Canada has WMDs

[kandrathe]

I think that reference was in response to America being the land of the free. I also bristle at the idea that we all should hence be tolerant of any deviant lifestyle. Our culture, laws, and norms are not at that place, and I believe what Occhi was getting at was that you cannot force attitudes to change, they just do over time. You can educate and remove obvious barriers within the system, but people are free to think what they will.

For example, if an employee decides that on Monday, Wednesday and Friday he would like to go to work dressed as a woman, should the employer just be tolerant or face a discrimination lawsuit. I can see no reason from a freedom and liberty POV that the employee should be denied that right, yet I can also see why an employer would discourage it. This is a social dialog that we have not undertaken in society, and until it has occured, the result of using the government as an instrument to force social change will only be negative for all concerned.

Back to the point Pete and I discussed. From the POV of the State (or whatever government), marriage should just be viewed as a contract between persons. Any religious or social meaning should be left up to the persons involved to decide. Then, as with other contracts, the legal system becomes involved as intermediary for settling disputes. But, are there any boundaries that you would place on these contracts? How many persons? What if I wanted to "marry" my goldfish? 15 year old cousin? The town of Salem, MA?

Edit: Nod to Pete's nit. Removed the word "two".