These economical motives base on "boni" and assistances of the state for the instiututoon of families, Neal. And to maintain/restrengthen this institution as a key item of social integrity (whose decline is affecting the poor state our societies are in) - this is what it is about.
In Germany, despite the usual sets of voluminous family laws, the special protection for and status of families even is founded in the constitution, article 6 of the Basic Law:
Quote:
Article 6 [Marriage and the family; children born outside of marriage]
(1) Marriage and the family shall enjoy the special protection of the state.
(2) The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The state shall watch over them in the performance of this duty.
(3) Children may be separated from their families against the will of their parents or guardians only pursuant to a law, and only if the parents or guardians fail in their duties or the children are otherwise in danger of serious neglect.
(4) Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community.
(5) Children born outside of marriage shall be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as are enjoyed by those born within marriage.
|
The explciit understanding of "marriage" being a heterosexual thing, concludes from several other law sources, and also is an implicit basis int the family law system we have over here. And as I said, even gay and lesbian interest groups have moved away from demanding to use the term "marriage" in this related meaning for their same-sex-relationships.
The creators of this text obviously were well aware of the social importance of "family", and it'S early pre-stage, "marriage", and in the years afterwards, specific tax- and other related laws were designed to reflect a special status of families that benefits from material support that sets families apart from other social partner constellations that do not have the same importance for the state'S and the community's future wellbeing, which exludes gay marriages as well as singles like me from having access to these "boni". That in the past years and decades the chnages in the industrial and economic job world as well as party-interests and politcal distortions have crippled this original intention, does not chnage the fact that families are more important thah any other social constellation and that they should be given special protection and benefits for the community'S best self-interest. If these boni are given to everybody - how is the special status of families being recognised then anymore? You have said somewhere earlier that it already is so damaged that it doesn't matter to contribute even further to the damage by accepting to relativise it even further, you said it not in these words, but this is the conseqeunce of what you said. Well. Think twice.
"Marriage" is just a word. What counts is it's meaning. and in meaning, gay "marriages" should not be as valuable and appreciated by state and community as the far more important hetero marriage, and "family". Gay parents are not the same like hetero parents. That some children grow up with one parent missing, does not make that a condition desirable, and open for intentional choice. Usually, singles get refused to adopt children even if wishing desperately to do so, therefore. So it should be with gay/lesbian couples: children's interest ranks above their interest. and since it should be expressed in form of a law, you have to formulate a rule of general valdity, not basing on some theoretically imaginable exceptions from the rule. Laws already have far too many of these. That's why our legal systems are such a mess nowadays.
And that list above, it is not helpful to replace arguments by sarcastic comments and aggressive rethorics, and just displays a lack of arguments. All it does is heating up tension and lowering the willingness to listen. And much on that list is simply crap anyway. It tells more about the mind authoring such a list, than about those he wants to adress by it.
I think Captain Haplo also has a very valid point that I just touched en passant.