Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
article 6 of the Basic Law, that puts children, families and mothers, all three of them get individually mentioned, under special protection of the state, saying that they deserve special caretaking of the whole community.
|
That is a good argument, and a good idea, but there is a disconnection to the actual institution of Marriage. Married couples don't necessarily have children, and unmarried women have children all the time. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising said children, and should be accorded the same opportunities. It is true that giving them the same priviledge and calling it something else doesn't really hurt them, but again, what harm does calling it marriage do to you or to society in general?
The argument has been made here that it would somehow destroy, or at least diminish, the institution of marriage, but the argument has also been made the the 'institution' is in pretty sad shape already, and it has nothing to do with gays. In order to preserve families should we outlaw divorce? Not practical or possible. Again, how does gay marriage have any influence on the value of children?
Quote:
|
What makes the difference for the communal future wellbeing, is babies - or no babies.
|
And the act of making babies, and their existence, has little to do with marriage. It can be argued that marriage is vital to their well-being, but singles, unmarried couples, and, yes, gay couples raise children all the time. Gay parents may not be to everyone's liking, but that has been shown to be better than a orphanage.