RB Scott wrote:
Freaky? How would it be freaky for two old friends, both single
parents, to decide to pool resources? Why would it be freaky for,
say, two siblings, both single parents,  to pool their resources,
reduce/consolidate their overhead costs as it were? Such has been
going on for years, albeit without the attendant tax benefits and
fringe benefit advantages. What's wrong with extending "equal"
benefits to such families?  Does society have a responsibility to
support all families...or just certain ones?

Society has no responsibility to "support" any families. Families are to support themselves. If the government is going to "encourage" families, it ought to encourage the traditional family only. Otherwise it shouldn't encourage any families at all. When the government gets into the act by encouraging other kinds of families it weakens the traditional family by reinforcing the idea that the traditional family is not the "ideal" family.

Actually, I think I'm coming more and more to agree with you that the government should just refrain from defining the family altogether. It is obviously going to do a poor job of it.

The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know
that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah.
-- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004.
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to