>>> I think it sad that you have to both (Michael and Holly) resort to personal insults instead of presenting valid ideas or responses. Because I believe in freedom for all consenting adults, and believe in less government involvment - you choose to insult me which is exceedingly poor on your part.

In different company, the question I raised could have been a catalyst for a real and informative debate on personal rights and the governments role in legislating morality in the family.

It's funny, I think that despite having previously discussed this subject here, other than my comments yours are the very first comments expressing any indication of tolerance in this respect. It seems ironic to me that you are debating against my statement (which is an endorsement for greater rights for minority groups, and less government interference).

I notice that no one has answered the question of how one could be for freedom for a group that has a large political lobby, but against the exact same right for a less well represented group when there are NO differing criteria for the two groups.

dw <<<

Just what part of "Good for you, Daniel!" didn't you understand? It's pretty straightforward english.

I think that legalizing polygamy and gay marriage is fine. I have no problem with it. And I dont see that Michael said he would oppose it either. I guess you just wanted to attack someone, so you did. You chose to jump to conclusions that had no basis at all. Typical.

La Sordida!
KIABGOA