Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[CaptainHaplo]

Here is the crux of the matter....

"Marriage" is a religious term. Like it or not - it is. The State has overreached by claiming to be able to license or control such a thing.

By using the insidious control of the State in a RELIGIOUS institution, those who push for "gay marriage" are doing nothing more than attempting to subvert a moral stance based on religion.

If it was about equal rights - as some claim, then whats wrong with a civil union that gives same sex people all the same "rights" as well as responsibilities?

The reason its not ok - is becuase equal rights isn't what its about. Its about finding ways to reduce the moral foundation of what the majority stands on.

I am not saying this based on a single religion - but its an attempt to weaken the entire moral fabric of our society - so that it becomes more accepting of those things that are immoral based upon the myriad of theologies, beliefs and even common sense that majority hold close.

Get someone to turn a blind eye to one thing, then it becomes easier to do the same the next time.

Its like an injustice to your neighbor - they say "well it doesn't affect you, why are you worried about it???"

And when the gestapo arrested the neighbors - the man did nothing... until finally they came for him - and there was no one left to speak out.

[Platapus]

Mookiemookie

Great list.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by 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:

Great list, Mookie.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Mike, no one is suggesting expanding marriage to same sex couples will fix anything.

If Bob and Bill or Sue and Jan move in together and say they are married, it won't throw the world into crisis. And married gays will not cause straight people to take marriage any less seriously, they already have made a mockery of it. I could see some weight to this arguement if straight people married and kept their vows... but 50% or more do not.

Seriously, straight people use marriage for political and economic motives too.

[Skybird]

These economical motives base on "boni" and assistances of the state for the instiututoon of families, Neal. And to maintain/restrengthen this institution as a key item of social integrity (whose decline is affecting the poor state our societies are in) - this is what it is about.

In Germany, despite the usual sets of voluminous family laws, the special protection for and status of families even is founded in the constitution, article 6 of the Basic Law:

Article 6 [Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]

(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.
(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.
(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.
(4) Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.
(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.

The explciit understanding of "marriage" being a heterosexual thing, concludes from several other law sources, and also is an implicit basis int the family law system we have over here. And as I said, even gay and lesbian interest groups have moved away from demanding to use the term "marriage" in this related meaning for their same-sex-relationships.

The creators of this text obviously were well aware of the social importance of "family", and it'S early pre-stage, "marriage", and in the years afterwards, specific tax- and other related laws were designed to reflect a special status of families that benefits from material support that sets families apart from other social partner constellations that do not have the same importance for the state'S and the community's future wellbeing, which exludes gay marriages as well as singles like me from having access to these "boni". That in the past years and decades the chnages in the industrial and economic job world as well as party-interests and politcal distortions have crippled this original intention, does not chnage the fact that families are more important thah any other social constellation and that they should be given special protection and benefits for the community'S best self-interest. If these boni are given to everybody - how is the special status of families being recognised then anymore? You have said somewhere earlier that it already is so damaged that it doesn't matter to contribute even further to the damage by accepting to relativise it even further, you said it not in these words, but this is the conseqeunce of what you said. Well. Think twice.

"Marriage" is just a word. What counts is it's meaning. and in meaning, gay "marriages" should not be as valuable and appreciated by state and community as the far more important hetero marriage, and "family". Gay parents are not the same like hetero parents. That some children grow up with one parent missing, does not make that a condition desirable, and open for intentional choice. Usually, singles get refused to adopt children even if wishing desperately to do so, therefore. So it should be with gay/lesbian couples: children's interest ranks above their interest. and since it should be expressed in form of a law, you have to formulate a rule of general valdity, not basing on some theoretically imaginable exceptions from the rule. Laws already have far too many of these. That's why our legal systems are such a mess nowadays.

And that list above, it is not helpful to replace arguments by sarcastic comments and aggressive rethorics, and just displays a lack of arguments. All it does is heating up tension and lowering the willingness to listen. And much on that list is simply crap anyway. It tells more about the mind authoring such a list, than about those he wants to adress by it.

I think Captain Haplo also has a very valid point that I just touched en passant.

[porphy]

My view is maybe not that far of Skybird. If the family and its values as institution in society needs strengthening, why is it so hard to accept homosexuals to be allowed to form families? One could look at their wish to live in a marriage, with children (adopted or natural born) and acting as responsible parents as being part of these values, not primary to dilute and twist them.
For example, I can't see anything in that paragraph 6 you quoted that would stop same sex parents or married couples. Part of the argument seems to be that society can't bear the costs of extending marriage, possibility of children and family life to everyone, but if family life and its values is the holy grail of modern society, why not put up some money to strengthen it even this way?

In Sweden the family and marriage, and some of the traditional values connected to this, are very much en vogue again. So, maybe it is quite reasonable and much in line with this current tendency to extend the values and benefits of family and marriage to citizens that have been barred from this by people and groups that claim the exclusive right to both concept and the social benefits and status on grounds of their sexual orientation.

Yes, marriage is a concept with a long history in religion, but its history is only in part religious. Claiming that it is essentially a wholly religious concept somehow kidnapped by some evildoers with the agenda to erode morality, like CaptainHaplos post seem to indicate, is simply an opinion which ignores much of todays modern facts about what a family and marriage is, in most western countries.

cheers Porphy

[Skybird]

I will not repeat myself once again, Porphy. I have answered all that several times now. If you cannot see that a lesbian women is not a male father and a gay man is not a female mother, and that a family resulting naturally from a marriage is something different than a friendship between two people, or a partnering between to homosexuals, well - then it is so. I still oppose equal tax and other finacial reliefs for singles as well as homosexual couples, and I still oppose the bidea of legalising adoptation by singles, or homosexual couples. the reasons, social, psychological, cultural and communal reasons, I have listed repeatedly now. and I have not seen one reasonable or responsible counterargument in this thread or the two we have had last year, that would make sense to me and is not directed against vital key priorities of both communities, and children.

and as already said, this ongoing relativising of the importance of intact families (as they are being formed up by mother nature, biologically as well as psychologically and socially) may have reasons that cause it, nevertheless in themselves are one of the major reasons why our socieites is bristling so much with social problems that range from collapsing functional values over material egoism on all social levels (from the social wellfare parasite to the top banker) to youth violence, street crime and drugs, and school schootings.

What children need, is an intact family with one father and one mother. How absurd it is that even this nowadays must be discussed and considered to be open for debate! You guys should talk with a close girlfeiend of mine, a family-therapist. she could tell you some things about the conseqences of single mothers raisjng kids without the father, patriacrchalic family tyrannies, and the conseqwuences this can have for kids once they are older than 30. It ranges from signficantly raised vulnerbilities for depressipon or various forms of neuroticism, to sexual deviations and disturbed relation-building with members of the other sex. And that is no cliche, gentlemen, but facts of not just slightly but solid statistcial significance. Not every children ends like this. But it has much better statistical chances to end up like this if it's family background is not intact. And that is what health prevention, psychologically as well as physically, is about: to keep such risk-probabilities low.

Originally Posted by porphy

, is simply an opinion which ignores much of todays modern facts about what a family and marriage is, in most western countries.

It's less functional and for the communal interestm than before. i would not be so proud on today'S status of families. To me, it is a major, critical damage, and an ongoing deconstruction.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Letting Homo's live in peace is fine by me. Problem comes when they force their lifestyle on others as they are doing with marriage laws and other special rights.

-S

I knew of at least two of them while in the military. One was on the AS-33 the other on the SSN-687. Both of them were severe problems in various ways. Both got BCD discharges. Both openly vaunted their sexual preference and desires in a very unprofessional way which led to them being ejected from the military. Not in a million years would I want to be in a combat situation with any of them

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Frame57

I knew of at least two of them while in the military. One was on the AS-33 the other on the SSN-687. Both of them were severe problems in various ways. Both got BCD discharges. Both openly vaunted their sexual preference and desires in a very unprofessional way which led to them being ejected from the military. Not in a million years would I want to be in a combat situation with any of them

Makes one wonder how they got past the recruitmen office let alone serving on a ship of the line.

Not the fact that there gay in particular but their 'odd' behaviour and outlook on life.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Here is the crux of the matter....

"Marriage" is a religious term. Like it or not - it is. The State has overreached by claiming to be able to license or control such a thing.

By using the insidious control of the State in a RELIGIOUS institution, those who push for "gay marriage" are doing nothing more than attempting to subvert a moral stance based on religion.

If it was about equal rights - as some claim, then whats wrong with a civil union that gives same sex people all the same "rights" as well as responsibilities?

The reason its not ok - is becuase equal rights isn't what its about. Its about finding ways to reduce the moral foundation of what the majority stands on.

I am not saying this based on a single religion - but its an attempt to weaken the entire moral fabric of our society - so that it becomes more accepting of those things that are immoral based upon the myriad of theologies, beliefs and even common sense that majority hold close.

Get someone to turn a blind eye to one thing, then it becomes easier to do the same the next time.

Its like an injustice to your neighbor - they say "well it doesn't affect you, why are you worried about it???"

And when the gestapo arrested the neighbors - the man did nothing... until finally they came for him - and there was no one left to speak out.

This is dead on target Couldnt have said it better.