Steve,

you give me the impression that both identity-forming by having a historically dominant own tradition that a present community heavily bases upon, as well as the meaning of terms and words like "blue" and "coffee", are free to be randomly choosen, and more or less arbitrary - in the name of everybody being equal and free to understand them as just everything he feels tempted to understand them as. This way of endlessly relativisíng things , leads not to freedom, but structural desintegration.

I see it as much simpler than that. No one is asking that "blue" be legally changed to "red", or that "coffee" be legally changed to "milk"

These people are asking to be allowed to marry. While others may not believe me at this point, personally I'm against it. That said, I have to ask myself why, and the only answer I can come up with is that it makes me nervous. I ask myself why that should be, and the answer is that I don't know.

So, bottom line: Why do I support this? For the simple reason that I cannot see any real harm it would do to make the change, and it would help a certain segment of society feel that they are more accepted.

When asked why they object to "the same thing with a different name", I have to ask: Why should they.

All the arguments made against it so far are vague, or compare it to some made-up alternative.

So I have one question for the opponents: Why are you against it? Is it really because it upsets tradition, or is that just a convenient argument? What real harm would it do you, or society in general?

I don't really have a side. I oppose the opposers for the simple reason that I don't buy their arguments. To me there seems to be something deeper going on.

Yeah, umm, no. The far religious right doesn't want any form of homosexual relationship. Come on, Steve, you're better than that.How trite.

No, I'm saying the SAME is fine, but because it IS something different than what a word currently means, call it something else. Did you bother to consider that all I care about regarding this is the trivial, as I believe the traditions of the majority should be respected while the rights of the minority should not be infringed upon?Which would make no sense whatsoever.I'll say it for the 1000th time - I support equal rights. But call a duck a duck.

And besides, gays currently have equal rights.

Steve, you figured that people are against gay marriage because of a vague feeling of uncomfort, and you asked us, and thus: me, if we can be sure that this is not our main drive. I cannot speak for others, but just for me:

and what exactly in my replies in various threads oin the issue makes you beloieve I lacked the precision in my argument so that I could be motivated by just vague uncomfort about gay marriage? Haven't I explained the argument often enough, and precisely enough? It is about the intended special status of children-producing couples: and this is "family" and this is the social institution the community depends on: to come up with later tax payers, paying the bills. I aloso mentioned that it is discirmination when families have understandably speciaöl sdtatus and proetction by the state, now gay marriages get the same additonal special status - and singles not. Single contribute as much and as little to the communal interest, like gay couples.

I also mentioned the basic evcolutional genetic design of our species and how nature established an undeniable mechniasm that should enable us to surivice be heterosexual reproduction.

The sopcial insitution already is under massive fire. Some want it gettin g minimised so that women shall prove earlier how very equal they are in getting back to work as early as possible again. Some want industrial demands and the job world's interests being prioritised. Some want to save money spend on families. Some want to bring children as young as possible under influence of state-run education programs where they get fed with the wanted ideas and images of man, in Germany this is often the latest garbage from our phantastic super-pedagogues and their extreme lefty ideas, supported from their ideologic supporters in politics. And there already is a wide gap between what the German constitution demands us to do in special protection of families, and what the state actually does: families are the social group with the highest risk in our society to become poor. And it certainly is a work- and money-intense endavour for a couple to raise children and enable them a fair launch into the future.

And you think I am led by just some vague discomfort aboiut gays? I see additional setbacks for families if their special status and protection that the constitution demands for them gets watered even more - by relativising it against the demand of gays. Aren'T gays allowed to live together? Aren'T singles allowed to stay alone? But why give the latter two the same materiual and financial benefits that are meant to suppoort the raising of kids and to encourage couples to produce babies? For the society, the gay couple here, the single person there, is totally unimportant. Whteher thay live together or stay alone, is of no interest for society. It has no material, future-related meaning for society. It produc es no future tax-payers. Giving gays the same tax revenues like hetero couples that may produce babies, is just a waste of money - becasue gays do not give back anything for compensation. Same is true for singles - why discriminate singles now by relativising fam ilies when giving gays the same specially protected status like families? Both siongles and gay couples make no difference for anybody.

I repeatedly said that while gays are not the norm that defines the fate of our species - saying it fact-oriented they exist and are a reality, but are an aberation from our specific reproduction design - nevertheless we must not discriminate them for being different. But we also must not accept them spcial status. Do we give Albinos a special status? No. Singles? No. But gays? Same was true for DADT - what was wrong with it? Do heterosexual people asked for their sexcual preference? No. Do they run aroudn and constantly outing themselves as being hetero? Usually not. And why would anybody care? Why are we expected to pay special attention to gays outing themselves? Why should they even want that? Isn'T the way people live in private, and what they do behind their doors, just this: their porivate business?

Why making all this big tamtam about gays? It rteminds me of the demand of Islam being given special status amongst all cultures and religions, and being treated spoecially amongst all relgious groupos in Germaqny, and being given special legislation, and schools should adopt to its demand (its true, my federal state just released a written guide for teachers how they should give special attention and special treatement to the religious demands of Muslim students, and all school if necvessary should chnage around them, if they demand it). No Christians, not Jews, not Buddhist, not atheists, not Hinus demand this.

Just leave gays alone, let them live how they want, like I want it for myself as a single, too. I do not withhold anything from them that I claim for myself. I do not see them being given what I do not get myself. I accept and support the constitutionally rules special status of families, and I claim the term "family" is not arbitrary, but stems from a certain, ylclearly defines tradtion that has proven its value - and need - since many thosuand years. That it needs to be changed now, in no way has been shown.

So let gays live like they want, loke any other citizen. Just deny them any special status that they do not dceserve but do demand - for nothing else but being gay. As if that is or should be of any concern for the community, or would be a merit in itself. If it were, then I would be a hero with special merits, too - for being single.

And this, Steve, is anything but just a vague feeling of discomfort.

Well put Steve. :yeah:

No one has ever been able to make a logical argument on how homosexual marriage can adversely affect the concept or tradition of heterosexual marriage.

I like the concept of asking not "why" but "why not". It has that comfortable "freedom" ring to it. :yep:

Bloody Americans :O:

By relativisation. Read again. If lead suddenly costs as much as gold, then gold is not any special or precious anymore.

Ah yes, this American desire for total lack of obligation or structure, but instead the rule of the strongest/loudest/wealthiest. :yeah:

Yours and our soceity suffer dearly, and will suffer even more in the future, from overaging, and we all will pay the bill from that - in money, money and more money. Money that many of us may not be able to come up with, in the future, Stichwort Altersarmut.

And you guys keep arguing on why families and thus: heterosexual couples as the basis for any social and communal survival should not be protected and encouraged!

To me a clear indicator that once again the unescapable karma of unsentimental demographics is either understimated, or ignored.

err, since when is emotional attachment dependent on formalized institution? Love=Gold? wtf?
Did you actually ever fall to love?


You still have to explain how a couple won't find themselves attractive, or wishing to have children, because of the concept of gay marriage. That's like saying eating the same food as animals do will make people boycott eating. And even if that were true, it would be a very sad affair for couples if they decided only to have children and live together because others are not allowed to. Or may you think homosexuals will eventually look for partners of the other sex so that they can marry an d have children?

What study, what observation are you basing your arguments upon?

Simple question, are you unwilling to marry and have children because gays may marry, too? Or do you simply fear your social standing and the prestige coming with that will suffer if homosexuals marry?

Since never. It isn't. You can be emotionally attached as much as you want. Even without being "institutionally formalised". ;)

Rest assured, yes.

No, I must not, because the point you raise I did not even touch and am not intersted in. I am about an institution called "!family" and teh social, vital function it serves for the community, the state, and the secruing of the future for that community. Plus the fact that for this reason, and the reason that children are the most defenseless part in this chain, this insiution is under explcit special protection of the state, according to the German constitution. And I said that this special status is realtivised if it suddenly is being granted to singles like me or gay and lesbian couples, or colleagues at work. This special recognition serves a purpose that neither singles nor gay couple fulfill.

Since it is hetero couples producing babies, their treaming up deserves special support, and since a fundamental orientation of law must base on general principles, this does not differ between young couples having babies and couples that are old or couples whose children already have left home or couples that do n ot plan to have children. It is the general principle that counts. However, you know as well as I do, that additional financial reliefs for children (Kinbdergeld) are only payed out if indeed there are children.

Both things have been systemtically erdoded over the past 20, 30 years. Now the gay movement relativises it even more.

And marriage, you asked me. When she still was alive, we planned to stay together, we were soul mates from the very first minute on, and I mean that: we recognised each other in the very first minute we met, immediately. But we did not plan to marry, since we did not wish to give the church a word in our private issues (we both were anti-church) and did not feel we need formal recognition by state authority, and at that time, financial benefits also were pointless for us.

It's a long time ago.

Sorry, then we have completely opposite definitions of "family". For me, family is the natural byproduct of a relationship and consequent offspring, based on instinct and mutual bonding, support for each other being a result of that. For you it appears to be a state institution with a formal functionality within this state, only workable under special protection of the law. More or less a state approved concept bar any personal attitude involved.

This definition, in my mind, sounds scary. Even more so as this so called "special support" by the state for families is rather young in historic terms, nevertheless worked for centuries before that. In fact, this country saw more offspring and population growth long before any official support for children was even ever thought about. As such the connection between state sponsored family support and the institution of family and population growth is far fetched, if not completely illusionary to begin with. Once again, it is an attempt to root our modern symptoms instead of root causes to be found in entirely different areas (some of which I already laid out in former posting, though you tended to ignore these)

As we are at it, I wonder how animals do it, after all they do not have state sponsorship and protection for family, either. This smells much more of an ideological POV based on culture and historic convenience then actual common sense and practical thinking, combined with an actual search for causes. It's more witch hunt based on phenomena incomprehensible for the common man on the street, a scapegoat hunting. Besides, Germany and many other European countries faced a shrinking population for a couple decades now, long before any talks about gay marriage came into being in the first place. So the intellectual deduction in this area is sorely missing from your points and reminds me more of Bush's obsession with WMDs in Iraq then reality.

If you want to protect an institution invented by the christian church with centuries of tradition in Europe and Germany or the philosophical/bürgerliche concept of "family", which in it's modern form is only a 100 years old, , say so, but do not abuse the children argument for that.

This part and definition I do not touch upon. I just remind you that we - you are German, yes? - have the article 6 of the Basic Law, that puts children, families and mothers, all three of them get individually mentioned, under special protection of the state, saying that they deserve special caretaking of the whole community. And I explained why this is so: that it is becaseu children are the futrure economic and financial basis of the social community withiut whom the community cannot surevive and the old cannot been taken care of, and that therefore couples producing the children serve a vital, inevitable role for ther social community that is not matched by craviong for attention by singles, or gay couples.

There are simple, plain, economic as well as human motives that made the creators of the Grundgesetzut setting up thisd article 6. Emotions and romanticism have little to do with it. Sentiments and emtoions - are ypour poroivate business, not the states or the communities. And you are free to have empotional relations whatever you want, married or unmarried, heterosexual or homosexual. All this is of zero concern for the communial overall interest. It makes no difference whether I stay single, or become gay and have a partner. What makes the difference for the communal future wellbeing, is babies - or no babies.

Why do you guys make it so complicated - over confused sentiments only?

Last time I checked, as German as you can be. And I am ware of this article. However, Your argumentation as of yet did not show up a single basic point that actually proves how exactly gay marriage removes this protection, neither exactly how gay marriage has any influence on the number of babies or people wanting to marry in the first place. All that comes out of your postings are vague fears and suspicions with, so far at least, no scientific or rational basis.

If you have anything more substantial to add in this regard, I am more then willing to listen. I am uncomfortable with homosexuality myself, to be honest. But I am pretty sure relying on gut feeling alone here is not the proper course of action. Else we'd also have to deport all dentists.

:dead: How often must I repeat it? RELATIVISATION. A special status is being watred if the same special status is given to more than the orginially intended target group. Like gold is defined by its rarety, the less rare it is or the more the same moneys iy payed for lead or glas stones, the more invayluable gold becomes- becasue then it is nothing special anymore. Legalizing gay marriages is last but not least a fincial thingk, becasue it effects taxe benefits gays then enjoy that only were meant for family support, originally. And this lessens the signficvance of the special status families should have. It also is a discrimination of single like me, becasue then families enjoy these tacx benefitsa, gay couples enjoy these tax benefits - but single must pay more than gay couples and enjoy no tax benefits? Why? What importance do have gay couples over singles for the community that justifies them to enjoy superior status and superior tax duties?

The only tax relief I think gays shall enjoy is a tax relief I demand for everybody, gays, singles, hetero couples, families, and that is abandoning the inherticance tax, becasue it is a double taxing of property (at least double, if not more), and a partial compulsory expropriation. Additonally, quite some figures on the left side of the political spectrum use it to impress their clients and by that effectively turn it into an "envy tax". People should have any freedom and right to decidce by themselves whiom they give what of their property, without being punished with varying tax levels according to the genetic relation to the receivers. If people think they owe to the state or two the community, they are free to decide that certain shares of their welah after their death should be distributed to them. What the state does when making it obligatory, is highway robbery, if not body-stripping.

Hm. Why? Must it be your business if they do not actively bother you? Youi could as well be uncomfortable with me drinking Japanese green tea. As long as I do not spit it in your face, or push it down your throat at every occasion and whenever we meat that you MUST love green tea yourself - what'S the problem? Just let me peacefully enjoy my tea while I let you drink what you want, and we'll be fine.

You can repeat that often as you want. Relativism simply does not fit here. It's a non argument, completely pulled out of the water, without any kind of logical connection to reality. Love is not a matter of relativism, it simply is, and marriage is a conclusion out of that emotion. Children also are the result of love, not marriage. Marriage simply is a formalized agreement to this relationship without an impact on the real world behavior patters of a couple but a monetary one. And if we go the monetary route, I can start giving you sh*tload of a list of issues having a greater effect on children in this regard. And a far greater number of measures to improve childbirth without going the "no gay marriage" argument. What you want is to give out suncream to fight climate change. How often do I have to repeat that? You can't contest that argument by going in circles and pulling out Article 6 as some kind of magical spell without making any real world cause and effect analysis, especially given the fact that this law was made during a time when homosexuality was also still considered a crime.

And I won't even start on the ever growing number of married heterosexual couples out there that neither have children nor have any plans to have them in the future. The logical conclusion of your argumentation here would have a deep impact on the future treatment of these people as well.

It appears you finally get the whole underlying point. As long as you can't give me a well founded, researched argument why gay marriage actually infringes upon your own well being, it simply is not your problem.

That is a good argument, and a good idea, but there is a disconnection to the actual institution of Marriage. Married couples don't necessarily have children, and unmarried women have children all the time. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising said children, and should be accorded the same opportunities. It is true that giving them the same priviledge and calling it something else doesn't really hurt them, but again, what harm does calling it marriage do to you or to society in general?

The argument has been made here that it would somehow destroy, or at least diminish, the institution of marriage, but the argument has also been made the the 'institution' is in pretty sad shape already, and it has nothing to do with gays. In order to preserve families should we outlaw divorce? Not practical or possible. Again, how does gay marriage have any influence on the value of children?


And the act of making babies, and their existence, has little to do with marriage. It can be argued that marriage is vital to their well-being, but singles, unmarried couples, and, yes, gay couples raise children all the time. Gay parents may not be to everyone's liking, but that has been shown to be better than a orphanage.