hummingwolf | Question

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?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Of course, this definition of person is a it's defined by the legal persons who wrote the specific set of documents using the list of definitions on that page. For a long time now, organizations for legal purposes have redefined words to carry some specific definition or set of definitions as it will be used within that document, in order to attempt to avoid confusion in courts.

So it's not that that is the actual definition of "person," that's just the way a legal team has defined "person" in a specific case for a specific document (or set of documents).

If you look in an actual dictionary, you'll find that one of several definitions for person may be to the effect of "one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties." (Merriam-Webster OnLine) The rest of the definitions listed will refer to the individual, an individual's personality, and individual's physical form (doing harm to one's person), etc.

So it's not that that is the actual definition of "person," that's just the way a legal team has defined "person" in a specific case for a specific document (or set of documents).

Yes, but the same is true in the case of the definition of "family" in South Carolina and other places. That doesn't stop people from claiming "That’s an attack on your family and all our families."

Some people just have really, really fragile families.

And too much inbreeding, leading to low IQs.

Very true. People are silly.

They're not even bothering to pay attention to the fact that most Americans don't define family as strictly the nuclear family; I consider my closest friends to be more family to me than my biological relatives. So do many others.

Some people just have really, really fragile families.

Yes, I've noticed that.

And too much inbreeding, leading to low IQs.

I've noticed that there's not really any correlation between IQ and good sense.

Oh, but how Americans would define family is irrelevant, doncha know. Family-values folks know the One True Definition of Family, so if someone disagrees with their definition, then all the rest of the world's families have been insulted whether we know it or not.

My opinion is that the way someone else lives their life, whom the consider to be their family or spouse have no affect on me, my family, or my marriage. And the laws should be fair to everybody. Why does one group get to decide what is wholesome or correct? It's silly to think they're attacking your family or marriage just because they want to have a different family or marriage than what you think is right. That's not attacking, that's just not having the same viewpoints. They shouldn't have to live their lives according to the rules of a religion they don't believe in either.

Damn it.

Don't make me think big thoughts at 4am.

:)

(P.S. You make such good points)

I didn't mean to make people think big thoughts--honest! Really wanted to know if there are any family-values types fighting against the unnatural definitions of "person." 'Cos based on their statements about definitions of "family" and "marriage," this really is the kind of issue they should get behind.

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!"

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.

Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject