Comments on: The Conservative Party has signalled that it will continue to support the institution of marriage by not giving cohabiting couples the same rights as married couples. http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/11/25/conservative-party-signalled-continue-support-institution-marriage-giving-cohabiting-couples-rights-married-couples/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:32:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Rob Slack http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/11/25/conservative-party-signalled-continue-support-institution-marriage-giving-cohabiting-couples-rights-married-couples/comment-page-1/#comment-9929 Rob Slack Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:00:48 +0000 http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/?p=9059#comment-9929 If married couples receive rights beyond those of co-habiting couples then are will be taking such benefits from those other couples (no such thing as a free lunch). When governments impose penalties on people (restricting rights is just that) the in effect we, through our appointed representatives, are ganging up on people who have done nothing except make their own free choices. Cameron's intent is evil. Nothing less. If people wish to marry, perhaps with all the religious mumbo jumbo, fine...as long as it is their OWN FREE CHOICE. ' Always remember, one person's subsidy is another person's sacrifice/penalty. Why should people be penalised for exercising what should be a right of free choice? Any restriction or penalty is a bit closer to totalitarianism (thankfully still a long way off.. but why move closer?) Many people (I think) believe that support for marriage as an institution will reduce the problem of "wild" kids. They say married couples produce better adjusted kids. Is it the marriage per se that does that, or the fact there are disproportionaltely many co-habiting couples among the underclass? (sorry if that sound like a nasty way to class people. It is pretty accurate and ignoring reality is not a good idea.). I doubt it is co-habitation that creates problem kids (kids can be conceived in the back of a car). It is a vicious circle of problem people creating problem kids. If married couples receive rights beyond those of co-habiting couples then are will be taking such benefits from those other couples (no such thing as a free lunch). When governments impose penalties on people (restricting rights is just that) the in effect we, through our appointed representatives, are ganging up on people who have done nothing except make their own free choices. Cameron’s intent is evil. Nothing less. If people wish to marry, perhaps with all the religious mumbo jumbo, fine…as long as it is their OWN FREE CHOICE.
‘
Always remember, one person’s subsidy is another person’s sacrifice/penalty. Why should people be penalised for exercising what should be a right of free choice? Any restriction or penalty is a bit closer to totalitarianism (thankfully still a long way off.. but why move closer?)

Many people (I think) believe that support for marriage as an institution will reduce the problem of “wild” kids. They say married couples produce better adjusted kids. Is it the marriage per se that does that, or the fact there are disproportionaltely many co-habiting couples among the underclass? (sorry if that sound like a nasty way to class people. It is pretty accurate and ignoring reality is not a good idea.).

I doubt it is co-habitation that creates problem kids (kids can be conceived in the back of a car). It is a vicious circle of problem people creating problem kids.

]]>