The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
We can make a difference!
Sheriff Roland:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 01, 2006, 06:38:16 pm ---Aren't the legislations being discussed a view of morality as well, and if passed, then, democrats will have deemed it OK to legislate (their view of) morality?
--- End quote ---
EXCUSE ME! I don't understand! Are you saying that equality is someone's "view of morality"? That's what I'm understanding in your coment. Please help me understand where I misunderstood ...
Front-Ranger:
I prefer to use the term social behavior rather than morality because it is an emotionally charged word with a very vague definition. Almost all legislation seeks to influence social behavior in some way.
moremojo:
Lee, you might be interested in knowing that filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini made some very provocative comments on legislation before his murder in 1975 (thirty-one years ago to the month), at around the time he was completing what proved to be his last film, Salo o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (an adaptation of Sade's Les cent-vingt journees de Sodome). Pasolini stated that he found something bestial in the very act of legislation, that there was something primitive and power-mongering in anyone presuming to legislate the behavior of others. I find Pasolini's view on this overly extreme, but it is potentially challenging to muse on how legislation might be ANYTHING other than the moral act or impulse some argue it to be.
Front-Ranger:
I wonder if he would have changed his mind had he lived after that brutal attack...
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: Roland on November 01, 2006, 06:50:09 pm ---EXCUSE ME! I don't understand! Are you saying that equality is someone's "view of morality"? That's what I'm understanding in your coment. Please help me understand where I misunderstood ...
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version