Memo to Rick: Karma will make you her bitch.

Ahh. Isn't the unrequited passion Dan has for Santorum cute? He just can't get the guy off his mind.

I was going to ask if your boyfriend was okay with this disgusting little crush, but he's okay with anything at all, isn't he?

So now Danny girl is reduced to acting like a spoiled junior high school girl. She can't have the boy, so she starts talking trash about him.

Here's a tip, Danny girl. Santorum has more integrity in one fingernail than you could dream of having in a lifetime. Understandably that drives you nuts with envy, but the immature ranting just isn't seemly or adult. Hope that helps.

3 you spend your saturday afternoon trolling? nice. have a good one!

Not yet. Fishing season doesn't begin for a month or so, and trolling really doesn't come into it until the fall. Mostly I fly fish streams until the Salmon and Steelhead runs begin.

You have a pleasant day as well.

@ 3 yeah! you tell em. santorum for president !

@6

Obama will almost certainly win in 2012, no matter who the Republicans field. The economy is beginning to improve, he's hiding his far left leanings in fake moderate speeches, and historically Americans re-elect a non-disastrous sitting president. And sometimes a disastrous and traitorous one, as with FDR.

Your point?

I should have noted- The comparison was between Savage and Santorum. Savage is a man who evangelically preaches self gratification at all costs and sexual immorality no matter what it does to the social structure. Savage is a man who can't stomach the costs of his lifestyle choice, so wants to foist them off on the 97% of his fellow citizens who didn't make that choice. Compared to that Santorum would only have to be indifferent honest to best Savage.

Psst: Seattleblues wears a pince-nez. Pass it on.

@6,7 you're right. santorum for president

Dammit! I was gonna try and rock that look.

@7 & 8
@ 10 meant
@ 7 & 8
no obama / savage in 2012. santorum for president !

Totally a pince-nez! I'm thinking of the monopoly guy:

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9G…

Pince-nez? Hardly. Obviously, I wear a monocle.

@14, sorry, this isn't up to you, it's the internet. Definitely pince-nez, for the full Margaret Dumont effect.

I think SB should spend some time squatting over a mirror, taking a very close look with his monocle, and accept the fact he is an asshole.

Beautiful. Sometimes I am tempted to think that Mr Frothy Mix is actually a terrifyingly effective agent provocateur. Then again, no agent provocateur worth his salt would have mental cogs that could possibly grind so visibly and achingly slowly.

@8: How about attempting to foist one's religious opinions on others in society in the belief that it will make you a better person more deserving of salvation? That doesn't count as self-gratification at all costs?
And if you actually READ Dan's column, you'd realize that 90% of it* is advice on how to be a better sexual and romantic partner, for both personal and impersonal benefit.

*Not intended to be a factual statement

FDR was the best president this nation has ever had.

Make a note -- freckles after 35 are the sign of santorum !

@7 For someone who preaches the "Constitution and the Founding Fathers...yada yada blather blather blather" garbage you still can't figure out the real definition of treason if your life depended on it.

Also, you forgot to mention that Dan is a deviant.

Read about Frothy sleeping with his dead baby on Wikipedia. Creepy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santor…

@22: That might be the only humanizing detail in his entire biography.

I calculate a 210% chance that any percentage cited by Seattleblues is made up and completely wrong.

@18 - Impersonal or interpersonal?

Santorum's a bigoted tool, but this is a non-story. A bunch of people who really want to be investigative journalists are getting their panties in a bunch over a coincidence. I mean, really -- you think Santorum's people are the kind of people who read poetry? Or, you know, read?

FDR was the third best president this country has ever had, after Washington and Lincoln.

Also, I know it's foolish to respond to trolls, but I guess I'm just a foolish guy. Just want to point out that by the logic of the troll's premise -- that to criticize a public figure for his policies and public persona means you have a "crush" on that person -- the GOP must absolutely cream their fucking jeans every time they see Obama, and cry bitter tears every night that they can't have him.

@18

With respect, putting your beliefs, religious or otherwise, into the marketplace of ideas is a bit different from what Savage and his ilk engage in.

What Savage understands very well is that his ideas aren't acceptable to the mass of his fellows. Lacking the popular will to push his ideas, he tries to force them on others through legislation.

He can be a deviant freak with consenting adult deviant freaks all he likes. I don't want anyone policing my marital bed, so will cheerfully forgo the dubious pleasure of policing his deviant one.

But his deviancy imposes no obligation on the majority of his fellow citizens. Having chosen to put himself at odds with his society for sexual gratification in a deviant lifestyle he must accept the personal and social consequences. Most people will feel a slight disdain for him, and many a distinct repulsion. He will never legally be married in this country. If he wants his boyfriend to inherit his property, or be able to make decisions should he be incapacitated he must consult an attorney and write up the appropriate documents to do so. All these things are the inevitible consequences of his own choices, and not the responsibility of the society in which he lives.

Savage has every right to attempt to sell his agenda. What he doesn't have is the right to slander or libel of good men like Santorum because they don't buy what he's selling.

@19 and 30

Yes, I know this is the narrative the left tells itself.

FDR unlawfully imprisoned people on much the same terms as Bush did, or Lincoln come to that, under principles of sedition. Where's the outcry from the left on this?

FDR undermined the Supreme Court, threatening the justices with court packing if they didn't change a vote. It's called 'the switch in time that saved nine' if you care to look it up. Like Bush with the federal attorneys allegedly dismissed on ideological grounds this is at least questionable behavior if not downright illegal.

But the worst thing FDR did was alter the relationship citizens had with their government. We went from a nation assuming our government served us to one assuming we served a government. From telling a man not to grow corn on his land for his cattle on the ridiculous grounds that it violated interstate commerce, to the assumption that the only money that's mine is that percentage the IRS allows me to keep we went from free citizens to slaves in a benign federal tyranny in 12 short years.

FDR treated the Constitution like a set of gentle but ignorable suggestions, not the supreme law of the land. You people complain about the presidential powers Bush employed? Without FDR that wouldn't have been possible. Prior to him we lived by the Constitution and altered it legally as conditions required. With him the document came to mean 'whatever the hell I want it to, and I'll jail you or pack the court if you disagree.'

And this....thing....is the greatest president? Only in bizarre leftist fantasies.

wow. the use of federal tyranny isn't extreme at all there. nope.

Also, your obsession with the word deviant makes me cringe. The one thing i hate more than anything is when someone like you purports to speak for "the mass of his fellows" and "society." I've got news for you: there are plenty of people, also part of "society," who are just fine with whatever he wants to do, and don't consider it deviant at all, and we are growing. Soon, what are you going to do when your kind of bullshit attitude is the minority? Will you feel a strange kind of satisfaction when someone deprives you of your rights, because society thinks differently than you? After all, if you're not the majority, you should accept that your choices have necessary consequences in the society you live in, right?

"What Savage understands very well is that his ideas aren't acceptable to the mass of his fellows. Lacking the popular will to push his ideas, he tries to force them on others through legislation"

You misspelled 'Santorum' as 'Savage,' there.

Based on #3, #32, and #33, Someone's got a cru-ush on Da--an! And FDR!

Isn't that sweet and cute?

"He will never legally be married in this country."

Except in Mass., Iowa, the District of Columbia, Conn., New Hampshire, Vermont, or in the Coquille Tribe. New York is likely to follow suit as a majority of the citizens here support SSM.

His marriage will be recognized in Maryland and NY as well.

@32: "Lacking the popular will to push his ideas, he tries to force them on others through legislation."
Okay, we live in a representative democracy. If the popular will ISN'T behind an idea, the elected representatives of that popular will aren't terribly likely to enact such legislation. (And if they do anyway, they tend to suffer political consequences leading to their replacement, as seen in America's Dairyland.) When legislation goes through to extend the benefits of marriage to Teh Ghey, you will have only the American people to blame.
(Interestingly enough, polls show that the popular will does support letting gays get married. Wouldn't religious groups pushing to BAN gay marriage then be doing exactly that which you here accuse Dan of doing? I'd like an assplanayshun of this.)
"Having chosen to put himself at odds with his society for sexual gratification in a deviant lifestyle"
Stop right there, criminal scum! Dan's not putting himself at odds with HIS society; he's putting himself at odds with YOUR society. And YOUR society has been on its way out the door for several decades now. Also, homosexual relationships, like their heterosexual counterparts, aren't just about sex, but rather about love, intimacy, and companionship. Trust me; I actually KNOW some gay people.
"What he doesn't have is the right to slander or libel of [sic] good men like Santorum because they don't buy what he's selling."
Okay, slander-and-libel time! Please name one objective untruth that Dan has knowingly, willingly, and maliciously perpetuated, in speech or in print, concerning the good Mr. Santorum.

Seriously, Seattleblues, just about every argument you make against gay marriage has been used to support anti-miscegenation laws. Hell, even the whole bit about procreation could be adapted, as mulattoes clearly wouldn't count as people under those laws. In this day and age, you're on the left tail of a left-skewed bell curve.

@33: "We went from a nation assuming our government served us to one assuming we served a government."
Really? I always heard that back in FDR's day, the government was working its ass off to yank us out of the Great Depression and beat back the Krauts. FDR emphasized unity rather than unbridled individualism in order to keep our nation alive. JFK summed this up years later with his famous quote "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
Notice also that in this day and age, it is still the Democrats who wish for the government to help the people, and the Republicans who wish for the government to do as little as is possible that doesn't involve regulating genitalia.
"Prior to him we lived by the Constitution and altered it legally as conditions required."
See: Andrew Jackson. At least FDR got shit done by bending some rules, rather than just bullying the court for the sake of harassing some American Indians.
"we went from free citizens to slaves in a benign federal tyranny in 12 short years"
You are free to organize with your fellows and change the law via fair and impartial elections. You are free to advocate against the law without fear of retribution. You are free to get the hell out of America if you can't stand that it doesn't conform to your personal wishes.

@vl

government capable of giving you everything you want is one equally capable of taking everything you have.

As much as the left derides property rights they alone are the basis of any civilization. We agree to give up certain liberties to secure our property and persons. Without those assumptions all the high conversations about human rights are so much air. After we secure these basic necessities we can begin to discuss the right of something like Dan Savage to pursue its' own deviance. Without them we're too busy with mere survival.

Talk about your right to free expression or your criminal rights or your illusory right to health care all you like. All of these rest on the voluntary surrender of unlimited individual liberty to ones' fellow human beings, itself conditional on the rewards of being safe from theft or physical harm.

This foundation is what the far left undermines, albeit unintentionally. By telling a successful man that his very success means he must pay for those unwilling to pursue their own wealth we cut at that foundation. By making asanine assumptions about a 'right' to health care, or food, or shelter we take a wrecking ball to that foundation. The voluntary surrender of personal liberty for the successful among us, in liberal thought, is the very means of depriving him of the property he sought to protect by that surrender.

I'll freely admit that most of you don't do this out of anarchic malice. You really think you're building a better and more humane world, despite all the evidence from any nation to try your theories at their logical extremes. (The USSR, China, North Korea etc) When the structure of society collapses around you because of your own silly notions, though, good intent won't keep it from doing so. As tough as it can be to accept reality still imposes hard and fast consequences on our actions. Liberals would do well to incorporate that notion in their good intentions.

@40 And extreme right politics leads to fascism ala Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan, and Italy under Mussolini. Comparing Universal Health Care and gay marriage to the USSR is laughable.

The UK has had universal health care for over half a century, are they somehow a communist super power in disguise? What about Canada!? Secure the border from those evil commies. *eye roll*

Oh and the poor are poor because they're too lazy to become rich. You sir are a very good troll.

Huh, funny. Dan is no longer just a deviant, he's now "something." (wow, now you're really showing you're a grade A asshole.)

Yeah, those founder guys were libertarians libertarians who were all in agreement on property rights:
"There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it." Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice. Nor was there any question back then that the government could raise taxes on people IF they had adequate feedback in their government.

The USSR, China, North Korea do not represent a "logical extreme" of "the left" (what's left of that) in the United States nor do they even represent a logical conclusion or exercise of Marxism. They are authoritarian regimes.

Also, SB your sense of history is so perverse as to be an entire mythology unto itself. I don't share the sentiment that FDR was incredibly great either but it's because he saved the economic order as much as he could FROM the left by co-opting it in slight degrees. You might say that the New Deal prevented socialism from ever taking hold here so he's not the boogeyman you make him out to be.

@40: "government capable of giving you everything you want is one equally capable of taking everything you have."
Yes, so? Are we supposed to shy away from progress of any sort just because it has the potential to be turned against us? Imagine where we'd be if we'd quashed all research into bacteriology for fear that it would lead to biological weapons, writing for fear that it would lead to the dissemination of lies, fire for fear that we would burn our homes down, sailing for fear that we would drown. We'd still be living in caves, with a box of scraps! We'd communicate with grunts and nose-picking! See, any new advance can lead to adverse consequences; the trick is to properly apply them, rather than be a huge pussy.
Also, Thomas Jefferson did NOT say that; the man you are trying to quote is Gerald Ford.
"As much as the left derides property rights they alone are the basis of any civilization."
Property rights are the basis of any civilization? Really? Durkheim would disagree there. Hell, any person with two neurons to rub together would conclude that division of labor is the foundation of society. There are plenty of "primitive" societies with a division of labor but little to no sense of individual property; the Australian Aborigines and the Bushmen of southern Africa spring to mind. If you're going to play the pedant, you perchance should preferably prepare your points of proof.
You seem to be additionally woefully uninformed as to the philosophy of liberals in this country. We do not disparage individual property rights; we simply hold that if one is to receive the benefits of citizenship, one should contribute, as one's means justify, towards the upkeep of the administration of those benefits. We do not advocate supporting the shiftless on the backs of the working; we rather provide basic services to ensure that one stroke of ill fortune alone will not take the working man's knees out from under him.
We invest in society. By giving temporary subsistence to the man who has been laid off, we allow him to search for a new job without having to worry so intensely as to how he will feed himself in the mean time. If the man must work two minimum-wage jobs in order to put food on his table, he will not have the resources to conduct a job search as well, and is likely to remain in a series of dead-end jobs, trying to scrape out a menial living, and contributing very little in taxes due to his low income. If, however, his immediate needs are met for the time being, he will be able to devote his time to seeking out a better job, and has a much better chance of becoming once again a productive member of society, exercising his greater purchasing power to the benefit of the market and helping to support the machinery of society by dint of his tax revenue. (I have personally seen this in action.)
We are nothing like the ruling factions of China, North Korea, or the Soviet Union. Although the people often demonstrate their inability to choose in their own best interests, we hold that it is fundamentally wrong to attempt to impose a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent it may be. The logical extreme of which you speak may be disastrous, but so would be the logical extreme of your philosophy (anarchy). We intend to strike a balance, preserving key individual liberties while promoting the general welfare. (PROTIP: the Federal government is explicitly intended to "promote the general welfare"; read the Constitution sometime.)

@41

The poor are poor because they chose to be, yes. Certainly that choice is their right, picking my pocket to support it isn't.

The UK has slowly been ruining their health care system for half a century. Those who can afford it avoid the National Health with private care. Those who can't get the care the budget will allow. Canadas own L&I won't patronise their national health with industrial accidents. Too slow and too expensive, so they use private clinics for better outcomes. Go Canada! And you idiots want that here?

Hitler sold himself as a populist. So did Mussolini. So did Stalin. Remember 'land, bread, peace?' Sorry, the psychos are mostly on your side of the ideological divide.

@45: "Hitler sold himself as a populist. So did Mussolini. So did Stalin. Remember 'land, bread, peace?' Sorry, the psychos are mostly on your side of the ideological divide."
>mfw those guys aren't actually at all populist
>mfw the Teabaggers try to sell themselves as populists
>mfw all politicians claim to be following the will of The People

@45 All lies of course. Yeah, Canada is really suffering so much that third world medical clinics are popular in their cities. Oh and populist =/= "leftist." Pat Buchanan is a populist.

"In the UK life expectancy has been rising and infant mortality has been falling since the NHS was established. Both figures compare favourably with other nations. Surveys also show that patients are generally satisfied with the care they receive from the NHS. Importantly, people who have had recent direct experience of the NHS tend to report being more satisfied than people who have not."

Meanwhile our Infant Mortality rate is worse than Cuba's and our Life Expectancy is pathetic compared to those countries with universal health care. But it's the poor's fault for being poor and then choosing to get sick. Those immoral bastards.

And no one chooses to be poor, but then again you think people choose to be gay, so brick wall, thy name is Seattleblues.

@42
Thomas Paine was a noted eccentric among his fellow conventioners. Nor did I quote him, so I'm unsure why you bring him up.

But at the heart of any voluntary surrender of private rights is the notion of what you get in exchange. And at base that is the security of my person and of my property, whether in the form of land or any other form.

And authoritarian regimes are the end of any over-reach of government authority uncontested by the citiznes. The right to redistribute my money to those less industrious is one such over-reach for example. In itself it doesn't make an authoritarian regime, but over time it can certainly lead there.

@49: If you don't want to be taxed, don't take advantage of the protection of the government. If you don't like how your taxes are spent, advocate to have the laws changed. That's how it works in a representative democracy.

@49 Slippery Slope argument.

First they'll take a small portion of your money for universal health care, then they'll take ALL your money for reasons.

The UK has been taking money from it's citizens for the NHS for half a century, that program isn't going away, it isn't degenerating and the UK isn't becoming authoritarian. Their Democracy is going strong in case you haven't noticed.

Yes they do, in both cases.

By choosing to have a family one can't afford a person chooses poverty. By choosing vacations or housing or clothing outside of their income they choose poverty. By choosing not to obtain a skill or profession a person chooses poverty. Simply rejecting personal responsibility doesn't alleviate it, though this may surprise you.

Average outcomes would certainly rise in a national health scenario. Those who now choose cable tv and 4 cell phones over doctor visits for their children would have access to the medical community they've chosen not to use (at my expense of course.) So yes, babies would be better cared for in poor communities, elderly care likewise might improve ON AVERAGE. What would diminish is the level of care for those who have chosen to care for themselves already. For me it isn't worth it, since I already subsidize the bad choices of the poor. Frankly, I have enough to do caring for my own family that IS my responsibility without adding those of others into the mix that aren't.

@49 It's only because you invoke "founding principles" and "Founders" and other such bullshit usually. It's interesting to note that you undermine Paine's credibility because knowing that the founding fathers thought this way doesn't fit well with your narrow and ignorant world view.

But please teach us more!

*Puts hands on chin, looking up, waiting for the next Sermon on the Mount.*

@ taxation

I don't argue against taxation per se. There are legitimate 'commons' that need paid for by local, state or federal taxes.

What I object to is the wholesale theft of my hard earned money for those who chose their own poverty. Again, they have the right to choose poverty, but this in no way levies an obligation on me. Take the Planned Parenthood bruhaha as an example. All Republicans were saying is that this is not a government agency entitled to government funds. They weren't halting abortion (mores the pity) or shutting Planned Parenthood down. They were simply saying that it isn't a legitimate use of federal funds.

But that isn't how the left sees it. Simply being unable to afford something is disenfranchisement or a violation of civil liberties for Gods sake! Well, then I have a 'right' to the 95 foot yacht where my 19 foot sailboats moored, by that argument. And this right is being denied me since I can't afford it, damnit!

Here's the distinction- We commonly pay for commonly needed or enjoyed government functions. Fine. What we do not and should never pay for with taxes is the redistribution of one mans money for the sole use of another who just didn't want to earn his own.

@52 Ok. Then the "logical conclusion" to that argument is: "You're outnumbered. Please don't participate in a society or draw its benefits and see how you and your family survive on your own, then."

@53

I do. What was written in the Constitution, or in the minutes of the Constitutional Convention are certainly relevant. What Tom Paine or Tom Jefferson privately thought or wrote might be helpful in interpretation of those documents, but it isn't directive. See, how hard was that?

@44

You and I differ on the role of government. I think government is there to provide a level playing field, and whether I win or lose the game is up to me. We all rely on a legal system and the police to enforce it, schools to provide a basic level of education to our citizens, reasonable but limited regulation of business so that we know what to expect from employers or vendors or just the sandwich shop on the corner. We all rely on those so we all pay for them. (Or rather, we don't. The top 20 percent of earners in this country pay 85 percent of the taxes, the bottom 40% or more get a net financial benefit from the tax system. That is, they are being paid to be citizens.)

What we don't and shouldn't equalize is outcome. All those advances you mention are private innovations for private gain. Put it through government comittees and not one would have come about. Greed may be ugly, but it's a predictable motivator for innovation and invention, unlike altruism.

@56: "promote the general welfare" (The Preamble)
The Constitution doesn't say "promote individual welfare", you know.

Nobody chooses to be poor, and very few choose not to work. Mostly, those who are out of work are victims of chance, or were born into poverty and thus did not receive a proper education. They did not choose to be poor or unemployed. We don't advocate giving out handouts to all and sundry; we think it's a good idea to provide a safety net for those temporarily out of work, so that they can get back to work and become productive members of society. Read my posts sometime.

@57: We want to regulate outcome only to the extent of setting a lower bound. (And a relatively low lower bound, too.) Anything wrong with that?

Have y'all forgotten Internet Rule #1?!

Don't feed the trolls!

@60: No, Rule #1 is "You do not talk about /b/."

@60: Yeah, he's one of the stupidest trolls I've ever seen, too. Funny at first, but then the more he piles on, the more you realize with a sickening sinking feeling that he really doesn't know any better.

"Obama deficits." Insinuating there's no difference between wanting a free yacht and wanting basic health care and housing. And the crowning moronic "I think so because Rush says so" thought: "poor people choose to be poor." I mean that last one is just so mind-bogglingly ignorant there's really no reason to go on.

People like him -- bottom-feeding, believe anything Sean Hannity says, "Bristol Palin is a victim," reality-ignoring, history-skewering morons -- are what's wrong with this country. In all honesty, if I could do it with impunity, I'd shoot the poor bastard in the head just to put us all out of our misery.

Since this is busy thread I will post this here for ya'll:
A reminder for those of you who can attend:
UNOFFICIAL SLOG HAPPY IS TOMORROW,
6PM TUESDAY APRIL 19TH AT THE ROANOKE PARK PLACE TAVERN
2409 10th Ave E
206-324-5882
I have reserved the back room, and Slogger Mr. Harriman will be bringing cupcakes.
And again Seattleblues, in the name Slog Happy neutrality, should you be brave enough to attend, I give my word that I will refrain from spiking your drink with antifreeze, or your cupcake with ground glass.

@63, No poe is that good.

This is why SB is a troll:

Average outcomes would certainly rise in a national health scenario. Those who now choose cable tv and 4 cell phones over doctor visits for their children would have access to the medical community they've chosen not to use (at my expense of course.) So yes, babies would be better cared for in poor communities, elderly care likewise might improve ON AVERAGE. What would diminish is the level of care for those who have chosen to care for themselves already. For me it isn't worth it, since I already subsidize the bad choices of the poor. Frankly, I have enough to do caring for my own family that IS my responsibility without adding those of others into the mix that aren't.

I'm an actual libertarian, and I have a rough idea of what's said on the anti-national-health care side. It's usually less "screw the poor" and more "we can't afford this and given the government's track record, it's not going to make anybody healthier." Average outcomes probably won't rise. SB is doing a decent impression of a conservative, but this weird combination of spite and naivete tips his hand.

I’m not sure how leftist Dan Savage is, if that really matters. From what I can tell, he would like gay people to be able to get married, have children, buy houses, go to church, become ministers, make money in capitalist ventures, graduate from high school, go to private colleges, be members of the Republican Party, etc. Hardly diabolical revolutionary activities threatening the democratic, corporate capitalist, two-party, nuclear family system.

I actually see a bit of progress in Seattleblues’ posts. Here is a conservative (I think) who recognizes that sometimes government policy and legislation are products of a tiny minority of people with way too much power who try to impose their narrow, warped ideology on the majority. Amen, brother! That is exactly how I felt about George W. Bush in office. That is exactly how I feel about the possibility of the Right Honorable Senator Rick Santorum taking part in more legislation. That is exactly how I felt when I saw the government bail out the giant banks.

I’m also heartened to see a conservative admit that someone from a wealthy, privileged Ivy League family could go into politics and NOT have the nation’s best interest at heart. Amen, brother! (Sorry, I don’t remember if FDR was in Skull and Bones.) I call it a tie in this case -- FDR got 12 years as President, the Bushes got 12 years.

I completely agree that government should not regulate what two (or more) people do consensually in their bedroom (or whatever room). That’s one reason I was glad to see the Texas anti-sodomy law struck down several years ago. Who is the government to tell me as a man what I can do consensually with my wife in private? (Here’s somewhere else I agree with Mr. Savage – laws restricting gay rights can just as easily be used against heterosexual rights.)

@66

Average outcomes appear to rise in places with national health systems. Those who can opt out of such systems and seek private medical care of better quality, which says everything needing said about such systems meeting individual needs particularly well.

Nor am I a lock step conservative, libertarian, Prostestant or anything else. Still, I completely agree with the argument that the folks who run the DOL should not under any circumstances be trusted with the medical system. Nor can we afford even the costs of our government as it stands, never mind a massive new program. Both arguments get used pretty often, so I let others make them.

And I've never said 'screw the poor.' Rather, with Ben Franklin, I advocate for making poverty uncomfortable so that those in it should seek a way to better their lives. At any rate, poverty is a personal issue. It is not a valid governmental one under our existing form of goverment.

@67

Other than marriage or having children normally, I don't know what keeps gays from owning homes or businesses, graduating high school or college, becoming ministers in certain faiths or any of the other things you seem to see them being barred from.

And gays can't marry for the same reason that I can't go swimming and stay dry simultaneously. The one choice excludes the other.

@69: "And gays can't marry for the same reason that I can't go swimming and stay dry simultaneously. The one choice excludes the other."
Excuse me while I gouge my eyes out in protest over the stupidity.
Nah, that's counterproductive. Aside from your entirely unsupported assertion that gaiety is a choice, HOW exactly does being gay prevent one from marrying? Ah yes, other people in society set that rule up for no logical reason. Saying that being gay precludes marriage is like saying that being black precludes using the same water fountain as everyone else. It's not an innate characteristic of homosexuality; it's something imposed on homosexuals by outside forces.
Also, may I recommend a drysuit?