Auferstanden aus Ruinen - we love Germany!

[Freddie]

reohn2, bad understanding of what I'm saying.

Open,homosexual or polygamous marriage is no more dangerous to the openminded individual than conventional marriage.

Here we go with the 'hold our opinions, or you must be a bigot' stuff. I have made it clear I am not particularly concerned with the feelings of individuals for and against these things, whether that be homosexual marriage or polygamy...wait a minute, I take it you have changed your mind on polygamy. Just a few posts ago you were saying that the law on polygamy should remain the same, now you have changed your position?

I am concerned with the institution of marriage. If, like anything else, it means anything and everything, then it also means nothing. I think there should be boundaries; you, presumably, think anything can constitute a marriage (you have moved in the space of a few posts from being against polygamy to being in favour; at least you were paying attention when I said if you say we 'shouldn't judge', then you must suspend all judgement), others are 100% unconcerned with the vows they took.

Excuse me for thinking I am alone as the only one in this thread so far who wants to defend marriage as an institution, by keeping it defineable, respectable (and respected) and to some extent immutable (it must be monogamous). If it is undefined and non-monogamous then, in the context of the western world at least, I hardly think it can be continue being respectable and respected.

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

I think we have been pretty civil so far, is this aimed at me for having unfashionable opinions?

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

Sorry, maybe we could ask the mods to split the digression off into its own thread?

[reohn2]

Thread drift,don't you love it!

[pwa]

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?

My feeling about the wedding vows was that they were antiquated (in 1993) and I was miffed that I was required to utter them to get official documentation to show we were a married couple. Marriage, for me, is a personal thing, not an institution. My wife and I were "married" in our heads long before we went though the ceremony. We wanted two things from the official marriage. One was to share a name that our children would have. The other was to tie up all the legal ends. Official marriage did that. It made no difference at all to our relationship, which was solid before and remains solid today.

I'm not even sure what the difference is between marriage and civil partnership, so I won't comment on that.

(Sorry the thread has drifted so much.)

[pwa]

Thread drift,don't you love it!

+1

[reohn2]

reohn2, bad understanding of what I'm saying.

Open,homosexual or polygamous marriage is no more dangerous to the openminded individual than conventional marriage.

Here we go with the 'hold our opinions, or you must be a bigot' stuff. I have made it clear I am not particularly concerned with the feelings of individuals for and against these things, whether that be homosexual marriage or polygamy...wait a minute, I take it you have changed your mind on polygamy. Just a few posts ago you were saying that the law on polygamy should remain the same, now you have changed your position?

IMO your close pass analogy is a bad one for the reasons given.
I'm not saying you're a bigot at all.
I'm saying attitudes change and it's your prerogative to have and hold your opinion from your view point,I respect that,I dont think the Christian church should be made to marry homosexuals or anyone who wishes to change the vows as laid down within the church's tenets,but you can't impose those laws on the rest of what is a secular society and which includes other religions with differing religious laws to yours,especially if the secular law says otherwise.
There's no law against homosexual marriage, and if people marrying agree to an 'open' marriage from the outset ie; in their vows,there's no law against that either.
And I've explained my position on polygamy clearly in that,it doesn't suit mine and Mrs R2's lifestyle but if it suites other people's,then I've no objection to it,providing it's within the secular law.
I can't be any clearer on these issues!

I am concerned with the institution of marriage. If, like anything else, it means anything and everything, then it also means nothing. I think there should be boundaries; you, presumably, think anything can constitute a marriage (you have moved in the space of a few posts from being against polygamy to being in favour; at least you were paying attention when I said if you say we 'shouldn't judge', then you must suspend all judgement), others are 100% unconcerned with the vows they took.

Excuse me for thinking I am alone as the only one in this thread so far who wants to defend marriage as an institution, by keeping it defineable, respectable (and respected) and to some extent immutable (it must be monogamous). If it is undefined and non-monogamous then, in the context of the western world at least, I hardly think it can be continue being respectable and respected.

Where to start
IMO because marriage isn't the exclusive possession of religion it can be changed to suit the individuals involved,as I've posted before your definition of marriage isn't everyone's much as you wish it to be.I can't be anymore clear,if you disagree then we'll have to leave it at that because of our differences.

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

I think we have been pretty civil so far...

Agreed.

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

Sorry, maybe we could ask the mods to split the digression off into its own thread?

Agreed again.though AFAIC I've said all I wish to on the subject I think

[Freddie]

Maybe in future, and I'm not being sarcastic, we should just state that we disagree with one another from the outset. It might save us both some time and typing .

[pwa]

Maybe in future, and I'm not being sarcastic, we should just state that we disagree with one another from the outset. It might save us both some time and typing .

No fun in that.

[pete75]

Maybe in future, and I'm not being sarcastic, we should just state that we disagree with one another from the outset. It might save us both some time and typing .

I agree with that

[reohn2]

.

[Cyril Haearn]

Maybe in future, and I'm not being sarcastic, we should just state that we disagree with one another from the outset. It might save us both some time and typing .

One could restrict the exchange to private messages, then there would be no need to *argue nicely*

Egon Bahr said of Willi Brandt: um ihn nah zu kommen, sollte man ihm nicht zu nah kommen: to get close to him, it was best not to get too close to him. Could be appropriate here sometimes. Sorry to mention Germany again

[Cyril Haearn]

Thread drift,don't you love it!

+1

I love it and hate it at the same time, or perhaps as Amos Oz said of Israel: I love [my country], but I do not like it very much

Nasty arguing is bad enough, but l o n g arguing I often do not bother to read

[PDQ Mobile]

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.

You see I am not sure.

For example one could confuse apathy for tolerance!
We have using that as a criteria become more tolerant of litter, bad service, bad behaviour in public places, filthy public transport etc.

The (homo) sexual side of things is perhaps more of a media phenomena than much else.
Dominated as the media is by such.

Where we have become less tolerant is perhaps with regard to small marginal political parties.
They are tolerated as a laughing stock but not much more.

A straw poll amongst a few European friends sort of agreed with me, i.e. that they felt less tolerated than 20 years ago.
But it's very subjective I admit.

Brexit has introduced an more general intolerance towards "Europe" though.
I sense that personally in my everyday contact with many (but not all, of course) folks.

All IMHO of course.

[661-Pete]

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

I think we have been pretty civil so far, is this aimed at me for having unfashionable opinions?

There's a world of difference between 'unfashionable opinions' and those which, when set down in a forum, are downright offensive and likely to upset many people.

I have plenty of opinions which are 'unfashionable'. For instance, I heartily dislike 'pop' music, as I'm sure I made clear in one or two acerbic comments I made on the 'Glastonbury' thread. But no-one's going to report me to the Mods for that, I'm sure . I'm not making life uneasy, threatening even, towards other people. I assume that others, however strongly they disagree with what I said, will allow me to have my say.

But if I'd laid into homosexuality, laying down the law and citing the god-squad for backup, as 'Freddie' appears to have done, I'm sure it would have been a different story. Many gay people, even in this age of emancipation, still feel threatened and harassed. Words can upset. That is why, sometimes on this forum, Moderators need to keep a watch.

I may not be gay, but I know all about being 'in a minority'. Merely being a cyclist is an example, though I suppose that's a lifestyle choice - which homosexuality isn't. But I am in other minorities...

I hope I've explained things right, and echoed the views of others. Please show consideration.

And now let's get back on topic....

[Cyril Haearn]

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

I think we have been pretty civil so far, is this aimed at me for having unfashionable opinions?

There's a world of difference between 'unfashionable opinions' and those which, when set down in a forum, are downright offensive and likely to upset many people.

I have plenty of opinions which are 'unfashionable'. For instance, I heartily dislike 'pop' music, as I'm sure I made clear in one or two acerbic comments I made on the 'Glastonbury' thread. But no-one's going to report me to the Mods for that, I'm sure . I'm not making life uneasy, threatening even, towards other people. I assume that others, however strongly they disagree with what I said, will allow me to have my say.

But if I'd laid into homosexuality, laying down the law and citing the god-squad for backup, as 'Freddie' appears to have done, I'm sure it would have been a different story. Many gay people, even in this age of emancipation, still feel threatened and harassed. Words can upset. That is why, sometimes on this forum, Moderators need to keep a watch.

I may not be gay, but I know all about being 'in a minority'. Merely being a cyclist is an example, though I suppose that's a lifestyle choice - which homosexuality isn't. But I am in other minorities...

I hope I've explained things right, and echoed the views of others. Please show consideration.

And now let's get back on topic....

No-one tries to force me to be a homosexual but I am forced to hear awful music when shopping for example, went on a pro-Europe demo today and had to leave, the accompanying pop music (the beatles) nearly drove me mad even when I dropped to the back of the group

Went to the cinema instead, there was music before the film too, but not too loud: *I want to ride my bicycle* by Queen and *Shine a little light* by ELO, great

To get back to Germany at last: I do love Till Euelenspiegel, he is just the sort we need now. Mind, he occurs in several places in Germany and even in Belgium

Is there a divergence award for thread drift?

[Freddie]

There's a world of difference between 'unfashionable opinions' and those which, when set down in a forum, are downright offensive and likely to upset many people.

Indeed, but as you are not a moderator that is not for you to make that distinction here, is it?

But no-one's going to report me to the Mods for that, I'm sure . I'm not making life uneasy, threatening even, towards other people.

So you're the brave soul that took a stand and reported to the mods. Interesting that in my discussion with one mod, he seemed to agree that there was nothing wrong in saying what I had. It was an opinion that could be validly held.

I assume that others, however strongly they disagree with what I said, will allow me to have my say.

Is this an attempt at comedy, as allowing me to have my say seems what you was intent of depriving me of when you reported me to the mods.

But if I'd laid into homosexuality, laying down the law and citing the god-squad for backup, as 'Freddie' appears to have done, I'm sure it would have been a different story. Many gay people, even in this age of emancipation, still feel threatened and harassed. Words can upset. That is why, sometimes on this forum, Moderators need to keep a watch.

Laid into homosexuality? Cited the god-squad? (I did no such thing - on both counts, but it seems the 'god-squad' are ripe for 'laying into' in your mind, even if homosexuals are not)

You have a vivid imagination. Words can upset, well, blow me down. I said very little about homosexuality, as it happens, but instead of reading what I actually said you, as so many do these days, read between the lines and assumed you knew what I was really referring to. It must be quite the trick to be able to read minds, Pete.

I hope I've explained things right, and echoed the views of others. Please show consideration.

That's not what you mean though, is it. You mean 'please do not say anything that falls outside of the status quo'. I have been wholly considerate and barely mentioned homosexuality nor religion for that matter, the main topic was what does and does not constitute marriage and whether 'open marriage' was such.

Perhaps if my position was what you say it was then 1) the mods would have stepped in or 2) you would have corrected me.

If you cannot handle legitimate, open discourse without imagining things (like imagining I was laying into to homosexuality), then you may find it difficult to navigate internet fora. That is not my problem, I'm afraid.