|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 29 2017 20:56 Artisreal wrote:
I think that it is more about feeling safe and the perceived ability to defend onself rather than the factual reduction of danger.
Pollution kills way more people in Europe than terrorism and we happily continue to drive our Diesel cars, live in polluted air and work in closed off buildings.
It is all about the psychology. It doesn't make us safer but some might feel safer and that is quite the strong argument, especially if short term consequences are minor.
yeah agree. I always think of it as "you want to roll the dice yourself rather than having someone else roll it". Wether or not you do in such an event is still a diceroll with the same chances. One could even argue for worse odds but you're the one that gets to roll it!
|
Glad that we made a step forward in Germany. At least Merkel stopped blocking it, even if she voted no.
|
It definitely changes the very important topic of adoption.
I wholeheartedly disagree that it's just symbolic because of that.
A strong symbol nonetheless.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On June 30 2017 18:01 Artisreal wrote:
It definitely changes the very important topic of adoption.
I wholeheartedly disagree that it's just symbolic because of that.
A strong symbol nonetheless.
yeah I don't get it how people can call it 'just' symbolic even though this changes a lot in terms of adoption rights
Edit: That AFD poster with Alice Weidel and the slogan: "Marriage for everyone while the country is getting islamised ?" blows my mind.
|
|
|
Germany3128 Posts
that actually makes me feel sick
|
I'll try to translate the part that left me speechless.
"Doesn't every child possess the right to grow up under the emotional protection of their heterosexual producers?
Is it really that far from the truth that children, adopted by homosexuals, are more prone to be abused because incest is no longer stopping the insatiable sex drive of the homosexual adopters."
Keep in mind be that I cannot possibly translate what that guy wrote. It would take quite the effort due to rather eloquent writing. But I think his tone and manner come across quite clearly.
He frequently repeats the notion that gays have fought for being able to practice non reproductive sex unpunished for hundreds of years. That having previously achieved that, gays supposedly were different from everyone else. This difference, painted as a privilege to not have sex but an enduring fuckfest, is now thrown out of the window by opening the Christian marriage to them.
He also insinuates that gays adopting/wanting children are self centered and just want it for their ego.
He's so far from reality if he really thinks what he wrote.
At the beginning I thought he was trolling. But then I read the second column. What a fucking loser.
|
Consider yourself lucky that you got gay marriage as fast and smoothly. In France we had to endure 1+ year of homophobic mass demonstrations from a hysterical Christian right.
|
Germany3128 Posts
On June 30 2017 21:37 Artisreal wrote:I'll try to translate the part that left me speechless. "Doesn't every child possess the right to grow up under the emotional protection of their heterosexual producers? Is it really that far from the truth that children, adopted by homosexuals, are more prone to be abused because incest is no longer stopping the insatiable sex drive of the homosexual adopters." Keep in mind be that I cannot possibly translate what that guy wrote. It would take quite the effort due to rather eloquent writing. But I think his tone and manner come across quite clearly. He frequently repeats the notion that gays have fought for being able to practice non reproductive sex unpunished for hundreds of years. That having previously achieved that, gays supposedly were different from everyone else. This difference, painted as a privilege to not have sex but an enduring fuckfest, is now thrown out of the window by opening the Christian marriage to them. He also insinuates that gays adopting/wanting children are self centered and just want it for their ego. He's so far from reality if he really thinks what he wrote. At the beginning I thought he was trolling. But then I read the second column. What a fucking loser.
Yeah and it also becomes clear pretty fast that he himself is gay. This whole text is fucking mental. And that article was actually published in the FAZ.
|
I just don't get that text tbh... he's talking about people taking away chances for children to grow up with a mother and father and that having 2 fathers or 2 mothers would be a problem... it's not even like that's the alternative. The alternative for most of these (that would end up getting adopted by a gay couple) probably is not getting adopted in the first place, isn't it?
I can't say I have looked much into this so maybe we really do have lots more parents who want to adopt than children that need adoption and this whole idea of orphans growing up without parents is a movie/book thing.
|
Maybe you have lots of people who want to adopt little kids but not many who want to adopt older orphans.
|
Whatever problems people may have with a homosexual set of parents, it's definitely less bad than what would happen if kids are left to grow up in an orphanage. That's what the comparison should be in this case.
|
On June 30 2017 23:32 LegalLord wrote:
Whatever problems people may have with a homosexual set of parents, it's definitely less bad than what would happen if kids are left to grow up in an orphanage. That's what the comparison should be in this case.
yeah, that was my point. That even if you think it's bad, the alternative, them growing up in orphanages would certainly be worse for them.
|
If the adoption system sometimes does not work, it must be something more complicated than raw numbers. According to wikipedia, by the end of 2007 in germany there were about 10 applications by potentials parents per child (probably including any age from 0 to 17) waiting to be adopted.
|
didn't know that. I stand corrected in that case, My bad
|
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something.
|
On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something.
A symbolic vote for the religious folk while knowing that it will pass anyway.
It shouldn't be needed but such is the game of politics.
Also one can argue that she practically voted in favor by making it a 'free vote' knowing that most would vote 'yes' rather then the party vote of 'no'.
|
On July 01 2017 01:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something. A symbolic vote for the religious folk while knowing that it will pass anyway. It shouldn't be needed but such is the game of politics. Also one can argue that she practically voted in favor by making it a 'free vote' knowing that most would vote 'yes' rather then the party vote of 'no'.
She said she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-same-sex-marriage-vote-germany-legalisation-lgbt-rights-christian-democrat-man-woman-a7815846.html
Angela Merkel has voted against same-sex marriage in Germany because she believes that “marriage is between a man and woman”.
If any other leader/party said this there would be outrage even on this very forum (and rightly so).
As usual people aren't able to critise politicians they support. Politics is becoming so tribal its scary.
|
Where did you get the impression that people here like merkel.
Most just prefer her over the US/UK shitstains.
|
On July 01 2017 01:10 Reaps wrote:
So everyone is fine with Merkel voting no for same sex marriage? Did i miss something.
My understanding is that she voted no herself, but freed up her party members to vote how they wished. Politicians are not zero sum equations, so the good comes with the bad. She is willing to do something with enough political pressure, even if she doesn't agree with it herself. Here is an interesting question: do you think she would have voted no if she was the deciding vote(and could pass it to another party member)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
