Question

[hummingwolf]

Someone over on dark_christian linked to an article about people objecting to a group home in their community [Edit: article here]. While there are neigborhood residents who complain about violence (or perceived violence) of the mentally retarded folks in the home, one man had a different objection.

He cited a state law that describes residents of homes for the mentally retarded as “a natural family.”

“As a Christian and as a father, I strongly object to that,” he said. “That’s an attack on your family and all our families. Change that.”

This isn't an isolated thing, of course. Elsewhere, other people complain about the definition of marriage, trying to pass laws and amendments ensuring that marriage or the family will be defined only in certain ways. I can understand the urge. When something seems immoral or unnatural, it is natural for people to want to make sure that the immoral and the moral, the natural and the unnatural, do not become confused in people's minds or in the laws of the land.

But I suddenly remembered something helen99 linked to a while back. Over on this page, amongst other definitions, a person is defined:

Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution, group, government agency other than the Commission or the Department of Energy (except that the Department of Energy is considered a person within the meaning of the regulations in this part to the extent that its facilities and activities are subject to the licensing and related regulatory authority of the Commission pursuant to law), any State or any political subdivision of or any political entity within a State, any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.

This definition isn't an isolated case either. For legal and regulatory purposes, it is often easiest for corporations and institutions to be considered as persons. It is a nice and useful definition. But I am forced to ask: Is this the natural way to define "person"? Is this the way God intended for us to think of people from the foundation of the world? And are there any people (whether individuals or institutions) in the "family values" camp who are working to get these unnatural definitions changed so as to return society to a more wholesome and natural state?

Comments

[hummingwolf.livejournal.com]

And the laws should be fair to everybody. Why does one group get to decide what is wholesome or correct?

Because we elected them? The laws are always going to embody someone's moral views, it's just a question of how much those views respect fairness and tolerance others versus the respect they give to other high goals.

That's not attacking, that's just not having the same viewpoints.

I'm totally with you there. Some people feel attacked any time someone else disagrees with them. Those people need to grow up.

They shouldn't have to live their lives according to the rules of a religion they don't believe in either.

I know what you're saying, but that argument can be used by all sides. "How can you tell me to stop beating my wife? Beating my wife is part of my religion! Don't make me live by the rules of your religion when I'm supposed to be busy beating my wife!"

[coffeegrace.livejournal.com]

Because we elected them? The laws are always going to embody someone's moral views, it's just a question of how much those views respect fairness and tolerance others versus the respect they give to other high goals.

Well, I don't mind laws showing respect for moral views to a degree. Like, I don't think they should take "under God" off the bills, and I didn't think they should take prayer time out of school (a quiet time to pray or reflect before class is not going to hurt anybody). But I do think that both hetero and homosexual people are entitled to the right to get legally married. And I don't feel that it would lessen the value of my heterosexual marriage. Whether or not those people are married in God's eyes is between them and God, but they should be legally married in the eyes of the state. Just seems fair to me.

I know what you're saying, but that argument can be used by all sides. "How can you tell me to stop beating my wife? Beating my wife is part of my religion! Don't make me live by the rules of your religion when I'm supposed to be busy beating my wife!"

In my opinion, you should be able to follow whatever the rules of your religion are as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of another person. Hurting another person would be an infringement, unless the wife agrees and wants to be beaten by her husband.