10 Responses to Do Government Handouts Breed Immorality?

  1. John July 14, 2009 at 10:00 am #

    Very good observations. I too have had conversations with people in the exact same situation. May the gospel of Jesus Christ break these chains of sin! One of the lies to come consistantly from cpaital hill is the idea that giving things (like sub-prime mortgages) to those who can’t afford them is nice and good. It is not. It is slavery. God forgive us all.

  2. encfoundersfraternal July 14, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Jim, I have run into the same situation many times with both younger and older couples. It is a shame that we have so undermined marriage that people justify live-in boyfriends/girlfriends with a financial burden argument. I pray that we as believers will teach and model the beauty of marriage as a portrait of Christ and His bride, the Church. If people would see it as something more than a mere social contract, then maybe they won’t allow the government to buy them out of it.

  3. Bryan L July 15, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    You ever thought they really just don’t want to be married? People come up with all sorts of excuses when they don’t really want to be married. It sounds like these people just want to live their life without those kinds of long lasting commitments or responsibilities.

    And to answer your question, any system meant to help people in need is going to be abused and have moral hazards, but that’s the fault of people’s sinful nature, not the system. Kind of reminds me of the argument in Romans about how sin used to Law.

    Bryan L

  4. Jim Hamilton July 16, 2009 at 7:04 am #

    Bryan,

    Do you think it is a good thing for man and woman who live together as sexual partners to be married? Is it immoral if they aren’t? Should governments do things that promote immorality? Should governments fund people who use their money to buy illegal drugs and abuse prescription drugs?

    JMH

  5. Dave July 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    What does it mean to “be married”?

    Personally, I think that civil marriage means virtually nothing anything anymore. Where I live gay marriage is legal, and people are making a battle for polygamy in the courts. I personally expect the courts to approve polygamy. It wouldn’t surprise me if, another 10-15 years down the road, the government will allow a random (and completely ridiculous) mixture of, e.g., 3 men, 5 women, 2 goats, and 3 cats to be considered a marriage.

    Marriage I think still has significance in a Christian context, but do you think that a government license is needed for something to be considered marriage?

  6. Bryan L July 16, 2009 at 9:20 pm #

    “Do you think it is a good thing for man and woman who live together as sexual partners to be married?”

    Yes of course it’s a good think for a man and a woman who live together and have sex to be married, just the same as it’s good for a married couple to live together and have sex.

    Now if you are asking me if I think because a man and woman live together and have sex that they should then get married, that is another question and my answer would be it depends. If they have no intention of staying married nor any intention of doing the hard work to be try and have a good marriage to have a chance at staying together then I don’t think it would be good for them to get married. In that case I think it would be better if they stopped seeing each other.

    In the case of your couple, I would say that if they are willing to put government assitance before getting married then they don’t really want to be married and would have no intention of staying married were they to do so. That doesn’t sound like love to me.

    “Is it immoral if they aren’t?”

    Yes

    “Should governments do things that promote immorality?”

    What does it mean for a government to “promote immorality”? That phrase is kind of ambiguous and can mean anything from the government actively campaigns to get people to do unethical and immoral things (which they would rather them do instead of ethical and moral things) to just meaning that they have laws that allow people to do unethical things without being punished. Which do you have in mind?

    “Should governments fund people who use their money to buy illegal drugs and abuse prescription drugs?”

    No. Should they watch everyone whom they provide assistance to under a microscope to make sure they aren’t misusing the assistance? No, that would cost way more money than is worth. Should they not provide anyone with assistance because a minority abuse it? No again. As I mentioned systems in place to help people are always going to be vulnerable to moral hazards and abuse. That’s just the way it is. Now if the government finds out people who they are providing assistance to are abusing it and using it for illegal things then I they should stop providing assistance and I would expect that they would.

    Bryan L

  7. Lisa July 20, 2009 at 9:53 am #

    I agree that we create a culture of dependency with free government handouts. We are promoting immorality. I really don’t understand why a couple’s living situation is not taken into account when gov’t benefits are given. A single mother living alone, such as myself, is more in need of help then a couple living together. I am chosing to remain chaste. I don’t have anyone to rely on or help me. Yet I am denied gov’t benefits because I am a hair over the arbitrary income threshhold. Most of my money goes to mortgage and insurance payments. I’m terminally ill, too, so I can’t work. It is a very discouraging situation to be in.

  8. Jimmy Stanfield August 12, 2009 at 2:28 pm #

    I used to work in the Caribbean and Central America and down there the governments don’t have the massive programs that America and Europe do. One thing I noticed was that divorce is rare and families have to stay together and work together out of economic necessity and also because it is not socially acceptable to break up families. Here in America the government has become a sort of substitute for the things that used to fall to the family. God’s original “social security” plan is a strong interdependent family. So yea, the government is certainly undermining the family and when you destroy a nation’s family unit you create all the social problems we have here in new Sodom.

  9. Peter August 15, 2009 at 9:39 am #

    The answer is simple. Governments (those in power) are run by people that want to rule over others and we (society) are so disheartened by the fact that people are making millions while we can bearly find a job to eat and if we can we get paid barely more than the government pays us to sit at home and eat so why work?

    Why should one man make 3, 4 or 500 times the income of a man who works just as many hours to barely feed his family? Is his importance any less than the other persons? If we really love our neighbour as ourself how can we covet things and hold more than those we say are just as important as ourselves? Our society is in need of change and until we are willing to treat eachother as equals than the oppression people feel will continue to seek releif from the oppressors. Ask yourself this who is immoral the person creating the oppression or the person acting in rebellion to the oppressors? The person acting under the oppression only does so to try and get some releif from the oppressor.

    If you want people to stop sinning have others start treating them as valuable as themselves: instead of justifying their oppression which exist because people, all people corporations and governments included, don’t follow the teachings of Christ.

  10. Mike Meisner December 15, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Well done! I will be following your posts…well-written and informative.

Leave a Reply