http://doody36.home.attbi.com/liberty.htm
great Liberty site! Fireworks.

Way:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, if you define "unnatural" as "that which we do not see in nature," that appears to be false. There are many documented cases of homosexuality among animals, including some which seem to "mate" for life. I can try to find links to this if you doubt it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I�d like such a link, a little.

Your intellectual laziness here, like TomD, is tiring me out.
What do YOU mean by �unnatural�. Male lions may eat the lion cub offspring of prior males � so you think cannibalism is �natural�? I don�t believe it. But you�re too lazy to say how you define unnatural.

And I�ve been too busy to ask on your morality thread what you mean by the word �morality�, I suspect it�s different than mine. (I don�t think I missed it).

Eddie at least admitted to not using �evil�:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't use the word "evil," simply because it's so ridiculously useless. There are very few evil people in the world. Almost nobody sits around twirling their greasy mustache, thinking on how to ruin other people's lives. I disagree with many groups, and even consider people of certain ideologies to be ignorant or prejudiced, but I seriously doubt any of them don't consider themselves to be good people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He finds it useless; I don�t. We disagree � let�s move on?

TomD, unfairly misquoting:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon, Tigger. That's intellectually dishonest. You're saying:
"Okay, so homosexuals are more capable of having monogamous relationships than I thought, so my argument against their 'marriage' on that basis is unsound. But they obviously don't NEED 'marriage' to be monogamous, so we STILL shouldn't give it to 'em."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not unsound. Less strong. It�s tiresome to have to point out the difference (and it feels unfair).

But what�s now getting really tiresome is how I try to include a continuum, and discuss it in general terms, but rather than get seriously engaged in the difficult, complex differences, there is immediate focus on an extreme point and a claim that the extreme point invalidates the generalization. Well, it doesn�t, in reality. (It might in some closed, formal philosophical system comparison; though I�m not sure.) The continuum is there, and there needs to be borders, and gray areas, and cases where the generalization is less good for society than an exception. But such exceptions don�t necessarily invalidate the general rule.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, that despite what else I�ve written, many times, on other issues/ reasons I oppose the homosexuality lifestyle, that when I list just the first two (from my first homo- post), these are taken as �all� the reasons. There�s also promiscuity, and society�s consumerism, the latter still almost unaddressed, as well as the burden of proof issues. And prolly others, but if those who want to argue against me don�t want to look, why should I? I know it�s not going to change minds; I know it�s mostly to see if my thoughts become more ordered, and maybe learn a bit.

Arguments against some of these objections seem mostly to be, well this problem is bigger than just homosexuality, so you shouldn�t fight it just there; Denelian using the �straw in the dike� phrase a couple of times. And my reply is that I�ll fight it, a little, wherever it seems reasonable to fight it. And I continue, with greater weariness, doing so against equality for homosexual gay pairs gaining the privilege of marriage or (healthy white newborn) baby adoption.

And Locus, the same-sexers DO want to change the laws to allow equality and to force me into accepting and acknowledging their lifestyles as equal. Which I don�t think it is. Similarly, you want to denigrate marriage:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If marriage is indeed some sacred thing between a man and a woman then we need to remove it from our legal system. There is no room for sacred cows in an impartial system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is just this kind of extreme secular/ atheistic/ anti-Christian kind of rhetoric, that takes what may be a good direction for the next legal step (in allowing gay marriage) (I don�t think it is a good step), and after failing in being convincing towards one direction, states the extreme in the opposite direction as what we �need to do�. This kind of argument really firms up my conviction that fighting such changes, in either direction, is where I want to be.

However, the note about the gay pair who did adopt 5 HIV positive kids is very relevant. I�ve already accepted that a monogamous (?) committed gay pair should be able to get on the adoption list, after acceptable heteros. For the sake of the children being so raised, some of whom already exist, there seems to be a strong argument to allow those gays to be �married�. I�d certainly prefer them �gay-paired�.

I�m thinking about how I feel on the idea that a committed gay pair who is willing to adopt, and care for, unhealthy kids, are doing enough good to have earned the �marriage� privilege.

And I�m not done thinking about it, but it certainly is a big step down the �slippery slope� of equality acceptance, which I oppose. (And I�m still too busy at work.)

What do you get when you put 3 Nobel-prize winning economists in one room with an economic situation to comment upon?

Four opinions.

Really. This is why economics as a "science" is so disputable. If there are "laws" that allow control, these are laws describing human action (the same stuff Von Mises wrote so well about). And as an attempted control is applied, the humans will act ... a little differently. Or not.

Krugman's point, and the "war means a bad economy", is to a big extent that the productive wealth-creating capacity is being wasted in a war.

The "war is good for the economy" school note a typical expansion in gov't expenditure increasing war industry employment and employment security in general (except for the relatively few soldiers). I suspect the increased security feelings, leading to greater consumer confidence, even dominate the direct employment influences.

And like so many pro-con situations with humans, there is truth on both sides, but the weighting of each factor, in this situation, is not fully known.

Adjustments due to terrorism will certainly create some frictional "waste" that wasn't in the economy before. But the price of oil, and how it changes, will be a bigger determinant. And I notice that none of the links was willing to clearly state the direction of the price of the oil -- surely a simpler issue than the direction of the entire US economy.

But that's part of what makes the art of economics so continuously interesting.

And Dubya talking about economics, and helping the economy by stomping on Saddam -- kinda funny. But, while not point-less, what IS the point?

I'm sorry my 15 hour work days etc haven't left me more time to contribute/ be attacked here, but Baldar's doing a pretty good job.

The knowing/ semi-knowing spreading of HIV is evil.

My morality is a "guide" to what's right or wrong. If I think something is wrong, it pretty much means I think it is, at least to some degree, immoral.

I think there's an undiscussed issue about "group morality", eg. are the Nazis or Commies immorral? I think yes, even though there may well have been some very kind, wise, generous Nazis.
Wish I discuss it more now, maybe next week...

Currently, if you copy a piece of copyrighted software and use it on two home machines at the same time, it is a legal violation.
If it's illegal, it's piracy; but I think it's a stupid law, and immorally using gov't to support monopoly prices for the developers/distributors.

If you expand the legal definition of fair use to include this, then almost certainly you'll get a tiny bit more copying than is now done; and elliminate that whole amount of piracy. Meaning most home users with multi computers pirate copy it now, and would merely copy it in the future.

(I prefer more radical reduction of pirate copying -- make all copying legal.)

But I'm curious why none in your small company aren't more seriously investigating Linux and open source?

Great rant, Redskull; and mostly right on.

Your defense of Israel fails to mention the extremely problematic formation of that country, and the fact that most palistinians and Arabs do not feel their land should be taken to compensate the Jewish survivors and other Jewish victims of the European Shoah (Holocaust).

Offering Nevada, for instance, or somewhere to Israel for alternative settlement was mentioned, but it's more a good thought experiment to be eliminated.

The not-failure/ not-success of the US to do a good job in "colonizing" Afghanistan is also a negative about the after effects of a US led invasion/ regime change. In fact, internal terrorism hasn't yet ended in Afghanistan; just become much less a threat to US interests.

Finally, I agree with the need to go to war, and the willingness to act alone. This is certain to be tested, might as well demonstrate it on Iraq & Saddam.

But there is still the issue of after the war. Even if Bin Laden is gone, and Saddam is gone, there will be radical leaders advocating violence.

I think it would be better to accept the "white man's burden" of colonial cultural reorganization more honestly, and work towards instituting real democracy. At the local level first; and this must mean better internal security for the "peaceful mayors" who are willing to work with the Western powers.

The oil wealth available in Iraq, as compared to the real dearth of most value in Afghanistan, argues that there is a lot of potential for rapid development. I'd argue more for property rights, rule of law, and contract enforcement, but that's where the real slam against Islam starts moving. Property rights leads towards human rights, and limits on gov't power. That's what Islam needs, but it seems they don't really want it...

Yes, Seagull, that's the Peace link.

Certainly the Munich Betrayal made WW II much worse -- the first CSR (? - Czechoslovakia) defenses included large numbers of excellent guns which were all surrendered to Hitler as he annexed the Sudentenland.

Today, the Benes Decree (returning Pres.) expelling all Germans & Hungarians after the war, has become a minor issue against the Czechs & Slovaks of the 3.5 m Germans who were expelled (by the Czechs; the Slovaks did not expel the Hungarians, so have a 10% minority which is often a minor political issue). The Decree is still "in force", but ignored, so as to not reopen any compensation claims, etc. This is an EU expansion issue. It's also clear evidence of how "ethnic cleansing" was used and approved by the US and allies after the war.

My wife feels the US, or somebody, should have helped Hungary in their '56 anti-commie rebellion, and the CSSR in the '68 Prague Spring anti-commie protest.

But my current Mid-East point is this: the Palestinians lost. They need to give up and get over it. That's my advice, my premise.

The terrorists & their supporters are willing to fight to the last man (?), so they don't accept my premise that they've lost. IF I accept their premise (which I don't), then there is a question about tactics. It is in this respect that I don't condemn them; I'm not sure I have better tactics to offer. (i.e. ML King style non-violent protests, pressure in and on the US to offer US citizenship to all Israelis and immediate immigration visas, the US spending some 10-50% of their "aid to Israel" on buying Israeli land, and renting it to Israeli-Palestinians, etc. I have lot's of maybe ideas, but none that I think are really fine.)

I would advise Hitler, for instance, not to invade Crete with his few paratroopers, but rather Malta � as a matter of tactical advice for his goals of winning.

Another interesting aside is criticism of the WW II Pope for "not doing enough" to oppose Hitler; this has become a recent fad because of disillusioned/ anti-conservative (gay supporting?) Catholics wanting to attack the current Pope. In fact, many Jews alive at the time thought the Pope had done a great deal to save thousands of Jews. In a certain sense, the critics are condemning Pope Pius for not being a "suicide protester".


You ask about how many deaths before taking action. Since I have confused/ conflicting feelings that Sharon may be using too much oppression, let me rephrase it more specifically: how many terror deaths before I cease condemning Sharon's retaliatory assaults on high level terror supporters.

It seems like too many, already -- so I might be changing my mind about condemning Sharon's heavy handedness ...

Maybe the suicide terrorists are the best way to build a national consciousness -- I'll switch to your new thread for more of these thoughts.



It's good to be reminded of the Palestinians� terror-murdering of other Palestinians.

As long as this continues, they are not ready for Western, open society democracy. Is this really the only kind of state that they can be allowed to have? I�m not sure. Can Israel have real peace with any other state? Maybe not.

What is to be done? Maybe the Likud/ Sharon strategy of targeting terror supporters, and assassinating or jailing/ prosecuting them can create a situation where another try at having real democratic mayors with some real powers can be tried again. Maybe the Israelis need to be MORE heavy handed in their martial law style occupation governing, accepting more gov�t responsibilities of providing Palestinian municipal services � as effective colonial powers. And perhaps supporting more economic businesses and joint ventures.

But I read that there were property records which were found and destroyed by the Israelis. This has to be wrong, if the goal is to have a property rights based society.

Eddie, I am, indeed DEFINITELY against homosexuality. Because it is A LITTLE bad, at its best. At its lying, promiscuous, AIDS infecting worst, it is evil.

I know you want to equate "being" black or Hispanic (can I ask if you strongly or only slightly prefer that to "Latin" or "Latino"?), and the history of prejudice against those groups, with the gay sexual choice. But sex is a chosen action, even if you are �born� gay, which it is unlikely to be proven in the near future, even if it�s true.

I actually don�t think I am SO STRONG against gays, like advocating immediate discrimination against them, for the AIDS infected advocating quarantine, etc. My firm conviction that the �gay lifestyle� is a LITTLE bad, may well appear, because of its consistent firmness, to be that all gays are evil. The worst are, as I�ve said (but nobody else on this thread has deemed fit to actually agree with), the best are just a little bad.
(I quantified �gay life� at about 70% as an average for the lifestyle. For the �best gays�, they may even be above the year 2000 cultural average of 100%. To me, if gay marriage is accepted in 2003 say, the cultural average will go down; a little, maybe to 98%)

�Leaders of the gay movement� claim that it is. Visiting Castro street in Frisco makes it clear that there is a different �gay culture�. If JonO agrees with you that gay is just a sexual preference, it is certain we have a communication problem; I truly don�t see how you can claim it�s not more. It�s not just sex, and it�s not just private.

And I truly don�t want to see it or have it affect me. JonO mentioned his lpositive experiences in camp with gay counselors. And the majority on this thread know nice gays. I�ve known some in the past, too.

But to me, acting gay is somewhat similar to driving drunk. Most of the time, no big problem. Actually I support punishment for all drunk drivers, but not for most gays. My point, which your non-addressing leads me to believe you haven�t understood, is that the gay lifestyle increases the likelihood of problems, just as drunk driving increases the likelihood of accidents. And driving, even not drunk, is dangerous; just as a het life can have problems.

To judge by most writers here, if their ethic was applied (everything�s fine as long as no harm is done), drunk driving would be legal but everybody would be �against having an accident and killing somebody� while drunk. But I don�t believe they want to apply their/ your? ethic, because in the drunk driving case they want, somehow, to claim that the increased risk justifies preventative punishment. (My L-Libertarianism is also challenged by this, and arguments about privatizing the roads are obfuscation.)

It�s OK with me if we disagree; but I do want you to understand my side of the disagreement. I�m feeling better for myself about understanding yours (the pro-gay side).

Sounds great, "Ken".

Can I ask if you're in gov't funded school, a religious school, a magnet schoole, or what? It seemed you indicated some level of private-ness.

The problem of parents abdicating their responsibility, prolly to "do their own thing", is a big problem. And my wife constantly wants me to help more, instead of so much on the computer...

I think rape is a terrible crime, and certainly after 3, maybe 2, maybe the first conviction (with aggravating circumstances), there is a case for physical castration or other "more than prison" punishment. [But "date rape", which surely exists and is far too common, is also subject to the occasional false accusation.] Yet there is continuum of the total rape through date rape, through ignoring the "Don't do that", "Stop it"; "Don't", "Stop" >>> "Don't stop...". This last has already moved into the successful seduction realm, since the message has changed from no, to yes.

I'm afraid there is a BDSM continuum, too.

It's really fun for me to see so many opinions I used to have, like support for a fixed exchange rate with gold (gold standard).
It ain't gonna happen; and I'm no longer sure it should.

There are two big advantages of a Rep Pres creating a big deficit. First, it's hard for the Dems to want even more deficit, and the problems of a deficit can be used by the Reps to oppose bad Dem spending. Second, less of it is wasted on domestic entitlement consumption, which leads to calls for even more and usually reduces incentives to be productive.

Instead it is more often wasted on accumulating more and higher quality weapons -- which it is hoped to not actively use. In a war, these are not so wasted. The total economic costs & benefits of war have to include the C & B of the alternative non-war scenario, too, for comparison. It's not clear to me that the prolly negative C&B of war are more or less negative than the prolly negative C&B of non-war (now). (Of course I really mean the expected value based on probabilities of various outcomes and valuations of those outcomes.)

The economy will have an increasingly tough time to grow as in the 90s, since the big Baby Boom Retirement Bomb is now "on the radar screen", plus the boomers themselves are at or past their productive prime (age 45?).

There ain't gonna be enough money to repay all that was paid in, much less more than was paid in (as Soc. Sec. has mostly been working so far). But fixing SS isn't a winning issue for anybody. It might not get fixed

Seagull: "So getting back to the moral issues here, I think that ignoring the point of view of our hostile enemy is either mindless or irresponsible. "

Did you read the Ornery essay on peace ... meaning submission? I think our US national interest is in real peace, which might well require that Arabs really submit.

Insofar as we want to force some form of "nation-state" gov't structure on them, in order that our gov't can deal with their gov't, we have been doing a lousy job. We should, for instance, be supporting more elections for local mayors and city councils, with real budgetary authority, so that they get more used to real democracy (since we're unwilling to really force any other form of gov't on them.)

OSC wrote about blood being spilt, awhile ago. I have this feeling that the 50 years of oppressive "temporary" refugee camps for the 700 000 Palestinians who were "terrorized" out of Israel in 1948, are slowly becoming a "Palestinian people/nation", and will soon be ready to form a nation-state. This is something they have not really been ready for in the past. The blood they are spilling, in suicide bombing, seems no less necessary for their side, than the blood Israel spilt in its '48 formation founding war and the '54 & '67 (6 day) & '73 wars (I think I missed one).

The Palestinians have lost. They have litterally lost "their" land OK, Jews had bought some 8-10% before '48. But they're not dead, nor living as conquered. So they still resist the loss.

I think their suicide bombing is bad -- but I don't think I can fully condemn it unless there is another way I think they can use to "win" back their land. And I don't think there is. I think they need to develop a national consciousness able to accept their loss. And start building a future.

I do have a small problem with:
"Providing scholarships, grants for research or other gifts with more than nominal value to doctors. "
Research is expensive, so are scholarships. Help, even with some strings attached, is useful. Even if it's research designed to show one, new drug, is better (usually just a little) than the older or generic drug.

Lot's of Eastern European medical research gets funding from wherever they can. If some good studies are funded by "biased" money, at least the good study is available and can lead to less costly alternate studies which are less biased--but in practice, there seems very few really biased studies.

When a drug maker has a newer, better drug, sponsoring research is much better marketing, in terms of knowledge about life and real effects of the drug, than mere advertising.

Mine is a pretty small complaint about what could be a fine way to reduce the gov't fraud on reported prices vs real prices.

Were Medicaid modified to require the consumers to pay some for their drugs, such that they had an incentive to choose those with real lower prices, this would more likely result in a bigger reduction of drug costs to the gov't.

"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."
-- William Ralph Inge
posted by Alex Knapp | Link |

What�s wrong with agreeable pleasure? Are there any pleasures that should not be tasted?

I used to think there�s nothing wrong with pleasure experimentation � sex & drugs especially (and certainly all forms of rock �n roll!) I didn�t try heroin or LSD, but thought I might, and thought I might like it. Also have enjoyed fantasies of some Bondage & Discipline; and Sado-masochism.

But now I don�t think it�s good to experiment so much; and therefore not so good to think about. And therefore I�m not happy with such fantasies, even my own.

Perhaps you�ve seen this quote, Wolves in the Heart:
A First Nations grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt.
He said, �I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.�
The grandson asked him in a worried way, �Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?�
The grandfather answered, �The one I feed.�

http://nonprofits.accesscomm.ca/wpuc/trumpeter/2002_jan_supp.html

It�s apropos to any conflict of tensions: a �restless, unsatisfied, hungry for new experience� wolf; and a �reasonably fed, satisfied, settled� wolf.

We are the wolves we choose to feed.

I don�t think feeding the BDSM wolf is a good idea.
=====

Nuking Hiroshima was necessary if the US was to insist on unconditional surrender. The alternatives:
a) continued and greater fire-bombing of cities, one-by-one, with many more Americans killed and more Japanese cities destroyed, and no certainty of when the war would end.
b) physical invasion. Extremely high American casualties; as well as Japanese. Mostly combatants.
c) economic blockade -- unlikely to end with unconditional surrender until so many Japanese are starving that it will be virtually impossible for America to "win the peace" after the war.

Compared to the non-unconditional surrenders since that time, and their aftermaths, history teaches me that getting the surrender, and using it wisely, is worth the killing. If you�re going to be involved. Rebuilding Afghanistan may be a chance to demonstrate this, but it might well be very sub-optimal. Rebuilding Iraq may be a better option.


The "rules of war" certainly oppose targeting civilians, but it's not clear to me that the life of a soldier is less valuable than that of civilian. If soldier's lives are not less valuable, then such rules of war, which value them less, must be suspect.

Everard suggests an interesting aspect of democracy: where if a gov't of the people decide to kill others, their self-defense against that gov't and its supporters implies some moral culpability on the part of the "civilians". In more graphic Vietnam era terms, compare an 18 year old against the war with a 58 year old who supports it. A system that basically says it's OK to kill the 18 year old but it's terrible to kill the 58 year old can't be such a great system. And rules of war aren't -- 'cause War is Hell.

The gates to which have already opened.

So Rosa Parks wasn't the "first" -- but because there was an organization behind her, and she allowed herself to get arrested for the purpose of changing the injustice, she is "deified".

Bill Gates is pretty much proving, with most MS stuff, it's not being first, it's being early and organized.

Any and all who were arrested for the stupid Jim Crow laws deserve thanks and white dominated gov't apologies. But it's fine for Rosa to be a hero.

Similarly it's fine for the Chinese student who stood in front of the tanks. More unknown are the two or three other Chinese students who had tried standing in front of tanks and been run over.

I hope to see Barbershop when it finally gets to Slovakia (next year maybe?); at least on DVD. The BBC Talking Movies review was fine.

It is too bad PC censorship doesn't allow more honesty among white folks in movies; maybe a few more honest black movies will allow some daring non-hollywood types to experiment. But this reminds me of the three black guys sitting around in the Spike Lee movie about Malcolm X -- where the blacks end up burning down the local white pizza place.

Can't help but think about Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe; and how after the white built stuff is destroyed the blacks are not gonna rebuild it or any replacements in the next few years. Like they didn't/ don't in Watts. How sad.

Gays are already parenting, according to this link:
http://www.proudparenting.com/
(TomD, �Say Uncle� may be a little interesting). There are some 1780 members, most of whom are in some way connected to gays raising children. That�s already more than I�m comfortable with, and clearly there is continual and constant pressure to expand this number.

Such as here:
http://www.washingtonblade.com/forum/columns/viewpt/020426c.htm
The case of two deaf lesbians wanting their own deaf baby, and after not finding a deaf donor in sperm banks, using a willing deaf male friend. Their son Gauvin was born almost totally deaf � disabled. This is terrible; consumer parenting at its worst. It�s also bad for deaf parents to try to have a deaf baby. But disabled children need love, too � and do not necessarily lead meaningless lives.

Sorry Den, �everybody� does go through a simple biological test � if a (young?) man & woman are fertile AND they have sex they MIGHT have a baby. You prolly think this is too simple a test � yet no homosexual couple can pass it (for a child of the two.)

TomD, if they can�t pass this extremely simple test, THAT is some evidence they shouldn�t be having children. (If this isn�t �some� evidence, what would be? Please don�t waste more space about infertile het couples, etc.; it is equal evidence that the het couples shouldn�t be having children. BUT, from the child�s view, the adoptable children�s need for care trumps the couple�s barrenness.)

Homosexual parents either are biological parents through another relationship, or adopt. I�m pretty sure any young blonde with a healthy baby who wants to give it for adoption will find a long list of married white folks who would be happy to offer the child a fine home.

I�d suggest some of her problems, like many current parents, might well be related to growing up in an extremely confusing and consumer oriented culture, where �what I want� is commercially and politically the most prominent guide, as compared to �what I think is the best�. Part of the confusion is based on identity, �who am I?�, and �who do I want to be?� �What is normal?� �Am I normal?� �Is my family normal?�

In fact, neither today nor in the future, will same-sex families be �normal�; though there might be a slow accumulation of (prolly biased) evidence to support same-sex adoption so that it becomes accepted, as accepted as abortion. Or as accepted as white couples adopting black babies; which is also not �normal�. Yet I�m fairly comfortable with this, despite the �My family�s not normal� problems such an adopted child might have growing up. This is only partly because the barren couple might be able to conceive (and often does, after adopting! So the adopted child gets a sibling).

The ideal parents for adopting remain a husband and wife � and I see no reason any responsible wife-husband pair which wants to adopt should fail or be forced to wait while child experimentation is going on by giving children to singles (like Rosie) or same-sex unions.

In the case of disabled, or older, or for any reason unwanted kids, with no willing married couple available, it is interesting to consider relative merits of single mothers, single fathers, and same-sex couples. And somewhere on such a ladder, �less than responsible� het couples would also go�

kuro5hin.org || technology and culture, from the trenches Places like Iceland and New Zealand have implemented a tradable property rights scheme which has successfully alleviated much of the overfishing problem. For a good explanation of how overfishing works, and the benefits (and costs) of privatizaiton, see this study and the linked documents.

JonO, I'm not sure you really read my posts.
I support "proof of competence" for adoptive partents, not quite licensing. I understand there is a "long line" for adoptive parents; so long that there's a problem of couples spending thousands of dollars to "buy" a healthy white baby newborn; or even ask a woman to become a surrogate parent. I oppose that level of "consumer parenting". (I support whites adopting blacks, and vice versa).

I am flatly against any homosexuals being allowed to adopt, as long as there are hetero couples who are "adequate" and willing to adopt. But I indicated there WOULD be homosexual parents, even homo-single parents at times--as you mention, when heteros decide they're of a homo- persuasion afterwards. That's more than enough experimentation for me.

I note, as a child of a (multi) divorce-broken home, that recent research indicates the damage to children is worse and longer lasting than previously expected. This confirms the social (and Biblical) wisdom of condemning divorce.

Divorce is, indeed, a bigger problem than gay marriage. But opposing gay marriage is easier than fixing the sick- consumerist- overly self-actualizing (at the expense of committed relating) social problems with marriage. And oposing gay adoption is even easier, especially since I think it's generally worse.

I'm sure the best same-sex couples would be better adoptive parents than the average institution, so there may be some cases where I'd support "exception cases" of same-sex couples adopting. Prolly even before single parents--I'm against singles being given custody as well.

I'm even MORE against any gov't forcing the Boy Scouts to allow homosexuals to be Scoutmasters. I wouldn't want my children to be taught by homosexuals; but being taken care of in the hospital is fine.