Melech 9,900 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 That's still way too much. People don't even vote for her because of her policies, they vote for her because she's Merkel. That's true. I mean it's embarrassing how our fellow Germans call her "Mother of Deutschland" There is so much fuss about her ,because there is no other politican that could compete with her Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haroon 49,685 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I think it's a big deal because by giving them something with a different title it conveys the mindset of, "You rightfully should be able to have what I have, but I don't want you to be part of MY group while you do it." Like giving "coloreds" a separate water fountain. It reinforces the idea that homos-xual relationships are "different," which can perpetuate an us vs. them mentality. And it caters to people who are against marriage equality by offering a sort of compromise so they can have their sacred tradition to themselves, and frankly those people don't deserve to be catered to when their platform is built on hate. That's a very good point, I didn't think of it that way Maybe it's just because I'm not personally interested in getting married so I keep thinking more about rights and seeing her as an ally as long as full rights are on our side rather than marriage itself as an act. They aren't mutually exclusive so yeah Thanks for enlightening me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robotboy 1,700 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 you just lost all your gay fans Merkel Remember that you are unique. Like everyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiphEret 1,320 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I am a bit disappointed to be honest If it's the exact same right why do you need to discriminate on the name? Because clearly on paperwork people will be able to tell if someone is gay or straight. I am all about transparency and stuff but if I have to say I married someone I don't necessarily need my employer for example to know I am gay... That's something that bothers me with some politician it's like they are pro gays but deep down it feels they aren't so convinced themselves and they are a bit ashamed of the law they are trying to pass. A good example is the way the French gov handled it refusing any proper debate when you had these crazy fanatics down the streets. if you know you are doing something right why not be open about your reasons? Sur le sable sur la neige, Sur les images dorées,Sur le front de mes amis, J’écris ton nom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vernier 3,786 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This concept of the "definition" of marriage is ridiculous. Things change and there's no reason why "traditional marriage" can't too. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goosey 3,017 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 "German chancellor Angela Merkel has said while same-s-x couples should get marital benefits, a civil partnership should not be called marriage.I don't see a problem with this. I'm sure someone will jump in about "rights" but if both have the same benefits then it's not an issue of "rights" at all. It's an issue of semantics. "I am the world's greatest person that does not want to let people into the country."—US President Donald J. Trump Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uo111 5,285 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This makes sense if you remove the word marriage from all government institutions and laws, and replace it with "civil union". So straight people will also have civil unions, not marriages, in the eyes of the law.And then religious institutions can marry people (which includes gay people, because you know, freedom of religion and all that ****). But religious ceremonies will have no binding legal obligations, they will be purely ceremonial.Then she can still think that marriage is between a man and a woman, no one will be affected legally by her thoughts and she will have to deal with other people having different religious views. But that's not really what she wants. She wants to make it easy to discriminate by having the words be different in the eyes of the law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melech 9,900 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 I don't see a problem with this. I'm sure someone will jump in about "rights" but if both have the same benefits then it's not an issue of "rights" at all. It's an issue of semantics.There are no same rights though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 And short hair is for men.Pants, too. Time to wake up, Merkel. I can't wait for the CDU to disappear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 I don't see a problem with this. I'm sure someone will jump in about "rights" but if both have the same benefits then it's not an issue of "rights" at all. It's an issue of semantics.The issue at hand is, people in civil partnerships don't have the same rights as others in a marriage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikola 4,342 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Wait i tought she was the smart one....... I've got an "F" and a "C" and I got a "K" too And the only thing that is missing is a bitch like "U" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveandMagic 1,731 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 She's correct in that "traditionally" marriage is man and woman, but marriage was originally created as little more than a barter system, a contract for labor (at least according to every history book I've ever own). A man traded goods for a wife, or the wife came with a "dowry" (goods). The wife was then little more than property (and was essentially purchased) and was expected to produce children and labor. In many cultures there were multiple wives, as well as concubines (s-x slaves). In early cultures marriage was not traditionally "one man, one woman", but multiple women and lovers. And I don't believe the concept of marriage for love, at least in European culture, came about until the fifteenth or sixteenth century, and even then there were "contract" marriages. Marriages are also a good way to keep track of groups of people for census and tax reasons. It seems their roots have always been in business.I also shudder at the "separate but equal" notion. It doesn't seem to work to well in history. It seems to serve more as a mark on people who are "different." Just repeat to yourself, "It's just a show. I should really just relax." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasi 11,043 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This is so like people to say something you agree with and then add a "BUT". Exhibit A: "I accept same-s-x couples..." Me: "Cool" Exhibit A: "BUT I think the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman" Me: Don't say something at all if your just gonna invalidate what you said a second ago. It's nothing less that than hypocrisy. I don't understand pineapples, so I don't eat bananas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erotica 34,931 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Not Germanys leadership going Russia Poor is the man whose pleasures depend on the permission of another Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melech 9,900 Posted July 14, 2015 Author Share Posted July 14, 2015 Not Germanys leadership going Russia no noo not even close Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.