Comment: I'd challenge your first assumption.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I think that's all good and fine... (see in situ)

I'd challenge your first assumption.

If government and government-controlled media policy is to marginalize normalcy and normalize insanity--and with many other issues, such as war and spying, I'm sure you can agree with this--then you can't take current circumstances, with regard to what segments are more prevalent or growing or shrinking, as evidence of any sort of "organic" trend.

Gays becoming mainstream, and families and community organizations on the decline, could be equated with socialists becoming mainstream, and free market and civil liberties advocates being on the decline.

Both circumstances could be seen as effects of a long-standing attack on institutions that challenge central power.

I'm 100 percent in favor of gays calling themselves married. I'm 100 percent in favor of a biker marrying his Harley. I'm 100 percent in favor of you believing my hetero marriage is not valid....The problem arises when you involve the federal government and force me, to one degree or another, to alter my personal standards of families and relationships.

And I shouldn't impose my standards on you, either. The Ron Paul position is exactly right. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage.

Outside of government standards, I'm glad to think gays are deeply dysfunctional, and I'm glad to have gays and liberals think I'm a closet-gay bigot. We can go our own ways and happily agree to disagree, and if one of us sees the other group having more success, we can alter our conclusions....Without behaviors being distorted by a central authority, the market will sort it out.