A purely subjective statement. What about gay rights? Remember that discrimination against minorities was a State enterprise. It couldn't happen except through the power of the State, Walter Williams' shows time and time again that the free market is the only place where everyman is truly equal.

“Dogs and cat living together…mass hysteria!”

I was thinking of the same thing, Dan's recent posts don't seem like the same Dan that likes to be the contrarian on most issues.

It's not like one person is inherently more productive than another person.

Well, except our dear leader. He can create and save jobs and single handedly pull us out of the jaws of another great depression. I remember this lesson from Soviet schools. We are all exactly alike. No person is different from another. I'm sure if you were running my company, your return would be at least as high as mine because I'm not inherently better at using the capital than you are.

That's not true, Daniel. In most cases, where allowing gay marriage has been put to the population, it has been voted down. Initiatives have succeeded only through the courts. Personally, I think the gay rights activists have taken the wrong approach in this debate and created a lot more obstacles for themselves than they should have.

“But let's say it is just the minority of gays demanding a change. So? If a majority's social mores leads them to violate the rights of gay people should we mock the gay minority for wanting to change the laws? Of course not. “

Well done. But, if the majority decides to vote to rob people making $1MM of $800K of it, vs. taxing the rest of the population at a rate of 20%, then you're okay with that and you have a million justifications for why that money really belongs to all of us, thus from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. A saying which you accused Marx of giving a bad name instead of recognizing it for the stupidity that it is.

And THAT – not whether or not gay people should have rights and to be treated with the respect and dignity afforded everyone else – is the point.

The issue of adopting children is not about the gays and denying gays rights. It's about the best interest of the child. Did you know that it's also virtually impossible for a 40 year old woman to adopt a child? A single 45 year old woman CANNOT adopt a child. It is often difficult for a white couple to adopt a black child in the United States – even though there is an abundance of them. The restrictions are severe and all in the name of the best interest of the child. Now, just for the record, in my completely unqualified opinion, I think children are better off with anyone who is willing to offer them love – gay, straight, single, whatever. The result of all this “looking out for the best interest of the child” is that children are bounced around in the foster care system until they're totally destroyed. How can that be better in any way than a black child growing up with white parents or with a gay couple? But singling out homosexuality from the long list of idiotic prohibitions that keep children from getting adopted into loving homes and using this as a basis for your claim that this is making gays second class citizens is just wrong. Are white couples second class citizens? Are middle aged women? Certainly not. Gays are treated equally in this case – they are equally screwed.

What about denying adoption to late 20-something gay couple? You obviously are just biased against gays that you would privilege a straight couple adopting over a gay one.

Marriage is a bigger issue because marriage is a cultural and legal institution that produces children. A gay couple cannot produce children. Personally, I think gay couples have some issues that are very different from heterosexual couples and a body of law should be created to deal specifically with those issues. Our current family law is borne of long experience with traditional marriage and those experiences don't necessarily apply to issues faced by gay couples. I also think that it's not necessarily a great idea to simply expand the current legal definition of “marriage” lest it sets a precedent which would eventually render the institution meaningless. But, taking care to ensure that needs are met and institutions don't lose meaning doesn't mean that most people wish to impose hardships on gay couples. Even a lot of bible thumpers are far more concerned about retaining the cultural meaning of “marriage” and ensuring it doesn't expand into something ridiculous than taking anything away from gay people – although, the “it's adam and eve, not adam and steve” crowd get all the camera time.

Hmm yet we allow childless straights to be married. Especially ones who have no intention of procreating. Why not deny them the marriage certificate since the GOAL of marriage in your opinion is to encourage stable family unit for children. You're bigotry is getting in the way of logic.

I don't think sodomy is “gay sex” in particular. I think that one covers everyone – except lesbians. That's totally legal!! No sodomy. As you probably guessed, I'm not for any government involvement in the department of bumping uglies. If government can't get involved, then it's pretty difficult for private individuals to get involved without violating the law.

The issue of adopting children is not about the gays and denying gays rights. It's about the best interest of the child. Did you know that it's also virtually impossible for a 40 year old woman to adopt a child? A single 45 year old woman CANNOT adopt a child. It is often difficult for a white couple to adopt a black child in the United States – even though there is an abundance of them. The restrictions are severe and all in the name of the best interest of the child. Now, just for the record, in my completely unqualified opinion, I think children are better off with anyone who is willing to offer them love – gay, straight, single, whatever. The result of all this “looking out for the best interest of the child” is that children are bounced around in the foster care system until they're totally destroyed. How can that be better in any way than a black child growing up with white parents or with a gay couple? But singling out homosexuality from the long list of idiotic prohibitions that keep children from getting adopted into loving homes and using this as a basis for your claim that this is making gays second class citizens is just wrong. Are white couples second class citizens? Are middle aged women? Certainly not. Gays are treated equally in this case – they are equally screwed.

Marriage is a bigger issue because marriage is a cultural and legal institution that produces children. A gay couple cannot produce children. Personally, I think gay couples have some issues that are very different from heterosexual couples and a body of law should be created to deal specifically with those issues. Our current family law is borne of long experience with traditional marriage and those experiences don't necessarily apply to issues faced by gay couples. I also think that it's not necessarily a great idea to simply expand the current legal definition of “marriage” lest it sets a precedent which would eventually render the institution meaningless. But, taking care to ensure that needs are met and institutions don't lose meaning doesn't mean that most people wish to impose hardships on gay couples. Even a lot of bible thumpers are far more concerned about retaining the cultural meaning of “marriage” and ensuring it doesn't expand into something ridiculous than taking anything away from gay people – although, the “it's adam and eve, not adam and steve” crowd get all the camera time.

Gays can serve in the military, but they can't also march in the gay pride parade on base. But, that is the most specifically anti-gay, specifically exclusionary example of all your examples.

Of course, my problem is that you jump to the aid of one minority but not another.

Methinks said:

A.) I don't call myself a libertarian. Danny paints everyone he wants with that brush. I don't call myself anything.

Well you're being obtuse by saying you don't identify with any philosophical label. The same charge you level at DK.

B.) When did I say I was against gay people having rights?
Umm it was implicitly implied when you railed against pro-gay initiatives as “minority imposing it's will on the majority”.

C.) What are “gay rights” and why should gays have different rights than everyone else?

The right to get a state marriage the same as for straights. Non-discrimination in hospital visits and the same rights of inheritence, adoption rights.

D.) How are gays treated as second class citizens? Are they not allowed to use the same water fountains? Public facilities? What are you talking about?

In all the above items I listed in (c). Sure maybe in NY State gays have all the rights, but there are many states in which gays are 2nd class citizens.

I think people are throwing around buzz words like “gay rights” and “oppression” and “second class citizen” without stopping to think what exactly that means.

I think you are being intentionally obtuse. Should I call you disingenuous as well?

I don't know what corner you imagine I painted myself into, but I'm sure you've imagined quite a corner.