Gay marriage making progress in Norway, State of California

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Doolan

Now, this is just a theory, but I don't think the institutions of "family" and "marriage" are losing points in the ranking of hot stuff because of a multi-sided conspiracy.

"Short after WWI", national women's suffrage became a reality in the US. A bit later in the UK. This alone is probably the factor that changed reality the most, with women taking an officially-recognized publicly-active role in society and being put, at least on paper, on the same level as men.

You know what this leads to because we're seeing it today. Women work, often in the same positions as men and with the same responsibilities. Men undergo the difficult process of becoming "house animals" to compensate or keep working and wait until dinner cooks itself. Plus, if a woman is now tired of her husband she can just tell him to sod off and law will be on her side.

In fact, "no-fault divorce" didn't even exist as such in the US until the second decade of the 20th century.

All I'm saying is that, while I don't deny that certain political groups, or any other pressure groups, might be interested in undermining a traditional structure that is often held as a flag by other political (and religious) groups, I think the fact that divorce wasn't even allowed without charges and that women didn't have the option to access it might have something to do with it.

"Couples breaking up so easily like it is often oday show me only that they never should have married and raise children at all."

I suppose you don't believe that people instantly became reckless about marrying after WWI. Couples that weren't meant to be have always existed, and in fact they existed more before WWI than after. Just take a look at the average age for marriages and you'll see that most took place when the girls didn't have a clue, even less so a choice.

The difference is that today if a couple doesn't work you break it, you don't just pretend it works.

It is a sociocultural fact that marriages let'S say 150 years ago,. held longer, even between the word wars. people simply stood together bad times, and did not talk of "you hinder me to unfold my personality", "I can'r rwlaise myself with you bein g so near", and all that other egopist stuff of today that for the most simply expresses a dramtically drop in stress tolerance - the kind of stress, or testing and crisis that probably inevitably becomes part of a partnership sooner or later. What couple do you knw, who never underwent a crisis, prbolems, challanges? I never met a single one, never. But today, the many selfish egoist our world and western lifestyle has created simply run away when the first such challenge shows up, plus today the social conventions are no longer doing their part of keeping people together. All this is being sold as "realisation of pernal freedom", but the more you claim for yourself, inevitably the more you reject to invest into the other - it simply is the other side of the medal. with the liberasation of such social conventions, women gained more freedoms, both sexes gained a greater degree of freedom in living and interpreting their sexual role, but it went at the cost of stress-tolerance of partnerships. Just 100 years ago, you had great bfamilies, several generation eventually lived under the same roof. That had pros and cons. then came the chnaged working environment, the dcemand of industry for mobile workers, the growing of the cities. families got reduced to core families: just parents and children anymore.

Today, political ideologists and 68er-revoluzzer and super-pedagogues want children being taken out of the traditional family environment as early as possible, and introduce them to other social relations and collectives, and get them under stronger influence from state-wanted (left-wanted) ideologies, I see that att he younger and younger ages at which they are being send to mkindergarten, and tzhe dramatic detoriation of the schools competence in Germany over that past 20 years. The woman not only hgas the right to work in an independant job anymore, today for many it is a must that she does, else the family is threateend on an existential level. the number of singles raising offsprings is climbing, more and more children are being born in a inter-human constealltion that is not strong enough to form and supoort a family constealltion : the partnership breaks, and the children are the loosers. That is again the other face of the medal of the secual revolution: you got rid of the prudence of the 50s and 60s, but you also saw the pendullum to the extreme of the other side of the swing.

It al has two faces, and nothing you gain ever comes for free. That's why it is so important to find a dynamic instead of a static balance.
but when I say the classical family constellation (deriving from a classical man-woman relation with future and perspective and enough investement by both to keep together even if the sea gets heavy) is constantly being pushed further back, and is declining, I am totally right, it is a selfish priority shift deriving from tyopical Wetsern consumer-mentality, it is a decline in stress resistance, an excess in sexual freedom, job and indust6ry demanding family to stay back, left idologies taking kids more towars the state and more away from the family home, and now - we are at the topic - it's specially protected status, in Germany guaranteed by the constitution ("The family stands under the special protection of the state) - is again being pushed back another bit more by relativising the importance of intact hetero-sexual relation within the frame of a family by allowing the same terms of social acceptance for non-hetero-relation outside the classical family-environment. families are not seen as something overly valuable and important anymore, in ourwestern culture, they are not hipp, and economy does not like the reduced flexibility of parents to, and the result of all these different trends and factos, from sociologicy of industrial developemednt to greater egocentrim of modern lifestyles is: wetsern population are in decline.

I leave it to this, becasue it is the core point of why I do not tolerate home-marriages. It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. Mammals know the pohenomenon of homosexuality. But that does not mean that it is the norm, it remains to be the deviation from the design, and only the original design is self-suppoorting and survivable in a natural (=designed by nature) way. there is nothing wrong in alolowing and tolerating homosexual people. but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are. As species and evolutionary design study, homo sapiens is not a homosexual but a heterosexual design, and more there is not to say.

[Platapus]

" It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. "

so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?

"but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are."

You don't think that homosexual couples are capable of raising a child? I am not quite sure I understand what you meant by "fund a community". Last time I checked with my gay and lesbian friends, they pay the same taxes as the rest of us?

Just trying to understand your viewpoint.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

" It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. "

so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?

"but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are."

You don't think that homosexual couples are capable of raising a child? I am not quite sure I understand what you meant by "fund a community". Last time I checked with my gay and lesbian friends, they pay the same taxes as the rest of us?

Just trying to understand your viewpoint.

I have made that clear in an earlier debate on all this, but why not doing it again.

If a hetero couple is what necessarily is needed to form a family and have children, and when states should have a protecting role regarding this entity (and I think so), then you have to formalize it, and make it a mandatory rule, a set of rules and laws that regulate the details. In other words, you must generalize if you do not wish to end up with a plethorra of appendices, special permission, exceptions from the rule - all the wonder and mistery bureaucracy produces so willingly.

from that I justify it to define a relation male-female as the exemplary relation to which further rulings regarding family for the most get used on, and start with. The motivation to get babies starts even before the baby actually has arrived, and it must become more accepted again and more welocmed and being understood to be more special again to have babies. And right like this it is the case: hetereo marriages are a legal entity the laws refers to, some laws refer to them and protect marriages, as well as they specially refer to families, and protect this even more. However, the law realises that it makes a difference wether there are children or not, in Germany you do not get financial aid i named "Kindergeld" if you do not have children. You maybe conclude from that that not the fact of marriage is the deciding criterion, but wether or not there are children. But as I see it, if you want to encourage more families being build, and encouraging couples to have more babies, then you must include the social constallation that is precondition for any baby-getting and familybulding - heterosexual couples. And thus, I start here, and accept that as a basis in the understanding of what I said you need to generalise if forming a universal law for all community, you cannot afford to have a different law for every different partnership constellation - then you end up with as many laws as there are couples in the community/nation. that why at court, a marriage is a marriage - they do not difgfer between young and old people being married.

Do damage already on this scale and relativise the value (for the commnity) of established social relations between a man and a women, and it is like a seed for future family life, and babies being born or not, and being raised with engagement, or without. don't forget that the institution family is undert attack from many directions, as I explained, and has seen a longer hostory of decline over the past more than 100 years. The better childrenr social health in their home that they experience with their sisters and brothers and parents, the better chances they have that they can escape to become just another neurotic in this neurotic modern world, of which the streets are already so full of. And yes, I consider to be most of us being damaged to varying degrees by modern city life and civilisation, and being neurotic to varying degrees. In German, I call it the "Cityritis Modernicus" Workingplaces in the modern market, IT and stockmarket offices, and schools are primary focusses of this infectius epidemic. I personally think one must be already crazy to hold out in any city with more than a 300-400 thousand residents

[Doolan]

It is a sociocultural fact that marriages let'S say 150 years ago,. held longer

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's the view of the cause for this that I don't quite share.

"Selfishness" and "lack of stress tolerance" are rather vague characteristics of contemporary society to refer to.

In the U.S, the most dramatic increase of divorce rates (divorces per 1000 population) according to the 2003 Statistical Abstract was from 2.5 to 3.5 between in ten years (1960 - 1970) and is attributed to what they call "no-fault revolution", that is, the possibility to divorce without having to (as it was required before) argue adultery, felony or other behaviors of this kind exhibited by your partner.

This form of "friendly divorce" was seen as an advance in two grounds: first, it allowed the breaking of couples with less stress to the family (without the need of open litigation) and second (considered even more important by contemporary sociologists) it allowed the breaking of convenience marriages or misinformed marriages brought together by direct or indirect coercion of one of the two sides, generally (from a statistical point of view) a younger woman. I think it is no coincidence that, according to the same statistics by the US Bureau of Census, the median age for marriage began raising sharply and steadily exactly at this date (1969) from 20.8 to 25.9 years.

This works alongside the new professional reality of women after the 60s, who (again, in the US) became roughly equal to men in job opportunities (I say roughly because even today reality is not as pretty and women still have a long way to go to become truly equal).

What in its origin was a patriarchal union in which the woman explicitly swore (as it remains in marriage vows in some countries to this day) to care for her husband and family in the strict atmosphere of the household and to provide offspring (a much needed clause when christian marriage came about), is now largely obsolete in the sense that many women today will tell you to sod off if you ask them to clean the house or cook dinner, arguing that they have as much work to do as you if not more and that you're equally capable of making a sandwich.

Modern society does not need as many children, does not have as much time to look after them (I've seen this firsthand, as a teacher) and does not have a determined member of the couple to embrace such obligations unless he or she agrees to do it. Also gone are the legal barriers if either side considers the marriage to be faulty, and gone is the pressure to embrace the marriage no matter what. In fact, after the first wave of increase in divorce rates, they have been going down *steadily* since 1985, simply because less and less "out of place" marriages have occurred (going with your wish that such people "should not marry in the first place", sounds like society listens to you)

A fair tradeoff in my opinion, as this has made it possible for me to be living with a true woman and not a maid.

In any case, arguing whether this is positive or not is a lost cause. It's a change in the way society works, and it has happened in the past. It's an institution that couldn't stand unchanged after the *drastic* changes in everything else that took place after the 50s.

In the particular case of gay marriage, it is assumed that both parties involved are, well, gay, and therefore would have not engaged in heterosexual marriage OR would have done so in a fraudulent way (as we know has happened before). It does not affect heterosexual marriage statistics and I see absolutely NO reason to favor a fraudulent heterosexual marriage over a legit same-sex one or lack of any marriage at all.

The "destruction of marriage and family" if we were to embrace such a big and opinionated term is a direct and logical consequence of the new work and gender realities, not a consequence of two men getting married. At best, by banning gay marriage we would be forcing gay people to pay for what we heterosexuals already *beep!* up years ago.

[Doolan]

Originally Posted by Platapus

so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?

I was amused when the priests that gave me my education when I was a child, people who had vowed not to marry or have children, argued to me that same-sex marriages were a sin because they could not produce offspring.

In my absolute innocence as an infant I asked why they didn't have children, and only got punished for my curiosity...

One of my classmates gifted me with what back then seemed to be like a damn fine joke...

What do a priest and a Christmas tree have in common? The balls are just for decoration

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Doolan

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It's the view of the cause for this that I don't quite share.

Plural please: causes. I referred to several fields of causes.

As you explained yourself, I also said that the economical, socioological and other changes of the past 150, 200 years, always had two faces, had their gains, but also prices had to be payed for winning the first. Some earlier extremie conditions, like a pendulum after letting it go turned into the other extreme. Militant feminism being one example. Extreme sexual shamelessness and the sexualisation of all and everything in the present being an other.

If modern societies currently and in the forseeable future run so well with lesser chuodren, I dare to question. That is true for prudction processes themselves. But the social security systems did not keep up with these ever accelerating chnages, and depend on the numerical relation between young and old not chnaging beyond a certain space of freedom. But this is the case today. Here it is where you nevertheless depend of a stable, dynmic balanc ebetween young and old if you do not wish to give up the concept of communal solidarity between generations. Goiving it up means to sacrifice 1-2 generation of old people and let them fall through all scoial security nets - the old traditional ones are no longer there, and the new, modern ones get actively desconstructed. Since you cannot restore the old multi-generation families under one roof, I wonder what you would do. saying it in all neutrality, I cannot consider the american example to be the way of choice - too many people pay the social price for the wellbeeing of to few, the system knows too many loosers and to few winners. Also, the societies in Northamerica and Europe do not compare by mentality and individual's orientation, it seems to me.

In china, decades of one-chuild policy have created demographial havoc: the population is overaged, and massively so. artifically changing population levels their way -obviously does not work. Uncontrolled exploisve population growth like you have in the third world, also does nothing good, but causes the future misery. So, althizg job world and industry and economy patterns are changing, the social coimmunities iof nations nevertheless depend on a reliable dnymaic baapüönce beween the young and the old. Provbelm is, that the industries and economy ni longer are being tied in their policies to the nations that one gavce birth to them, but have broken free and more and more do not feel bound to the social responsibility for their "parents", the population of a given nation that is. the economy since long has turned workers and employees into "human capital", and treats their socities like you and me give and take small change at the baker. From a capitalistic viewpoint, social security and national states are expandable today - the coirportation will repakce the power of nations. They already have started and driven the effort very far. No western nation today can make policies against the multis anymore, and can afford not to win their acceptance on issues. In return, key decision making of the economy finds massive fallout in political agenda forming and basic paradigms of inner and outer policy forging. that even leads as far as to unleash wars, as we have seen, tnat cost the nation that hosts these corporations a fortune. Bills for that are being payed - again by the affordable citizens, and the decline of the civil sector in general.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by darius359au

It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages.

I don't hink its arrogant at all. It is simply a belief that anything that breaks up the strength of family unity ultimately results in the downfall of the people. Happened in the past, will happen again in our future it would seem. The end of morality always preceeds the end of great peoples. Why don't you think that morality becomes a big deal in the dark ages? They figured out what brought them down to that level - the lack of morality.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

You made me piss my pants S, great one

Glad I could be of service!

They have things for that ya know - www.depends.com

-S

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Iceman, you are one ignorant bible thumper.

Struck a nerve huh?

"Originally Posted by darius359au
It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages."

I bet people from Soddom and Gommorah said the same thing....too funny.

Reap it.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I've heard homosexuals are Islamo-communists bent on infiltrating the western world through programming on Bravo and TLC. Make no mistake, being able to choose incredibly flowing outfits and feng-shui rooms like second nature is a clear and present danger to the family system of the United States. The CIA is working hard to confirm whether appletinis are part of the vast homosexual conspiracy.

PD

[THE_MASK]

I can be civil and not believe in homosexuality at the same time

[Overboard]

Originally Posted by sober

I can be civil and not believe in homosexuality at the same time

Me and my wife would say yes to that.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Struck a nerve huh?

"Originally Posted by darius359au
It must be wonderful to live in your intolerant world , and to consider anyone that doesn't have your beliefs to be children is pure arrogance , its the 21st century now not the dark ages."

I bet people from Soddom and Gommorah said the same thing....too funny.

Reap it.

What struck me is how someone can be so ignorant that they are a living breathing copy of the bible. When you can't speak without quoting the bible or even speak without a biblical slant and ones is so troubled that their life revolves around a book and incapable or too scared to have their own thought they are............ Ignorant was probably the wrong word. Its a mixture sorrow and anger. Sorrow for someone who depends on a book for life and being and anger that someone allows themselves to get that way and intolerant of those who don't follow in your footsteps.
We speak on this board about Islamic fanatics living in the 16th century and how they have to rise up above it. I see little difference between them and you. The difference is you live in the west and they live in the middle east.
I try and hide my feeling on that kind of stuff but when someone of your kind gets so bazaar or insulting I find myself speaking out.

[Skybird]

Some people practice circumcision between their legs - while others use to do it between their ears. Ouch!

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

What struck me is how someone can be so ignorant that they are a living breathing copy of the bible. When you can't speak without quoting the bible or even speak without a biblical slant and ones is so troubled that their life revolves around a book and incapable or too scared to have their own thought they are............ Ignorant was probably the wrong word. Its a mixture sorrow and anger. Sorrow for someone who depends on a book for life and being and anger that someone allows themselves to get that way and intolerant of those who don't follow in your footsteps.
We speak on this board about Islamic fanatics living in the 16th century and how they have to rise up above it. I see little difference between them and you. The difference is you live in the west and they live in the middle east.
I try and hide my feeling on that kind of stuff but when someone of your kind gets so bazaar or insulting I find myself speaking out.

I'm not a bit sorry if your offended by my cold approach ..the truth ain't easy is it....The "Book" is not even a neccessity to know right and wrong....

Let me help you out here Bradclark...Sticking your cock up another man's ******* ,which is what is being discussed here...is wrong.I does not matter how much you try to justify it or hide your head in the sand...if they don't bother me it's ok attitude...it is not ok..it is wrong.

You will reap what you sow.

This isn't Bible stuff it is common sense,moral,truth stuff...some things are wrong.