I declared war on him for caring who people have sex with and what they put in their bodies. I was just kidding when I mentioned "fighting" him in the other thread. I've always disagreed with him on these issues. I wasn't suggesting a change in anything with that joking remark.
In neither event is there any evidence that government policy significantly impacts behavior, so in both cases a lot of money is spent and a lot of freedoms are restricted for the sake of nothing.
- - - - - - - - - -
***Homosexuality:
I believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder (I'm with the lunatic Freud on this one), but I have no moral objection to it (it doesn't effect me; it's none of my business) and do not agree with any government policy which discriminates based on sexuality.
If one argues that homosexuals should get government marital benefits, I argue that government shouldn't be involved in marital benefits.
If one argues they should have adoption rights, I argue that men and women are chemical/physiologically/psychologically different, children are primarily socialized in the home, and so heterosexual couples are ideal parents whereas homosexual couples are not. That some heterosexual couples are bad parents and some homosexual couples make better parents is a matter of coincidence. Anyone who doesn't understand the significance of form vs coincidence is not on my level and should attain and introductory logic/philosophy education before debating this topic with me. 
That said, institutionalized care has to suck. And Neil Patrick Harris adopted (he wanted to; I presume he did. He is legendary, after all.) a son (or daughter? It was probably one or the other), and he's pretty damn awesome. I'm open to debate on the matter of adoption. While I've argued about that heterosexual couples can make better ideal parents, I wasn't raised as an orphan and I imagine most all orphans would prefer loving parents to public institutions, regardless of their genders.
Yes, I use the words "gender" and "sex" indiscriminately. Deal with it. Surgery doesn't change DNA. One can act like whatever he/she wants, I'm not going to redefine a word to be PC about describing fairy behaviors. 
Again, I make no moral objection. I'm all for doing whatever makes one happy. I'm just not going to redefine words to be PC about it.
- - - - - - - - - -
***Drugs:
The evidence is, from countries which have legalized all/virtually all drugs, use rates were not significantly impacted. They didn't rise. They didn't fall.
While I in no way support the use of [hard] drugs and would beat the living shit out of my own children (when I have them) if they tried them, I don't see the point in outlawing them when this doesn't impact usage rates.
Massive amounts of money are spent combating illegal drugs, yet the evidence shows we get no benefit in reduced drug usage rates.
Lives of law-enforcement officers are threatened and taken regularly because of the illegalization of drugs. Tens of thousands have died in Mexico/on the US border for 0 gain. Others, in addition to dealers and robbers, are innocent victims, collateral damage caught in the crossfire, witnesses whose testimony is silenced, authorities who wouldn't look the other way.
I'm not sure if I support the legalization of _all drugs_. But, as I just outlined, evidence appears to show that we're spending a lot of money and getting a lot of people killed for no absolutely no benefit. I don't like the idea of hard drugs being legal, but it looks like what we're doing is just stupid. I wouldn't support legalizing all drugs tomorrow, as our culture should be given time to adapt/prepare for such a change if we were to do it. But joints aren't killing anybody. Outlawing them is.
I referred to "hard" drugs. I was referring to drugs other than alcohol, marijuana, and [I guess] nicotine: Drugs like crack and heroin which are very addictive and do massive amounts of damage to the human body very quickly.
I believe that adults should be as free as society can reasonably leave them. While I don't think drug use should be glamorized and anyone who hasn't finished their education and started working is a fool to drink/smoke marijuana regularly [to any degree], it's clear that laws against marijuana accomplish nothing but to waste buyers' money with jacked-up prices and to get a lot of people, often innocent, killed.
I'm not endorsing drug use and hesitant to admit I think full legalization is best. I miss a relative who ODed some years back. But our laws obviously didn't save him, and the evidence suggests the lack of these laws wouldn't have done him any more harm. The evidence very strongly suggests that if we legalized marijuana next year and considered further legalization down the road after that, money and lives would be saved, not lost. Though I'm no fan of drug use, I have a hard time disputing the evidence on this subject.
"I don't like it/it's evil, so it should be illegal!" is ignorant and stupid. I don't like it either. I agree, most of it is pretty evil. But it'd be pretty damn arrogant of me to pretend this, alone, was a legitimate basis for wasting money and getting people killed.
- - - - - - - - - -
So there we have probably a much more succinct and complete picture of my thoughts on government policy regarding homosexuality and drugs. In both cases, I generally figure that you're an adult and what you do with your life is none of my damn business. I don't presume to know what's better for you than you do. I hope each and every one of you do what you love and are happy. To each his own.
I know I've surely offended many of you with my homosexuality is a mental disorder belief. Maybe I'm trolling. But what do you think of what followed? Does the rest sound so ignorant and hateful?
- - - - - - - - - -
***On socialism/communism and people who want it: (I refer to both because the difference is mostly an equivocation: ultimately power is consolidated and, honestly, you don't want to have a say in how the burger joint down the street runs anyway [and you'd make a crappy consultant on new medical technologies ])
You could claim government should tax 100% and do 100% to ensure that nobody wants anything. Some on this forum and all over the world literally argue for nothing less. It's a nice picture, to pretend everyone will just chip in out of the goodness of their hearts, to pretend that all-powerful bureaucrats will just be incorruptible out of the goodness of their hearts, and everyone will work to their ability and we'll all share in the goods equally.
But people just aren't this way. People aren't incorruptible. People don't work their hearts out and strive to achieve all that they can purely "for the good of mankind!", especially when it's a mankind dominated by a totalitarian government, repressive of most of their freedoms.
But government isn't efficient, and people aren't _nearly_ as efficient outside of a free market.
To all of you bleeding hearted fools who fall more on the "government should tax/do 100% to ensure everyone is taken care of!" end of things, consider donating and volunteering. I suspect most who advocate huge government, massive taxes, and less freedom don't volunteer a minute of their time to help others. The more you help others purely for the sake of helping them, the more your eyes will be opened to the fact that government bureaucrats do _not_ share your motivations and are not as efficiently spending/distributing (in the case of safety-net aid) what they take from us.
Wasting money does not enrich anybody. It doesn't help the least among us. I'm not arguing for hurting the poor by disagreeing with 70% tax rates so they can see 5% of it. I'm not arguing for hurting the poor by arguing that safety-net programs should be designed to help people get back on their own feet (even if it involves funding training and spending _more_ in some cases), _not_ to buy votes (as they currently are). Supporting government waste in the name of helping the less fortunate isn't compassion, it's hypocrisy.
If you love controlling other people, pretending you can do better for them than they can do for themselves, consider for a moment that you might be being a little arrogant. We both know I don't want you messing with my shit, so consider loving a little more and controlling a little less.
I'm not a man of faith, but I was raised in a Catholic household and I hold Christian values very dear. You gotta love.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
