The truth is that it isn't a terrible idea to grant marriages and families tax incentives because having stable families does tend to have a positive effect on society in general so I don't mind encouraging that.
I do mind not granting those rights to specific groups of people.
I agree with the basic principle of taking a citizen's relationships into account legally for the purposes of next-of-kin rights, taxes, benefits etc. If you live in a house with a partner and both of you are working, raising a child or whatever, your tax/benefit status should obviously reflect that fact.
But I don't think privileging marriage over other types of relationship is acceptable. It seems inevitable that it will stop granting rights to certain groups of people. We can bring in gay marriage (and for the time being, with no end in sight for state-sanctioned marriages, I think we should), but still, giving certain benefits to married people and not those in long term 'common law' relationships, or monogamous couples and not polyamorous people is a failure to grant rights to specific groups of people.
__________________
"They keep you doped on religion and sex and TV, and you think you're so clever and "classless" and free, but you're still -------- peasants as far as I can see."--John Lennon, Working Class Hero
"If it's not Love, then it's the bomb that will bring us together." "Nature is a language, can't you read?" --The Smiths, Ask
Also, I find it incredibly bizarre when people advocating more rights and freedoms for people get accused of being fascists.
It's the nature of ChristianForums...I got called a homofascist on here a while ago.
If you don't laugh, you'll just cry, so I tend not to take it seriously. Like Fox News.
__________________
"They keep you doped on religion and sex and TV, and you think you're so clever and "classless" and free, but you're still -------- peasants as far as I can see."--John Lennon, Working Class Hero
"If it's not Love, then it's the bomb that will bring us together." "Nature is a language, can't you read?" --The Smiths, Ask
It's the nature of ChristianForums...I got called a homofascist on here a while ago.
If you don't laugh, you'll just cry, so I tend not to take it seriously. Like Fox News.
Rights come with personal and social responsibilites. It's not just a matter of allowing anyone to do anything just because they insist that is their perogative. I been called a homophobe ---- join the club...
Last edited by LittleNipper; 2nd November 2009 at 04:28 PM.
Rights come with personal and social responcibilites. It's not just a matter of allowing anyone to do anything just because they insist that is their perogative. I been called a homophobe ---- join the club...
Okay, so what responsibilities does a newborn baby have that justifies its right. How about a fetus? Many claim it has a 'right to life' -- what responsibilities does it shoulder to give it such a right.
I'm not arguing against such rights -- I'm illustrating by example that, while being a part of a society may very well entail responsibilities, one's rights are not contingent on them.
__________________
"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus
Okay, so what responsibilities does a newborn baby have that justifies its right. How about a fetus? Many claim it has a 'right to life' -- what responsibilities does it shoulder to give it such a right.
I'm not arguing against such rights -- I'm illustrating by example that, while being a part of a society may very well entail responsibilities, one's rights are not contingent on them.
I'd argue that that's pretty much what makes them "rights"; there is no contingent responsibility to uphold to have it.
Like driving is a privilege; you're expected to drive responsibly and obey certain rules and laws. "Free exercise of religion" is a right; assuming that you aren't violating laws unrelated to religion (such as murder, animal cruelty, etc.) you can believe what you want.
__________________
I am the microcosmic reflection of God Herself. I get to make up my own religion. I got my permission slip signed.
You laugh because I'm different, I laugh because...well, you're not laughing now, are you?
"Religion must remain an outlet for people who say to themselves, 'I am not the kind of person I want to be.' It must never sink into an assemblage of the self-satisfied." - Dune
I'd argue that that's pretty much what makes them "rights"; there is no contingent responsibility to uphold to have it.
Like driving is a privilege; you're expected to drive responsibly and obey certain rules and laws. "Free exercise of religion" is a right; assuming that you aren't violating laws unrelated to religion (such as murder, animal cruelty, etc.) you can believe what you want.
Ben Franklin wrote to Thomas Payne the following:
For without the Belief of a Providence that takes Cognizance of, guards and guides and may favour particular Persons, there is no Motive to Worship a Deity, to fear its Displeasure, or to pray for its Protection....think how great a Proportion of Mankind consists of weak and ignorant Men and Women, and of inexperienc'd and inconsiderate Youth of both Sexes, who have need of the Motives of Religion to restrain them from Vice, to support their Virtue, and retain them in the Practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great Point for its Security; And perhaps you are indebted to her originally that is to your Religious Education, for the Habits of Virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.
In 1819, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson:
Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? … And without virtue, there can be no political liberty.
Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?… I believe no effort in favour of virtue is lost.
Last edited by LittleNipper; 2nd November 2009 at 04:51 PM.
Okay, so what responsibilities does a newborn baby have that justifies its right. How about a fetus? Many claim it has a 'right to life' -- what responsibilities does it shoulder to give it such a right.
I'm not arguing against such rights -- I'm illustrating by example that, while being a part of a society may very well entail responsibilities, one's rights are not contingent on them.
A baby has made no error of decission yet and so is GOD's ward...
A baby has made no error of decission yet and so is GOD's ward...
Quite right (though of course this begs the question of civil law -- a human judge can hardly hale God into court to address the child's needs). And I'm pleased to see we agree on the innocence of infancy, none of this "total depravity" nonsense.
But my point was that that baby has rights -- the right to life, the right to care from an adult, etc., And those rights are in no way contingent on the baby's responsibilities toward anyone else.
In the fullness of time, yes, the baby has the responsibility to be an obedient child, to take on responsibilities as it grows, to fulfill its responsibilities as a decent adult. But as a baby, no responsibilities -- but as a person it does have rights.
__________________
"It is written, 'My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." -Jesus
Linear Mode
