The following statement containing some historical points about homosexuality was written by Hartmut Dicke on Sept., 29, 1998 as an answer to a request in a German language newsgroup which asked for explanation why we, the Group Neue Einheit, view the laws planned by the SPD and the Greens for the so-called "emancipation of homosexuals" as an "utterly deep cut into the moral and cultural life". [See translator‘s note]
An astonishing request since it is evident what is meant. But one can as well outline it by some historical points.
In the whole development of mankind the development of sexuality (of course between man and woman) itself forms a fundamental element of the human culture, reversely sexuality also is a reflection of the social conditions.
"Equal rights" as intended here by the parties mentioned [the SPD and the Greens, translator‘s note] IMO have never existed. In this context it is sometimes referred to earlier instances or primitive societies.
Homosexuality is only tolerated, in a few exceptional cases, as an extraordinary form; in early history it occurs, so to say, as an experimental and a religious-ritualistic form. Later, however, it occurs as a concomitant form of classes which are extremely parasitic, exploitative and characterized by misanthropy (examples: the old Spartan aristocracy, the antique Roman imperial mob in the phase of decline).
Since appr. 2500 - 3000 years it is proscribed, and not by chance. The humans understood that it cannot be tolerated, that it contradicts the aesthetics and dignity of the human being. Therefore severe codes serving its prohibition.
The question of how to deal with sexuality plays an important role in all ethical questions, formerly also in the emergence of the religions which simultaneously comprised also these ethical questions. It is not very daring to put forward even the thesis that the experience and the rejection of homosexuality is even one of the essential points of the (relatively) modern monotheistic religions. In Judaism, in any case, this rejection plays an important role. There is also a fundamental realization involved, that the concentration upon real sexuality, that is to say between man and woman, makes the human being strong.
If now by certain social parties and organisations the "emancipation" of homosexuality (not at all only its toleration) is pushed forward, can it be in question that this is a deep cut into the country‘s ethical life? And such attacks as launched now in the form of the so-called "equal rights" by the parties mentioned are not yet known to me at all in history. Such an intervention (as the "adoption right ") has not ocurred even in the examples of human development which lie far in the past. Thus it even is a cut as it has not been found yet in the whole history of mankind. The wording in the statement by Group Neue Einheit thus is in fact correct.
Such a social attack, in my opinion, goes even much stronger against the cohesion of society than some economic policies aiming at de-solidarisation. This attack is not directed against the dictatorship of money and its brutal effects which from day to day we can realize more clearly, but it runs exactly parallel to it. Because of that it is anything but "emancipative".
there is a problem with the term "moral" in English. It does not adequately translate the word "sittlich" used in the original German text. "Sittlich" is of a broader meaning, comprising, e.g., also cultural values and habits. So the expression "sittliches Leben" is now translated "moral and cultural life".