Auferstanden aus Ruinen - we love Germany!

[Ben@Forest]

Another reason to love Germany - tolerance for diversity

In summer many towns have a gay pride week with films, events and a parade

*I love being on duty for Christopher Street Day, there is never any trouble and the passers-by wave and shout in encouragement* said a police officer

Germany is no more or less tolerant than other western European nations. There are a wide range of issues to which you can apply tolerance, racism, sexism, gender orientation, even divorce and abortion. Germany can be a deeply conservative country.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/15-people-with-foreign-roots-discuss-experiences-of-racism-in-germany-a-922529.html

[Ben@Forest]

Many years ago now but when I was living not that far away from Solingen the following happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Solingen_arson_attack

I wish British people would stop seeing their own country as the only place where racist attitudes or violence occur.

[PDQ Mobile]

Many years ago now but when I was living not that far away from Solingen the following happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Solingen_arson_attack

I wish British people would stop seeing their own country as the only place where racist attitudes or violence occur.

Personally speaking, I always felt the UK was a very tolerant place comparatively (perhaps with the exception of the tragedy of N Ireland. I have wept there).
Loved my islands because of that easy tolerance.

However now I am no longer certain that it remains so.
Clearly the causes are complex but a lousy distorted press sector bears some blame. IMHO.

[reohn2]

That was the idea of marriage vows

No,that was most people's idea,though not all.

but it does occur, Muslims in the UK engage in polygamous marriages and the state turns a blind eye. If they can, why shouldn't anyone else; it's hardly equal is it.

They may do and so may others but it isn't legal polygamy.
The state can't turn a blind eye to something that isn't legally binding can it?

Do you think the state you require Muslims to marry monogamously or should they extend polygamy to everyone?

I'm quite happy for the legal state to remain as it is.

Indeed, so why would homosexuals want to get married then, if our marriage laws are based on Christian teaching and few are practising Christians. Surely the civil partnership would better suit their beliefs in most cases.

The civil partnership isn't marriage here are the differences:- https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-ce ... rtnership/
So if two people of the same sex wish to marry it's allowed under UK law,in the same way two people of the opposite sex are allowed to marry,there need be no religion involved.

What is wrong with civil partnerships? I thought you would be in favour, as you seem less than impressed with many other religous traditions; what is different about marriage?

Marriage isn't just a religious tradition though is it?

I'm not sure if you do agree with pwa. He seems to be suggesting that marriage is a commitment between two people (to what, pwa, a commitment to what?). Perhaps he means that it is a commitment to monogamy. If it is then that precludes 'open marriages'.

And perhaps he doesn't, if he does I'll amend my answer to him.
You can't seem to get over the fact that what marriage is to you may have a different meaning to others,people getting married now can choose their own wording to the ceremony,which may not involve religious vows but ammended vows to suit their meaning of marriage.
If your meaning of marriage is within the Christian religion that's your choice,but you can't impose that on the non Christian with other or no religious beliefs,all thats required to be married is a state of law not religion.

There will be no such practise amongst Christians, other groups will retain it. Maybe there will be not much left of Christianity in the British Isles; mission complete?

Christianity is a religion with structure of beliefs.That is their choice it's not UK law but a choice to opt in or out of.Similarly so other religions practiced within the UK.
If there's not many Christians left in the UK in the future it will be due to a lack of belief in it's tenets,not because of any 'mission' to wipe it out,people will still have the feeedom to believe,and believe in marriage as you see it if they wish.
You seem to be paranoid about a loss religious freedom in the form of Chistianity in a future UK, yet you appear to want to stop or curb that freedom for other religions,which doesn't sound much like freedom to me.
It seems your idea of freedom within the Christian religion is quite a narrow form of that religion,I of course could be wrong so correct me if I am.

[Freddie]

If anyone can choose what their marriage is, which seems to be your position, then why can't it be polygamous. Until recently marriage was only between a man and woman, but I don't suppose you supported that purely because it was the law. So, why support laws against polygamy; what right have you or anyone else to decide on this? If you think that the definition of marriage is between 2 people, then why not between 4 or 5 under polygamy. What makes it any less valid?

I don't get it. You say everything is down to the individuals, so why snub those who want polygamous marriages? It is for individuals to say whether they want monogamous or open marriages, homosexual or heterosexual marriages; if they can choose to have an 'open marriage', why not a polygamous one?

[Ben@Forest]

Personally speaking, I always felt the UK was a very tolerant place comparatively (perhaps with the exception of the tragedy of N Ireland. I have wept there).
Loved my islands because of that easy tolerance.

However now I am no longer certain that it remains so.
Clearly the causes are complex but a lousy distorted press sector bears some blame. IMHO.

Curious because there's little doubt that though I'd agree we have always been relatively tolerant there's no doubt we are more tolerant now than we were in, let's say, the mid 1970s.

Just looking at the range of people's attitudes now to everything from interracial marriage to perceptions about gays has changed immeasurably. And as been posted several times on this forum research shows we are one of the most tolerant EU countries. Vorpal posted something along those lines recently.

Forgive me for not bothering to find it - but it's 5.55 on a Sunday morning and I'm about to start riding.

[Cyril Haearn]

Many years ago now but when I was living not that far away from Solingen the following happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Solingen_arson_attack

I wish British people would stop seeing their own country as the only place where racist attitudes or violence occur.

There was a similar attack in Luebeck (also many years ago), no-one was convicted. The catholic church criticised *marriage for all*, the evangelical/protestant church welcomed it

[pwa]

Marriage has traditionally been a union of two people of the opposite sex. These days the great majority of us recognise that two people of the same sex can love each other and wish to commit themselves to each other in the same way. It does not matter that you and I do not want a same sex marriage. All that matters is that they want it, and it costs us nothing to allow them to have it. The essential thing about marriage is that it is a commitment, a contract between two people who wish to publicly unite. There is no reason to deny same sex couples the institution of marriage.

Agreed and nor is there any reason for homosexual or heterosexual couples to conduct themselves within that marriage to Freddie's standard,providing both partners agree to it.

Agreed. The "commitment" that couples make in marriage is to each other, for as far into the future as they can see. The exact nature of that commitment will vary from one couple to the next, and is their business and nobody else's. I couldn't imagine commitment without monogamy, but if other people can, what reason have I to object?

[reohn2]

If anyone can choose what their marriage is, which seems to be your position, then why can't it be polygamous. Until recently marriage was only between a man and woman, but I don't suppose you supported that purely because it was the law. So, why support laws against polygamy; what right have you or anyone else to decide on this? If you think that the definition of marriage is between 2 people, then why not between 4 or 5 under polygamy. What makes it any less valid?

I don't get it. You say everything is down to the individuals, so why snub those who want polygamous marriages? It is for individuals to say whether they want monogamous or open marriages, homosexual or heterosexual marriages; if they can choose to have an 'open marriage', why not a polygamous one?

I don't have anything against polygamous marriage in principal,though I did say in my previous post that I was happy with the legal state to remain as is, that was my opinion from a personal view point of any marriage I would wish to enter into.
I can see that unless all parties involved understand and enter into such a marriage with certain clear agreements things could become complicated,though that could be said for any marriage the more people involved the possiblity for more complication.
I can also see it could become complicated for the state unless clear laws are in place with regards the polygamous marriage.

[Freddie]

The "commitment" that couples make in marriage is to each other, for as far into the future as they can see. The exact nature of that commitment will vary from one couple to the next, and is their business and nobody else's.

'Do you take this man or woman, to be your husband or wife, to have and to hold, unless you are having and holding another, until death do you part, unless you have made arrangements for a less protracted duration'. Quite the vows, aren't they.

As I said, this nihilistic, deconstructivist mentality is an attack on marriage itself. You remove the definition to the point where people can make up their own mind as what their marriage entails, then it is no marriage at all. Can a marriage not be two people cohabiting with an agreement to take turns mowing the grass every month? I don't see why not, are you in favour? Why should 'open marriage' be fine, but polygamy is not OK, shouldn't we be 'less bigoted' towards polygamy? If I am not to judge regarding 'open marriages', then why is reohn2 (or anybody else) to judge regarding polygamy. Once you start judging, then any judgement is on the table, if you assert we 'should not judge', then you should extend that lack of judgement to polygamy also.

If someone is in favour of 'not judging' what marriage is then what else are they in favour of, but the destruction of marriage by the dissolution of any real meaning attached to it.

An 'open marriage' is, in matter of fact, a non-marriage. Yes, I know, I am judging and committing a terrible crime, but what is it that I am judging? I am judging those in an 'open marriage' to be in no marriage at all. People can carry on how they choose, but they don't have the right to define and redefine things whenever it is expedient for them to do so, typically when they'd rather not take responsibility for their actions.

Have you ever experienced a close pass on the road? What if you go up to speak to the driver and he says 'sorry, mate, but it is all relative. I've decided I didn't pass you too close, closeness is relative and subjective to personal interpretation. Anyway, you weren't hit, where is the harm?' He has some pertinent, modern arguments, no?

If marriage is totally subjective based upon how the individuals engaged in a marriage feel about it, then why not extend these freedoms to passing distances on the road, for instance. Everything is just subjective in the end and who are we to judge?

[pwa]

The "commitment" that couples make in marriage is to each other, for as far into the future as they can see. The exact nature of that commitment will vary from one couple to the next, and is their business and nobody else's.

'Do you take this man or woman, to be your husband or wife, to have and to hold, unless you are having and holding another, until death do you part, unless you have made arrangements for a less protracted duration'. Quite the vows, aren't they.

As I said, this nihilistic, deconstructivist mentality is an attack on marriage itself. You remove the definition to the point where people can make up their own mind as what their marriage entails, then it is no marriage at all. Can a marriage not be two people cohabiting with an agreement to take turns mowing the grass every month? I don't see why not, are you in favour? Why should 'open marriage' be fine, but polygamy is not OK, shouldn't we be 'less bigoted' towards polygamy? If I am not to judge regarding 'open marriages', then why is reohn2 (or anybody else) to judge regarding polygamy. Once you start judging, then any judgement is on the table, if you assert we 'should not judge', then you should extend that lack of judgement to polygamy also.

If someone is in favour of 'not judging' what marriage is then what else are they in favour of, but the destruction of marriage by the dissolution of any real meaning attached to it.

An 'open marriage' is, in matter of fact, a non-marriage. Yes, I know, I am judging and committing a terrible crime, but what is it that I am judging? I am judging those in an 'open marriage' to be in no marriage at all. People can carry on how they choose, but they don't have the right to define and redefine things whenever it is expedient for them to do so, typically when they'd rather not take responsibility for their actions.

Have you ever experienced a close pass on the road? What if you go up to speak to the driver and he says 'sorry, mate, but it is all relative. I've decided I didn't pass you too close, closeness is relative and subjective to personal interpretation. Anyway, you weren't hit, where is the harm?' He has some pertinent, modern arguments, no?

If marriage is totally subjective based upon how the individuals engaged in a marriage feel about it, then why not extend these freedoms to passing distances on the road, for instance. Everything is just subjective in the end and who are we to judge?

Twenty odd years ago when my wife and I got married we had been living as man and wife for six years already, and the main reason for making it formal was all the legal stuff and giving our future children a surname that we all shared. We did not take the wording of the vows seriously. We had already made our own commitment to each other and the vows were just somebody else's words. Our own private commitment was with the intention that we spend our lives together, though allowing for the unlikely possibility that we might drift apart. We are still together and still looking like we will go the distance, and still 100% unconcerned about the vows we had to utter to get the documentation. It's our relationship played by our rules. We happen to be straight and we happen to be monogamous.

[Freddie]

I'm glad you and your wife are monogamous and happy, but that doesn't answer any of the questions I asked, does it?

I have to ask, why bother getting married if you are '100% unconcerned about the vows we had to utter to get the documentation'. Do you not think it disrespectful to the institution and/or to yourself to utter words you are 100% unconcerned about. I take it 100% was exaggeration?

It is a little hard to take seriously someone's views on marriage who is '100% unconcerned about the vows we had to utter to get the documentation'.

Serious question, would you have had a heterosexual civil partnership instead, had it been available to you?

[reohn2]

Freddie
Bad analogy.
Close passing is dangerous to the vulnerable road user's person,more so a two wheeled road user as there's more chance of them wobbling into motor traffic.
Open,homosexual or polygamous marriage is no more dangerous to the openminded individual than conventional marriage.
I suspect all this offends your religious beliefs as much as Islam does,but in a tolerant and free society you'll have to put up with it.

[John1054]

Please argue nicely - remember the Forum is open to all (ages and beliefs).

[Cyril Haearn]

Please argue nicely - remember the Forum is open to all (ages and beliefs).

Danke!

Is there any way I might get them to write about Germany?