Re: Babies born out of wedlock/babies born in wedlock


Ken Chaddock wrote:
Hyerdahl wrote:

Ken Chaddock wrote:

You often say that social duties and moral obligations are quite
different.

No. I often say that LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES are not the same as what
many here call moral "responsibilities" or "obligations".

Semantics...

Not so, grasshopper. Laws have legal and very real consequences. When
you break your moral code, the consequences are left up to your diety
of choice.

So are social prerogatives and legal rights.


Social perogatives and legal rights are two different things, yes.

It's NOT a denial of the rights of a single person if society wants
to encourage marriage by providing social prerogatives to married people.

If the govt. is either sponsoring religious objectives, that would seem
to be an attempt to break the wall between church and state.

Only if they were doing in favour of *religious* marriage. If the same
provisions applied to *all* married persons with children there is
church vs state issue...

That would be a big problem since you bigots don't allow gay people to
marry, and gay people do have children. :-) So, yes it would end up
being a church vs state issue, one way or the other. It is also a
married vs. single issue.

Also, if valuable consideration is being paid to sponsor married people
over single people, I can see the ACLU raising out of their Birkenstocks
on that one. :-) Can't you?

On what basis ? We support particular behaviours we want to encourage
all the time and the ALCU recognizes that this isn't a "rights" issue
since anyone who wants the "incentives" can have them by behaving in the
desired way...giveing support to *married* families with children is
such a behaviour.

It would be a violation of the rights of children of single parents. I
don't think you'd want that boodoggle either. Besides Bush doesn't
have enough time to implement any of that before the American society
throws the bums out.

If society (the government) were to decide to reduce income taxes for
married people to half the rate of the tax on a single person, that is
no different, and on less valid, that taxing a low income person at a
lower rate than than a high income person.

That would clearly be an infringement of equal protection as far as I'm
concerned. And, I don't think the ACLU would be far behind. :-)
Even Justice Roberts won't help you on that one. :-)

I'm sure every rich person in the good old US of A would be dancing for
joy if the ACLU took up that issue...after all, progressive income tax
is the ne plus ultra of discrimination...why should Jim have to pay tax
at a higher rate than Sally just because he makes more money than Sally

That's easy to explain. If Jim benefits from living and making money
in the American democracy MORE than Sally, Jim should pay more. That
isn't discrimination. He who benefits more gets more.

? Hell, why should Jim have to pay more tax for *exactly* the same
services from their government as Sally gets...just because he makes
more money than Sally ?

Because he gets more benefit.

If society (the government) were to offer significant financial
incentives to married parents with children but not to single parents,
there is again little difference between that and providing welfare to
low income persons but not to high income persons.

There's a HUGE difference. Look to the benefit. Society benefits when
we educate our children more. Someday a doctor whose education was
financed by govt. loans may do your quadruple bipass. I'd call that a
benefit, wouldn't you. Plus, society benefits by not having criminals
run the streets looking for food. :-)

When a govt. sponsors a social program it is done to protect a group of
people, like "the poor", which is a benefit to all of society, even the
rich. You might want to look at our public education system the same
way. If the govt. were to sponsor programs giving to married people
but not single people, that would seem to be a violation of the equal
protection clause; it would be very easy to show how the children of
single people would be denied the same benefit as the children of
married people.

Not at all. If the targeted behaviour is deemed to be socially
desirable and beneficial, it's a valid program...

.....but a program that denies children the same degree of benefit would
be seen as socially UNDESIRABLE. Go for it, Kenny. Show us how you
can get this done. :-)

just like public > education and social assistance. It's NOT up to the
courts to determine
whether a behaviour is socially desirable or beneficial...that's a
political question...

You don't get it, Kenny. The public won't like child "A" getting
benefit because his parents are married, while child "B" sits on the
sidelines. So bring it on.

and once the politicians have decided that a > certain behaviour IS
desirable, the ONLY role for the courts is to
ensure that programs to support those desirable behaviours are applied
"fairly and equitably"...

Kenny wants to see blood run in the streets like the problems beween
the Jews and the Arabs....he wants it to be between the married and the
unmarried....where some get their ice in the summer, the rest in the
winter. :-)


...Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ids on the clowns broken britain....
    ... successive govts have persued policies which haven't ... <knowing how to maximise their welfare income>. ... uniforms kids who then are starved of a decent education is an insult. ... State education will always contain a fair bit of indoctrination. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Best Economy in 5 Years? Baloney!
    ... dependent on the government so they'll vote for people to help them ... enhanced with an income, and the bigger the income, the better the ... We achieve productivity improvements through automation and working ... The answer is simple, education and training; ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: how to compare living standards
    ... It is restricted to those who completed some gven level of education ... Er, it was income MOBILITY. ... At age 16 for example. ... think there are lots of scholarships for poor kids who show ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: 1:240 (approx) scale figures, accessories, etc?
    ... but our costs for housing, food, health and education are lower. ... On most measures of quality of life, ... income distribution) it's a 3rd world country. ... It's call socialism. ...
    (rec.models.railroad)
  • Re: Hey...all societys troubles can be ended...for only £20
    ... order to earn the same income to which a typical single parent working ... that the queers will want their tax allowance too and that no doubt ... single parents) than to a married couple in similar circumstances. ... the correct process, and anyone can now go through that process. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)