Originally Posted by Sirisian
I meant that in the stance that even I don't have that right to decide what is good for society. I doubt the people that first created the government idea of marriage foresaw these problems they would cause as society became more tolerant.
It's interesting that I've been reading these topics as restricting rights. On the other hand Traak and others usually view it as giving rights. I was going to bring up the idea that there's a group that wants to get rid of marriage all together as a government concept. That is the government shouldn't be giving special rights to a few people that sign a contract to say they are together since it brings these kind of social problems to the government level. Our tax code and such is intertwined in the idea of marriage though so it's obviously a bit complicated to get rid of it. (I think).
|
Yeah I see what you mean; I think part of the problem (as I've been trying to get people to think about) is that the nature of government has changed fundamentally over the past 100 years. Back in the day, as long as you had the mutual consent of the parties anything was *Lawful* (duels for example). People were free as long as they didn't harm other people or their property.
The way it is now, we are technically the property of the state (through registration), and can't own anything because everyone is a member of the UNITED STATES corporation, and as such is an employee of it and is rendered bankrupt (it's a giant bankruptcy trust). People just have use rights, with no perfected titles in anything (which is why your mortgage says you're a tenant, even if you pay it off).
People argue over public policy, not even realizing all they have is benefit privileges (without any rights), and people that want to gain a feeling of control over others are simply sucked into supporting this system and investing their identity in it, which frankly makes me sad.
2012-05-20, 09:36 PM
Hybrid Mode
