5eriously

I don't know about that. Certainly marriage (obviously) wouldn't need to be state approved nor would it be backed up by the state. Marriage is a formal commitment to someone that you intend to be together forever. I think that's important, it creates stable environments for children, it strengthens pair bonding and it formalizes your relationship. The formalization part would be by declaring your love in front of those most important to you. So i at least would get married without a state. That said all of those things can be achieved without marriage. I think a lot of people would, marriage is a very old social construct, possibly pre-dating the state.

Well in that case i don't think we can ever know how many terrorists there are in the world. New people are born everyday into families where they are taught the skills to be violent to overs in an attempt to instill fear.

First of all. If there was no state, gay marriage should be allowed. Two men/women getting married doesn't initiate the use of force against anyone so go for it. So what about in the current state of affairs? Well it raises some interesting questions. If the state recognizes does it force people who are citizens of the country to recognize it? For example in America, are devout Christians forced to recognize gay couples as being married? If you work in a job that requires you to grant benefits or make decisions based on martial status (For example welfare or a priest) then it would. But are you forced to work in that job? What is the roles of the state in marriage? Obviously currently the state has one in most countries (if not all). Why does the state currently (not historically) track marriage? If the point is to allow two people to get married with "legal protection" then gay marriage should be allowed. If the purpose of it is make sure marriage reflects the will of the people, then it's debatable. Maybe there is another purpose? The great thing about gay marriage, is i think the divorces would be a lot fairer. When two men get divorced they can simply exchange their testicles, kind of like a really sad Christmas. I don't think two women would get divorced, what's the point of divorce if you can't get a shiny pair of balls out of it? Obviously this part is in jest. Ryan Baxter, your post was really interesting. Just a few questions. I wouldn't call gay marriage an exception, more of a rule change. If marriage is the union between 1 man and 1 woman it's changes to the union between 2 people. If we are going to talk about traditions. What is the point of traditions? I'm not saying they have no purpose but i think traditions and culture in general should be justified. So why should marriage only be between a man and a woman? Why is changing traditions bad?

To get back to the original question. How many terrorists there are really depends on what is a terrorist. Asking how many terrorists are in the world, is like asking how many idiots are in the world or how many beautiful people are in the world. It all depends on your definition. To respond to Ayn Ryan example of people who believe in Shira Law are terrorists. If i take this on face value this is a narrow definition. It also raises some interesting questions. Are they still terrorists if they only want Shira Law if it is voted in directly or indirectly in a democratic country (doesn't make it moral)? Are the respondents willing to use the direct use of force to impose Shira law? Is Shira Law the only belief that makes you a terrorist? Would other beliefs also make you a terrorist? To treat Ayn Ryan as a rational human being and stop straw manning him/her. Does the belief in something make you a terrorist? If so what/who determines if that belief makes you a terrorist? A quick google search, provides many vague definitions of varying quality. As an example, please see the FBI's definition of international terrorism below: Source: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition That narrows it down a bit. So if i got in my mind that there should be a law that everyone has to wear purple hats and i go and do something violent i would be a terrorist. Neat! Where it get's fuzzy, is what does "involve" mean? Does the act have to carried out? or can it be the planning phase? Do i have to pull the trigger or am i a terrorist if i get the bomber's coffee? Also it's totally OK to commit violent acts and acts dangerous to human life if it's not breaking the law. Just an amusing side note. The second criteria, could literally mean anything. For example politicians fit into "to intimidate or coerce the civilian population", it's kind of their job. The third criteria is just to separate "Domestic" and "international terrorism". So i won't address it. Interestingly, when you combine that definition some really odd things could be called terrorism. If i kidnapped and then murdered someone in Romania, for any reason by that definition i would be a terrorist. I committed violent acts (A) which would intimidate the people in Romania (B) and last i checked Romania is not in the US ©. That last part might need a fact check. I think terrorism is one of those "trigger words". It has a lot of emotional impact behind it. It's a real gut punch, kinda of like rape but without the concise definition. So i don't think there is a way to say how many terrorists are in the world because the definition to terrorism is too board and people can't agree on what it is. I don't think the FBI is or should be the definitive source of the definition. If you have a definition in mind, i can drill into that and hopefully give a better estimate. This is a really interesting question to think about. I don't think Islam and Christianity has much to do with it though. These religions are part of the current terrorism problems, but your question is more abstract then that. It's not like Islam has a patent on terrorism. There has been many terrorists, from many different belief systems.