Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[Max2147]

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love. There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.

All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love.

First, less than a century ago, people used to marry just once in their lives, and stayed together until high age. that has been the norm. Today it is the exception from the norm.

Second, originally, marriages have been about economic traits, distribution of work, and securing a safe environemnt with future perspective to children. love is luxury in that. Certain cultures even see marriages as a tool to increase family status, gain political power, and to come to wealth by selling their kids into marriage.

For Christians, marriage is a "holy sacrament", a bond that is meant to be natural, spiritual, social, all in one, and due to the social role, it was meant to be between a man and a woman. That religion gave it that status was for two reasons: as a mediator in forming that bond, the religious institution won in social power and influence, and it added to the argument that where there can be children from that partnerhsip, a far-reaching perspective of socially protective stability must be maintained.

Many young people marry head over heels, just becasue they asre in love. Theyignore other fatcors, and oversee other important factors, even in the other's character, that speak against a lasting relationship. Add to this the social stress from working environments, the economic pressure to dissolve the family and rip it apart so that women can (must?) return into their jobs as early as possible, and a general hedonistic egoism and tendency to not being enduring and to avoid difficulties on first sight, and you have many major reasons why marriages fail often these days.

It all is about the social institution of family, the way it is mant to be, has already been so severly hurt.

There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.

Two bads do not form one good.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.

Maybe that is becasue you do not use the term "marriage" int he historically grown meaning of it, and just cisntruct your idea of relationship and mislabel it as "marriage", althiugh that temr smeans soethign different. Already Confuzius complained about the disorder of term - and the unpleasant consequences coming from that. More and more words get used, but less and lesser they do have a meaning.

Names and terms are not arbitrary. Use them only for what they actually are reserved for in meaning. "Marriage" neither by name nor economically nor religously nor culturally nor socially is not meant to describe homosexual partnerhsips, like it or not. I also do not marry my dog, although I may like it very much. And when I call "Discrimination!" because somebody tells me I should not marry my dog, nevertheless I will not be allowed to marry my dog.

All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.

At least the German constituion puts the family in its tradito9nal meaning under explcit special protection by the state, and financial and tax benefits given to families also base on that constitutional guarantee. Since families in their traditional meaning of "father-mother-children of their own" are so vitally important for our society (even more with our societies overaging and not enough babies being born), I fully agree with these bonis, last but not least becasue they express that their importance is being accepted and recognised. Indeed the need to not compromise the importance of - already massively hurt - families as a social core institution even more is my main argument against not accepting home marriages as equal to normal marriages.

And taken for itself, the idea simply is absurd to the max, too, consiering that the term is not arbiotrary, but has a long grown history of meaning.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common.

Yeah, I have to agree, all this talk about weakening the institution of marriage...straight people have already destroyed it. Marriage means nothing anymore. It takes two people to agree to getting married, it only takes one person to end it. Straight people should look to their own faults with marriage before bellowing about gays.

[Skybird]

Again, two bads do not make one good. People say the world is a mess. I tend to agree. I pointed at some causes. That marriage does not mean much anymore and the family has been hurt so massively, has reasons. I listed some of them. The cure to this neither is gay marriage, nor makes it gay marriage taken for itself any less unreasonable. Traditonal marriage and family has been hurt, and gy marriage hurts it even further. That simple it is.

[mookiemookie]

Hurts the institution of marriage? Two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry hurts the institution of marriage? I hardly think so.

I always thought the list of reasons why gay marriage would ruin society was great:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Hurts the institution of marriage? Two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry hurts the institution of marriage?

Sure it does, by relativising it'S value. As I pointed out, and is my understanding, marriage is a heterosexual thing by definition. It has a certain purpose, and a historic record that made it what it is.

I cannot share this populistic obsession to claim that the idea of marriage is anything different. The politically most correct hysteria to euqlaise all and everything and actively refusing the recognition of differen ces is producing some very braintwisting rollercoasting deathspiralling mega-looping intellectual adventure here.

Hell, even the official German lesbian and gay association does not use the terms "marriage" and "marrying" anymore, having understood the heterosexual background that defines a marriage and is part of the definition of the term. They talk of "verpartnern" (roughly: "partnering").

Some years ago, in South Africa there was an Asian minority, which ws and still is Asian in every means, had the skin colour of Asian people, the eyes of Asian people, the hair os Asian people, and was everything but "Negroes" or "Blacks". They were Asians indeed, happening to live in South Africa. then some tax laws changed, and the following implications would have meant that Blacks would gain certain advantages from that reform that the Asians would not get, for they were not Blacks, but Asians. they sued the state over claims of being discriminated. the Salomonic verdict: although by race they are not African Blacks, but Asians, they are now officially and medically rated as African Blacks. Non-black Blacks, so to speak. That probably makes pale, white-skinned me a red-skinned Indian, because as a juvenile I read Karl May.

Did I say Salomonic...? Forget it . Of course, it is absolutely, totally absurd to define "yellow-skinned" Asians as negroid Blacks for reasons of "equality" and non-discrimination. They should have included Asian emmigrants living in south Africa for a given number of years in that law reform, and they would have been done. now you have a situation where the classification of someone being a Black does not have any meaning anymore. In fact, this Black man could be a white Scandinavian indeed, eventually.

Left could mean right. Yes could mean No. Up could mean Down. everything must mean everything, else it is called a discrimination.

Nuts. Crazy.

It reminds me very much of this absurd discussion about gay marriages. A blue Red. A silent noise. A cold warmth. A dark brightness. (A liberal totalitarianism, a humanistic Islam, a democratic absolutism, while we are at it).

[porphy]

Great list mookiemookie,

Really Skybird, you seem to be a bit obsessed with what looks more and more as a linguistic last stand of yours. But I think you really described the position you yourself is in, with the example from South Africa.

It is as if you would be saying that "tax reduction" has by its very legal and cultural history a meaning that has nothing to do with Asian people (it could have been like that, with some imagination). If we include these people in the legal reform, tax reduction will mean nothing clear any more. It could mean anything. The whole economic system is in danger if we do this.

They should have included Asian emmigrants living in south Africa for a given number of years in that law reform, and they would have been done.

Yes, and homosexual people can be included in a reform of marriage without any terribly mind twisting or muddling of the language, or a somewhat mystic devaluing of it as an institution!

You are well into the metaphysics of marriage the way you argue the other stuff at the moment. I can agree there are things to discuss and consider in connection to this subject, some of which you have brought forward. But when it now comes to all this talk about value, definition and confused meaning, it seems like a very weak line of defence.

Marriage is a term with a history, yes, grown out of and denoting certain practices and rules in organizing and controlling society. That has been a changing history, even in western civilization. So you mean marriage was suddenly an unclear word every time something changed in the practices or rules connected to it? Or is it that now, with homosexual marriage, the essential thing about the concept is challenged, which somehow never happened with the other changes of what marriage can be and can not be? This sounds as when Thomas Hobbes refused to accept the possibility of vacuum on the grounds that it was a contradiction in terms, which would turn natural philosophy into turmoil, as the words would not be part of a proper science any more...

To me, you try to make the term marriage do a lot more work than it can.
It's not a logical concept as you try to have it, therefore nothing bizarre will happen if one extends its meaning to allow for homosexual marriage. Heck, people that don't like that legal definition of marriage in a country (like in Sweden) can still talk about it in the good old way, but people left out from the real legal, economic and social benefits a marriage given to citizens forming a family can't talk themselves into having these rights by using the words this or that way.

So why can't we just call it "verpartnern" instead? Homosexual verpartnern and heterosexuals marry each other. But that would be like having two concepts for the same thing... Like when gay people own something its called propertyx and heterosexuals have property, but they are still part of the same legal and social system in a society that rules what you can do and not do with things you own.

Ok, I'm taking a break from all these analogies. Going for the Sunday long running session. Take care everyone.



Cheers porphy

[Skybird]

Nonsense. It seems I am just much more aware than quite some of you folks that problems like growing civil unrest and violence and mobbing amongst jueveniles, school shootings as well as coma-drinking, breaking marriages and drug consumation, just do not fall from heaven to earth, but have causes and aorigins, and the major key issue here is the fialing of tradiitonal family structures, and a mother and a father giving a home to their offsoprings that they have thrown into the world. and that this is failing, also has causes again, that range from charcteristics of the industrial age and working conditions, to the replacing of ethical values (whether it be in form of religions or not) by orientationless materialism. Now without doubt I will be accused of dramatising, nevertheless, I see this a bit from apsychologist's background who has focussed on family and systemic therapy, amongst others.

i am also am totally pissed by today'S tendency that is so very much en vogue today, to relativise all and everything until nothing is loeft anymore that makes a difference between the one and the other quality, category, meaning, person, whatever. Modern culture is a culture of lacking differentiation, and throwing everything into one kettle and stirr it until it all is just one and the same grey featureless mass. and this bull**** then gets celebrated as tolerance or multiculture and how democratic we are that all and everything is just one and the same in worth. I newver believed this kind of crap. Equality to me means not declaring that every Peter and every Pauls is as important than every Newton or every michelangelo, and we can safely assume that without quite some losers living in our societies, both under the bridge and in the ruling villas of the elties, we would all be better off for sure. i also refuse to subscribe to an attitude that could be described as "all party in my life, and when I am dead, after me the great flood." That institutions like family and marriage have fallen apart, and have been destroyed to wide degrees, does not mean they are less important. It means that a lot of sopcial probelms and cultural problems of today are triggered by this former destruction, and that it would be important to strengthen them again, insbtead of saying "it'S all just going to hell anyway, so let'S not care if contirbuting to it myself, it all does not matter anyway." It does matter, and defending it in your everyday life against people who you directly meet - that is the real meaning of man being a zoon politicon, not this infantile party nonsense. And if I would not try to make the world a slightly better place by trying to convince those people I meet in my life, and would reject even this most basic poltical responsibility everybody cannot avoid as long as he lives inside a community - what would that say about me? Nothing I would find pleasant, I'm afraid.

regarding "partnering" and "marrying", of course it is more than just to terms for the same thing, for it is not the same thing. Certain benefits of marriages, financial for the most, that are last but not least meant to help families and reiterate their special status and special imp0rotance for the whole, I reject to accept for partnered couples, like I also reject to give them to singles like myself. Becasue if all are given these special protection/boni/helps/whatever, the status of families no,longer is any specially protected, and recognised to be of a prioritized importance. This weakening of it by relativising it when giving others the same status and boni like married couples and families, i do not accept - last but not least becasue the idea of the family already is so massively damaged that most families today run a higher risk to fall victim to poverty, than singles and unmarried couples anyway.

Our societies in the West are a mess, and that we have let down our most basic social core-cell that much, has something to do with that. And all you guys are thinking about is how to destroy it even more - in the name of some almost hysteric illusions about "equality" for everybody, and declaring each and everybody as valuable as anyone else, and not wanting to see that in our culture (hell, in almost all cultures on the planet) marriage has somethign to do with forming a family, with children born by the parents that married. That is where the focus is: family protection. We failed miserably in that, and it has helped to bring down our culture very much. The disfunctionality of the social institution called family is the most underestimated central cause of why we have allowed our world and our civilisation to fall apart that much.

People are not equal, and people are not equally important for the whole. Saying that is politically uncorrect, that is not considered to be noble, so crucify me, but you will not get any other message from me. To declare every individual being the navel of the earth is one of the great sins our culture has committed. And it costs us dearly. And in practice, we have allowed our noble ideals being hollowed out for materialistic reasons anyway, and at our courts, the demand for everybody being equal before the law is all nice and well, but hardly is being followed.

Do not discriminate a human being for being "just" a woman, or a homosexual, but understand that this does not make everybody "equal". Let people live in forms of partnerhsips as they want, but understand that some of these partnerships are unimportant for the whole community, while others are indispensable for the community and thus it cannot afford to not give the latter special rights and support without damaging the community wellbeing in general. Cut back the many exceptions and special rules to the laws, so that after all this bureaucratic confusion laws get something to do with justice again, and let everybody, no matter the ammount of money he can invest in his army of lawyers, be equal before the law indeed, so that justice no longer is an issue of bureaucratic rules and personal wealth.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yeah, I have to agree, all this talk about weakening the institution of marriage...straight people have already destroyed it. Marriage means nothing anymore. It takes two people to agree to getting married, it only takes one person to end it. Straight people should look to their own faults with marriage before bellowing about gays.

Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples will do nothing to fix a broken concept. In fact, it would more likely pervert it further, as there will be more people engaging in it - including some for purely political purposes.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I just can't wrap my head around how gay marriage somehow weakens the institution of marriage.

Let's face it, marriage isn't in great shape right now. Our divorce rate is sky-high, and domestic violence is all too common. I don't see how allowing truly loving couples to marry, even if they're the same gender, somehow weakens an institution that's supposed to be about love. There are a lot of heterosexual marriages out there that do a lot more harm to the institution than a loving homosexual marriage ever will.

To me the right of marriage is the right to marry the person you love, and right now gays/lesbians are being denied that right.

All that said, I see civil unions as an acceptable alternative. For that matter, I think all marriages should be seen as civil unions in the eyes of the law. Give the term "marriage" back to the religious institutions, where it belongs.

Part of an institution is the traditions surrounding it. Remove the traditions and you're altering the very meaning of the term.

[porphy]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Part of an institution is the traditions surrounding it. Remove the traditions and you're altering the very meaning of the term.

True, but the fact that you in general alter the meaning of the term by removing or changing traditions connected to it can't really in itself be a good reason against some proposed change of institutional tradition.