“The origins of religion were social and not supernatural”

No group ever gets together as a group simply for the sake of being a group. They come together for a purpose or a shared interest. No group would ever survive without a common purpose so that common purpose is their origin. The fact that it is called a religious group tells us that its origins are in religious behaviour. Someone begins acting in a particular way and then is joined by another and another until a group forms and that group might call themselves a church. Religious beliefs do not just drop out of the sky they are created by people. They are explanations (more correctly rationalisations) of their shared behaviour. Such groups can be a billion in number but their origins remain the same and each one of the billion shares the same delusions about their behaviour as do the founding members.

Religious behaviour is what binds these people together and such behaviour has been in the past so common that it was seen as the fabric of society. A society based on such a delusion that their behaviour somehow brings them into contact with God is a society on very shaky ground. I think this is at the core of the present friction with Islam. Religious people want society structured in such a way as to protect the shaky ground but westerners by and large want society to be based on fundamental human values and rights such as justice and peace. The fundamental basis of Islam is being threatened like never before because they are being exposed to societies in the west where human values and rights are the guiding principles. The global village and immigration naturally put them into conflict with the west and someone is going to have to let go.

Muslims are not fighting for religious freedom but for what they believe is the fabric of their society.

Sociologists have observed that fundamentalist
revivals in whatever religion take place
in times when social changes have led to turmoil,
uncertainty, and the erosion of familiar values.
When people find themselves confused, threatened, or even
appalled at changing conditions. They may see a
"return to basics" as a solution.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Islamic
fundamentalism has surged in societies like Iran,
which have experienced wrenching social change
as a result of their new oil wealth.
Yes, the fundamentalists are concerned mainly
with conditions in their own countries. Most
Muslims are desperately poor, for their nations'
oil wealth has often been unequally shared,
creating a new elite whose extravagant lifestyle
arouses deep resentment in the populace.

The fundamentalists aim at nothing less than the
replacement of their rulers by Islamic governments
in which the distinction between the religious and
the secular would disappear. Their inspiration comes
from the 1979 Iranian revolution, in which the shah
a deeply unpopular ruler who was perceived as an
American puppet was deposed through a movement led
by Shiite Muslim clergy.

In many Islamic societies Shiite fundamentalists now form
the social establishment.

Every forum has its silly comments that barely register the topic and usually it is wise to step over this garbage. But I try to make sense this time.

I refer to Chris C claiming "There is no “ban on marriage equality”...Nor is there a ban on “same-sex marriage” (which is what some people refer to as “marriage equality” as part of the propaganda campaign), just as there is no ban on square circles..".

Sublimely ridiculous, of course there is a ban on square circles. We have made it very clear we want to change "a man and a woman" to "two people" in the Marriage Act 1961. We are not creating something call same-sex marriage because the whole point is we want the exact same marriage for everyone, for opposite sex, same-sex and for trans and intersex people who may not fit either opposite or same-sex. It is equality of sex, gender AND sexuality at marriage that we seek. That is where the argument is, where there is a ban and pretending it is something else, some other equality is dumb.

But this 'no it doesn't exist, you can't have it' type of rebuttal is more than dumb drivel that sounds self-defeating. It is bald-faced, unabashed prejudice. Peter L mentioned "ideological snobbery" but this is the opposite although Chris did argue "most of those arguing against the creation of “same-sex marriage” haven’t got a clue". Any poor claim, doesn't matter how baseless can carry this prejudice because expressing prejudice is paramount. It's a guttural basal response like fright, fight and flight that bypasses the reasoning of the executive functions of the cerebral cortex.

Why such freedom of thought? Because it sets a standard of prejudice on this page as petty and ridiculous and invites everyone else to feel comfortable expressing their more sanitised filtered brand of prejudice. Overall I do like this type of comment as the ‘content’ is so easily dismissed and challenging the stigma suggests our campaign has a lot more equality to offer society beyond marriage. It gives us a moral imperative.

Eric G:

Of course you can have marriage – the problem is with your definition of marriage. You define marriage as a relationship that has to be recognised by the government. Many people define their relationship as a marriage but it is not recognised by the government. What you want is not marriage but a marriage certificate. If you want the government to give you a marriage certificate then you need to present some good reasons why they should give anyone a marriage certificate.

Wanting something just to make you equal with someone else is like the child who wants medicine just to be like its sibling who is taking medicine. You need to grow up a bit and give adequate reasons why you should have a certificate - just crying ‘me too’ is childish.

Phanto: "What you want is not marriage but a marriage certificate."

You don't need to mindread or assume. It is clear we want the institution of marriage as legalised in the Marriage Act, all of it and if that comes with a certificate with nice calligraphy on fake linen paper - then yes we want a certificate. All because we want to change "a man and a woman" to "two people". We are not even asking for different paper, OK?

Neither side talk about this because it is irrelevant. Just a flimsy straw-man argument, an obvious diversion from the debate: 'look over there'.

And why? Because the urge to call the debate "childish" defied common sense.

Eric G:

"It is clear we want the institution of marriage as legalised in the Marriage Act"

But why would you want this? Why would anyone want this? You have to have reasons - everyone has to have reasons if you want the government to do something for you. Why does your marriage have to be an institution? Why does your marriage have to be legalised? Why does it have to be legalised according to the Marriage Act?

There are plenty of people who define their relationship as a marriage but have none of those things. Why do you define marriage as needing to have those things when many others define it as not needing those things. Are you saying they are not married? Is your definition of marriage the only one? Who are you to be so arrogant as to know what a marriage should be? Isn't that exactly what you despise in all those who define marriage as being between a man and a woman?