The whole argument is, that we know this is the way it is today, but I believe what Rory is arguing for is that all these basic protections should apply to children outside of wedlock too.
The law places too much emphasis on "the traditional family".
Ah, I get that. I do not even know what traditional family is supposed to mean. Man, Woman, two kids and a dog? Just to make one thing clear: f* that shit. Family is different things to different people.
For basic level of child protection. "Father"hood (and in some cases motherhood) will always be difficult without legal contracts prior (e.g. marriage) or after birth (adoption). You need a formal contract, something legally binding so that partners can be sued for support.
You also need some kind of legal contract between partners regulating heritage. This isn't America where family (children, husband, wife) can be excluded and that's GOOD!
Not every marriage will, must nor should bear a child.
I agree and never claimed it should. I said that it is a private decision that doesn't need my approval and that doesn't need to be discussed.
What you are saying here is that you benefit marriages in the hope of children being born in it.
No, what I'm trying to say is that we married because we wanted children. It's the opposite of what you are saying. It is giving my wife, our children and me a certain level of security that I want for them and wouldn't have without being married.
Given the fact that marriage have a pretty high divorce quota, the question remains how beneficial is marriage really in ensuring that families are stable?
I do not know, but I also never claimed that marriages are making stable families. I said it is giving my children a bit more certainty in the case of a disaster. Independent of my personal stance, I will be forced to support my children in case of a divorce, I will need to take care of my wife etc. Those are good things Rory.
The difference between married and not married should not define a relationships stability. I have had a more stable relationship than most of my married acquaintances.
Please listen to what I am saying and not to what you think I am saying! I'm not talking about love, care or loyalty. I explicitly said that you have to stop thinking about marriage in that romantic, Stone Age christian way.
Marriage is a legal contract, that both my wife and me are using to guarantee certain things.
I'll try to reformulated my thoughts in German.
Du musst zwischen Ehe und "Qualität der Beziehung" unterscheiden. Das sind wirklich zwei ganz unterschiedliche Dinge auf juristischer Ebene. Und da wir hier über Politik reden, reden wir über die juristische Ehe. Auch wenn ich kein Anwalt bin; diese hat nichts mit Liebe zu tun.
Trotzdem will ich die Rechtssicherheit einer amtlichen Ehebeziehung nicht miesen. Sowas ist wichtig, auch für die Versorgungssicherheit von Kindern!
Wenn du sagst das du, unverheiratet glücklicher bist als viele verheiratet Bekannte dann glaube ich dir das sofort. Denn Ehe ist nicht gleichzusetzen mit guter Beziehung, noch sollte es so verstanden werden. Das heißt aber nicht, dass man sie als Rechtsform abschaffen muss oder dass sie schlecht ist.
