Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Platapus
" It is against the idea of what a marriage originally meant (=raisjng a family), and is thus a (indirectly working) harm towards most vital interests of the scoial community. "
so are you saying that men and women who are sterile should not get married?
"but the trouble starts when claiming they are as well-suited to biologically support and fund a communty than heterosexual people are."
You don't think that homosexual couples are capable of raising a child? I am not quite sure I understand what you meant by "fund a community". Last time I checked with my gay and lesbian friends, they pay the same taxes as the rest of us?
Just trying to understand your viewpoint.
|
I have made that clear in an earlier debate on all this, but why not doing it again.
If a hetero couple is what necessarily is needed to form a family and have children, and when states should have a protecting role regarding this entity (and I think so), then you have to formalize it, and make it a mandatory rule, a set of rules and laws that regulate the details. In other words, you must generalize if you do not wish to end up with a plethorra of appendices, special permission, exceptions from the rule - all the wonder and mistery bureaucracy produces so willingly.
from that I justify it to define a relation male-female as the exemplary relation to which further rulings regarding family for the most get used on, and start with. The motivation to get babies starts even before the baby actually has arrived, and it must become more accepted again and more welocmed and being understood to be more special again to have babies. And right like this it is the case: hetereo marriages are a legal entity the laws refers to, some laws refer to them and protect marriages, as well as they specially refer to families, and protect this even more. However, the law realises that it makes a difference wether there are children or not, in Germany you do not get financial aid i named "Kindergeld" if you do not have children. You maybe conclude from that that not the fact of marriage is the deciding criterion, but wether or not there are children. But as I see it, if you want to encourage more families being build, and encouraging couples to have more babies, then you must include the social constallation that is precondition for any baby-getting and familybulding - heterosexual couples. And thus, I start here, and accept that as a basis in the understanding of what I said you need to generalise if forming a universal law for all community, you cannot afford to have a different law for every different partnership constellation - then you end up with as many laws as there are couples in the community/nation. that why at court, a marriage is a marriage - they do not difgfer between young and old people being married.
Do damage already on this scale and relativise the value (for the commnity) of established social relations between a man and a women, and it is like a seed for future family life, and babies being born or not, and being raised with engagement, or without. don't forget that the institution family is undert attack from many directions, as I explained, and has seen a longer hostory of decline over the past more than 100 years. The better childrenr social health in their home that they experience with their sisters and brothers and parents, the better chances they have that they can escape to become just another neurotic in this neurotic modern world, of which the streets are already so full of. And yes, I consider to be most of us being damaged to varying degrees by modern city life and civilisation, and being neurotic to varying degrees. In German, I call it the "Cityritis Modernicus"
Workingplaces in the modern market, IT and stockmarket offices, and schools are primary focusses of this infectius epidemic. I personally think one must be already crazy to hold out in any city with more than a 300-400 thousand residents
