The family is the most important social institution that man establishes to ensure his survival. All members of a family are assigned a relationship. The primary function of a family is to nourish, protect, educate, and provide a stable social status for its members.
The family is widely regarded as the most important social institution. A family institution is a basic unit in society, and the multifaceted functions it performs make it a much-needed institution in society. It is one of the world's oldest social institutions. Although families differ greatly around the world, they do share some common concerns in their daily lives.
Learn more about family here brainly.com/question/10205802
#SPJ4
I think it is<span>
D. expository
Sorry if it is wrong.</span>
Answer:
I do not know the answer it depends on you
What? Is this a question?
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
