Canada has WMDs

[Chaerophon]

I suppose that the point is this: liberty and equality as proposed ideals demand that homosexuals be granted the same rights and freedoms as are other members of society at a political level. Your arguments regarding the facts of the conversion are well-founded and perfectly understandable, but they don't in any way defend against the fundamental hypocrisy that exists if a nation is to declare itself "the bastion of freedom" for the world and then allow majority consensus to deny one fairly large demographic group those freedoms. Just as slavery and the subjection of women represented weighty restrictions of liberty for those affected even when there were no laws and little public outcry against them, this double-standard for homosexual couples would seem to me to represent an unfair restriction whether the majority of the country agrees with it or not. J.S. Mill makes a compelling argument when he concludes that the only freedoms which should be restricted by a government are those which may harm or seriously detract from the well-being of another. While the argument against homosexual adoption MAY apply here, I'm afraid that that of legal marriage does not.

While you are correct that it may take more time for such legislation to be passed in the United States than it did in Canada, I'm afraid that the dictates of your national philosophy in the condition to which they have evolved in modernity demand that such practices be eventually adopted lest the founding myths be exposed as hypocrisies. I don't see how this point is presumptuous or arrogant. Based upon the prescriptions of the founding principles of your country, whether that is the manner in which they were intended or not, their interpretation TODAY demands that homosexuals should eventually be allowed to legally marry. Anything less would represent a tyrrany at the hands of majority opinion and such "freedom of expression" should not, under the American myth, be quashed by any means, be they democratic or not.