Say Anything Blog

Here is a story regarding his past efforts:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/03/030204maineAmend.htm

BTW, since when is more information a bad thing? 

The aforementioned legislator is an anti-gay bigot who favors outlawing gay marraige.

Gary Gunnels said, “The aforementioned legislator is an anti-gay bigot...”

Do you have evidence to back up this charge?

...who favors outlawing gay marraige.

And this has what to do with the topic at hand?

likwidshoe,

Anyway, if you can explain to me how someone can oppose gay marraige yet not have a negative view of gay people, I’d like to see you do it.  But please eschew sophistry in doing so.

It never ceases to amaze me how people try to characterize the anti-gay marraige movement as benign in its views towards homosexuals.

likwidshoe,

Be careful before you go to that site though; you might see pictures of hot men.

Indeed, such arguments strike me as sophistic after a while. 

Typical discussion on the matter:

“Nah. We don’t dislike gay people.  We just think marraige should be protected.”

“Protected from what?”

“Gay people.”

“What’s wrong with gay people?”

“Err, nothing.”

“Then why do you need to discriminate against gay people when it comes to the issue of marraige.”

“Its just tradition.”

“Why should tradition always be followed.”

“Because.”

Of course there is other conversation where you run across a fire and brimstone conservative who claims that gay people are “pure filth” and an “abomination” before the eyes of their particular God(s).

I don’t think you can oppose gay marriage without having a negative view of homosexuals.  I do, however, think that you can find homosexuals immoral or distasteful and not hate them.

Splitting hairs, perhaps, but words like “bigot” and “hate monger” are too often used to describe people who are expressing a basic moral objection.

As for my own views on homosexuals/gay marriage: I really don’t care.  I don’t care what consenting adults do with one another and I don’t care if they wish to bind themselves to one another with some sort of legal contract.  Call it “marriage” or what have you.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Gary Gunnels,

Being against the idea of “gay marriage” doesn’t equal being an “anti-gay bigot”.

Try again?

likwidshoe,

Why would he be against gay marraige if not for some dislike of gay people?  Hell, he says himself that marraige must be “protected.” Protected from what?  Gay people. 

Look at this analogy.  If I were to argue for a law whoch forbid blacks and whites from marrying, don’t you think it would in part be based on some animus towards either black or white people? 

So no.  You try again.

Gary Gunnels assumes, “Why would he be against gay marraige if not for some dislike of gay people?”

Wow.  How closed minded and bigoted of you.  You intolerate his ideas because you assume that he has some ulterior motive.  I’d work on that character flaw of yours. And to answer your question (not like you’re going to listen anyway, it looks like you’ve already made up your mind), perhaps he, as well as I, don’t want to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean.  My concern is that when you make marriage out to mean anything, it will end up meaning nothing.

Hell, he says himself that marraige must be “protected.� Protected from what? Gay people.

Or perhaps, protected from meddling by social engineers.

Look at this analogy. If I were to argue for a law whoch forbid blacks and whites from marrying, don’t you think it would in part be based on some animus towards either black or white people?

Your analogy doesn’t work.  Race is incidental to marriage.  Meaning: it doesn’t matter.  The sex of the couple does matter.  It is the most fundamental aspect of the definition.

Anyway, if you can explain to me how someone can oppose gay marraige yet not have a negative view of gay people, I’d like to see you do it.

I just did.  But I fully expect you to ignore it and carry on with your inane prejudices.

But please eschew sophistry in doing so.

Oh, how high and might of you.  I’d ask for the same respect.

likwidshoe,

How closed minded and bigoted of you.

I am quite open-minded, except when it comes to discrimination and bigots.  Or are you suggesting that I not condemn racists and be open-minded regarding their racism?  Similarly, I am not “open minded” towards anti-gay bigots.  They are bigots. 

They have the freedom to think as they will, and I have the freedom to tell them are bigots.  You argue for a PC-conservative paradise where conservative anti-gay bigots have free range with the language they can use regarding homosexuals, but where libertrians such as myself have to simply shut up about their views. 

Anyway, ask youself the following question, do you have an “open mind” towards terrorists?  I doubt it. 

You intolerate his ideas because you assume that he has some ulterior motive.

I tolerate it fine.  You don’t see me telling him that he can’t hold these views (unlike some people) or that he must shut up (unlike some people).  I simply disagree with them and view them as reprehensible.  Get over it and grow up.  Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from views you don’t like! 

And to answer your question (not like you’re going to listen anyway, it looks like you’ve already made up your mind), perhaps he, as well as I, don’t want to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean.

The primary locus of concern here is the INDIVIDUAL.  I know conservatives (being socialists) have a problem with individual rights and liberties, but your concern for what marraige is and is not ends when it effects the individual liberty of others.  If you don’t like gay marraige, don’t marry someone of the same sex. 

To be frank, the government should get out of the marraige sanctioning business (this would be my perferred option) entirely, but since Republican-socialists and Democratic-socialists are never likely going to let that happen, the best option (for the time being) is to open up government sanctioned marraige to anyway that consenting adults wish to engage in it.

My concern is that when you make marriage out to mean anything, it will end up meaning nothing.

Again, why should you be dictating who and who should not (amongst consenting adults) marry?  Where do you get off doing telling people what to do by the power of a government gun? 

Anyway, you still haven’t answered the question; you did a pretty good job avoiding it though. 

Or perhaps, protected from meddling by social engineers.

Oh yes, “social engineers.” You mean individuals doing what the hell they want to do without your say so. 

Your analogy doesn’t work. Race is incidental to marriage. Meaning: it doesn’t matter.

Not according to the state of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia.  Race was central to marraige to that state when it fought efforts to take down anti-miscegination laws.  Read the opinion. 

The sex of the couple does matter. It is the most fundamental aspect of the definition.

Why?  Why is the sex of the couples central?  Are you suggesting that marraige is only for procreation?  If that’s the case, then why are the infertile allowed to marry?  Or the elderly?

Clearly marraige is NOT only for procreation and never has been.  This is the sort of sophistry I expected you to eschew.  I guess I was just casting pearls before swine.

Marraige is a human construct (its not nautral in other words); because this is the case it can be changed any way that humans decide to change it.  Individual adults should have the choice to do this without meddling socialist nanny-staters telling them what they can and cannot do.

Gary Gunnels responds, “I am quite open-minded, except when it comes to discrimination and bigots.”

Right.  Also add: Except when you’re assuming intentions.

You argue for a PC-conservative paradise where conservative anti-gay bigots have free range with the language they can use regarding homosexuals, but where libertrians such as myself have to simply shut up about their views.

I argue for what?  You’re losing it here.

Anyway, ask youself the following question, do you have an “open mind� towards terrorists? I doubt it.

Non-sensical to the discussion.  Stay on topic.

I simply disagree with them and view them as reprehensible. Get over it and grow up. Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from views you don’t like!

Yeah, no shit Sherlock.  Nobody told you that couldn’t espouse your views.

The primary locus of concern here is the INDIVIDUAL. I know conservatives (being socialists) have a problem with individual rights and liberties,...

Oh my..you’re so non-sensical here that I’m wondering if you aren’t Jadegold’s new identity.

...but your concern for what marraige is and is not ends when it effects the individual liberty of others.

Fine.  Just don’t demand that I recognize it as a “marriage”.  Call it what you like, but it won’t be recognized as a marriage to me and most of America.  We kosher?

To be frank, the government should get out of the marraige sanctioning business (this would be my perferred option) entirely...

Well that’s a perfectly reasonable and consistent view to hold.  If you argue it from this angle and drop the “bigot” game, you might have a solid argument.

...the best option (for the time being) is to open up government sanctioned marraige to anyway that consenting adults wish to engage in it.

End result: marriage means whatever the hell anybody wants it to mean.  Therefore losing all meaning.  Precisely my concern.  Thanks for admitting the end result.

Again, why should you be dictating who and who should not (amongst consenting adults) marry? Where do you get off doing telling people what to do by the power of a government gun?

I don’t dictate who and who should not marry.  This is obvious to anybody who’s paying attention.

Anyway, you still haven’t answered the question; you did a pretty good job avoiding it though.

What question are you talking about?  You’re pretty scattered in your arguments and I believe I’ve covered them all; but if I missed one then point it out instead of getting snippy.

Oh yes, “social engineers.� You mean individuals doing what the hell they want to do without your say so.

Non sequitur.

Not according to the state of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia. Race was central to marraige to that state when it fought efforts to take down anti-miscegination laws. Read the opinion.

Digressive.  One court decision doesn’t change the fact that race is incidental to marriage.

Why? Why is the sex of the couples central? Are you suggesting that marraige is only for procreation? If that’s the case, then why are the infertile allowed to marry? Or the elderly?

Hahaha..  “The sex of the couples” meaning male and female.  Should I have said “gender” instead?

Clearly marraige is NOT only for procreation and never has been. This is the sort of sophistry I expected you to eschew.

Well I didn’t eschew it.  Corral in that self-exaltation.  You’re looking like an ass.

Rob,

I don’t think you can oppose gay marriage without having a negative view of homosexuals.

Disliking homosexuals qua homosexuals is bigotry. 

I do, however, think that you can find homosexuals immoral or distasteful and not hate them.

That may be true.  Heck, I find find Republicans and Democrats to be distasteful but I don’t hate them.

Or perhaps, protected from meddling by social engineers.

BTW, let’s note that in the court cases which have challenged laws which forbid gay marraige or were unclear on the matter that it was INDIVIDUALS challenging these laws.

Case in point, take the challenge to the ambiguous law in Hawai’i.  The individual challengers of that law cast about for several years for an attorney to represent them.  They were gay couples who wanted to get married and receive the benefits thereof without having to spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees to set up living wills, pour-over trusts, and all manner of other devices to protect each other in a way that a state protects married couples by law (indeed, even at that, one simply cannot create a private contracts which grants some of these rights - such as the right to sue for loss of consortium).  Labelling these individuals as “social engineers” is despicable, grossly insults these individuals and wholly illustrates your absolute and profound ignorance of these matters.

Rob,

Luckily, the culture is becoming less hostile to homosexuality and such hostility will likely be assigned to the margins of society just as racism, anti-semitism, etc. are.  Indeed, changing cultural attitudes make this issue a big loser for the Republicans over the long-term and I hope they will eventually be embarressed significantly for their support of the FMA.

Gary: you’re a dipshit troll.  I’m done with you.  I’ll now skip over your comments like I do Jadegold’s.  Congrats, you’re in good company.

likwidshoe,

Right. Also add: Except when you’re assuming intentions.

Sorry, opposition to gay marraige is an excellent proxy by which to determine an individual’s overall attitude toward homosexuals.  By way of analogy, if someone were to say to me that they opposed interracial marraige I’d have a pretty good idea of their views on race.  You are just ignoring the obvious.

Non-sensical to the discussion. Stay on topic.

Its an analogy you fool.  You are asking me to “tolerate” the notions of anti-gay bigots.  You asking me to simply keep my mouth shut with regard to their reprehensible ideas.  This would like be someone asking you to tolerate the terrorists. 

Yeah, no shit Sherlock. Nobody told you that couldn’t espouse your views.

Actually, you did; see your comments above. 

Oh my..you’re so non-sensical here that I’m wondering if you aren’t Jadegold’s new identity.

Conservatives are socialists of course.  See Milton Friedman’s excellent talk on the socialism of anti-drug laws for an example of such.  Republicans are socialists on a number of issues, including drug laws, marraige, abortion, euthanasia, private adult consensual sex (note that the Republican party opposed overturning Texas’ adult consensual sex sodomy law), pornography, dildos, etc.  You are socialist swine. 

Fine. Just don’t demand that I recognize it as a “marriage�.

Why the concern over what it is called, eh?  What’s your real beef with gay marraige? 

Well that’s a perfectly reasonable and consistent view to hold. If you argue it from this angle and drop the “bigot� game, you might have a solid argument.

Why should I stop calling people what they are?  Rep. Brian Duprey doesn’t want to recognize ANY such arrangement, no matter what it is called.  In the face of such opposition, I can only conclude one thing; the man has animus towards homsexuals.  He’s a bigot. 

Note that many of these recently passed anti-gay marraige statutes/amendments in the states bar even PRIVATE contractual arrangements which create the incidents of marraige.  When that is the case I am driven to one conclusion; such laws are based on pure animus towards homosexuals. 

End result: marriage means whatever the hell anybody wants it to mean. Therefore losing all meaning. Precisely my concern. Thanks for admitting the end result.

I don’t give a flying fuck what your irrational concerns are.  INDIVIDUALS should be allowed to make up whatever definition they want to.  Quit trying to tell other people what they may and may not do.  Stop your nanny-state tactics. 

I don’t dictate who and who should not marry.

Liar.  You’ve clearly stated - a number of times - that you don’t want individuals willy-nilly changing the definition of marraige.  Ergo, you are attempting to tell people - individuals - what to do.  You want people to call only the thing that you like to call marraige, well, marraige; all other definitions you would do away with.  You are a socialist.  You are just like anyone who supporst the EPA, or the ESA, or the minimum wage, or any of the numerous socialist laws/bureaucracy’s which inhabit our Republic’s law books and governmental buildings.

What question are you talking about?

The original question of course.  Quit avoiding it. 

You’re pretty scattered in your arguments...

Because I am retorting to your very scattered answers of course. 

Non sequitur.

Not a non-sequitor.  You don’t like the fact that your argument was directly undermined by the facts at hand.  Boo hoo.

Digressive. One court decision doesn’t change the fact that race is incidental to marriage.

Sure it does.  It was the cultural attitude at the time, just as yours is a cultural attitude about biology and marraige.  I used it by way of analogy.  There is nothing more natural about marraige and race as their is about marraige and biology and that is the ultimate point of the example.  Yours is the same position as the state of Virginia just fast-forwarded and applied to another issue; but as marraige is wholly a cultural construct there is no reason to put any weight in the state of Virginia’s position as of 1967 nor yours as of 2005.

likwidshoe,

You’re spineless.

Am I trolling when I state this?

Republicans are socialists on a number of issues, including drug laws, marraige, abortion, euthanasia, private adult consensual sex (note that the Republican party opposed overturning Texas’ adult consensual sex sodomy law), pornography, dildos, etc.

Or, for example, are you suggesting that Republicans favor an end to drug prohibition?  You just can’t take the reality I have revealed here.  I am laughing my ass off at your intellectual cowardice.

You always seperate the wheat from the chaff over issues like gay rights.  Nanny-staters like likwidshoe always show their true colors over issues like that.

likwidshoe,

Congrats, you’re in good company.

Since both you and Jadegold are both socialists it seems that you would be better company for him.

likwidshoe,

Or is this the trolling you refer to?

Note that many of these recently passed anti-gay marraige statutes/amendments in the states bar even PRIVATE contractual arrangements which create the incidents of marraige. When that is the case I am driven to one conclusion; such laws are based on pure animus towards homosexuals.

I can’t help the reality of the situation.  If truth-telling is trolling, well so be it.

Or was calling marraige what it is - a cultural construct - the trolling?  I’d say someone like you who wants to paint marraige as if it were only natural to heterosexual human beings is the troll. 

What exactly makes me a troll?  Nothing that I can see.

One last time so the troll gets his due and my argument is rock solid.

Gary Gunnels the inane troll states, “Sorry, opposition to gay marraige is an excellent proxy by which to determine an individual’s overall attitude toward homosexuals.”

Example one of troll behavior: Ignore the points given.  Don’t debate, deconstruct, or even acknowledge the argument given. Reassert same point ad nauseam.

By way of analogy, if someone were to say to me that they opposed interracial marraige I’d have a pretty good idea of their views on race.

I’ve already explained why this is a flawed analogy.  If the troll had any English comprehension, he’d understand that reasserting this point won’t get him anywhere.

You are just ignoring the obvious.

Quite the opposite.  In reality, I didn’t buy into the flawed analogy.  That’s not “ignoring the obvious”; it’s simply not buying the bullshit sold.

Its an analogy you fool.

Example two of troll behavior.  Unwarrented insults.

You asking me to simply keep my mouth shut with regard to their reprehensible ideas.

Example three of troll behavior: simply making shit up.

This would like be someone asking you to tolerate the terrorists.

Example four of troll behavior: making completely nonsensical comparisons.  Tolerating opposition to gay marriage isn’t in the same class as tolerating terrorists.  It’s stupid to even compare them.

Actually, you did; see your comments above.

Back to example three of troll behavior: making up own reality.  Gary is accusing me of telling him that he couldn’t espouse his views.  Nowhere did I ever say that.  The truth doesn’t matter to a troll.

See Milton Friedman’s excellent talk on the socialism of anti-drug laws for an example of such. Republicans are socialists on a number of issues, including drug laws, marraige, abortion, euthanasia, private adult consensual sex (note that the Republican party opposed overturning Texas’ adult consensual sex sodomy law), pornography, dildos, etc.

Trolls make half way decent points every now and then.  Not sure how in the hell Republicans are “socialist” on abortion, marriage, or euthanasia though.

You are socialist swine.

Another insult.  Plus the troll assumes that I support any of which he just mentioned.

Liar.

“Liar”? I said that I don’t dictate who and who should not marry.  This is obvious to anybody who’s paying attention.  Click the link and read the definition troll.  (The troll didn’t put the link into the word “marry” when he quoted me.  The link held an important point.  So he actually insulted a construct of his own making.)

You want people to call only the thing that you like to call marraige, well, marraige; all other definitions you would do away with. You are a socialist.

Another non-sensical argument.  Perhaps our troll needs to look up the definition of socialism.

You are just like anyone who supporst the EPA, or the ESA, or the minimum wage, or any of the numerous socialist laws/bureaucracy’s which inhabit our Republic’s law books and governmental buildings.

This makes as much sense as the terrorist comparison.

The original question of course. Quit avoiding it.

This scatterbrain troll is quite condescending.

Not a non-sequitor. You don’t like the fact that your argument was directly undermined by the facts at hand. Boo hoo.

Perhaps an explanation as to how his topic was relevant would have been better.  But what am I thinking?  Trolls don’t do that.

You just can’t take the reality I have revealed here.

Example five of troll behavior: heavy reliance on assumptions.  The troll thinks I am going to forgo responding to him because he’s exposing “reality”.  When in actuality I’m just done with his condescending and illogical posts.

I am laughing my ass off at your intellectual cowardice.

I will debate anybody day and night.  What I won’t do, is to continue to talk to a jackass for long.  And that’s why I’m done with this scatterbrain troll after this intellectual asswhopping.

You always seperate the wheat from the chaff over issues like gay rights. Nanny-staters like likwidshoe always show their true colors over issues like that.

Example six of troll behavior: intellectual masturbation.

I can’t help the reality of the situation. If truth-telling is trolling, well so be it.

More masturbation.

Or was calling marraige what it is - a cultural construct - the trolling? I’d say someone like you who wants to paint marraige as if it were only natural to heterosexual human beings is the troll.

Yank yank yank

Example seven of troll behavior: four freaking posts in a row self congratulating.  Continue to pat yourself on the back troll.  You’re looking quite silly.

Now I’m done with you troll.  I realize that talking with you will be an exercise of running in illogical circles.  You’re not here for constructive debate.  You’re here to insult and be negative.  As such, my time will wholly be wasted if I continue to talk to you.  To put it simply: you’re a complete waste of time and I’m done with you.

likwidshoe the socialist,

One last time so the troll gets his due and my argument is rock solid.

That’s yet to be so, so I doubt that will be possible in this comment.  But there is always hope for you I suppose.

likwid the lying socialist states:

Example one of troll behavior: Ignore the points given. Don’t debate, deconstruct, or even acknowledge the argument given. Reassert same point ad nauseam.

Well, if something is true, and the opposing poster refuses to deal with this fact, one is merely pressed to repeat what is true.  Opposition to gay marraige is a good proxy for determining someone’s prejudice towards gay people.  I can’t see why this isn’t the case and you’ve yet to defeat this argument.  So the argument stands and your claim of rock solidness starts its quick march to liquidity.

I’ve already explained why this is a flawed analogy. If the troll had any English comprehension, he’d understand that reasserting this point won’t get him anywhere.

Actually, you haven’t adressed this argument at all.  Indeed, for your edification, I’ll show you your comment on the matter and demonstrate you why are wrong:

My comment: Look at this analogy. If I were to argue for a law whoch forbid blacks and whites from marrying, don’t you think it would in part be based on some animus towards either black or white people?

Your response: Your analogy doesn’t work. Race is incidental to marriage. Meaning: it doesn’t matter. The sex of the couple does matter. It is the most fundamental aspect of the definition.

Note that your response skips the heart of my question in favor of answering a question I didn’t pose.  Here I am arguing about what sort of prejudice a position would hold and you start talking about issues of biology.  Explain the sense in that.  Your response was as telling then as it is now.  Liquid…

Anyway, to quickly answer the question, of course it would indicate racial animus.  How else would one realistically explain such a position? 

Unwarrented insults.

In your case the insults are more than warranted.

I think its quite obvious that you told me essentially to shut up.  I mean how dare I call a bigot a bigot! 

Trolls make half way decent points every now and then. Not sure how in the hell Republicans are “socialist� on abortion, marriage, or euthanasia though.

Read Milton Friedman’s talk on the issue (you do know who he is, right?).  Its readily available on-line (that you haven’t read it is telling).  He makes the essential point that when one opts out of the “market” for a thing and into some form of government coercion - as is the habit of Republicans - then you have socialism.  Republicans may want to reduce taxes for example, but as a rule they are socialists.  Their first impulse - like that of Democrats - is to generally regulate something, especially if it has anything to do with sex, drugs, etc. 

I said that I don’t dictate who and who should not marry.

But you clearly want to dictate who may and may not use the word marraige.  You’ve written this on innumerable occassions now.

Perhaps an explanation as to how his topic was relevant would have been better.

You claimed that it was “social engineering” at work; I stated (rightly) that it was the work of individual homosexuals wishing to stop the open discrimination they face.  You then (dishonestly) called this fact a non-sequitor.  I don’t see why you would have a problem this fact except for the fact that it completely undermines your sneering attack on those individuals who are gay and wish to marry. Your actions are pretty laughable. 

Note that you have now avoided again the nature of marraige as a cultural construct.  After a while this starts to look like intellectual cowardice on your part.

I’m still waiting for you to undermine one of my substantive points.  Its fine if you don’t like my personality, but if that remains your sole area of attack, I can’t take you seriously.  That rushing water sound is your rock solid argument dribbling into the soil. 

Quiz:

Do you favor drug prohibition?

Do you favor laws which prohibit abortion?

Do favor laws which prohibit particular types of adult consensual sex?

Do you favor laws which limit immigration on factors other than criminal background?

Do you favor laws where the state is involved in directly or indirectly sanctioning certain types of sexual relationships?

Do you favor laws which prohibit euthansia?

Do you favor laws which prohibit adult pornograpy?

Do you favor federal healthy and safety legislation?  Or state?

Do you favor federal environmental legislation?  Or state?

Do you favor a draft?

Do you favor other types of coerced “public service” not related to a criminal sentence (e.g., a coerced form of “Peace Corps"-like involvement).

Do you favor censorship of speech and the media in time of war (as many conservatives apparently do)? 

Do you favor concealed carry prohibitions?

Do you favor warrantless searches (physical or otherwise) of American citizens?

Of non-Americans?

Do you favor racial profiling?

Do you favor affirmative action?

Do you favor public schools?

Do you favor government funding of science, the arts, etc.?

Do you favor government funding, support, etc. - direct or indirect - of religion?

That list will likely do for the time being.  Answer these questions and we’ll get a sense just how socialist you are.

Oh, and I should add (since Bush has been so fond of tariffs and other forms of protectionism):

Do you favor protectionist legislation, tariffs, etc.?

Gary: Why do you bother? It’s pretty clear Likwud has no concept about much of anything and brands whatever he doesn’t like “socialism.”

It’s pretty doubtful Likwud even understands what ‘socialism’ is.

OTOH, giving him the ‘world’s smallest political quiz’ is a bit dishonest as well. We all understand it to be a pretty transparently biased advertisement for the greatly-flawed cult of libertarianism.

Gary,

In my humble opinion, your list looks more like the conservative agenda rather than a breakdown of what characterizes “socialism.”
I understand your adversary ‘s objection to your use of the term, which strictly speaking I think should be limited to the characterization of whatever relates to or leans towards the welfare state and deprivatization, something the Bush Administration could hardly be accused of.
Telling us whom or what we should worship or marry or how we should behave in the privacy of our own homes, and seeking to engrave such precepts in our laws and constitution, something the Bush Administration could easily be accused of, also speaks more to Big-Brother totalitarianism than it does to socialism.
Confusion could result from attempting to lump USSR-style dictatorial socialism with current European-style democratic socialism. Again, IMHO.

Lester,

In my humble opinion, your list looks more like the conservative agenda rather than a breakdown of what characterizes “socialism.�

When a “conservative” opts for government coercion - as they invariably do when it comes to any portion of a person’s life they want to control - its socialism.  Milton Friedman explains why this is so in the aforementioned paper on the issue of the drug wars.  However, since people can’t apaprently be troubled to actually google the article, I’ll do it for you:

The Drug War As A Socialist Enterprise: http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm

I understand your adversary ’s objection to your use of the term...

I don’t give a shit about his objection.  He’s a socialist as far as I can tell.  Thus his objections to individuals changing the definition of marraige as they will. 

...which strictly speaking I think should be limited to the characterization of whatever relates to or leans towards the welfare state and deprivatization, something the Bush Administration could hardly be accused of.

Actually, it shouldn’t be.  Its time that consrvatives stopped pretending that their meddling in the lives of INDIVIDUALS is anything but socialism.  And as far as dismantling the welfare state, Bush is in favor of the welfare state; this is fully realized when you look at his initiatives re: funding of religious charities. 

Telling us whom or what we should worship or marry or how we should behave in the privacy of our own homes, and seeking to engrave such precepts in our laws and constitution, something the Bush Administration could easily be accused of, also speaks more to Big-Brother totalitarianism than it does to socialism.

No, it speaks of socialism.  Again, see the above article.  Republicans as a rule are socialists.  They might as well be confronted with this reality.  If not, they’re going to continue to prattle on about the “public good” just like liberals do.