Someone said :
woah Polo, you skipped from "I don't think a woman should smoke or drink when pregnant" to "but how could it ever be enforced"
there is at least the sentence "and I also think it should be illegal" if not also: "because I have no problem in theory, with restricting the rights of a group I am not a member of, to the whimsy of my opinion" (although I did put a bit of sarcasm into that last one)
If I rewrote you're rhetoric but swapped in gay equal right (in a hypothetical world were gay marriage is as it should be: up to the individual) It would read like this;
This sentence shows the speaker is someone who believes so naturally that their opinion should sway law, that they didn't even bother qualify the leap from what they think (that gays shouldn't marry), straight to issues of re-enforcement.
for the record i don't think it should be illegal but thanks for the lecture anyway. I was merely jumping to the hypothetical situation where it was illegal and scoffing at how it could never be enforced in any case. but aside from that you know you cant just swap in the words "gay marriage" into any debate and say "I win!". Drugs, theft, tax evasion, rape etc etc are all illegal, why don't you swap in the words "gay marriage" and argue as to why those laws are just as oppressive as the laws on gay marriage?