Thanks a lot. I will edit my original comment with some links discovered thanks to your suggestion.

Cheers, man.

Trust the plan.

Sorry, I meant the 2012 ferret study. Your article has a link to it, but it appears as though it may be the wrong link, as it is included twice while referring to two separate studies. Do you happen to have a good link for the ferret study?

What I personally believe to be the right way to conduct oneself in society is irrelevant with regard to the proper way of structuring liberty. Governmental regulation is not a magic wand to swoosh away all problems. Cultural problems are solved by culture, and not more government. Lead by service and example. Healthy tyranny is still tyranny.

Are you able to provide a reliable source, please? I'm very interested in this.

Edit: Thanks to u/EricCharliemella, I have found a few sources which may be of interest to others.

• [Video] Professor Dolores Cahill: Why People Will Start Dying a Few Months After the First MRNA Vaccination
• [Summary of video] What is pathogenic priming?
• [First study from video] Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus
• [Second study from video] Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID‐19 vaccines worsening clinical disease
• [Another study] Pathogenic priming likely contributes to serious and critical illness and mortality in COVID-19 via autoimmunity

This was annihilation. Perfectly appropriate. This is the reaction to have.

Thank you for the moral support. You are right.

When liberty is to go only one way, it becomes dogmatism.

This logic can be applied to anybody, including Christians. The above formula will not fail you in this scenario. The moment they, or anybody else, start infringing on your rights, you retaliate. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I'm advocating for limited government. Anything else you're reading into it is your own making. "Live, and let live" should apply to everyone. That includes atheists, Muslims, and Christians. From what I see – and I say this as an advocate for a Judeo-Christian West –, Christians expect preferential treatment, but the Constitution grants none. It establishes the free exercise of religion.

Nobody is forcing you to go against your beliefs, and if they are, they're violating your rights.

Conversely, you should force nobody to go against their beliefs, and if you are, you're violating their rights.

It's that simple.

Tax benefits should be out of question for a deeply personal act such as marriage, as the government has no role in it. Family tax benefits are another issue, and adoption for same-sex couples should also be out of question.

Marriage is a human cultural universal, and is not owned by any one religion.

This doesn't have to be the case. It is no different from saying that gun rights lead directly to mass shootings. There are multiple steps between the two, and culture and government should regulate each separate step appropriately.

Strawman. All of these things violate your rights. You should not tolerate them.

I agree with that.

You're conflating two ideas.

Marriage is a personal decision concerned with one's private life.

Adoption is a decision for another life, too, and the rules change accordingly.

Because the nuclear family, with a healthy mother and a healthy father, is the healthy environment for a child to grow up in, same-sex couples should not be able to adopt to begin with, based not on the principles of any one religion, but on quantitative and qualitative data and observation over centuries of civilization. (Though the conclusions are often one and the same.)

Simple. Do they violate your rights? Retaliate appropriately within your rights (including shooting them). Do they not violate your rights? Tolerate.

And they shouldn't be.

Find someone. You're Donald J. Trump, and it's fucking Florida. This is no excuse.

Like I said, government should be uninvolved in marriage altogether, "legal benefits" and all.

Are you retarded or something?

It shouldn't be irreconcilable. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People should make peace with the fact that what grants their own religious freedoms is the same right that grants others theirs. It's not unlike

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

When you allow government a say in another person's faith, yours is next in line.

I wish for a Judeo-Christian West, but running to a nanny in order to achieve it is not the way. Leading by example is.

Please refrain from setting up strawmen as my position. The line in the sand is and has always been drawn by "live, and let live." As long as one's decision about one's private life doesn't violate the rights of another, there should be no governmental regulation. Obviously both of your slippery slope examples exceed that boundary, and should be regulated accordingly.

Marriage is a ceremony, period. There is freedom of faith and religion, and if one's individual faith allows for same-sex marriage without violating another's rights, then neither the government nor you should be involved in their decision at all.

He's showing no sign of learning.

I find it hypocritical for the same people who advocate for small government to celebrate the marriage ban. Indeed, the government should have zero say in one's private life at this level, and get the fuck out of regulating pursuit of happiness.

I support the ban on adoption with a mental disorder.

She does squat. Have you seen her power clean?