Defensive offer, or have house prices become so expensive?

An unmarried couple is simply nothing in the eyes of the law. :)

But then the construct of "Bedarfsgemeinschaft" should not exist either. As unmarried ALG II recipients, the partner's income is fully taken into account - just like with married couples - because it is assumed that one forms a marital-like community. Without having the tax benefits such as spouse splitting that a married couple has. That is a bit absurd.

Then there should be no such construct as "Bedarfsgemeinschaft" either. As unmarried ALG II recipients, the partner's income is fully counted – just like for married couples – because it is assumed that they form a marital-like community. Without having the tax advantages like the spouse splitting of a married couple. That is a bit absurd.

That is indeed correct. Or rather, I also briefly talked to my husband about the topic, and he says that in Australia it is actually the case that unmarried couples are also "recognized" as long as they can prove it. You can even apply for a visa, unmarried, and then you have to upload all kinds of stuff, like joint vacation photos and other private things to prove that you are a couple. Also somehow absurd. And probably leads to a lot of legal disputes in inheritance matters.

An unmarried couple is simply nothing in the eyes of the law. That is of course not a statement about the strength of the bond between these people, but it cannot have any "official" significance.

I can somehow still understand the argument in the case of childless couples. But with children, it's something more serious, yet you are still treated like complete strangers. Since the introduction of same-sex marriage, it has become downright absurd. Under the guise of family support, couples benefit from joint taxation who are biologically never able to have children. Meanwhile, couples with real existing children get nothing. That is the logic of 1950 locally expanded with a seemingly progressive detail.

Then there shouldn't be the construct "Bedarfsgemeinschaft" either. As unmarried ALG II recipients, the partner's salary is fully counted just like for married people, because it is assumed that they form a marital-like community. Without having the tax advantages like joint assessment for married couples. That's a bit absurd.

Off topic: You're not wrong, but I think the concept of Bedarfsgemeinschaft is about "social benefit fraud." To what extent this is justified or not, I haven't thought through in detail yet. I'm also curious, if the "Verantwortungsgemeinschaft" is actually introduced, how the rights and duties will be balanced. I assume it will go in the direction of a "private limited company," just "community" instead of "company."

I can somehow understand the argument with childless couples. But having children is something more serious, yet you are still treated like complete strangers. Since the introduction of same-sex marriage, it has become outright absurd. Under the guise of family promotion, couples entitled to spousal splitting who are biologically never able to have children benefit. Meanwhile, couples with real children come up empty. That is the logic of 1950 locally expanded with an apparently progressive detail.

But they don’t come up empty because they are not gay. They come up empty because the couple in the same-sex marriage signed the marriage certificate, and the couple with children simply did not. Personally, I cannot quite understand why couples with children can’t bring themselves to get married. A child bonds ten times more than a marriage certificate. Why do these people resist marriage? Is it because it is such an old-fashioned construct/institution? In my mind, marriage is the “official” form of the relationship. Just because it is now also open to same-sex couples doesn’t mean it is taken away from opposite-sex couples.

I even lived in a shared flat with two other women during my studies, where we as a flatshare had to prove that we were not in a marital-like relationship. And that was long before same-sex marriages were recognized in any form. Not to mention polyamory.

But they don’t end up empty-handed because they’re not gay. They end up empty-handed because the couple in the same-sex marriage signed the marriage certificate, and the couple with children simply did not. Personally, I can hardly understand why couples with children can’t bring themselves to get married. A child binds ten times more than a marriage certificate. Why do these people resist marriage? Is it because it’s such an archaic construct / institution? In my mind, marriage is the “official” form of the relationship. Just because it’s now also available to same-sex couples doesn’t mean it’s taken away from heterosexual couples, right?

Divorces in Germany are still very, very expensive. Thanks to mandatory attorney involvement, etc. Even if there are no children, no assets, and the separation is amicable, you have to pay a few thousand euros for a piece of paper. It’s almost like a subscription trap. You can marry quickly and cheaply. Divorce, on the other hand, is complicated and expensive. :)
The whole family law is very archaic.