MeloJelo

*Snackrifices.

"Enthusiastic, informed consent"--I like that wording. I think that's definitely something everyone should seek to get from their partner(s) before engaging in sex, that way, people are much less likely to feel bad about the experience or do something horrible like make false accusations of rape or have a misunderstanding that leads to rape (e.g., she was really drunk and said yes, but wasn't aware enough to give consent).

Wait, you've already revealed his name in your other writings, but you won't state it here? Are you just trying to get people to click the links to your blogs and articles?

From Roemer's reply in the link above:

Drugs frighten me as a father and grandfather. I have never supported legalization of them. However, if someone shows me the safety of our living standards can be protected I would listen. But currently I am opposed to legalization.

The fact that you allow your personal fears to dictate your worldviews is disturbing to me, especially as, in this case, it seems your fear stems from ignorance of a subject.

You ask for evidence that our living standards would be preserved upon the legalization of drugs, or at least marijuana. There have been numerous studies that have demonstrated that marijuana is not physiologically, psychologically, or particularly economically harmful to individuals who use. It can very easily be equated to the use of alcohol, except with less severe side-effects. It also has a historical similarity to the prohibition of alcohol. All this history and all those studies are readily available for anyone interested in researching them and considering them with a level, logical head not tainted by fear. So, what evidence, exactly, would you need to convince you?

Once again, I am a traditionalist as part of my religious upbringing.

Everyone has a different upbringing, but it takes a certain type of individual to be able to think beyond what his parents, family, and community members have been telling him since he was a child. If you are really socially conservative simply due to your upbringing, I do not think you are that type of person . . .

However, I would defend the individual rights of homosexuals as proud Americans. I would allow each state to decide.

These statements are direct contradictions of one another. If you are allowing states to decide, there are almost definitely going to be states that will elect to deny homosexuals their civil rights in one way or another. If you are allowing them to decide to do such things, you are not defending their rights as Americans, or even as human beings. This contradictory statement suggests that perhaps your religious views might influence your political stances more than you claim.

"Organic" is the only government-regulated term (though even that has loopholes). The others are almost worthless and are often used to misrepresent practices that most people would still consider abhorrent (e.g., hundreds of "free-range" chickens all cooped up in a cramped, dark building with one tiny door on the end leading to a 3' x 3' enclosure).

Organic is better, but there are still companies (Horizon was one last I checked), that get around a lot of the legal terminology while still being able to meet the standards. Also, even with organic, male chicks still need to be ground up or left in plastic bags to suffocate to death because they're unprofitable, and male calves and excess female calves on dairy farms need to be sold for meat to maintain profitability.