Quote:
Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse
That means, instead of focusing the debate in a constructive manner in how to increase child birth
|
Career interests and gender equality policies have led to the decline of desire in people to have children. Many just see it as uncomfortable, as unproductive to their hobbies and time intersts. Egoism collides with founding a family. Our cult of individualism of actio and being entertained and parytying, our ideals of how tobe the ideal profi in the office, tights crfiterions for beign "perfect", all this collides with founding a family. And of course one must be able to afford it raising children. I am strictly against producing babies - and let the community pay for them completely.
Our cultural environment and climate is such, that the above descriptions get fostered, at the cost of the recognition of the achievements somebody gains by founding a family. The socail status, the social respect for families thus has fallen in the past decades. Itnow leads to exrteemes where some people even consider it to be a discrmination of female gender and an offense of women, to clal them "mother". They should be seen as equal, successful career-competioners instead. This would illustrate that the political agenda of gender equality and that women can be strong and successful in their job. this is the wanted image of women these days. Even b etter nwhen at the samer time they meet the standards produced by insutry and avertisement: not only being strong andf successful, but also being independent (anti-family that is by nature), beautiful, sexy, not prey of men but making men the prey.
I agree that only material motivations alonhe will not make women get more babies. They need the possibility of uniting job and family life. Couples also mujst see or feel, must be raised in the awareness thnat family life gets more respected and prioritised again, and that it gets appreicated by community. It is a social-motivational- cultural feedback. Paying more Kindergeld is not eniough, a reshifting of values that put back more importance ion families and children is necessary. What has been destroyed in families' repuatation and social recongition, must be restored.
And that you cannot acchieve by lowering their status as it is socially perceived, even more - by lifiutng non-families to their status and giving others the same ammount of recognition and feedback on their importance. This is why I am so angry about reltiviisng families'S status and recognition - by claiming the sdame recogntiiona nd statzus for homosexual couples. And once again my question then: why not the same status and recogntiion being given to singles? Nobody has answered me this question now what makes homo relations so much more valuable and recognisable then singles although their meaning and importance for the social community and its future is identical. Am I of less worth than homsexuals living in "marriage"...?
No matter how I look at it: financially. Demographically. Historically. Morally. In communal interest and significance. I see not a single reason why gays/lesbioans should be undertstood as marrying the same way like heterosexual copuples do, and how the term "marriage" is meant. I only see reasons speaking against it. I focus on just the demographical and tax-future-finance-aspect of it, I do not even argue here with morals and history. But even if one would argue with morals and history, I would just see reasons against it. While no damage gets done by refusing the equality of hetero and homo marriages, and is no discrmination at all. At least as long as we can agree that it is no discrimination of white people that they are not black-skinned.