Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #189

---

Der gestern verstorbene Filmkritiker Roger Ebert:

“In the years since then I’ve known a fair share of gay couples who seemed as established and content as other couples, some more some less. In a society that was slowly outgrowing the traditions of patriarchy and matriarchy, they’d made a lateral move into humanarchy. The idea of them being joined in a civil union was a no-brainer. They’d cast their lot together, shared their duties, had an implicit agreement to stand by each other, and certainly deserved to have their relationship recognized by the state if only for reasons of ownership and inheritance.”

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #200

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #197

---

Und es bringt Menschen dazu, sich bildlich gesprochen "auf Eis hinauszuwagen, dass nicht immer ausreichend traegt".

---

So viel Selbstreflexion hätte ich gar nicht erwartet. :-))

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #190

---

Dear Christians who oppose “gay marriage” because it isn't "Biblical marriage"...
There may be a lot of reasons that you're opposing “gay marriage”/marriage equality. But your alleged support of “Biblical marriage” isn't one of them. I'm not saying the Bible isn't the reason you oppose gay rights. I'm saying you do not support “Biblical marriage”.

It might be a popular line – more popular, at least, than “I think gay people are abominations, because the book that I ignore when it affects things that I do, like wearing mixed fabrics, eating bacon, shaving sideburns, etc., says so; therefore I don't think they should have the same rights that I do” – but it's not true. And if you're about to counter with, “Oh, but God created marriage to be between a man and a woman!” or “The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman!” save it. Seriously. That a) is not true and b) doesn't matter anyway.

As to the a. Abrahamic faiths don't get to define marriage. That's a human-defined state that existed long before Christianity, Judaism or Islam. When Abraham – the Abraham of “Abrahamic” – visited Egypt, they already had (and had long had) the concept of marriage. It has existed throughout time in almost all cultures.
But it's not simply a question of marriage predating the Bible – and this is perhaps the larger point. The fact is, the Bible does not define marriage the way socially conservative American Christians pretend it does. The “traditional marriage” – a man and a woman (and often enough his mistresses) – that we talk about is “traditional” in the western world for the last 2,000 years or so. But Biblical it is not.

Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18).
Biblical marriage is a wife “giving”, regardless of her maid servant's wishes, her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” [i.e. women to capture and rape, legally] (Judges 21:10-14)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” to legally rape (Judges 21:20-24)
Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce [but don't worry – her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man's property...so relax, no property rights are violated by this arrangement!] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner's son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” [though denied the minimal protections of a wife] (Exodus 21:7-11)
Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)

When it comes right down to it, Biblical marriage is two or more men deciding between themselves what woman an individual will take as a wife – be it a father selling his daughter into sexual slavery, a husband-to-be arranging with a father an agreement suitable to both parties (irrespective of the wife-to-be's wishes) on how to dispose of/acquire the female in question, a party of raiders murdering a woman's entire family in order to claim her without any resistance, a rapist grabbing an unattached female and at the same time getting himself a new wife, etc., etc. Biblical marriage isn't love and romance and butterflies in the pit of your stomach. Sure, that probably happened sometimes. Not because of, but rather in spite of, the institution as it was practiced. And in the other cases, as the story, for instance, of the acquisition of wives for the children of Benjamin (Judges 21), one can only assume it entailed a lifetime of misery (wiping out a woman's entire family to force your sexual advances upon her rarely entails good will; and such was the plight of 400 women in that case, and many more in other stories).

Very few American Christians nowadays embrace true Biblical marriage, and most would not dare to admit it openly – because most facets of it are illegal! They throw the term around a lot, because it sounds nice and quaint and moral, but they don't truly support Biblical marriage. People want to fall in love, marry the person they love, and raise kids who will do the same. No one wants their father, or their sweetheart's father, pimping them out to the highest bidder (pardon me, “slave owner/husband-to-be”). They don't want their daughters (or selves) to be grabbed, raped and “married” for life to whatever lonely pervert happens to be skulking by. They don't want guys to be able to group up, grab some weapons, massacre entire families and claim “wives” in the process. Nowadays, we put the perverts in jail; we don't give them young women whom they've abused. Nowadays, we'd put the marauders in jail and sometimes kill them; we don't give them their prey as “wives”. Nowadays, slavery is illegal, and we try to destroy the sex slave trade (not allow it to legally flourish so long as men make the victims their “wives”). And what's more, nobody is advocating to go back to these good old bad ways.

So, no, you do not support Biblical marriage. You support a tiny, tiny subset of it, reshaped and influenced by thousands of years of western culture and enlightenment thinking about the rights of women. And those tiny little subsets? Also found in cultures around the world, predating Christianity and the Bible. You could just as easily say that you support traditional, ancient Egyptian marriage as Biblical marriage – because you keep about the same from either of them: the idea of a legal construct that binds people together. Not the number of people involved, not the rights and expectations associated, not the rules that govern it. Just the most basic concept of a legal joining. But that is not Biblical marriage.

All of which leads to my second point. It. Doesn't. Matter. There's this thing called the Constitution. And that guarantees that you can believe whatever you like – so even if you want to believe that the mutant, scarcely recognizable remnant of “Biblical marriage” that you've scraped from the pages of the Bible is in some way pure Biblical marriage, you're absolutely free to do so: you can ignore every facet of actual Biblical marriage except the one that it doesn't actually mention (“gay marriage”). Furthermore, you can extend that belief into your own life, and never be gay married. But the flip side of constitutional protection is this: it also protects the country from your beliefs being forced on it. Believing that your religion teaches something, regardless of whether it does or not, is not reason for it to be law. So you can support, and practice, “Biblical marriage” – not the real kind, because that will lead to incarceration and even, potentially, finding yourself on the wrong side of the death penalty. Sorry. I mean the fake kind that Christian leaders and politicians peddle as “Biblical marriage” (also known by the more accurate, but still not reason-enough-to-legislate moniker, “traditional marriage”). But you can't keep gay people from being married on the strength of “but God invented marriage to be just like it is, today, in the United States”. Because your belief in what God did or didn't do is irrelevant to the rights of other people. Thus saith the Law of the Land.
http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/20...y-marriage.html

---

Amerikanischer Mimm, der anderen amerikanischen Mimm widerlegen soll.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Für diese Debatte spielt das Zeug keine Rolle, da hier im Forum niemand mit der Bibel und "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert hat.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Und bitte, lieber Willie, solltest du darauf antworten, erspare mir bitte den Hinweis darauf, dass das, was ich schreibe, nichts an dem ändert, "was ist". :-)

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #201

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #189

---

Der gestern verstorbene Filmkritiker Roger Ebert:

“In the years since then I’ve known a fair share of gay couples who seemed as established and content as other couples, some more some less. In a society that was slowly outgrowing the traditions of patriarchy and matriarchy, they’d made a lateral move into humanarchy. The idea of them being joined in a civil union was a no-brainer. They’d cast their lot together, shared their duties, had an implicit agreement to stand by each other, and certainly deserved to have their relationship recognized by the state if only for reasons of ownership and inheritance.”

---

Der im letzten Jahr verstorbene Carlo Maria Martini:

« La coppia omosessuale, in quanto tale, non potrà mai essere equiparata in tutto al matrimonio....L'amicizia è sempre stata tenuta in grande onore nel mondo antico, forse più di oggi, anche se essa era per lo più intesa nell'ambito di quel superamento della sfera puramente fisica di cui ho parlato sopra, per essere un'unione di menti e di cuori. Se viene intesa anche come donazione sessuale, non può allora, mi sembra, venire eretta a modello di vita come può esserlo una famiglia riuscita. Quest'ultima ha una grande e incontestata utilità sociale.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #201

---

Altri modelli di vita non lo possono essere alla stessa maniera e soprattutto non vanno esibiti in modo da offendere le convinzioni di molti....Stesso approccio, il vescovo di oggi deve avere per le persone omosessuali, per le quali, fermo restando che la Scrittura condanna tali comportamenti, occorre ascolto e comprensione, orientandosi verso una amicizia spirituale: lo Spirito Santo porterà consiglio, caso per caso, per ciò che è meglio per la persona che si ha davanti. »

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Für diese Debatte spielt das Zeug keine Rolle, da hier im Forum niemand mit der Bibel und "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert hat.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Und bitte, lieber Willie, solltest du darauf antworten, erspare mir bitte den Hinweis darauf, dass das, was ich schreibe, nichts an dem ändert, "was ist". :-)

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #201

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #189

---

Der gestern verstorbene Filmkritiker Roger Ebert:

“In the years since then I’ve known a fair share of gay couples who seemed as established and content as other couples, some more some less. In a society that was slowly outgrowing the traditions of patriarchy and matriarchy, they’d made a lateral move into humanarchy. The idea of them being joined in a civil union was a no-brainer. They’d cast their lot together, shared their duties, had an implicit agreement to stand by each other, and certainly deserved to have their relationship recognized by the state if only for reasons of ownership and inheritance.”

---

Der im letzten Jahr verstorbene Carlo Maria Martini:

« La coppia omosessuale, in quanto tale, non potrà mai essere equiparata in tutto al matrimonio....L'amicizia è sempre stata tenuta in grande onore nel mondo antico, forse più di oggi, anche se essa era per lo più intesa nell'ambito di quel superamento della sfera puramente fisica di cui ho parlato sopra, per essere un'unione di menti e di cuori. Se viene intesa anche come donazione sessuale, non può allora, mi sembra, venire eretta a modello di vita come può esserlo una famiglia riuscita. Quest'ultima ha una grande e incontestata utilità sociale. Altri modelli di vita non lo possono essere alla stessa maniera e soprattutto non vanno esibiti in modo da offendere le convinzioni di molti....Stesso approccio, il vescovo di oggi deve avere per le persone omosessuali, per le quali, fermo restando che la Scrittura condanna tali comportamenti, occorre ascolto e comprensione, orientandosi verso una amicizia spirituale: lo Spirito Santo porterà consiglio, caso per caso, per ciò che è meglio per la persona che si ha davanti. »

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #203

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #190

---

Dear Christians who oppose “gay marriage” because it isn't "Biblical marriage"...
There may be a lot of reasons that you're opposing “gay marriage”/marriage equality. But your alleged support of “Biblical marriage” isn't one of them. I'm not saying the Bible isn't the reason you oppose gay rights. I'm saying you do not support “Biblical marriage”.

It might be a popular line – more popular, at least, than “I think gay people are abominations, because the book that I ignore when it affects things that I do, like wearing mixed fabrics, eating bacon, shaving sideburns, etc., says so; therefore I don't think they should have the same rights that I do” – but it's not true. And if you're about to counter with, “Oh, but God created marriage to be between a man and a woman!” or “The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman!” save it. Seriously. That a) is not true and b) doesn't matter anyway.

As to the a. Abrahamic faiths don't get to define marriage. That's a human-defined state that existed long before Christianity, Judaism or Islam. When Abraham – the Abraham of “Abrahamic” – visited Egypt, they already had (and had long had) the concept of marriage. It has existed throughout time in almost all cultures.
But it's not simply a question of marriage predating the Bible – and this is perhaps the larger point. The fact is, the Bible does not define marriage the way socially conservative American Christians pretend it does. The “traditional marriage” – a man and a woman (and often enough his mistresses) – that we talk about is “traditional” in the western world for the last 2,000 years or so. But Biblical it is not.

Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18).
Biblical marriage is a wife “giving”, regardless of her maid servant's wishes, her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” [i.e. women to capture and rape, legally] (Judges 21:10-14)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” to legally rape (Judges 21:20-24)
Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce [but don't worry – her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man's property...so relax, no property rights are violated by this arrangement!] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner's son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” [though denied the minimal protections of a wife] (Exodus 21:7-11)
Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)

When it comes right down to it, Biblical marriage is two or more men deciding between themselves what woman an individual will take as a wife – be it a father selling his daughter into sexual slavery, a husband-to-be arranging with a father an agreement suitable to both parties (irrespective of the wife-to-be's wishes) on how to dispose of/acquire the female in question, a party of raiders murdering a woman's entire family in order to claim her without any resistance, a rapist grabbing an unattached female and at the same time getting himself a new wife, etc., etc. Biblical marriage isn't love and romance and butterflies in the pit of your stomach. Sure, that probably happened sometimes. Not because of, but rather in spite of, the institution as it was practiced. And in the other cases, as the story, for instance, of the acquisition of wives for the children of Benjamin (Judges 21), one can only assume it entailed a lifetime of misery (wiping out a woman's entire family to force your sexual advances upon her rarely entails good will; and such was the plight of 400 women in that case, and many more in other stories).

Very few American Christians nowadays embrace true Biblical marriage, and most would not dare to admit it openly – because most facets of it are illegal! They throw the term around a lot, because it sounds nice and quaint and moral, but they don't truly support Biblical marriage. People want to fall in love, marry the person they love, and raise kids who will do the same. No one wants their father, or their sweetheart's father, pimping them out to the highest bidder (pardon me, “slave owner/husband-to-be”). They don't want their daughters (or selves) to be grabbed, raped and “married” for life to whatever lonely pervert happens to be skulking by. They don't want guys to be able to group up, grab some weapons, massacre entire families and claim “wives” in the process. Nowadays, we put the perverts in jail; we don't give them young women whom they've abused. Nowadays, we'd put the marauders in jail and sometimes kill them; we don't give them their prey as “wives”. Nowadays, slavery is illegal, and we try to destroy the sex slave trade (not allow it to legally flourish so long as men make the victims their “wives”). And what's more, nobody is advocating to go back to these good old bad ways.

So, no, you do not support Biblical marriage. You support a tiny, tiny subset of it, reshaped and influenced by thousands of years of western culture and enlightenment thinking about the rights of women. And those tiny little subsets? Also found in cultures around the world, predating Christianity and the Bible. You could just as easily say that you support traditional, ancient Egyptian marriage as Biblical marriage – because you keep about the same from either of them: the idea of a legal construct that binds people together. Not the number of people involved, not the rights and expectations associated, not the rules that govern it. Just the most basic concept of a legal joining. But that is not Biblical marriage.

All of which leads to my second point. It. Doesn't. Matter. There's this thing called the Constitution. And that guarantees that you can believe whatever you like – so even if you want to believe that the mutant, scarcely recognizable remnant of “Biblical marriage” that you've scraped from the pages of the Bible is in some way pure Biblical marriage, you're absolutely free to do so: you can ignore every facet of actual Biblical marriage except the one that it doesn't actually mention (“gay marriage”). Furthermore, you can extend that belief into your own life, and never be gay married. But the flip side of constitutional protection is this: it also protects the country from your beliefs being forced on it. Believing that your religion teaches something, regardless of whether it does or not, is not reason for it to be law. So you can support, and practice, “Biblical marriage” – not the real kind, because that will lead to incarceration and even, potentially, finding yourself on the wrong side of the death penalty. Sorry. I mean the fake kind that Christian leaders and politicians peddle as “Biblical marriage” (also known by the more accurate, but still not reason-enough-to-legislate moniker, “traditional marriage”). But you can't keep gay people from being married on the strength of “but God invented marriage to be just like it is, today, in the United States”. Because your belief in what God did or didn't do is irrelevant to the rights of other people. Thus saith the Law of the Land.
http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/20...y-marriage.html

---

Amerikanischer Mimm, der anderen amerikanischen Mimm widerlegen soll.

---

Keine Ahnung was das Wort "Mimm" repraesentiert. Is also an mir verloren.

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Für diese Debatte spielt das Zeug keine Rolle, da hier im Forum niemand mit der Bibel und "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert hat.

---

Das scheint nur so. Und doch besteht die Diskussion nur vor dem Hintergrund -auch wenn es -noch nicht- woertlich so formuliert wurde.

Tip: Nimm den biblischen Aspekt mal komplett weg -und schon gibt es keine Basis mehr fuer die Diskussion.

Und der Blog war von mir nur deswegen eingestellt worden um den biblisch weniger informierten hier dadurch etwas Nachhilfe zukommen zu lassen. Quasi vorab und als Ruestzeug fuer die weitere Diskussion -falls die sich weiter darauf konzentrieren sollte.:-)

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Und bitte, lieber Willie, solltest du darauf antworten, erspare mir bitte den Hinweis darauf, dass das, was ich schreibe, nichts an dem ändert, "was ist". :-)

---

Keine Angst, ich verweise nur drauf, wo es in einer Argumentation ausser Acht gelassen wird. Wenn der Verweis darauf dich schmerzt, musst du halt nur drauf achten, was du hier schreibst.
Wenn dass dann funktioniert, betrachte ich es als einen Weiterbildungserfolg.:-)

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #206

---

Mimm bedeutet Quatsch, Blödsinn, Unsinn. Niemand hat hier mit "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert. Und nein, die Diskussion hat nichts mit dem "biblischen Aspekt" zu tun.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #206

---

Als Rüstzeug kann dieses Zeug auch nicht dienen, oder höchstens als Rüstzeug für die Gefolgsleute von Richard Dawkins.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #205

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #201

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #189

---

Der gestern verstorbene Filmkritiker Roger Ebert:

“In the years since then I’ve known a fair share of gay couples who seemed as established and content as other couples, some more some less. In a society that was slowly outgrowing the traditions of patriarchy and matriarchy, they’d made a lateral move into humanarchy. The idea of them being joined in a civil union was a no-brainer. They’d cast their lot together, shared their duties, had an implicit agreement to stand by each other, and certainly deserved to have their relationship recognized by the state if only for reasons of ownership and inheritance.”

---

Der im letzten Jahr verstorbene Carlo Maria Martini:

« La coppia omosessuale, in quanto tale, non potrà mai essere equiparata in tutto al matrimonio....L'amicizia è sempre stata tenuta in grande onore nel mondo antico, forse più di oggi, anche se essa era per lo più intesa nell'ambito di quel superamento della sfera puramente fisica di cui ho parlato sopra, per essere un'unione di menti e di cuori. Se viene intesa anche come donazione sessuale, non può allora, mi sembra, venire eretta a modello di vita come può esserlo una famiglia riuscita. Quest'ultima ha una grande e incontestata utilità sociale. Altri modelli di vita non lo possono essere alla stessa maniera e soprattutto non vanno esibiti in modo da offendere le convinzioni di molti....Stesso approccio, il vescovo di oggi deve avere per le persone omosessuali, per le quali, fermo restando che la Scrittura condanna tali comportamenti, occorre ascolto e comprensione, orientandosi verso una amicizia spirituale: lo Spirito Santo porterà consiglio, caso per caso, per ciò che è meglio per la persona che si ha davanti. »

---

Willie, ich übersetze mal, damit du verstehst, worum es geht und nicht auf vielleicht unzulängliche Übersetzungstools angewiesen bist:

"Das homosexuelle Paar als solches kann niemals in allem einer Ehe gleichgesetzt werden... Die Freundschaft ist in der Antike immer sehr wertgeschätzt worden, vielleicht mehr als heute, auch wenn sie vielmehr verstanden wurde als Überwindung der rein körperlichen Sphäre, von der ich oben gesprochen habe, um somit eine Vereinigung des Geistes und der Herzen zu sein. Wenn sie auch als sexuelle Zuwendung verstanden wird, dann kann sie meiner Ansicht nach nicht als Lebensmodell wie eine gelungene Familie errichtet werden. Letztere hat eine große und unbestrittene soziale Nützlichkeit. Andere Lebensmodelle können es nicht in gleicher Weise sein und vor allem können sie nicht in einer Weise gezeigt werden, die die Überzeugungen vieler beleidigt....

So, was widerspricht dem Gesagten: Die Tatsache, dass Martini auf die Schrift verweist, die solches (homosexuelle) Benehmen verurteilt? Das ist richtig, wenn du z. B. die Paulusbriefe nimmst. Martini nimmt davon nichts zurück, schreibt aber über "Zuhören" und "Verstehen" und eine "spirituelle Freundschaft". (Martini, der übrigens ein herausragender Bibelkenner und Lukasfachmann war, verweist auch nicht auf "biblische Ehen".) Mit anderen Worten: Er trennt zwischen der Handlung und dem Handelnden.

---

@ Maga:

Zitat

---

Und nein, die Diskussion hat nichts mit dem "biblischen Aspekt" zu tun.

---

Ich bin ein wenig verwirrt, denn von Dir kam das "eine Ehe kann es nur zwischen Mann und Frau geben" und einige Ansätze mehr, die allesamt katholisch-religiös begründet waren. Nicht alttestamentarisch, aber doch vom ausschliesslich religösem Standpunkt (worauf Du auch mehrfach angesprochen wurdest).

Zitat

---

Wenn sie auch als sexuelle Zuwendung verstanden wird, dann kann sie meiner Ansicht nach nicht als Lebensmodell wie eine gelungene Familie errichtet werden. Letztere hat eine große und unbestrittene soziale Nützlichkeit. Andere Lebensmodelle können es nicht in gleicher Weise sein und vor allem können sie nicht in einer Weise gezeigt werden, die die Überzeugungen vieler beleidigt....

---

Hmpffffff .............
oh, ich sehe, Landegaard war schneller.
Kurz: es fehlt da eine Begründung. Es ist genauso wie Dein kategorisches "Eine Ehe kann es nur zwischen Mann und Frau geben" eine These ohne Diskussion, ohne Für und Wider, ohne Belege.
Sonst bist Du in Fragen des Glaubens auskunftsfreudiger ...

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #205

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #201

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #189

---

Der gestern verstorbene Filmkritiker Roger Ebert:

“In the years since then I’ve known a fair share of gay couples who seemed as established and content as other couples, some more some less. In a society that was slowly outgrowing the traditions of patriarchy and matriarchy, they’d made a lateral move into humanarchy. The idea of them being joined in a civil union was a no-brainer. They’d cast their lot together, shared their duties, had an implicit agreement to stand by each other, and certainly deserved to have their relationship recognized by the state if only for reasons of ownership and inheritance.”

---

Der im letzten Jahr verstorbene Carlo Maria Martini:

« La coppia omosessuale, in quanto tale, non potrà mai essere equiparata in tutto al matrimonio....L'amicizia è sempre stata tenuta in grande onore nel mondo antico, forse più di oggi, anche se essa era per lo più intesa nell'ambito di quel superamento della sfera puramente fisica di cui ho parlato sopra, per essere un'unione di menti e di cuori. Se viene intesa anche come donazione sessuale, non può allora, mi sembra, venire eretta a modello di vita come può esserlo una famiglia riuscita. Quest'ultima ha una grande e incontestata utilità sociale. Altri modelli di vita non lo possono essere alla stessa maniera e soprattutto non vanno esibiti in modo da offendere le convinzioni di molti....Stesso approccio, il vescovo di oggi deve avere per le persone omosessuali, per le quali, fermo restando che la Scrittura condanna tali comportamenti, occorre ascolto e comprensione, orientandosi verso una amicizia spirituale: lo Spirito Santo porterà consiglio, caso per caso, per ciò che è meglio per la persona che si ha davanti. »

---

Willie, ich übersetze mal, damit du verstehst, worum es geht und nicht auf vielleicht unzulängliche Übersetzungstools angewiesen bist:

"Das homosexuelle Paar als solches kann niemals in allem einer Ehe gleichgesetzt werden... Die Freundschaft ist in der Antike immer sehr wertgeschätzt worden, vielleicht mehr als heute, auch wenn sie vielmehr verstanden wurde als Überwindung der rein körperlichen Sphäre, von der ich oben gesprochen habe, um somit eine Vereinigung des Geistes und der Herzen zu sein. Wenn sie auch als sexuelle Zuwendung verstanden wird, dann kann sie meiner Ansicht nach nicht als Lebensmodell wie eine gelungene Familie errichtet werden. Letztere hat eine große und unbestrittene soziale Nützlichkeit. Andere Lebensmodelle können es nicht in gleicher Weise sein und vor allem können sie nicht in einer Weise gezeigt werden, die die Überzeugungen vieler beleidigt....

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #205

---

So, was widerspricht dem Gesagten: Die Tatsache, dass Martini auf die Schrift verweist, die solches (homosexuelle) Benehmen verurteilt? Das ist richtig, wenn du z. B. die Paulusbriefe nimmst. Martini nimmt davon nichts zurück, schreibt aber über "Zuhören" und "Verstehen" und eine "spirituelle Freundschaft". (Martini, der übrigens ein herausragender Bibelkenner und Lukasfachmann war, verweist auch nicht auf "biblische Ehen".) Mit anderen Worten: Er trennt zwischen der Handlung und dem Handelnden.

---

Zitat von Swann im Beitrag #181

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #180

---

...Ich beziehe mich vor allem auf die Hirnforschung und die Teile der Philosophie, die den "freien Willen" bestreiten. Was aber wäre das für ein Ich, dessen Funktionen Denken, Fühlen und Wollen (Tun) um eine Funktion vermindert sind? Und was wäre das für ein Ich, das zu einer reinen Biomaschine degradiert worden ist.

---

Ach so, das sind aber doch relativ elitäre und auch umstrittene Welterklärungsmuster. Die breite der (westlichen) Gesellschaft wird doch eher durch Ich-Zentrietheit, also Absolutsetzung des Ich und seiner Erlebnisspähre geprägt. Also dem Gegenteil von Auflösung des Ichs. Vielmehr wird das Ich zur einzigen Konstante, zur einzigen Referenz (ggf. erweitert um nächste Freunde und Angehörige) , was ja gerade zur Auflösung eines verbindlichen sozialen Gefüges führt.

---

Zitat von FrieFie im Beitrag #211

---

Das soziale Gefüge ist, so labil und wechselhaft es ist, die einzige Konstante.
Eigentlich ein Zustand, den man in der Pubertät erlebt und überwindet ("Wer und Was bin ich?"), der überdehnt wird bis die Anforderungen der Realität einen irgendwann einholen und man eigenständige Entscheidungen treffen und Verantwortung übernehmen muss. Im Idealfall.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #206

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #203

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #190

---

Dear Christians who oppose “gay marriage” because it isn't "Biblical marriage"...
There may be a lot of reasons that you're opposing “gay marriage”/marriage equality. But your alleged support of “Biblical marriage” isn't one of them. I'm not saying the Bible isn't the reason you oppose gay rights. I'm saying you do not support “Biblical marriage”.

It might be a popular line – more popular, at least, than “I think gay people are abominations, because the book that I ignore when it affects things that I do, like wearing mixed fabrics, eating bacon, shaving sideburns, etc., says so; therefore I don't think they should have the same rights that I do” – but it's not true. And if you're about to counter with, “Oh, but God created marriage to be between a man and a woman!” or “The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman!” save it. Seriously. That a) is not true and b) doesn't matter anyway.

As to the a. Abrahamic faiths don't get to define marriage. That's a human-defined state that existed long before Christianity, Judaism or Islam. When Abraham – the Abraham of “Abrahamic” – visited Egypt, they already had (and had long had) the concept of marriage. It has existed throughout time in almost all cultures.
But it's not simply a question of marriage predating the Bible – and this is perhaps the larger point. The fact is, the Bible does not define marriage the way socially conservative American Christians pretend it does. The “traditional marriage” – a man and a woman (and often enough his mistresses) – that we talk about is “traditional” in the western world for the last 2,000 years or so. But Biblical it is not.

Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18).
Biblical marriage is a wife “giving”, regardless of her maid servant's wishes, her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” [i.e. women to capture and rape, legally] (Judges 21:10-14)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” to legally rape (Judges 21:20-24)
Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce [but don't worry – her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man's property...so relax, no property rights are violated by this arrangement!] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner's son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” [though denied the minimal protections of a wife] (Exodus 21:7-11)
Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)

When it comes right down to it, Biblical marriage is two or more men deciding between themselves what woman an individual will take as a wife – be it a father selling his daughter into sexual slavery, a husband-to-be arranging with a father an agreement suitable to both parties (irrespective of the wife-to-be's wishes) on how to dispose of/acquire the female in question, a party of raiders murdering a woman's entire family in order to claim her without any resistance, a rapist grabbing an unattached female and at the same time getting himself a new wife, etc., etc. Biblical marriage isn't love and romance and butterflies in the pit of your stomach. Sure, that probably happened sometimes. Not because of, but rather in spite of, the institution as it was practiced. And in the other cases, as the story, for instance, of the acquisition of wives for the children of Benjamin (Judges 21), one can only assume it entailed a lifetime of misery (wiping out a woman's entire family to force your sexual advances upon her rarely entails good will; and such was the plight of 400 women in that case, and many more in other stories).

Very few American Christians nowadays embrace true Biblical marriage, and most would not dare to admit it openly – because most facets of it are illegal! They throw the term around a lot, because it sounds nice and quaint and moral, but they don't truly support Biblical marriage. People want to fall in love, marry the person they love, and raise kids who will do the same. No one wants their father, or their sweetheart's father, pimping them out to the highest bidder (pardon me, “slave owner/husband-to-be”). They don't want their daughters (or selves) to be grabbed, raped and “married” for life to whatever lonely pervert happens to be skulking by. They don't want guys to be able to group up, grab some weapons, massacre entire families and claim “wives” in the process. Nowadays, we put the perverts in jail; we don't give them young women whom they've abused. Nowadays, we'd put the marauders in jail and sometimes kill them; we don't give them their prey as “wives”. Nowadays, slavery is illegal, and we try to destroy the sex slave trade (not allow it to legally flourish so long as men make the victims their “wives”). And what's more, nobody is advocating to go back to these good old bad ways.

So, no, you do not support Biblical marriage. You support a tiny, tiny subset of it, reshaped and influenced by thousands of years of western culture and enlightenment thinking about the rights of women. And those tiny little subsets? Also found in cultures around the world, predating Christianity and the Bible. You could just as easily say that you support traditional, ancient Egyptian marriage as Biblical marriage – because you keep about the same from either of them: the idea of a legal construct that binds people together. Not the number of people involved, not the rights and expectations associated, not the rules that govern it. Just the most basic concept of a legal joining. But that is not Biblical marriage.

All of which leads to my second point. It. Doesn't. Matter. There's this thing called the Constitution. And that guarantees that you can believe whatever you like – so even if you want to believe that the mutant, scarcely recognizable remnant of “Biblical marriage” that you've scraped from the pages of the Bible is in some way pure Biblical marriage, you're absolutely free to do so: you can ignore every facet of actual Biblical marriage except the one that it doesn't actually mention (“gay marriage”). Furthermore, you can extend that belief into your own life, and never be gay married. But the flip side of constitutional protection is this: it also protects the country from your beliefs being forced on it. Believing that your religion teaches something, regardless of whether it does or not, is not reason for it to be law. So you can support, and practice, “Biblical marriage” – not the real kind, because that will lead to incarceration and even, potentially, finding yourself on the wrong side of the death penalty. Sorry. I mean the fake kind that Christian leaders and politicians peddle as “Biblical marriage” (also known by the more accurate, but still not reason-enough-to-legislate moniker, “traditional marriage”). But you can't keep gay people from being married on the strength of “but God invented marriage to be just like it is, today, in the United States”. Because your belief in what God did or didn't do is irrelevant to the rights of other people. Thus saith the Law of the Land.
http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/20...y-marriage.html

---

Amerikanischer Mimm, der anderen amerikanischen Mimm widerlegen soll.

---

Keine Ahnung was das Wort "Mimm" repraesentiert. Is also an mir verloren.

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Für diese Debatte spielt das Zeug keine Rolle, da hier im Forum niemand mit der Bibel und "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert hat.

---

Das scheint nur so. Und doch besteht die Diskussion nur vor dem Hintergrund -auch wenn es -noch nicht- woertlich so formuliert wurde.

Tip: Nimm den biblischen Aspekt mal komplett weg -und schon gibt es keine Basis mehr fuer die Diskussion.

Und der Blog war von mir nur deswegen eingestellt worden um den biblisch weniger informierten hier dadurch etwas Nachhilfe zukommen zu lassen. Quasi vorab und als Ruestzeug fuer die weitere Diskussion -falls die sich weiter darauf konzentrieren sollte.:-)

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Und bitte, lieber Willie, solltest du darauf antworten, erspare mir bitte den Hinweis darauf, dass das, was ich schreibe, nichts an dem ändert, "was ist". :-)

---

Keine Angst, ich verweise nur drauf, wo es in einer Argumentation ausser Acht gelassen wird. Wenn der Verweis darauf dich schmerzt, musst du halt nur drauf achten, was du hier schreibst.
Wenn dass dann funktioniert, betrachte ich es als einen Weiterbildungserfolg.:-)

---

Mimm bedeutet Quatsch, Blödsinn, Unsinn. Niemand hat hier mit "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert. Und nein, die Diskussion hat nichts mit dem "biblischen Aspekt" zu tun. Als Rüstzeug kann dieses Zeug auch nicht dienen, oder höchstens als Rüstzeug für die Gefolgsleute von Richard Dawkins.

---

@ FrieFie, Landegaard, Willie: Ich habe Martini nicht als katholischen Erzbischof oder Jesuiten zitiert, sondern als intelligenten und weisen Mann, dessen Einschätzung ich teile. Ich habe den Aspekt bzgl. des Bischofsamtes nicht übersetzt, da wohl kaum einer von uns katholischer Bischof ist.

Die größere soziale Nützlichkeit einer "gelungenen (!) Familie" (famiglia riuscita) liegt wohl auf der Hand und ergibt sich nicht aus religiösen Glaubenssystemen, sondern aus dem gesunden Menschenverstand: Es sei denn, es sei inzwischen bekannt, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Personen Kinder zeugen und dass Kinder nicht sowohl weibliche als auch männliche Erzieher und Vorbilder benötigen. (Ironie an: Gut, wir geben die Kinder mit einem Jahr zur "Betreuung" in den Kinderhort, wo es vielleicht jetzt mehr männliche Erzieher gibt.)

Ich habe auch nicht auf die Bibel verwiesen, sondern auf das Naturrecht. Wenn man freilich einem Rechtspositivismus anhängt, kann man es anders sehen.

Zitat von Leto_II. im Beitrag #213

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #206

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #203

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #190

---

Dear Christians who oppose “gay marriage” because it isn't "Biblical marriage"...
There may be a lot of reasons that you're opposing “gay marriage”/marriage equality. But your alleged support of “Biblical marriage” isn't one of them. I'm not saying the Bible isn't the reason you oppose gay rights. I'm saying you do not support “Biblical marriage”.

It might be a popular line – more popular, at least, than “I think gay people are abominations, because the book that I ignore when it affects things that I do, like wearing mixed fabrics, eating bacon, shaving sideburns, etc., says so; therefore I don't think they should have the same rights that I do” – but it's not true. And if you're about to counter with, “Oh, but God created marriage to be between a man and a woman!” or “The Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman!” save it. Seriously. That a) is not true and b) doesn't matter anyway.

As to the a. Abrahamic faiths don't get to define marriage. That's a human-defined state that existed long before Christianity, Judaism or Islam. When Abraham – the Abraham of “Abrahamic” – visited Egypt, they already had (and had long had) the concept of marriage. It has existed throughout time in almost all cultures.
But it's not simply a question of marriage predating the Bible – and this is perhaps the larger point. The fact is, the Bible does not define marriage the way socially conservative American Christians pretend it does. The “traditional marriage” – a man and a woman (and often enough his mistresses) – that we talk about is “traditional” in the western world for the last 2,000 years or so. But Biblical it is not.

Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:18).
Biblical marriage is a wife “giving”, regardless of her maid servant's wishes, her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” [i.e. women to capture and rape, legally] (Judges 21:10-14)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” to legally rape (Judges 21:20-24)
Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce [but don't worry – her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man's property...so relax, no property rights are violated by this arrangement!] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner's son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” [though denied the minimal protections of a wife] (Exodus 21:7-11)
Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)

When it comes right down to it, Biblical marriage is two or more men deciding between themselves what woman an individual will take as a wife – be it a father selling his daughter into sexual slavery, a husband-to-be arranging with a father an agreement suitable to both parties (irrespective of the wife-to-be's wishes) on how to dispose of/acquire the female in question, a party of raiders murdering a woman's entire family in order to claim her without any resistance, a rapist grabbing an unattached female and at the same time getting himself a new wife, etc., etc. Biblical marriage isn't love and romance and butterflies in the pit of your stomach. Sure, that probably happened sometimes. Not because of, but rather in spite of, the institution as it was practiced. And in the other cases, as the story, for instance, of the acquisition of wives for the children of Benjamin (Judges 21), one can only assume it entailed a lifetime of misery (wiping out a woman's entire family to force your sexual advances upon her rarely entails good will; and such was the plight of 400 women in that case, and many more in other stories).

Very few American Christians nowadays embrace true Biblical marriage, and most would not dare to admit it openly – because most facets of it are illegal! They throw the term around a lot, because it sounds nice and quaint and moral, but they don't truly support Biblical marriage. People want to fall in love, marry the person they love, and raise kids who will do the same. No one wants their father, or their sweetheart's father, pimping them out to the highest bidder (pardon me, “slave owner/husband-to-be”). They don't want their daughters (or selves) to be grabbed, raped and “married” for life to whatever lonely pervert happens to be skulking by. They don't want guys to be able to group up, grab some weapons, massacre entire families and claim “wives” in the process. Nowadays, we put the perverts in jail; we don't give them young women whom they've abused. Nowadays, we'd put the marauders in jail and sometimes kill them; we don't give them their prey as “wives”. Nowadays, slavery is illegal, and we try to destroy the sex slave trade (not allow it to legally flourish so long as men make the victims their “wives”). And what's more, nobody is advocating to go back to these good old bad ways.

So, no, you do not support Biblical marriage. You support a tiny, tiny subset of it, reshaped and influenced by thousands of years of western culture and enlightenment thinking about the rights of women. And those tiny little subsets? Also found in cultures around the world, predating Christianity and the Bible. You could just as easily say that you support traditional, ancient Egyptian marriage as Biblical marriage – because you keep about the same from either of them: the idea of a legal construct that binds people together. Not the number of people involved, not the rights and expectations associated, not the rules that govern it. Just the most basic concept of a legal joining. But that is not Biblical marriage.

All of which leads to my second point. It. Doesn't. Matter. There's this thing called the Constitution. And that guarantees that you can believe whatever you like – so even if you want to believe that the mutant, scarcely recognizable remnant of “Biblical marriage” that you've scraped from the pages of the Bible is in some way pure Biblical marriage, you're absolutely free to do so: you can ignore every facet of actual Biblical marriage except the one that it doesn't actually mention (“gay marriage”). Furthermore, you can extend that belief into your own life, and never be gay married. But the flip side of constitutional protection is this: it also protects the country from your beliefs being forced on it. Believing that your religion teaches something, regardless of whether it does or not, is not reason for it to be law. So you can support, and practice, “Biblical marriage” – not the real kind, because that will lead to incarceration and even, potentially, finding yourself on the wrong side of the death penalty. Sorry. I mean the fake kind that Christian leaders and politicians peddle as “Biblical marriage” (also known by the more accurate, but still not reason-enough-to-legislate moniker, “traditional marriage”). But you can't keep gay people from being married on the strength of “but God invented marriage to be just like it is, today, in the United States”. Because your belief in what God did or didn't do is irrelevant to the rights of other people. Thus saith the Law of the Land.
http://rachelshobbithole.blogspot.com/20...y-marriage.html

---

Amerikanischer Mimm, der anderen amerikanischen Mimm widerlegen soll.

---

Keine Ahnung was das Wort "Mimm" repraesentiert. Is also an mir verloren.

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Für diese Debatte spielt das Zeug keine Rolle, da hier im Forum niemand mit der Bibel und "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert hat.

---

Das scheint nur so. Und doch besteht die Diskussion nur vor dem Hintergrund -auch wenn es -noch nicht- woertlich so formuliert wurde.

Tip: Nimm den biblischen Aspekt mal komplett weg -und schon gibt es keine Basis mehr fuer die Diskussion.

Und der Blog war von mir nur deswegen eingestellt worden um den biblisch weniger informierten hier dadurch etwas Nachhilfe zukommen zu lassen. Quasi vorab und als Ruestzeug fuer die weitere Diskussion -falls die sich weiter darauf konzentrieren sollte.:-)

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #198

---

Und bitte, lieber Willie, solltest du darauf antworten, erspare mir bitte den Hinweis darauf, dass das, was ich schreibe, nichts an dem ändert, "was ist". :-)

---

Keine Angst, ich verweise nur drauf, wo es in einer Argumentation ausser Acht gelassen wird. Wenn der Verweis darauf dich schmerzt, musst du halt nur drauf achten, was du hier schreibst.
Wenn dass dann funktioniert, betrachte ich es als einen Weiterbildungserfolg.:-)

---

Mimm bedeutet Quatsch, Blödsinn, Unsinn. Niemand hat hier mit "biblischen Ehen" argumentiert. Und nein, die Diskussion hat nichts mit dem "biblischen Aspekt" zu tun. Als Rüstzeug kann dieses Zeug auch nicht dienen, oder höchstens als Rüstzeug für die Gefolgsleute von Richard Dawkins.

---

"Niemand" kann nicht sein, die Formulierung war in etwas "die Ehe ist ein von Jusus gestiftetes Sakrament.".

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #210

---

Fuer Nichtkatholiken, fuer Nichtchristen ist diese Behauptung bedeutungslos, belanglos und unzutreffend. [/blau]

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #214

---

@ FrieFie, Landegaard, Willie: Ich habe Martini nicht als katholischen Erzbischof oder Jesuiten zitiert, sondern als intelligenten und weisen Mann, dessen Einschätzung ich teile. Ich habe den Aspekt bzgl. des Bischofsamtes nicht übersetzt, da wohl kaum einer von uns katholischer Bischof ist.

Die größere soziale Nützlichkeit einer "gelungenen (!) Familie" (famiglia riuscita) liegt wohl auf der Hand und ergibt sich nicht aus religiösen Glaubenssystemen, sondern aus dem gesunden Menschenverstand: Es sei denn, es sei inzwischen bekannt, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Personen Kinder zeugen und dass Kinder nicht sowohl weibliche als auch männliche Erzieher und Vorbilder benötigen. (Ironie an: Gut, wir geben die Kinder mit einem Jahr zur "Betreuung" in den Kinderhort, wo es vielleicht jetzt mehr männliche Erzieher gibt.)

Ich habe auch nicht auf die Bibel verwiesen, sondern auf das Naturrecht. Wenn man freilich einem Rechtspositivismus anhängt, kann man es anders sehen.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #215

---

Das war doch eine Replik darauf, wie die evangelische Kirche es sieht. Es kommt nicht auf die Vorstellungen der Kirchen an - das war die dahinter stehende Aussage. (Jetzt bitte nicht mit Martini kommen, den ich eben nicht als Bischof, sondern als großen Denker zitiert habe.)

---

@FrieFie, Leto: Die Frage lautet, gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Sein und Sollen. Wenn es ihn nicht gibt, habt ihr recht. Wenn es ihn gibt, habe ich recht.
Leto, ich glaube nicht, dass Martini bei den "antiken Freundschaftsbildern" an das "heiße Eisen" gedacht hat. Ich vermute, er meinte die Beziehung zwischen erwachsenen Menschen "auf Augenhöhe".

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #219

---

Leto, ich glaube nicht, dass Martini bei den "antiken Freundschaftsbildern" an das "heiße Eisen" gedacht hat. Ich vermute, er meinte die Beziehung zwischen erwachsenen Menschen "auf Augenhöhe".

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #219

---

@FrieFie, Leto: Die Frage lautet, gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Sein und Sollen. Wenn es ihn nicht gibt, habt ihr recht. Wenn es ihn gibt, habe ich recht.

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #216

---

Zitat von Willie im Beitrag #210

---

Fuer Nichtkatholiken, fuer Nichtchristen ist diese Behauptung bedeutungslos, belanglos und unzutreffend. [/blau]

---

So wie mir die Darlegungen von Roger Ebert oder Präsident Obama zu diesem Thema völlig schnurz sind. :-)

---

Zitat von FrieFie im Beitrag #217

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #214

---

@ FrieFie, Landegaard, Willie: Ich habe Martini nicht als katholischen Erzbischof oder Jesuiten zitiert, sondern als intelligenten und weisen Mann, dessen Einschätzung ich teile. Ich habe den Aspekt bzgl. des Bischofsamtes nicht übersetzt, da wohl kaum einer von uns katholischer Bischof ist.

Die größere soziale Nützlichkeit einer "gelungenen (!) Familie" (famiglia riuscita) liegt wohl auf der Hand und ergibt sich nicht aus religiösen Glaubenssystemen, sondern aus dem gesunden Menschenverstand: Es sei denn, es sei inzwischen bekannt, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Personen Kinder zeugen und dass Kinder nicht sowohl weibliche als auch männliche Erzieher und Vorbilder benötigen. (Ironie an: Gut, wir geben die Kinder mit einem Jahr zur "Betreuung" in den Kinderhort, wo es vielleicht jetzt mehr männliche Erzieher gibt.)

Ich habe auch nicht auf die Bibel verwiesen, sondern auf das Naturrecht. Wenn man freilich einem Rechtspositivismus anhängt, kann man es anders sehen.

---

Famillie und Kinderzeugung hängen aber nur indirekt zusammen, sonst sollten nur Paare heiraten, die nachweislich Kinder bekommen können.
Wenn das Ziel, Kinder zu bekommen als Kriterium für das, was eine Ehe ausmacht, genügt, dann könnte man denen, die bereits Kinder haben, auch gleichgeschlechtliche Ehen erlauben.
Wenn es um optimale Vorbilder ginge, dann müssten Eltern eine Beziehungs- und Erziehungsausbildung machen, bevor sie Kinder bekommen und eventuell als Vorbilder trotz Ungleichgeschlechtlichkeit versagen.
Stattdessen dürfen alle drauflos heiraten und sich das "Ehe" nennen, hauptsache sie erfüllen das eine Kriterium der Ungleichgeschlechtlichkeit, egal wie gut sie als Vorbilder taugen oder ob sie überhaupt Kinder bekommen können.
Beziehungen, die sich als stabil erwiesen haben und gleichgeschlechtliche Eltern, die sich bewärt haben, erfüllen alles, was eine Gesellschaft sich unter "Familie" vorstellt.

Rechtspositivismus? Oder Grundrecht auf Gleichbehandlung?

---

Zitat von FrieFie im Beitrag #221

---

Zitat von Maga-neu im Beitrag #219

---

@FrieFie, Leto: Die Frage lautet, gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Sein und Sollen. Wenn es ihn nicht gibt, habt ihr recht. Wenn es ihn gibt, habe ich recht.

---

Die Frage ist aber zuallererst wie man das Sollen definiert, wie man "Ehe" definiert. Und wie sich Definitionen verändern können ... und mit welcher Begründung sie sich ändern oder nicht.
Und die Begründung bleibt weiterhin von Deiner Seite aus, warum sich nichts ändern sollte - ausser, dass es eben immer so war.
Man kann die Ungleichgeschlechtlichkeit als kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner aller bisherigen (bekannten) Definitionen von Ehe betrachten, aber das ist eine reine Beobachtung, keine Begründung.

---

Die Debatte laeuft hier total auseinander, jeder redet ueber was Anderes; um weiterzukommen sollte man sich auf eine Fragestellung einigen, zu der sich dann jeder klar positionieren kann...statt nur auf vermeintliche Gegner einzudreschen!