Are there any arguments against allowing gay marriage that aren't religious or bigoted or both?

What is the basic difference between philosophy and science?

As photography and film give accurate images of the world around us or an imaginary world, and as they use symbolism, explain concepts and can produce beauty, is there any room left for traditional art?

I was just discussing with a friend the concept of a perfect world. We were trying to define what would be a perfect world. I thought the perfect world would be world with a healthy balance of life and death, a healthy balance of war and peace, not enough food and not enough of other resources, and a healthy balance of one's own pain, and a world of distrust on top of that. But my friend seemed to hold a different view of it - a perfect world, to him, seemed to be one where there was always enough food, a world without death, a world with no war, and a world where you could go anywhere and trust every single person. We argued for a couple hours, but it was clear at one point that we had reached a stalemate. What do you guys think? What would be defined as a perfect world?

What is the definition of love? Can you define love without listing characteristics of love?

Does infinity exist in reality?

I have read many philosophic essays pertaining to applied ethics in the abstract, and many political essays dealing with specific ethical questions. There always seems to be a gap between the level at which the former leaves the problem and the latter takes it up. Why is this? How can this gap be bridged? For example, I (like most rational people I think) am bothered about the ethical issues involved in the question of abortion. Yet I have never seen a systematic treatment of the question beginning with philosophical principles? Does such a treatment exist? If not, why not? If so, why does it not enter more into the public debate? Thanks.

Is it possible for a human to ever do a selfless act? When someone does do a seemingly 'selfless' act, it is normally because of religious duties or an excuse to brag about it at a later stage, or even to get that good feeling you get when you know you have done a good deed (which is essentially selfish, considering that you get a mental reward, instead of a material one).

I'm interested in such statements as "Life is strange", "The world is an amazing place", etc. How meaningful are they when we don't have other examples of "life" or "world" to compare them with? If they are not meaningful (and I don't know whether you will conclude that they are) why do people have a propensity for making such statements?

Is it better overall to have a country in which most people are firmly convinced that engaging in warfare is never morally permissible, or to have a country in which people believe that engaging in warfare can sometimes be moral? The second alternative has considerable initial plausibility to my mind and certainly seems to be the more popular one by a wide margin, but I've found that the people whom I otherwise respect most for their intellectual abilities tend to believe the former. So I wonder.