It seems you only worry about the nanny state when it comes to smoking your herb.

You completely ignore and encourage the proposed nanny state with today’s crop of liberal candidates.

Why is that? As long as you get your herb, you could care less about anything else.

Already being considered by those on the left. The nanny government is in full swing.

Tell that to the Drug Warriors. Heck, they won’t even let the people grow a certain plant in their gardens.

Nanny state alright. It’s a war on personal freedom.

“Then I propose that banning alcohol use, driving automobiles and extreme sports should be done as well for “health reasons” as well as the consumption of beef and pork vice fruits and vegetables.”

Already being considered by those on the left. The nanny government is in full swing.

“Incest is illegal because of the potential harm it poses to the offspring and the anger it creates in society for creating a state of “congress at ease” meaning the jealousy created in a society when it is found no effort is made in finding a mate.”

When argued for, using the same arguments for gay marraige, incest could become legal between consenting individuals as an equal protection right. Doesn’t matter the reasons for its illegality, we have seen them overturned on that “right” basis.

Ah, the old “the institution of marriage is weaker than it used to be, so let’s put the final nail in its coffin” argument. Is that what you want, Esquire? Because that’s what you’re going to get if you create the fiction of gay “marriage.” (Also, why the “Esquire?” I thought English barristers and solicitors never used that title.)

Most men are straight, white, and Christian. So what’s your point?

Then I propose that banning alcohol use, driving automobiles and extreme sports should be done as well for “health reasons” as well as the consumption of beef and pork vice fruits and vegetables.

Incest is illegal because of the potential harm it poses to the offspring and the anger it creates in society for creating a state of “congress at ease” meaning the jealousy created in a society when it is found no effort is made in finding a mate.

gay relations was at one time illegal.

incest is not always power imbalanced and can be based on love. It is illegal based on law which can be changed as in the gay relation issue.

Weak, very weak argument by today’s standards.

If the gay relation issues were compared to a health issue, just like smoking, then maybe something can be changed about it. People want to ban smoking for health related issues (second hand smoke etc) so the same can be said for homosexuality it is a health issue. It clearly is since in many cases leads to the spread of a deadly disease. There is no argument against that issue. If liberals want to be conscience about health issues then this is clearly one of them. But since many campaign contributors are gay and RICH then they look the other way.

why is it a vital necessity to allow for homosexual marriage but not a vital necessity to allow for incestuous marriage?

Because one is a relationship, based on love between 2 equals. The other is criminal behaviour, involving serious power imbalances between the parties concerned.

One is consensual; the other, it is safe to assume, is always abuse and can never be truly consensual.

And by this you have lost your way. You either accept Faith in Salvation as a message of love and a manner in which to live your life or you see it as an authoritarian method used to control, manipulate and as you have put it to punish people with death for their actions which your selectively Biblical worldview takes offence at in the main.

Feel free at your leisure to pass on what the prime tenets of the “Moral Code” you speak of entails. And by the by if the Levitical Code only applies to the Israelites then you have voided the fundament for all your arguments that stand on Levitical code.

I have no idea what you do for a living but I hope you a) only blog from home and b) are not a member of the Bar.