Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Even if they are changing the definition to make it better (i.e., more inclusive)? For example, if you were alive when when women were not considered "persons", and being a person (with all of the legal rights attached to that) was important to you, would you be opposed to changing the definition of "person" to include women?
Or does this really boil down to the fact that you think that changing the definition of marriage to include same sex marriages somehow makes marriage worse (because same sex couples are not as good as heterosexual couples?), and you just don't want to say so?
|
To play devils advocate: (My apologies to the poster Devil's Advocate).
It's true that the definition of "person" changed to include women. That is good, and noble, and true. I would argue strongly against anyone who disagrees.
However, nowadays Corporations are also defined as persons. Is this a change to the better? I don't think this is morally right. Does this make me an anti-capitalist now? Perhaps Un-American? Am I somehow closeminded because I cannot accept this new definition as better?