Quote:
|
Quote by: PatrickHenry That is a personal insult, Starboy. Not very nice. While you accuse me, I am not accusing anyone, simply attempting to explain WHAT IS...
Do not confuse me with others who hold objectionable opinions. I am not a generic debater. I have sympathy for the circumstances homosexuals find themselves in. It is not I who refuse them the "freedom" to marry. In my opinion, marriage is a traditional concept and that tradition does not include homosexuals marrying a same-sex partner. In my view, what I am doing here is "seeking first to understand."
You demand freedom for everyone? That is quite a slippery road. Freedom to do what? Rename behavior? Redefine anything we so choose, causing all common ground to disappear from beneath our feet? |
There is where you and I agree, PH. I see nothing wrong with a civil union, the rights equal to gay couples and any other 'unit' under the sun that brings people together with the exception of beastiality, marrying your gun, your 4wheeler and such. Marriage has a definition and in that definition it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. No different than trying to redefine what a tin cup is and calling it a glass goblet. They can be viewed as equal but different in their own right, but not to be confused as the same because they simply are not. Same sex unions can have all the wrappings on this mortal earth as any heterosexual union which has a definition (marriage). Call it anything you like but there is no need to redefine everything, there is enough room for growth within our vocabulary to accept another term for an entirely different concept.