Gays and Global Warming

I guess I never answered the questions about gays and global warming.

First, Gays. I have friends and clients that are gay. I've been to two gay weddings. I don't hate gays. Do I believe they should be allow to marry? No, but as a libertarian I also don't believe the government should be in the business of sanctioning any marriage. It's a contract like any other in my mind and the government should not be in the business of deciding which contract is acceptable and which ones are not.

I do believe gay sex is a sin but no better or worse than extramarital or premarital heterosexual sex.

Again, I don't have the answers but I have lot's of question. First, if gays are "born that way" what about bisexuals? What about pedophiles.... are they born that way? Why shouldn't we give them a pass. If I see a 85 year old guy with Anna Nicole, I think it's disgusting, why? Wasn't he just born that way.

If we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy? Are you not infringing on the rights on certain religions by prohibiting it? If I'm bisexual shouldn't I be allow to marry one woman and one man? What if I want to marry my sister just so she can go on my insurance? is that OK? I'm a 40 year old + man, shouldn't I be allowed to marry a fifteen year old girl? The fact is we have lot's of prohibition on marriage and it's not exclusive to homosexuals. How do we justify allowing any one of these without allowing the others?

There is more evidence of a gene that can predetermine alcoholism and drug addiction than sexuality. Given that, should we just excuse alcoholics and tell them it's OK to drink. Afterall, he was just "born that way"? Hey Joe how about another shot of Wild Turkey.

Do I think homosexuality is a choice, probably not. I don't think someone would choose a lifestyle that would create much angst for themselves and families, as a result, I have compassion for many gay struggles.

As for Global Warming.... again let's go back to Theory versus Law. Given the fact set we now have, scientist should be able to predict what the earth's temperature is going to be next year. To my knowledge they can't..... they throw out numbers over decades that we will not be able to evaluate until the time is over.

Also, what bothers me most is the debate itself. Do you remember "acid rain" and sulfur dioxide emissions... what about flourocarbons from aerosol cans and freon discharges, then it was carbon monoxide and now it CO2 emissions. Just what the hell is the problem? Twenty years ago, Time and Newsweek were reporting on the coming "Ice Age", so within 20 years we're now in a global warming period despite tremendous reductions in airborne pollutants.

I don't consider myself one of the smartest people on earth but I watch what the "experts" do and I see Al Gore jet setting across the globe getting this award and that award and he could be the perfect person to show how satellite technology can negate transcontinental flight and yet he doesn't. He also manages to heat four and cool four homes. So just how real is it?

Is global warming yet another Y2K, alar, or daycare abuse, scare to give the media something to bait the public? Just call me skeptical.

You see once again, I've got all these questions (and you can read all of them in my earlier posts) and yet I'm just ridiculed as "hilariously misguided" like some kind of doofus instead of engaging in the debate. Well why the hell doesn't a liberal answer these questions? or maybe they can't.

So here's the deal, all comments on this blog, except for spam get posted. My request is that all comments either bring some element of wit or something new to the debate.