"A corporation has no strong incentive to plan for disasters unless it is compelled to do so by something, and that something can only be government."

Are you insinuating that without regulation, companies would not plan for safety? I suppose the damage now done to BP, both to reputation and profitability, is not enough incentive to extract oil safely. How about airlines? Suppose there was no FAA - would airlines ignore safety practices for profits? Of course not, they would be out of business as soon as they crashed a plane. Nobody would fly with an airline they knew to be unsafe. The customer demands that companies operate within certain bounds, and that force is much more compelling than government regulation. ...

Chuck - perfectly stated.

Garageman - While you may wish the founders were not Christian and you claim:

"the inconvenient fact that the words "God," "Lord," "Christ," "Christian," "Judeo-Christian," "Bible" and "Biblical" appear nowhere in the Constitution"

Read it again.

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

I guess it is somewhat inconvenient to your argument when your facts are wrong.

While Doug's solution seems sensible on the surface, enforcement of existing laws and a rigorous public education campagain will save lives. More government regulation that compels cell phone manufacturers to install software to curb bad behavior sounds like an expansion of the nanny state to me, certain to generate additional costs to the consumer. Plus, why can't the passengers in my car text or otherwise use the full potential of their phones - activities that will be disabled should Doug's plan prevail. More personal responsibility and less government involvement please.

"Then why do all 50 states permit same-sex couples to raise children?”

Just because it is permitted does not mean it is best for the children. Single parents are also permitted to raise children in all 50 states. You certainly do not think this is best for the children? You are right with one statement though, it is absolutely best for children to be raised by married parents...one father and one mother.

"Well, since you’ve been ineffective in getting teenagers and young adults to stop having sex before marriage..."

Well, no. I have not been ineffective in getting my teenagers to stop having sex before marriage. As a father of six, I like to think I may know a bit about parenting (although still learning...

Your strawman is laughable...but I'll bite anyway.

You said, "So long as you advocate denying the children of same-sex couples the right to the benefits they would have by having married parents..." I think you fail to see that it is, in fact, the same-sex couples themselves that deny their children the benefits they would have by having married parents. You see, children were intended to be raised in a home with one father and one mother. That is the natural way since each parent is able to contribute differently to a childs development. When children are raised by same-sex couples, that natural balance is disturbed and the children suffer. While you may not like it, the best situation for children, bestowing the most...