<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/offtopic.gif" alt="" /> just for a while anyway, so DON'T SHOOT PLEASE!! @ kiya -> thanks for the assurance. i think posting my experiences may help in strengthening arguments.
now back to the show ...
"why is the thought of homosexual marriages so controversial that planned laws lead into endless fuss amongst people? Where is the threat? What is endangered? Which beliefs are hurt? What is the original sense of marriage, leaving religion aside?"
wow! this is a new line of thought for me as i always think in line of religion. kiya, your topics are always very deep.
Law, since its conception, has always been in the light of religion. major religions abhor (please excuse the extreme term but that is the reality) homosexuality for the fact that perpetuating humanity has always been the union of man & woman. same sex unions are frowned upon most probably because it's unfruitful (that is in the eyes of religions, not able to bear children) & of course compatibility in anatomy for child bearing. sex has always been a tool of population & thus, the view & concept & act of sex is limited to that. most probably limitations on sex in view, concept & act is to control humanity from acting 'like animals', meaning not cohabit out of base instinct, rather with deliberation, planning & consideration of consequences.
fear is almost always the basis of desire to control. i believe that fear may be also the factor that limits the idea, concept of sex into what general society accepts today. what if same sex union is allowed? what's next? inbreeding? fear of opening one door that leads to too many doors open may force those who are/were in control or at least direct influence of people & their opinions to take control of the definition, explanation, limitation etc of sex.
in retrospect, i can almost say religions come about as basis to control & form a certain mind & behavioral pattern of society & therefore will be, in a way, undermined if there is liberty on sex. meaning, religions have no more say/influence on what is to be or not to be in the realm of sex. hence religion will be rendered significantly more useless by liberal thinking. in short, YES, religions in general will be hurt by liberty in sex.
sexual unions are thought to be biological rather than religious, if one studies our earth ecology system. there are many animals that practise monogamy, which is sexual union approved by all religions. may be sexual aspects in religions are formed by such observation?
for conclusion, it is controversial only when u feel that it is. the term controversy merely means a dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. & dispute is another word for argument. if one has no wish to argue about the subject & just let it be (doesn't mean the person has no opinion or thought on the said subject), then there is no controversy. in another words, the word 'controversy' is overrated, & as such blows up things which aren't that all big in the first place.
my point in this is that if it might irk u, it will. if not, then nothing will happen. until i experience sexual union & the consequences that come with it, i cannot see well into the subject & so, i rest my case.
