[BurgessLau]

Individual and governmental morality (which means politics) should be based on a philosophy of reason -- not on fideism, Biblicism, traditionalism, dictation by the majority ("democracy"), consensus (majoritarianism), pragmatism, or multiculturalist averaging. On the issue of "gay marriage" my position is this: I see no justification for government getting involved in *any* marriages -- homosexual or heterosexual. To do so is socialism. The state's only function here should be to adjudicate contract disputes in case of dissolution.

[rj45mis]

"I see no justification for government getting involved in *any* marriages -- homosexual or heterosexual. To do so is socialism."

If this were the case, who or what enforces the laws that hold in check the destructive behaviors of a depraved society?

[rj45mis]

"Individual and governmental morality (which means politics) should be based on a philosophy of reason -- not on fideism, Biblicism, traditionalism, dictation by the majority ("democracy"), consensus (majoritarianism), pragmatism, or multiculturalist averaging."

I disagree. Individual morality is not based on politics, rather, politics is based on morality. If God-fearing individuals relied on a philosophy of reason (as you suggest) we would, of all people, to be pitied. You are speaking from a secularistic mindset and it doesn't match up with Scriptures.

[b9]

Do you believe government should protect children?

[FormerLib]

The state's only function here should be to adjudicate contract disputes in case of dissolution.

And in doing so the government courts become the enforcers of the marriage contract. Do the people have a right to decide which contracts their government courts will enforce? I say that they do; clearly you say that they do not.

[Pietro]

"philosophy of reason"

That's been tried. I believe it was called the Reign of Terror.