March 28, 201115 yr So, here's a gem from a site that "promotes and protects our churches". It's so backwards, I don't even know where to start. If I'm interpreting it correctly through a red haze of astonishment and rage, I think the article is trying to say that the Magna Carta promotes "traditional" marriages because it holds the right to one's inheritance in high regard? And that you can't have heirs without kids? And so therefore you need traditional marriages? They even go so far as to say "same-sex relationships can mimic the natural family by importing a child into the relationship or contracting with a third party to produce one. But it is scarcely plausible to think that subsequent generations of such artificially constructed families would naturally follow, so as to give rise to a claim for inheritance rights." What about "fine Christian families" who adopt like a hundred kids? What about barren women who adopt? What about single parents who raise their birth children? The best thing is that the expert they quote clearly says: By signing Magna Carta, the king conceded that there were many centers of authority besides his own, from that of his enemy the belligerent duke down to that of the free man in his home. The right of inheritance allowed a family the same kind of being extending through the centuries that the nation enjoyed. It honored the family as not merely a biological happenstance within the state but as a metaphysical and political reality that preceded the state. They're saying this PROVES their point? or something? When it clearly to me anyway does NOT define family as biological? :frantics:I wish that emoticon also had its hair on fire, because that's how I feel right now. Someone please explain this to me??
March 28, 201115 yr The "right of inheritance" does not automatically ensure that an offspring will inherit diddly squat. Any parent can decide to cut any or all children out of his will and there is little likelihood the courts would reverse this. My advice to you is to not get yourself worked up into a frenzy by such articles. Very bad for the blood pressure
March 29, 201115 yr Active Members The "right of inheritance" does not automatically ensure that an offspring will inherit diddly squat. Any parent can decide to cut any or all children out of his will and there is little likelihood the courts would reverse this. Back in the olden days, estates were held in fee (conditioned on service, usually military). By custom sons seceeded their fathers in service but the establishment of an inheritance by law was actually something of an advance in the eyes of those folks. Once the right of inheritance was established so many estates came to be held in fee tail (forced inheritance), it took an Act of Parliment to abolish it and empower parents to dispose of their own property. That's the super-simplified version but it's usually a mistake to attribute modern ideas and customs to folks who lived more than a few generations back. My advice to you is to not get yourself worked up into a frenzy by such articles. Very bad for the blood pressure Now that's some excellant advice.
March 29, 201115 yr Yeah, I think I'll take the advice. I mean, I get worked up enough with their homophobic rants - but to try to gin up something that has NOTHING to do with what they're talking about makes me furious.
March 30, 201115 yr If the most recent document you can find to support your argument is the Magna Carta it's time to rethink your argument.
March 30, 201115 yr If the most recent document you can find to support your argument is the Magna Carta it's time to rethink your argument. Ha!! See, that's the way I have to start thinking of these things. Otherwise I get all worked up... and not in the good way.
March 30, 201115 yr Active Members I wish that emoticon also had its hair on fire Feel free to use as needed:
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.