You really need to look into how human psychology works in regards to group identity. Also look into the history of precivilized tribes and how they eventually led to government. Government was created primarily to set down bureaucratic law to avoid tit-for-tat revenge killings, tribal feuds, and other problems brought up by the way people form group identity.
We need referees.



Individual liberties without control violate individual liberties.
A system with no government is dependent on the constant and unbroken authority of good will. This cannot be counted upon. It's more likely that you can count upon it to eventually fail.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Religions are all untrue/unproven. Why should they have any place in politics?

__________________
Individuality is the aim of political liberty. By leaving the citizen as much freedom of action and of being as comports with order and the rights of others, the institutions render him truly a freeman. He is left to pursue his means of happiness in his own manner.
– James Fenimore Cooper

I don't know where you have practiced or learned religion, but throughout my life, I've been a part of four different denominations and NONE of them have been 'enslaving' or 'oppressive'. When you go to a church (at least a mainstream one) no one holds a gun to your head and demands anything from you. I work at a church now (after being a teacher and a financial employee) and our goal is to find a loving, caring environment that allows people to do their OWN self-discovery. 95% of the world believes in something supernatural, our church is only there to help guide them in that belief. We've never made anyone stand up in front of anyone else and declare OUR beliefs to be true. We've never given anyone a document (other than the bible, which has the most diverse interpretations of any document in history) and made them declare it or believe it above all others. And people have the freedom to leave our church and set of beliefs anytime they want. Oppression or enslavement would not allow that to happen.

As far as an issue like marriage goes, it initially a religious based bond. Human beings are one of the very few species of animals that tends to keep the same mate (though not as often as before). I understand your POV that many human beings don't want to remain monogomous and that for some it seems unnatural. However, in marriages that work, there tends to be a historical advantage in the raising of children where both parents are available and both parents actively raise teh children. I'm not going to speak of their well being or financial success, but I will speak of kids ability to love, care and show tolerance and mercy for other human beings (an I'm not only talking about heterosexual marriages).

Whether you accept it or not, behavior involving jumping from one mate to another DOES cause emotional harm, in both the person doing it and every single person that they jump to and from. You seem to be of the opinion that people don't and shouldn't care about people they intimately interact with. That we should be able to forget about the rare gift of emotion that humankind has. Personally, I think emotion is a unique gift that we have and it DOES guide us to want the deepest level of intimacy possible, which, is obviously something you've never found with one person. To that end, there is no point in arguing with you because if you've never experienced it you can't be told what its like.

Now, while I personally believe that MY religions definition of marriage is between a man and a women, I completely accept and have no problem with any other religion deciding that marriage between two members of the same sex would be legitimate in the eyes of the God they believe in. I DO have a problem with the government discriminating the financial benefits of marriage/adoption, etc to JUST the male/female marriage. I DON'T think that groups of 3 or 4 'married' people should recieve marriage benefits from the government, because where does that end and would it be exploited. Again, I don't think the government should make laws preventing the spiritual identification of marriage between more than two people, but the government shouldn't give them financial benefits beyond what two people receive.

I think a better solution would be to keep the identification of marriage completely sacred in each denomination, while having the government create a 'partner' identification that goes beyond just a marriage ID or a sexual relationship ID. And I think that those partners should have to prove their need for each other by living together for at least a reasonable number of years before receiving any benefits, and that includes tax benefits, a green card, etc. The worst thing people could do is take the spiritual route of marriage simply to get financial benefits as a couple. Realistically, those two issues should be completely separated.

Religions are and should be allowed to discriminate within their OWN membership, because people can always go elsewhere and find an alternative. However, there is only one government (or two if you follow politics today) and that government SHOULD give equal rights to everyone, regardless of their spiritual beliefs.

I do agree with this concept... with the obvious caveat of when religious institutions receive government funding- then they cannot discriminate in regards to the purposes of that funding.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Agreed, but religious institutions should NOT receive any benefits other than the nonprofit standing from the government. Then you don't have to worry about it at all.

People constantly misinterpret the separation of church and state meaning that the state should be protected from the church. The original intent was to protect the church FROM the state, which is a subtle, but important difference.

When non-profits compete for grants, I don't think religious or non-religious status should matter. It should all be focused on whether or not the purpose of the grant is carried out.

I really think it's both. You can't do one without the other. Religion corrupts government by taking legitimacy from the people and handing it to God. Government corrupts religion by making it a political institution.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

I would say that in the U.S., politics is often a substitute for religion and political dogma is clung to with all the tenacity of religious belief. The neocon missionary zeal to convert the world to democracy is an example.

__________________
Lumberjack Jane- Maine's answer to Sarah Palin

"...Sarah Palin could stride past the frontal cortex of every American and plant a 3 inch heel directly on that limbic circuit..." Sam Harris

In my opinion religion and politics should never be in a discussion together. Religion should not have an effect on policy at all.
Politics should not influence religion.

They are not at all alike. The father the two are kept apart the better. A non religious person should not be put to religious rules and guidlines. Over the last 8 years they have blurred the lines. The religious right churches should be taxed for interfering in politics.

__________________
Bill Ayers for Secretary of Education
The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it. Abbie Hoffman
Imagine no possesions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people Sharing all the world. John Lennon
I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one. And I believe it could be someday it's going to come. Cat Stevens
Member: Bottom feeders Local 101

Count me in on this view.

The belief in fantasy is incompatible with governing in reality.

__________________
McCain on National Security
Sarah Speaks