An anonymous reader was asking in a comment what the magazine “Siegessaeule” is. Since I wrote a bit more in the answer I decided to make it into a blog post. <\/p>\n
\n<\/br><\/p>\n
Siegessaeule<\/a> is a magazine, which was founded by male gays. However if I understood correctly it adresses meanwhile also female gays and by looking at the magazines newest title article<\/a> the magazine adresses now also something, which is called “queer”. (and which seems to be different from the american “queer”). What is “queer”? I think it is good if the gay movements get rid of their rather rigid classifications like gay versus nongay etc. I found that these classifications had sometimes quite an ideological character. On the other hand in some sense this “ideologization” is understandable, as gays had to confront a lot of societal adversity (and unfortunately still have to confront!) and “having an ideology”, having common symbols etc. makes the definition of a group easier (and thus its social cohesion). <\/p>\n So this “opening up” of the gay community towards “queer” should probably be seen as a sign of emancipation. <\/p>\n Moreover these new trends display that social constructs such as “relationship” and “marriage” should maybe be rediscussed. I.e. a relationship<\/em> – in nowadays terminology – is usually a longterm commitment to one partner. Thus a relationship means that one shares also the not so funny and\/or burdensome sides of life, it means that one eventually steps back from ones own needs in favour for the partner\/family etc. <\/p>\n Marriage<\/em> (let it be homosexual or nonhomosexual) is a manifested relationship and the fact that a divorce is not easy and rather expensive was a priori intended for making each partner think twice before pursuing selfish interests and run away from the responsibility he\/she once promised to commit. To make such a strong commitment to more than one person is not easy. But like e.g. in the case of blood brotherhoods the possibility of a multiple strong commitment seem to exist in principle. Plus there may be other less strong but “official” commitments. Kinship often includes such a (usually nonsexual) commitment. A marriage by the way needs not necessarily to include a sexual bond.<\/p>\n Besides being a personal committment between people the construct of relationship\/marriage is especially helpful if there are children to be raised or elderly\/handicapped to be cared for. In particular it is clear that marriage is a powerful buffer for preventing social disaster in a society in which people who do not (need to) care for kids and elderly\/handicapped compete basically on the free market with people who (need to) care for kids and elderly\/hadicapped. So a relationship can have also this aspect of being a “social instrument” for care. <\/p>\n Like for the case of families it is a common knowledge that within a marriage it is usually the women who “step back” from the free job markets. This is to some extend explicable, since pregnancy and breast feeding etc. just kicks you easily off the job market and the financial help of a partner is needed. Sometimes countries have public subsidies for daycare and certain tax laws (like for families), which takes away some pressure from this “social care function” of families, but it is clear that even with a good daycare\/tax system there will be no equality between those who care\/cared actively and those who do not -last but not least already by the emotional involvement. In short- it is hard to measure this care commitment in terms of money. But to a certain extend it is possible! The fact that the poverty of children in Germany is so high as it is displays that there is a clear social inbalance and that the social care function of families and other relationships has to be higher valued. (It is also an interesting question wether a society wants to fully “stow away” its members in need (like children, handicapped and elderly)). <\/p>\n So “the monogamous heterosexual scheme” seems to have to a great extend been based on social reasons, i.e. in that it was intended to provide a framework for social care and commitment (especially with regard to children) than that it is related apriori to sexuality. In particular linking marriage\/relationships to sexuality gave sometimes rather way to abusive behaviour than that it prevented it. The “queer” discussion may make this clearer, as e.g. “rainbow families” or “homosexual families” face the same problems as typical monogamous heterosexual families in balancing care and competition. I could even imagine that a lot of adversity against gays has to some extend its origin in this social inbalance. Or in other words -the public appearance of the gay movement as a kind of mobile “party” movement blurred the fact that there are also hard working gays who care about kids, handicapped and elderly.<\/p>\n Likewise there are monogamous heterosexual married couples who benefit e.g. from german tax laws and who could in principle assist in the care for elderly\/handicapped\/kids (at least to some extend), but who dont. <\/p>\n So concluding: it is a strange thing to connect longterm social commitments and relationships apriori to certain types of sexual behaviour.<\/p>\n The name Siegessaeule comes from a Berlin monument which is called Siegessaeule (=victory column)<\/a>. It is a tall column with an angel on top of it. The monument was installed for comemorating the victory of Prussia in the prussian-danish war. So I guess the magazine Siegessaeule is called in this way since the victory column is seen as a symbol of victory. Or in other words – the founders of the magazine had probably not the victory of Prussia versus Denmark in their head, but the victory of a movement which is fighting against cliches connected with human sexuality.<\/p>\n related:
\nUnfortunately I do not know of a similar english magazine.<\/p>\n
\nIn the Siegesaeule article queer is described as basically everything beyond the monogamous heterosexual scheme. Such it seems to include such constructs as temporarily homosexuals, rainbow families (families with many mothers and fathers), homosexual asexuals (people who do not like to have sex, but feel attracted towards the same gender in a nonsexual way), promiscous heterosexuals etc, etc.. <\/p>\n
\n-> new report on AIDS epidemic by UNAIDS<\/a><\/p>\n