I'm just going to say this: I'm actually bisexual, and your insistence that gay/queer issues are taboo for analogies, and that I personally mean clearly conjured examples of things that other people have said in the public arena (which I, many others, and federal judges think are flawed arguments), are both a form of ad hominem/strawman weakening your other points considerably and incredibly offensive.

I was otherwise enjoying our conversation, but far from it being me who seems to have an issue with topics involving gays, I think it's you. You're unable to have a real discussion about the logical fallacies of well trodden, publicly expressed arguments from recent years (eg, I've seen all of these expressed by people fighting against gay rights in the past 5 years published in major news articles), and how they're similar to the argument you're making about drugs.

> Your continued gay analogies are really just exposing your ignorance of homosexuality.

I'm not ignorant of homosexuality in any manner, I just think you're advancing arguments on the topic of drugs with the same flawed logic that I routinely hear trotted out against me when discussing people I have sex with or might want to one day marry. That I chose personal examples of flawed arguments doesn't tell you anything about my stance on those topics.

Again, it's very unfortunate that you've chosen to attack me personally rather than address the topic, but I'm going to have to stop conversing with you.