Noted. I can now adjust my opinion slightly. :-) But I still say that on a national political level, people generally use it to say "man and woman" without saying "man and woman."

Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing. To clarify my point of view, I feel government has no business whatsoever in "marriage", as the definition is most often applied to a joining of two people based on religious (or societal / cultural) doctrine.

Where government does have a say, if it chooses to take a position, is on the civil and legal side of things. And that's regardless of whether or not some religious organization did the "marrying".

So my wife and I are not "married" since we didn't seek religious blessing for our union, but the government does recognize that we are bound together in a "civil union" for various legal purposes.

This is why I find it altogether plausible to support the so-called institution of marriage, when defined as a coupling with the blessings of a religion or other non-official entity, while also supporting the push for homosexuals to "marry" in the legal civil sense. Since our own union is of the civil variety, I don't personally find the term insulting at all. Unless, that is, one were to describe us as "unionized", in which case some harsh words are gonna fly. ; ) Further, if gays want to be "married", then that's between them and the marrying entity. But the government side, the civil union of two legal consenting partners, should be gender neutral if the government in question chooses to be involved at all.

To me, if a couple says they are married then that means they have both the recognition of a <church> on the marriage side, and the recognition of government on the civil side.

But yeah - the terminology can confuse things, especially when 'marriage' is such an ingrained term of convenience that doesn't accurately describe the whole scope of the matter. I should have clarified. Government should, too.

Gonna re-quote this because I simply can not agree more, with the caveat that "marriage" equates to "civil union" when speaking of government's role, as I describe above.

I can't disagree with that. I only urge people to look further into the matter - if it's an issue that concerns him or her - especially since the generic terms can be so easily misconstrued, and since this issue, like so many others, is not one to be considered as black-and-white without also discussing the separate roles of church / society and government.

I haven't listened to the speech and I'm generally disinclined to. He's already revealed himself to be repugnant and likely to be a lot worse for international politics than Bush ever was. So what more do I need to know? I don't give a toss about his domestic policies. All I'm concerned about is having another tosser trying to rock an already sinking boat.

Edit: Oh yeah, I nearly forgot to mention I like how his wife said that under Romney, America would go to a 'better place'. Isn't that how you guys refer to death? Going to a better place? Sounds about right.

Religion divides, separates and inspires hate and fear of those different from you. I wish this were not the case, as it is the opposite of the intention, but I can't see how anyone in modern society can't look at history and realize this.

"And Yes! We can!" is a phrase used in support groups for drug addicts. Yeah, this means voting for Obama is stupid.

Lol.

He's a corporate nutjob. Also, he needs to hire a new speech writer. Very sappy stuff.

That is by far the best description I've ever read about Ron Paul.

The problem is people. There's your division, fear and hatred. If it wasn't religion then it would be something else. Politics. Race. Nationality. Hair colour.

Sure, but organized religion exists to be a control mechanism. I don't think it's doing a very good job considering how it influences division and judgement.

So is communism and marxism, or fascism, or maybe to a lesser extent, socialism, and even liberalism, etc...

Just because one doesn't worship a deity does not mean one is not religious. For many people, their ideology is their religion.

There have been plenty of examples of conflicts, deaths, oppression, etc., throughout history and to this day, that didn't derive just from "religion" (i.e. christians, muslims, etc.).

You can say the same concerning ideologues. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, and division, and judgement.

Indeed, because as Navagon said above we are all flawed humans.

They key though, to me, is to put control is the hands of an entity that can actually do something and has some authority. Religion as a control mechanism has failed. Say what you will about "the State" but it's at least elected by the people and has some authority.

It is a control mechanism, but in order to keep control of one group you need a clearly defined 'them'. Maybe even several 'them'. The more desirable it is to be 'us', the harder you have to work to be 'us' and the more detrimental it is to be 'them' the better. But you can't get people to want to be 'us' without the 'them'.

Guys, can't we all just get along? I feel like a kid watching his parents argue right in front of him.