Auferstanden aus Ruinen - we love Germany!

[Cyril Haearn]

The Tour de France starts in Duesseldorf this year, then the G20 conference will be held in Hamburg, Donald T will meet Donald T, we will be hearing a lot about that

I do love Germany, the language, the woods, the legends, Taeve Schur, Horst Nilges, Helene Fischer, Grimms Fairytales, Bautzen, Tangermuende, Ruegen, the Elbe etc etc

Why do you love Germany?

[Ben@Forest]

Why do you love Germany?

Their skill at the penalty shoot-out.

[661-Pete]

, mainly.

[pwa]

I was a bit surprised yesterday to find out that Germany is only just getting around to allowing gays to marry, some years after the Republic of Ireland did it. Angela Merkel, after years of blocking it, changed her mind and allowed a free vote, though she herself voted against it! We often look to Germany as the supreme example of good practice in lots of things, but no nation is without its weaknesses and Germany is dragging its feet on this one.

[Cyril Haearn]

I was a bit surprised yesterday to find out that Germany is only just getting around to allowing gays to marry, some years after the Republic of Ireland did it. Angela Merkel, after years of blocking it, changed her mind and allowed a free vote, though she herself voted against it! We often look to Germany as the supreme example of good practice in lots of things, but no nation is without its weaknesses and Germany is dragging its feet on this one.

She allowed the vote, knew what the result would be, voted "no", typical politician? Of course, if there is marriage for all, there will be divorce for all too soon enough

Mind, there was already *registered partnership* for gays, the late former foreign minister Westerwelle for example had a male partner

[Freddie]

So if 1% (if that) of perhaps 2-3% of the population want to get married and fundamentally change the institution of marriage to do so, it is important that they do? I think the breakdown in heterosexual marriage and the raising of children (a primary purpose of marriage being to provide an optimal environment for such), especially boys, increasingly by single mothers is a far bigger issue. How many political parties are willing to offer heterosexual couples financial incentives to marry?

How many homosexuals want to be in a monogamous marriage anyway. If many are 'open marriages', what is the point, save to cock a snoot at conservatives, Christians and the institution of marriage itself.

Most homosexuals are quite happy being different from heterosexuals and I have my suspicions that a number of those that want to 'marry' are part of the political movement afoot to erode tradition and values for its own sake. They want to have their cake and eat it; to be different when it suits and to be the same when it involves the erosion of traditions. Only Christian traditions and values, mind; Islamic ones must remain unaltered, as muslims are higher up food chain when it comes to the secular religion of 'equality, tolerance and diversity'. Any attempt to thrust it upon Muslims would be considered cultural imperialism; physical violence would be meted out to any homosexual muslims who wanted to marry (or imam willing to marry them) and that would be the end of it.

The Guardian would remain silent on the event and instead run something on manspreading or how some (Christian) bakery refused to bake a cake with a pro same-sex message on it (although, more often than not, they have no qualms about just baking the cake minus said message).

[reohn2]

Some people seem to have very one-sided views as to what marriage is and seem mixed up whether religion has any part in it
Whether someone's marriage is 'open' is no business of mine or anyone else,as also whether one decides to conform to a religious structure and law is non of my business.
What is my business is if society wishes to dictate to people who they choose to fall in Love with marry and seek a lasting,hopefully life long,relationship with and on what terms they choose to agree to that relationship.

[Freddie]

Well, to my mind marriage is between one man and one woman to death do them part. Now, of course, this is not always accomplished, but the idea that people take these vows (mainly talking about heterosexuals here) in the knowledge they are lying and want to pursue an 'open marriage', should cause a great deal of shame for them. If they don't intend stick to the vows then, Christian or not, they should not be getting married in a church. This is but more 'cake and eat it' behaviour, to my mind.

Islam is different, because it recognises polygamy whereas English law does not. It seems it does go on in Muslim households in Britain, but the law against polygamy is not enforced.

However, I don't think that should set some kind of precendent for non-Muslims, many of which take vows to monogamy in a church, to engage in 'open' marriages. If a marriage is 'open' (as opposed to adultery being engaged in on the quiet), then why need it be between 2 people, why not between 3, 4, 5 or 15? Once you open it up, then essentially it is no longer a marriage at all. At least with polygamy you have to stick with your multiple wives, whereas 'open marriage' seems to denote a potential free for all.

If a couple (trio, quartet?) want such arrangements, then I think they should pursue them outside of the vows to monogamy taken inside a church and such an arrangement should not be considered a marriage proper.

An 'open marriage' is not a marriage, because no commitment has been made with respect to monogamy. If no commitment to monogamy has been made, then why limit marriage to two people? Why not just stretch and stretch marriage until it cannot be defined any more, essentially destroying the concept of marriage altogether. Is this not what people (unwittingly or not), in the name of progress, are engaged in doing today?

What is wrong with civil partnerships for homosexuals? All the same rights are conferred and most are not practising Christians (it'd be nice to know, if the information is available, how many non-Christian, other faith same-sex marriages have been performed. Can they be counted on one hand, per chance?), so why the necessity for marriage for homosexual couples? Like I said, less than 1% of all homosexuals getting married is hardly overwhelming demand.

[pete75]

So what if same sex couples get married. It causes you no harm

[Cyril Haearn]

, mainly.

Ludwig van Beethoven, +1! Mind, he was not all German, his name is from the low countries. But there were plenty of other gr8 composers from Germany, Telemann is being celebrated now, Bach, Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Schumann, Schubert, Brahms

[reohn2]

Freddie
Marriage doesn't have to take place in a church or place of religious worship nor does it have to conform to such religion(s).
Nor does sexual activity outside marriage necessarily break the laws of marriage,your definition seems to hinge on the word 'faithful' to each other or similar phrasing(correct me if I'm wrong).
But what may be considered as unfaithful in you book/religion may not in someone else's who are married,but could have some deeper meaning.
I think the saying 'don't judge others by your own standard's is applicable in this instance.

[pwa]

So what if same sex couples get married. It causes you no harm

That's it. If one bloke wants to marry another bloke why should it bother me? Live and let live.

[Freddie]

It is not about harm to me, but harm to the institution of marriage. Marriage in Britain circa 1958 = Monogamy (no polygamy), man and woman, until death do them part. Marriage in Britain in 2017 = Polygamy, 'open marriages', same sex marriage, not until death do you part, but until you get 'tired' of one another.

Marriage today is a joke, no wonder so few young people bother, but then that is the point. It was never about opening up marriage (and same-sex marriage is but the tip of the iceberg), but destroying it, by making it mean anything, everything (as per reohn2's last post) and therefore nothing.

Like I said, if we have 'open marriages', why not marriages between more than 2 people? Why oppose that?

[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.

[pete75]

It is not about harm to me, but harm to the institution of marriage. Marriage in Britain circa 1958 = Monogamy (no polygamy), man and woman, until death do them part. Marriage in Britain in 2017 = Polygamy, 'open marriages', same sex marriage, not until death do you part, but until you get 'tired' of one another.

Marriage today is a joke, no wonder so few young people bother, but then that is the point. It was never about opening up marriage (and same-sex marriage is but the tip of the iceberg), but destroying it, by making it mean anything, everything (as per reohn2's last post) and therefore nothing.

Like I said, if we have 'open marriages', why not marriages between more than 2 people? Why oppose that?

Bloody hell - things have changed in the last sixty years? Who'd have thought it possible......

Go back to 1958 and doubtless you'd be complaining about all the social change since 1899.