Co-existence vs. ToleranceFollow

The article itself was written 1993 and was talking about the emergence of secularism in christianity and its lack of counterpart in the muslim world, but as I read it, I couldnt but help to attribute that one point to the argument (as beaten as a dead horse as it is) of gay marriage.

To often are the ideals of the founding fathers invoked as a means of exclusion and otherness in order to limit the rights of people as "unamerican" when in doing so they actually rape the enlightenment ideals upon which the nation was founded. To often do those with barely the most general knowledge of the founding fathers use them in rhetorical way in order to invoke a message that directly contradicts what the founding fathers were actually about.

Be wary of those that blindly invoke that which is most important, who do so in the name of rhetoric in a most general sort of way, because in the end they are destroying your most important values. As truly as those that hold people without charge or trial are destroying what America stands for. They play on ignorance and blind patriotism in order to kill the informed and intelligent inclusive mind set that the founding fathers used to create the United States of America.

/liberal rant off

edit- just in response to the fact that every gay marriage argument you eventually hear the term "the founding fathers could never have taken that into account therefore we should limit it as to what we feel acceptable as hetero americans on a **** minority.

Edited, Tue Nov 8 13:37:07 2005 by bodhisattva

Edited, Tue Nov 8 13:36:06 2005 by bodhisattva

Bhod is just upset because I tell him I can't marry him because I live in Maine.

(The truth is, i'm saving myself for neph)

I don't know if trannies count.

Obviously Neph doesnt count post op,

and yes Kat you do have a point.

Bodhi, when I saw the topic, I thought you were going to be updating us on your relationship with your SO. You tease.

He's saying that the minorities don't get rights because the majority feels bad and indulges or patronizes them...

He's saying that in the system the Unites States set up, the only requirement to get full rights is to be a good citizen.



To make it simpler, rights for minorities aren't grudging special treatment, they are the required treatment, and "happily" given.

Oh Just FU[/i]CK OFF!

Fu[i]ckin' 'ell gbaji.

You're like a fu[/i]ckin' 3 year old who learned big words but never worked out the importance of making any fu[i]cking sense whatsoever.

You have any idea how much you **** me off?

Nope. Another thing you'll never have a clue about

Because for centuries the Jews in Europe lived on the lands owned and controlled by Christian nobles who could change the "rights" of those living on their lands at a whim. That's why.

In this specific context, he's addressing the fact that while a group of Jews were "tolerated" in most European towns, they were rarely thought of as part of the community. But George isn't telling the guy "It's ok for you to be a Jew because we passed a law that says that Jews are welcome!". He's saying that *everyone* is equal under the law. It really is about equality and how each citizens status is derived. To look only at the statement from a perspective of religious tolerance is to see only the surface of it. He's really making a much broader statement then that.




Yeah. We differ. It's *very* applicable IMO. If rights are derived as a gift or grant from a higher power, then we could expect that higher power to actively look after our wellbeing and ensure that everyone's treated as they should. This is the "tolerance" that Washington mentions. The lord may command that no one bother the unwanted Jews, but that's not the same as making them welcome. On the other hand, if rights are derived naturally and equally, with no structure or system, then one would expect that there will *not* be a higher power enforcing it's will down upon us. This is good and bad. It means that there's no lord commanding people not to bother the unwanted Jews. But it also means there's no lord telling people what they should or shouldn't do. We have a set of laws to follow, but no one telling us what to think or who to like, or dislike. Thus, we can assume in such a society that if there are jews and christians living together without violence that they are truely co-existing rather then just tolerating eachother.


That's the point he was trying to get across. Of course, he's stating the condition of co-existance as a matter of fact, when there's no way he could have known for sure if it would work out that way. But I think we can excuse George for being proud of his work, right?

Ok. Indulge me for one more second here.

I still think you're missing it. Both of you. The point is that if you have to write out a specific right that a specific group of people are entitled to, then that's not really a "right". It's some special priviledge granted to that group by the powers that be (whatever that may be in your system of government). And it wont be followed because people believe it's ok, but because they are forced to (tolerance versus co-existence).


That's what George was saying. And it's a lesson we've forgotten over time unfortunately. Rights should always be inherent, and action taken to *prevent* laws and actions that violate them. He's saying that it should be enough to simply say "all men (ok, people) are equal under the law", and cast down any law or action that violates that spirit. You could write a law that says that Jewish people are equals under the law, but then it wouldn't really be true (since you had to write it). More importantly, that "right" will never truely exist since by nature of singling out one group, you've made them "unequal". George would have cringed at the thought of things like Afirmative Action...


It's really totally inapplicable to gay marriage, since marriage isn't a right to begin with.

Once again once you take that rhetorical step to defend why gay marriage shouldn't be you fall prey to the whole idea of emancipating the slaves, or ending segregation, or enacting sufferage for women, the right to vote for native americans etc.

You have a university professor of Princeton who sets the tone for the quote for you, then you have the majority of people responding to the post (everyone that isnt you) agreeing with that context and then you an apologist of the Bush administration trying to change the context via hear say and your shoddy knowledge of 18th century jewish history in an effort to salvage an argument that you have already lost. Throw as many words as you care at the issue, you are an apologist with an over developed sense of self worth and a underdeveloped ability to connect the dots without raping the general idea in the process.

(oh im sorry did I just acuse you of rape of reason? Im sure you can argue that rape isnt rape unless there is clear physical forms of abuse)



Edited, Tue Nov 8 23:05:28 2005 by bodhisattva

Look, bhod, if you wanna suck di[/i]ck, then by all means, suck some di[i]ck. No one is stopping you.

We might look at you funny and put two or three posts between yours and ours, but hey! If you have a burnin' desire for some pole, get you some!

;)

Totem

But you have the right to love and marry whom you please. No one's taken that away from anyone.

The marriage itself is a social contract between two people. It may also be a religious ceremony. That is something everyone has the freedom to partake in as they wish.

What is *not* a right is the legal status of "married" as granted by the government. That's a status that one must apply for and meet the requirements. Get it? You are mixing up two different things. You have a "right" to love someone and spend your life with that person as a married couple. You do *not* have a right to gain a specific set of legal benefits from the government unless you qualify for those benefits.


That's what you aren't getting. I made a point of saying I was talking *only* about the benefits provided by the government, but you still ignored that and rambled on about love and relationships. Stop mixing two different things together and this issue becomes a hell of a lot clearer. I'm talking *only* about the benefits generated by the government as regards obtaining the legal status of "married". That is *not* a right. You do not have a right to those benefits. They are benefits, and as such have no meaning if they apply equally to everyone. Just as benefits for the disabled would be meaningless if everyone got them, or social security would be pointless if anyone could draw on them at any time. Get it? By definition, benefits cannot be applied equally to everyone. There must be criteria set as to who gets them and why. That's why it's not wrong at all to limit the legal status of married to couples consisting of men and women.

Sigh. Sure. For the gazillionth time...


Hetero couples who have sex together tend to produce children. Without an institution like say... Marriage... there's nothing to ensure that both parents of a child will be involved in raising that child. More importantly, it's best to establish that legal bonding *before* children are generated rather then after. I think we can all agree that children raised to a married couple do much better socially and economically then those raised by a single mother regardless of how much child support the biological father may provide after the fact.

In order to get those hetero couples to marry before producing children, you kinda have to have incentives. Things like tax benefits. Special loan rates for homebuying. Things that a couple starting their life together might need. Oh. And we'll also toss in all the civil contracts needed to ensure things like joint guardianship of the children, inheritance, etc...


From the government's perspective there is a need for this. There is a benefit to encouraging hetero couples to form into the socio-economic unit of marriage. It reduces the burden generated by single parents. Since children are required (or you run out of citizens pretty quick!), it behooves the government to encourage private citizens to produce those children in an environment that will generate productive citizens rather then burdens on the society. That's what the legal status of marriage does.

There is *zero* reason to extend that incentive to gay couples. They cannot possibly produce offspring no matter how often they have sex together. They are not going to produce a burden on society as a result of their actions, so there's no need to provide them an incentive to form into married couples. They are free to get "married" if they want. They're free to apply obtain the various civil contracts that go with marriage (all of which can be obtained outside of marriage itself). They just can't obtain the specific legal status of marriage because that status does not apply to them. Just as I can't obtain the legal status of handicapped and gain the benefits of that status unless I'm actually handicapped.


The confusion only occurs when people can't separate the concept of the social contract of marriage from the legal status of married. They are two completely different things.