All of these things should be legal, with the exception of #2, because undergarments do not suppress smells or prevent stuff from leaking out. So if they are on someone else's property, that's like bio-vandalism. However, if a person is on his own property, he can go for it, but in the case that his actions result in health issues for their kids/uninformed others, he will have to pay for it.

#6 is insulting. How can he ask IF people have the right to do anything to their bodies? I own my body and I can do whatever.

I leave you to Max Stirner to explain why all, these “wheels in the head” about objective value and “proper” anything are just as much religious values as anything that’s accompanied by a church organ.

Stirner is fun to read, but he undermines his case in every line; he claims to recognise no authority or standard beyond his own will, but all his arguments implicitly presuppose the authority of reason.

But I still think you’re drinking Diet God.

And I think a personal god is just Diet Logic.

Canada.

Until Canada preceded us down this road, it was still reasonable to believe that the battle was about freedom for homosexuals. In light of the evidence, it is no longer reasonable to believe that. It's about giving a politically-cohesive minority access to the coercive power of the state to use as a club to beat their philosophical opponents with.

From a practical perspective, who cares even then? It's pretty arrogant of an (anti-gay) church to assume that gays are chomping at the bit to be married at that particular site. Seeing as there are plenty of liberal churches or non-religious institutions that could offer marriage services, the probability of a gay couple seeking out a bigoted church is of the same order of magnitude as their opting to spend their honeymoon in a war zone.

AH, ok, but I think that you are blurring the lines here a bit. I’m not arguing that gays should have ’special’ rights to marry that heterosexuals don’t.

It's not a special right; there's no circumstance in which the state would force a private organization to recognize a same-sex marriage in which it wouldn't also force the organization to recognize a heterosexual marriage. For that matter, there aren't many circumstances in which the state would force a private organization to recognize a marriage, period.

I think we are largely on the same page, though from different sides of the coin. I don’t, personally, think that conservative social values would survive in an anarchist society for very long – I think that simple sociological pressure of ‘new ideas’ will always eventually kill off ‘traditional values’. So in other words, though I hate the label, you could say I’m coming from a more ‘left’ side of things.

But in the end, that’s a discussion that has nothing to do with libertarianism. The only reason that it becomes an issue NOW is because the State gets INVOLVED in these social issues, so as libertarians/anarchists, we then end up involved ourselves.

It’s sort of like if you have a roommate who is heavily involved in drugs, yet you yourself are clean. Even though you have no direct interest or involvement in their drug-use, the unfortunate aspect of having a roommate on drugs is that you end up having to interact with people in that world, whether you want to or not.

In that sense, our involvement with the State “pulls us down” into judging issues that aren’t purely libertarian ones from a libertarian standpoint, because the State has dragged them into the ring with it.

I happen to think that the issues raised about hierarchy, racism, sexism, classism, etc are all vitally important ones – from that standpoint I completely agree with traditional anarchists – I just don’t think that they are issues that are strictly speaking anarchic in nature.

Well done! You’ve identified exactly the issue my tolerance test was designed to smoke out.

Neil