„I asked the question at the end of the discussion, why one feels not first the causes of the shown disaster on the tooth. “By Leonhard Hoffmann, Hamburg.

(kreuz.net) on 7 February 2006 drove my wife and I particularly for meeting „begins the future here - to perspectives for marriage and family “to Berlin.

From this cause participated also the CDU Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Ursula of the Leyen and the archbishop of Berlin, George cardinal Sterzinsky.

We did not suspect that it would concern with the meeting less around „the future “than rather again only the future money.

In order to anticipate it directly: Into these in Berlin “me my parents did not in-baptize presented kind of play „of the catholic church.

With the cardinal one would have had to draufschreiben „church “. As ignorant one could have thought at him and its attendants rather of one of the many association agencies on the political stage of Berlin.

Those scorch obviously completely beautifully in the saft of the citizens of Berlin republic.

Woman of the Leyen may be good intentions. But it unfortunately possesses the wrong prescriptions.

Their faith in the general „compatibility of occupation and family is unshakeable “- this broadly gehätschelte life lie, which once only family-hostile left anhingen.

A discussion around the Rabenmutter on the one hand and the Heimchen at the stove on the other hand blamed it than absurd. Which is also correct.

Their attempt by „an alliance for education and family “- with cardinal Sterzinsky and the Hanoverian protestant Landesbischöfin Margot Käßmann in the boat - the future of Germany to secure, will prove infallibly as Flopp.

Perhaps this idea may flatter to the cardinal and above all its attendants of the German bishop conference. But to save much is not with a so superficial therapy.

I asked the question at the end of the discussion, why one feels not first the causes of the shown disaster on the tooth, in order to be able to really heal. As examples I mentioned preventing instruction at the schools or the question, why it gives so many alone-educating mothers.

Produced amusement, as if I would not be worthy directly of behind the moon traveled or my question of a discussion.

Therefore I saddled still one drauf and told that I suggest my Hamburg CDU fellow party members again to finally maintain the virtue of the Keuschheit.

There there were laughters among the 120, usually full-time visitors, only quite.

But the moderator Dr. Peter Frey, a practicing catholic and correspondent `of the second German Fernsehens', passed my question on to the minister.

This took it quite seriously and referred immediately to the surprised cardinal. This murmured in addition moves something from the Seelsorge, in which one strives.
A rather embarrassing conclusion of the evening!

My wife asked it for the meeting, why had laughed, when the word fell „Keuschheit “. He did not laugh.

I used also the opportunity to tell the cardinal that I was the large nephew of minister Bernhard Kleineidam, whom he would have buried some years ago.

This writeturned Ostberliner Diaspora minister, who was dedicated 1935, wrote - already over 90jährig - at the beginning of his last larger circular:

„If one becomes older, comes one repeatedly the thought: Do not forget to think of the four last things of the life: at death, court, sky and hell. Soon also you will have yourself to answer for before your creator and redeemer over all your thinking, speeches and doing.

It rewards the good ones with the sky and punishes the bad ones with the eternal Verdammnis in hell.

Do not forget to remember daily that we all are put into the fight between God and the devil, the fallen angel, who hates us fanatical and who uses its whole Kraft, in order to tear off us from Christ and its church.

We look, how the bad controls today the time. Satans trick consists of setting its own death notice into the newspaper so that humans do not believe no more in him, and so can it well in clouding fish. “

Hrodgar: @ Ansgar

Now, is always so a thing grants privilege.
I agree that families belong exonerative, because they carry something out for the continuance of the community. Others should pay this achievement off in other way.
But I think, who am not it the family, which belongs promoted, the religious marriage understanding of a religious community. Should one take which then? Katholen? Protestant? Moslames?

To in marriage:
It is that only appreciates, if I speak of the equivalence of man and woman.
The Germanic society has itself rather rausgehalten there, however granted the Mrs. the right to explain under publication of the economically very important dowry the divorce if its man did not appear as „ehrerbietig “. That is actual in marriage… in the area rumpoppen is surely not ehrerbietig.
Already Tacitus reports to the Roman readers on the high position of the woman. This does not fit with polygamy. To that extent I stand here completely near your view.

Ansgar: @ Hrodgar

In principle times a good statement, Hrodgar!
However the State of the Prtnerschaft of man and woman must nevertheless priviligieren, because only it guarantees children and stable education, and to it is interested a state, wants it to keep. In addition the sakramentale requirement of the marriage comes from Christian view. This is regarded even of Nichtchristen as culturalpragmatically meaningful. Also with the Teutons in marriage prevailed forwards.

Hrodgar: Unfruchtbar?

Quotation:
Also the promotion of unfruchtbarer partnerships, which are not society relevant, was a political error and a wrong signal.

Now, which is unfruchtbar?
I have 4 children to only anticipate in order it.
Nevertheless: The eligibility for promotion of a partnership (I understand by this „worthy of protectionness “, because in fact it is what the state with partnerships does) on the potential or the manifestation of the new generation generation to make dependent I see exaggerated said as a step into national patronizing, to discrimination of certain life beginnings.
As a democrat I am against it, have I fear of a state, which expands its requirement for regimentation so far, into my bed inside.

The consideration of the child number with the pension consider I against it simply only fair. I tear yourself A *** on with my four, meanwhile a Juppi rush makes. And lives later on my children? neee.
That is the most natural of the world: In former times was it evenly like that: Who has children supplied only its parents, and later it supplied by its children.
Who does not have children, does not have to pay for children, but which put back for the age…

Beobachterin: Already amazingly…

… which „a Methusalix zusammenreimt itself there “.

With of me the saying that does not have to do anything.

Krzyszek: Familienfördeung

„Your attempt by „an alliance for education and family “the future of Germany to secure, will prove infallibly as Flopp. “

What makes Mr. Hoffmann there so safe? Only the fact that such an alliance does not correspond to its conservative conceptions?

„You relieves the employed women in no way, because after end of workday it means for the woman, who has a full working day behind itself: At home weitermalochen - with the household. That means: Zero spare time for the women concerned. “(Beobachterin)

Why does the mother have to make at home alone the household? Wouldn't it times be at the time that finally also all men get accustomed to contribute naturally their part to it?

„Also the promotion of unfruchtbarer partnerships, which are not society relevant, was a political error and a wrong signal. “(Beobachterin)

Now also does the Ehen include, which (intended or inadvertently) to remain childless? Shouldn't we nevertheless promote/relieve then better the families with children (fiscal) instead of the marriage? All the same whether it acts thereby around the traditional Christian family or around families with alone-educating parents or with two same sex parents? Isn't family, where children are? That would be nevertheless the beginning to create more child friendliness (= family friendliness).

methusalix †: They notice already, Ms Ilse

the Beobachterin goes it primarily not around women, children and families, but around the support of the ideology of the catholic church into things marriage and family. Only a marriage developed on catholic defaults earns support and legal protection. Only children, those in one „catholic marriage “grow up are good and “children valuable for the state „. Children, who might not exist in same sex partnerships or, which reasons also always, only with parents grow up, after catholic ideology actually at all and should less to are not at all supported.