The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
We can make a difference!
Sheriff Roland:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 01, 2006, 09:22:35 pm ---Front Ranger is right, 'social behavior' is a preferred way to label the subject for all the good reasons he mentioned.
And yes, everyone in this country is already granted equality. However, by virtue of the massive social/political/economic system, the legislators manipulate social behavior and "rights" in order to make things better for the common good. there are no true equalities in taxes, access to education and health care, jobs, etc etc etc, but in theory, there is and it is always a goal where inequality is determined to be a problem.
The instruments in place, via previous legislation (in most areas), that provide for nearly every "right" a man/woman married couple have (some not) can be implemented without "marriage". The vast majority of the population prefers this approach, basis the last survey I saw on a national scope.
Frankly, the issue is even more simple--money. this missing rights at issue are usually automatic inheritance by spouses and spousal death benefits. The spousal benefits structures were largely put in place during the Depression when many men died and left wives alone with children and no support. today, the situations are not so similar, and for BOTH straight and gay couples, another tax benefit for the rich is draining resources from much needed programs. Setting able-bodied gay men or straight women up for survivor benefits at the expense of children and education, for example, may not be the great idea it seems. The gay community is the most affluent demographic in America, and I for one feel that a larger part of the tax and benefit burden one us is not wrong. The money should be used where it's needed most, not in making already good lives better while others falter and sink.
--- End quote ---
OK I think I understand what the problem is. Some Americans believe that what "the vast majority of the population prefers" is more important than basic freedoms.
As in, if the vast majority of Americans approve of slavery, than it's alright, because majority rules, not justice or equality. Sorry, you need not talk about taxation equality on the same level as freedoms: feedom to be accepted for what a person is, equality before the law with regards to who you chose to have as your lifelong mate.
I don't even accept the equal but different basis of "civil unions" that some countries like South Africa & Great Britain enspouces. They are lies of freedom of equality with regards to true justice. Now let's not talk about the freedom of serving one's country because of orientation - because " the vast majority of the population prefers " it that way. You guys have a lot to learn about true justice and true freedom, for all - you won't achive it with popularity polls!
Nearly 40 years ago, Pierre Elliot Trudeau talked on & on about a just society - seemed like talk talk at the time, but within 15 years he had produced the most important first commandment on the subject, from which all rights have since been based - the Charter of Rights. That's how come, in Canada 8 of the 13 jurisdictions have made marriage (not civil union) the LAW before the majority of elected officials finally put in a law on the subject. I'm proud to be a Canadian - Even our lack luster leaders - Chrétien & Martin, both catholics, disregarded the condemnation of the Canadian clergy, to ennact this law - cause it was the right thing to do. (By the way - within the next 10 years, you'll probably be hearing from the next generation of Trudeau - Justin appears to have a head on his shoulders, and a good deal of charisma too)
HerrKaiser:
Well, your understanding of civics is simply an opinion deserving of respect, but lacks credibility with silly analogies like slavery being reinstalled if a majority vote was taken.
Basic freedoms? Funny how Republican people get when they want to feather their own nests.
Thanks for reading and sharing!
Sheriff Roland:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 01, 2006, 10:23:56 pm ---Well, your understanding of civics is simply an opinion deserving of respect, but lacks credibility with silly analogies like slavery being reinstalled if a majority vote was taken.
Basic freedoms? Funny how Republican people get when they want to feather their own nests.
Thanks for reading and sharing!
--- End quote ---
The hyperbole concerning slavery notwithstanding, basic civil rights have not been achieved yet in the states, with regards to Americans who are not of the majority (gays!) The majority is ruling based on popularity polls, not on true freedoms & true justice. What would you have had to say, were the analogy to slavery been removed from my last post?
injest:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 01, 2006, 09:22:35 pm ---Front Ranger is right, 'social behavior' is a preferred way to label the subject for all the good reasons he mentioned.
And yes, everyone in this country is already granted equality. However, by virtue of the massive social/political/economic system, the legislators manipulate social behavior and "rights" in order to make things better for the common good. there are no true equalities in taxes, access to education and health care, jobs, etc etc etc, but in theory, there is and it is always a goal where inequality is determined to be a problem.
The instruments in place, via previous legislation (in most areas), that provide for nearly every "right" a man/woman married couple have (some not) can be implemented without "marriage". The vast majority of the population prefers this approach, basis the last survey I saw on a national scope.
Frankly, the issue is even more simple--money. this missing rights at issue are usually automatic inheritance by spouses and spousal death benefits. The spousal benefits structures were largely put in place during the Depression when many men died and left wives alone with children and no support. today, the situations are not so similar, and for BOTH straight and gay couples, another tax benefit for the rich is draining resources from much needed programs. Setting able-bodied gay men or straight women up for survivor benefits at the expense of children and education, for example, may not be the great idea it seems. The gay community is the most affluent demographic in America, and I for one feel that a larger part of the tax and benefit burden one us is not wrong. The money should be used where it's needed most, not in making already good lives better while others falter and sink.
--- End quote ---
so you feel that 'the common good' is more important than individual rights?
you would throw out the Bill of Rights (which specifies INDIVIDUALS rights)
and of course the Constitution itself...
injest:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 01, 2006, 09:22:35 pm ---Front Ranger is right, 'social behavior' is a preferred way to label the subject for all the good reasons he mentioned.
And yes, everyone in this country is already granted equality. However, by virtue of the massive social/political/economic system, the legislators manipulate social behavior and "rights" in order to make things better for the common good. there are no true equalities in taxes, access to education and health care, jobs, etc etc etc, but in theory, there is and it is always a goal where inequality is determined to be a problem.
The instruments in place, via previous legislation (in most areas), that provide for nearly every "right" a man/woman married couple have (some not) can be implemented without "marriage". The vast majority of the population prefers this approach, basis the last survey I saw on a national scope.
Frankly, the issue is even more simple--money. this missing rights at issue are usually automatic inheritance by spouses and spousal death benefits. The spousal benefits structures were largely put in place during the Depression when many men died and left wives alone with children and no support. today, the situations are not so similar, and for BOTH straight and gay couples, another tax benefit for the rich is draining resources from much needed programs. Setting able-bodied gay men or straight women up for survivor benefits at the expense of children and education, for example, may not be the great idea it seems. The gay community is the most affluent demographic in America, and I for one feel that a larger part of the tax and benefit burden one us is not wrong. The money should be used where it's needed most, not in making already good lives better while others falter and sink.
--- End quote ---
after readin g your post again...seems you are more for a socialist form of government or am I misreading?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version