Is Free Will a Myth?

Written by TrysDan Roberts

Is Free Will a Myth?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Free Will as "a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." In other words,choosing onrepparttar basis of desires and values.

To fully understand Free Will is to accept that Free Will is not absolute. Along with evolution, society has had to impose limitations on individual Free Will in order to protectrepparttar 132527 whole. Without it, there would be chaos.

But hasrepparttar 132528 limitations been abused or have we given away our free will. For example we are shaped byrepparttar 132529 external messages we receive:

* Our parents beliefs and values are taught to us during our childhood.

* Government social policy dictates how we should live. (ie..who we can marry)

* Organised Religion tells us what is a sin and what isn't.

* The media shapes stories to dictate what they perceive isrepparttar 132530 "truth"

Legal Protection for Same Sex Couples

Written by Johnette Duff

Has anyone considered a compromise solution torepparttar issue of legalization of same-sex marriages? As an attorney who has spent years conducting research onrepparttar 132525 advantages and disadvantages of marriage vs. living together, my viewpoint is a legal one, unobscured by religious or moral questions. Legal recognition of a status for these couples is called for, as is their current need for self-help in makingrepparttar 132526 laws work for them while they are still in flux. Traditionally and legally, marriage has been defined as a union of a man and woman. Changing that definition is atrepparttar 132527 heart ofrepparttar 132528 problem. Marriage, throughout history, has had more to do with procreation than romantic love or legal convenience. This legal definition andrepparttar 132529 issue of procreation have both been used to bolsterrepparttar 132530 denial ofrepparttar 132531 right of same-sex marriage. What same-sex couples need, and should have, isrepparttar 132532 ability to form a legal relationship. The semantics used to describe this relationship should not matter as much asrepparttar 132533 rights and duties arising from it. Denial of these rights isrepparttar 132534 discrimination same-sex couples decry. We should not forget that only duringrepparttar 132535 last generation wasrepparttar 132536 denial ofrepparttar 132537 right of marriage to members of different races overturned. The law is meant to serverepparttar 132538 needs ofrepparttar 132539 members of society - including same-sex couples. My compromise solution is a law which allows same-sex couplesrepparttar 132540 right to a legal relationship withoutrepparttar 132541 hot-button title of “marriage.” With a simple change of terms, these couples could become legal “domestic partners” which conferrepparttar 132542 same rights and duties of their state’s marriage contract. Similar licensing statutes could be enacted, along withrepparttar 132543 inevitable relationship dissolution laws.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use