the least bit relevant.

2) You: No, I get to choose for them.

Using your crayon, circle the one who’s really playing god. (Helpful hint: it’s choice #2.)

#77 — blah blah blah … Be responsible?”

I posited that your argument could be simplified as “sucks to be you.”

I’ll take that as a confirmation.

#77 — “This is, in fact, a conservative site.”

Correct, but conservatives aren’t limited to your brand of dogmatic reactionary blowhards arguing against personal choice.

You may as well circle #2 above as well.

#78 — “Limiting government is not the same as eliminating government…why is this concept such a hard thing to grasp?”

It’s rarely clear what parts of government a given libertarian wishes to unwind. There seems to be numerous flavours of “libertarian.” Some tend toward isolationism. Not realistic.

Limiting government is not the same as eliminating government…why is this concept such a hard thing to grasp?

As far as I can tell the gays merely want to be able to get spousal benefits, e.g. health insurance, benefits if the spouse dies, etc. If so, isn’t the government sorta required for the legality aspect?

In other words, they want the government to force private companies to extend these benefits.

Real libertarian, that.

I can disapprove of any behavior I want. Pedophiles have brain issues that make them that way. Should I accept they have no choice? I don’t give a rats ass who consenting adults have sex with as far as legislating it. Which was exactly my point in bringing up my disapproving of homosexuals-we don’t attempt to legislate against everything that bothers us. Just the things that harm others. Get it? And actually, there’s compelling research that homosexuality is rather like sickle cell, in that one copy of a gene actually makes you more fertile, but 2 copies makes you homosexual. Which would explain it’s persistiveness in populations over time. Gayness isn’t increasing, like virally-transferred illnesses like HPV are. Straight siblings of gays show much higher rates of fecundity than the general population. Really fascinating stuff.

The government probably could get out of the marriage business, if there weren’t so many jackasses running to the courts when their personal mating decisions go awry. Want to keep the marrying out of the government’s hands? Keep the ending of it out too. Which means no one to whine to about not seeing your kids enough or not getting enough money.

If so, isn’t the government sorta required for the legality aspect?

That’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. If there were no such thing as legally married status, the government, health-care providers, and private employers would have to develop an alternate paradigm.