"Liberals thinks that everyone should have the same."

I wasn't happy with your example for several reasons. First, it only portrays one instance of a "liberal agenda" when in fact being a liberal is NOT about wanting everyone to have the same. There are other, more prevalent aspects to the liberal ideology, including: a woman's right to choose, and wanting to end the war in Iraq. What do either of those liberal beliefs have to do with things being the SAME? Second, I never said that the so-called government officials were liberals - you did. I specifically put "liberal government officials" in quotations in my response to signify that I didn't necesarilly agree that these "government officials" were actually liberal. That is an assumption YOU made, because nowhere in the article did it say that the people making those claims were liberal. And THAT'S why your example is invalid. Because it is based on your assumption and not factual evidence. Also, making everyone have the same school lunch is NOT part of the liberal agenda. That is the opinion of the select few (reminder: we don't know which political party they even affiliate with). Likewise, Ron Paul who is a registered Republican feels that we should bring the troops home from Iraq. Is it fair to say that REPUBLICANS want to bring the troops home just because Ron Paul does? No. And that's why you can't say it is a liberal stance to make everyone have equal school lunches or whatever. It is completely irrelevant. The fact remains that there are a few kinds of liberalism: political, economical and social/cultural (Social and cultural are different, but I'm combining them for the sake of brevity in this debate). Political liberalism refers to liberals opposing society's institutions showing favor to those of a higher social or economic class. Economic liberalism "supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible" (Source: Wikipedia). And cultural liberalism supports the notion that individuals should have the right to carry out whichever lifestyle they choose, and oppose government regulation of what they consider private matters, such as their sex life, birth control, certain drugs (i.e. marijuana), alcohol, literature, etc. So again, I pose the question: what do these beliefs have to do with wanting things to be the SAME? Fighting unwarranted censorship, for instance, has nothing to do with treating people a certain way... except, ya know, giving them the right to read whatever literature they choose. You mentioned that homosexuals want to "downgrade" the meaning of marriage because they cannot pro-create naturally. Does that mean that infertile women and men should not be allowed to marry? Are you implying that any marriage consisting of people who do not wish or are not able to conceive children should not exist? Even if that is your ridiculously ignorant belief, it probably has more to do with your religious affiliation than anything else... because in this country, you cannot stop a man and a woman from marrying even if they cannot naturally conceive chilren. So why should that be a basis for banning homosexual same-sex marriage? You seem to be all high and mighty when talking about what - in your opinion - defies logic. However I find it completely illogical that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, despite the fact that alcohol is consistently proven to be more harmful than marijuana. Not to mention all of the other factors/inconsistencies (I won't get into them because marijuana vs. alcohol is not the topic of this debate). So, to re-cap: - I ripped your "example" to shreds by pointing out the fact that you have no basis for your argument regarding the news article, because no school or nutritional official (what you call "government officials") were cited as being liberal or having a liberal agenda - You went into a tirade about marijuana vs. alcohol, however, that has nothing to do with wanting people to be and have the same. - You asked a really dumb question of "What rights and opportunities do rich people exercise that the poor people or even middle class people can't exercise?" Uhh... certainly you are not suggesting that poor people have the same OPPORTUNITIES as rich people. Because that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. People are supposed to have the same RIGHTS, but not opportunities. Rich people have the opportunity to go on vacation. Poor people have that right, but they may not have the opportunity (financial means). Also, apparently we disagree on what "rights" people should have, i.e. my position that homosexual same-sex marriage should be a fundamental right guaranteed by law. - You failed to answer how liberal thinking regarding censorship, a woman's right to choose and pulling out of Iraq has anything to do with same-ness. Bottom line: I support my statement that liberals feel that everyone should have the same rights (and that the term rights be expanded to those previously excluded from laws; It is not uncommon for the Constitution and other statutes to be re-written as society evolves and opinions change, i.e. the inclusion of women and African Americans being given the right to vote, when black people were previously considered 3/5 of a person). I also think that liberals support certain important institutions being universal, and not having crucial things such as health insurance not be available to the lower class. You don't see liberals saying that everyone should own a yacht or dress in Versace clothing. But you will hear them fighting for basic needs.