Markio, there's no video appearing for me.
...I said "not detrimental to anyone else."
Whether or not it's "detrimental"—to either one's self and/or to others—is one aspect of the entire debate. But just because you don't believe it's detrimental doesn't mean others don't view it as such. And vice versa. (I used too many negatives and am now confusing myself. XD) And it doesn't mean either view is necessarily right or wrong. I'm not going to get into that argument, though.
Moving on...
Since this is such a controversial topic, the idea of removing marriage from the government is the best solution I can think of to appease the most people. Nothing will ever please EVERYONE, but this solution seems to be the best compromise and middle-of-the-road approach.
Maybe we just need new words for both personal/religious marriage (the emotional and/or spiritual promise/union between two people) and legal unions to make the disassociation between the two fair; then neither will be called "marriage." Like "Life Partners" and "Legal Lovers" or something. I dunno. XD
But change the vocabulary for the two concepts to make it CLEAR they mean something different from each other. I think that's what's hanging a lot of people up; they end up associating the two as the same. When they're not. Or shouldn't be.
In response to the "religious" argument and my previous post: To clarify, I don't like the notion of "religion"—I prefer to think of it as one's personal beliefs rather than an organized dogma with rituals and whatnot. If those beliefs are shared among a lot of people, and they want to use them to form a religion (in the traditional sense), more power to them, but the term "religion" seems restrictive and, for many, holds negative connotations.
Another problem is that it's debatable whether marriage is a religious thing in the first place. Atheists can get married and no one complains.
While atheism isn't a "religion," it most certainly is a personal belief and outlook. Many people might CALL it a religion, though, because of lack of a better term. While Christianity is a religion in the traditional sense, certainly, it doesn't
have to be. One can believe, follow, and live by the teachings of Jesus (and/or the apostles) without necessarily following the customs and rituals typically associated with religion of Christianity. But we're delving into a different topic, so...
What I'm trying to say is, approval or disapproval of homosexuality doesn't have to be connected to a religion. But it IS a personal belief/opinion/outlook. When I referenced "freedom of religion," what I actually mean is "freedom to believe whatever you want." I said "religion" because that's the term used in the Constitution, but I interpret that to actually mean "personal beliefs," at least in its intent.
It seems like what we're debating, at this point, is semantics.
This topic has spurred an interesting discussion. Koopaslaya, I agree with most, if not all, of what you've had to say in your recent posts, including your responses to Markio, and I think you expressed your views very eloquently and tactfully. CrossEyed, I'm in the process of reading those links you posted; so far they are interesting. I might have more to say later. PaperLuigi, let's work on keeping this discussion a little less...heated, I suppose.
Show Posts
Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
