Human life begins at birth, or the third trimester at the earliest. Since there is no human life involved, there should be no restrictions on what a woman chooses to do with her body.

Human life begins at conception. Humans at any stage of development are worthy of rights and protection.

We as a society have placed human dignity explicitly in the makeup of our country. The Declaration Of Independence lays out some of our inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Accepting the voluntary forfeit of life is just as much an attack on our common heritage of human dignity as would the forfeiture of liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

For all those quoting dictionary entries, consider this from dictionary.com:
"re⋅li⋅gion
  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. "

Many of these certainly apply to atheism. Aside from the dictionary war, though, atheists make a guess just as much as theists make a guess about the nature of existence and the universe. Atheists certainly have dogma, i.e there is no god. And there are certainly atheist groups, e.g. humanists.

In response to Mr. Huge from 1/11/10:
I think Ted Olsen is wrong. My objection is that marriage is about much more than two individuals. it is about creating family. I find the idea that society would care whether or not you love or are loved to be repugnant to my libertarian sensibilities. Why would society care (or even know) about two individuals loving one another. If they commit to each other and pool their interests, then good for them. No impact plus or minus on society. If two people cease to love each other, then too bad for them. But still no impact on society, they just start supporting themselves as they would have to do anyway. Two people "get together" and produce a child - now society starts to perk up a bit. Stay together, great; I hope you provide a good upbringing. Don't stay together, now society has to scramble to deal with the resulting issues.

I think that society has a compelling interest in how children are made, and that is the reason for a public institution and involvement. Others disagree. Ok, but then what is left as the compelling societal interest if not procreation? Love? Pooling of interests? Self esteem? Not very compelling in my book.

Also in response to Buscia from 1/3/10:
Banning marriages that either can't or choose not to produce children is an impossible, expensive, and distasteful policy in my opinion. I don't support it. I don't think it could ever work, I recoil from the idea of this kind of thing.

In response to Buscia from 1/3/10:
I agree that marriage is about commitment and love - from the individual's perspective. And people can commit and love all day long whether or not society sanctions or recognizes them. I claim that the only reason society cares is that society has a compelling interest in procreation, and encouraging procreation in the least risky manner possible (i.e. marriage).

In response to DClary from 12/7/09 (the one about marriage being a legal contract):
It's refreshing to hear your concession that the same sex marriage argument based on the marriage-is-just-another-contract line of thought opens the door to ANY combination. I think that many supporters of same sex marriage would part ways with you on that score (not that you need to answer for anyone else but yourself). So if you think that marriage is just another contract, then:
1) Why are we (society) in the business of marriage at all, with the licensing requirements, tax breaks, legal principles, assumptions etc.? Why not just have people - in any combination - form actual contracts to pool their interests? Leave love, children or any other consideration out of it that the parties involved don't specifically put in the contract.
2) What is your rationale for advocating same sex marriage when you really think that there shouldn't be ANY restrictions? Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to argue either for no restrictions at all or to argue for no marriage at all?

In response to DClary from 12/7/09 (the one about "framing" the issue:
My framing of the issue is intended to move the debate to where the conflict actually exists. I have no quarrel with equal protection under the law; I'm a big fan of the concept. That concept, though, doesn't mean that we have to disregard qualifications or essential duties of the job, so to speak. It doesn't mean that we have to award federal engineering contracts to accounting firms. The question, and the ensuing disagreement, is properly centered around what the essential qualifications really are and whether society has any compelling stake in the matter to begin with.

Jack, what about an army of zombies and an army of vampires versus an army of Ditkas?

In response to Katzwinkel from 12/5/09:
1) I agree that "marriage isn't about mechanically ejecting offspring and then chucking them into the woods to fend for themselves." Who said otherwise?
2) The benefit to society from marriage is in orderly and sheltered procreation. Of course procreation is easy, but there are many circumstances that are less than ideal for procreation - that's why we encourage procreation within the framework of marriage.
3) The fact that there are children in the world looking for a home means we should reconsider our ideas concerning adoption, not marriage.

In response to elwoodlaw from 12/5/09:
1) It's not a question of treating people differently. It's a question of whether same sex marriage merits benefits and status being bestowed by society. Otherwise do what you want to do, just don't expect "official" sanction for it.
2) I think you'd be surprised to discover that opposition to same sex marriage doesn't come from just "Bible abusing rightists." You don't have to have a Bible or be of the right.
3) Regarding the sterile argument: that's a good point. However, I think society would recoil from the gross imposition on privacy that would be required by checking for sterility (I know I would). Society must weigh privacy issues vs letting some sterile people slip into the institution of marriage. But there is no corresponding invasion of privacy required for same sex couples - it's just not able to be faked or mistaken.
4) I think your assertion that "this really seems to be more of an excuse to try to indirectly, and maybe/hopefully unintentionally, be anti-gay simply because you do not like the lifestyle" is a straw man argument based on zero evidence except for your own world view.
5) I didn't imply and I don't believe in a slippery slope argument and I disagree that polygamy and incest are red herrings. Either you agree that it is ok to discriminate against certain types of relationships in determining which relationships are to receive status and privilege from society, or you do not. If you agree, then I sincerely would like to understand your criteria for deciding when it is ok to discriminate and when it is not. If youy disagree then I sincerely would like to know why you think society should be involved in marriage at all (why can't people go to a church and not bother at all with the state? why bother at all with a church? why does it need to be "official"?).
6) These are the questions that trouble many people when it comes to the issue of same sex marriage. The fact that you think it's irrelevant noise probably explains why you apparently can't understand opposition to same sex marriage except in terms of religion or bigotry.

In response to juszczak from 12/5/09:
1) I don't think that anyone is pretending when it comes to this issue.
2) I agree that marriage is "the outward expression of a couple's love for each other"
3) If society derives no benefit from that outward expression, then why is society involved at all? Why do you need a license? Why do we organize legal principles around it?
4) Maybe YOU don't need an extended family or an immediate family to provide food, resources, or care for the elderly, but you're delusional if you think those circumstances are relics of a bygone age. They happen all the time.
5) Receiving benefits or status from society is not a right. Society is under no obligatiopn to provide benefits to anyone, let alone people it feels don't provide commensurate benefits in return. What benefit does society receive from same sex marriage?

Sarah Palin has been a mayor, governor, and vice presidential candidate.

While it's valid to set some timetables, I think it is ridiculous and politically hackish to broadcast them. If we should be there, then make the case for achieving the goal. Then use your discretion as far as a timetable. If we shouldn't be there, then get em all out. Again, the president is playing politics when people's lives are at stake.

One solid principle of warfare is that it is best to bring overwhelming force to bear. Why in the world is the president playing games with numbers. if the commanders think that more numbers are required then why not give them AT LEAST what they're asking for? It's a hedge that stinks of politics when people's lives are at stake.

Marriage benefits many groups such as individuals, religious people, and society. However, the question of how to define marriage should depend entirely on the benefits derived by society. Traditionally (all over the world and throughout history), marriage has been society's response to and provision for children and family. It defines the ideal relationship in which children are to be created and raised. Ideal for whom? Ideal for society. With the responsibility for caring for children placed squarely with a married couple the chances of ill effects for society decrease. Also, with that expectation in place there is (debatably) some deterrence effect for irresponsible reproduction.

There are many potential respones to the above.

-If you say that marriage has nothing to do with children, then I would ask you if all relationships provide the same, or any, benefit to society.
* If all relationships (hetero, homo, mulitple parties, incestual, etc.) provide the same benefit to society then why is society bothering to create special privileges or status for any of them. Wouldn't it make more sense to remove marriage altogther than to allow same sex marriage? Why spend any time on any of it if the benefits will happen regardless of the relationship a person embarks on?
* If not all relationships are equal, then what criteria would you use to permit marriage for some but not for others?

- If you say that not all marriages produce children, but yet we still allow them, then I would respond:
* You can't guarantee to catch anything when you go fishing, but you will certainly not catch a fish if you drop your line in the bathtub. Go fishing where the fish are. By fish I mean children, in case you were confused.
* The cost of the onerous invasion of privacy required to verify that children are produced or intended (not to mention the impossibility of such a task) would very much outweigh any benefit society gains by having marriage.

Ultimately, modern society doesn't care who you love, who you're committed to, or who you are having sex with. That doesn't mean, though, that society has to stop encouraging those relationships that provide benefit to all of us or that it has to encourage all relationships equally whether they provide a benefit or not. Is it a perfect system? No. I think it's still the best system though. I would also be in favor, in an individual rights/libertarian sort of way, in making it easier for people to direct the course of their lives (e.g. by being able to more easily direct who is to make decisions for them while they are incapacitated, better allowance for inheritance issues, hospital visitation).

The issue should more reasonbly be reduced to anti-cruelty. Anything more is ridiculous. What good are animal rights if those rights don't include the right to not be eaten or the right of self determination (no pets)?

Politicians routinely do not finish their terms. Granted, that is mostly because they seek higher office. But is it really any better that the citizens of Illinois were left without a full-time senator while President Obama went campaigning for president? I would have preferred it if he had resigned and been replaced with someone who actually wanted to be senator. So Barack Obama effectively serves only 1/3 of his term before his ambition calls him to leave his post and that is ok, while Sarah Palin leaves her post to benefit the citizens of her state (but probably mostly because her ambition is beckoning her too) and that is not ok? If it's acceptable practice for President Obama and countless other politicians, why is it a point against Sarah Palin?

Once Sarah Palin became a lightning rod, the lightning strikes were continuous. Opponents and journalists made charges and launched investigations, some frivolous and others not so frivolous. With all these starving predators scraping around the tundra looking for meat, governing became difficult - and extremely expensive for the citizens of the state. Some would say she sacrificed hersef to the wolves so the herd (Alaska) could go on about it's business without harassment.

Douchebag is just another way the creative human mind has devised to show our disdain for someone; I fo one refuse to accept that fuck is the only "appropriate" explicative. No misogyny either; other icky things that are applicable to men only (e.g. used condom) or equally applicable amongst the sexes (e.g. colostomy bag) just don't have the same flow. Ickiness PLUS intriguing sequence of sounds equals useful word.

It seems that the points against home schooling that refer to sheltering and lack of socialization are based on a stereotype of what a home school situation is like (I'd like to hear the reasoning, otherwise). I've known many traditionally-schooled kids that could be considered shelterd or poorly socialized or lacking in experience with diversity of belief. On the flip side, haven't any of you made friends at the park, neighborhood, scouts, karate class, little league, church, etc.? I certainly made more friends from those sources than from school at any level.

Katzwinkel posts another gaffe by Palin, her referring to a "department of law" at the white house. What his point against actually is, he leaves for the rest of us to guess at (imprecise speech during an interview? stupidity?). Anyway, every politician, professor, speaker, interviewee, etc. has gaffes. This is my point exactly: the fact that Sarah Palin is immediatedly considered a joke for her gaffes while the gaffes of others aren't immediate disqualifiers (does anyone remember the 57 states in President O'Bama's United States?) is exactly the double standard that is so obnoxious. I'm not calling for more gaffe sensitivity here, just fairness. For crying out loud, it seems that every time Vice President Biden opens his mouth something goofy or incorrect comes out of it. Does that make him unserious? No. Sarah palin deserves to be able to play on the same field as everyone else.

The AP fact check piece referred to by Katzwinkel is a great example of the double standard that Sarah Palin is being made to endure. The AP, maybe to justify the expense of 11 contributing writers, picked some "errors" from the book that are either not really errors at all or are subjective opinion. The only fact-like fact check item, her frugality as governor of Alska, admits that "she usually opted for less-pricey hotels" but the authors evidently think that the existence of a trip that cost Alaska a whopping "well over $3,000" is cause enough to issue a verdict of Palin having "gone Rogue on some facts." Thin gruel for people obviously eager to tear her down.

While I'm still unsure about her myself, the level and type of criticism toward her really gets the contrarian impulse going in me. She simultaneously, though unintentially, illustrates just how hollow some followers of feminism really are while also highlighting the arrogance of a certain brand of elitist regardless of political affiliation. The gross double standard in the criticism she receives versus a male politician or a female politician of a leftist ideology is more than enough for me to throw some support her way. She still has to prove herself worthy of the national stage, though.

Indeed, one of the attractions of home schooling is precisely that bullies and social cliques, which can interfere with providing and receiving education, are removed from the learning environment. These are not necessary to learning the three R's. And, unless they are never allowed to leave the house, there will be no shortage of encounters with these and other experiences for the home-schooled student.

It is both the right and the responsibility of parents to educate their children as they see fit until the child reaches maturity and the right and responsibility are transferred to the individual. The mere existence of homeschooling is a reminder and reaffirmation of that right, even if public schooling is a better option on the whole.

Shouldn't be mandatory. Rather, the recycling agent should pay people for their recyclable material. I think that would invite more participation. It's a win for everybody.

Inspired countless American males to impose painful skit reenactments and terrible fake British accents on the rest of humanity.

It espouses a much more liberal point of view than the Democrat Party.

Appears to be too wishy-washy because he is constantly talking about compromise while he actually avoids compromise and questions the motivations of his opponents. He seeks firm ideological decisions that will not help and will probably do harm, resulting in the risk of becoming another Jimmy Carter.

Instructive at least, and probably entertaining too for people who enjoy playing poker.

The author erroneously uses the concept of individual liberty to justify her soulless selfishness and utter lack of normal human emotion.

After ably making the case for individual liberty, the author doesn't seem to leave much room for the legitimate claims of authority made by groups of free people desiring to organize their community life as they see fit.

Atlas Shrugged is an articulate, if wordy, illustration of the idea that free exchange of value is prerequisite to individual freedom.