|
Grex > Agora41 > #234: I choose more than mere tolerance | |
|
| Author |
Message |
lk
|
|
I choose more than mere tolerance
| 
Jun 4 02:06 UTC 2002 |
A week and a half ago Nightline did a 5-part series on "A Matter of Choice?"
about homosexuals in Roanoke VA in particular and in the US in general.
(Roanoke was the site of a bombing of a gay nightclub last year in which
1 person was murdered and others injured. It's in the south and I think
its fair to say that, at least on this issue, they are a generation or
two behind the times as lived in liberal Ann Arbor.)
One of the statistics flashed on the screen was that just over 50% (52%?)
considered homosexuality immoral. Another indicated that a slightly higher
number (54%? -- within the margin of error) supported homosexual marriage.
Both numbers were higher than I expected.
The last night was a "town meeting" which lasted about 1.5 hours. Nearly
an hour into it Ted Koppel queried the crowd to see if over the course
of the series anyone had changed their mind. Not a single hand was raised.
Maybe I shouldn't read too much into it. After all, it's probably only those
who already had strong feelings who chose to attend; or who wants to call
attention to themselves on national TV? Yet it got me thinking.
Is there an asymptote to acceptance? Much as the "toleration" of gay
people has progressed, is there a limit that is nonetheless too low?
Will there always be Roanokes -- and worse?
The words of John Leland (reflecting about religious freedom and oaths in
the Constitutional times of the late 18th century) came to mind:
The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea
is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence about the
rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews
Turks, Pagans and Christians." [Short Essays on Government, 1820.]
Are we doomed in that "toleration" is the end of the road, not the beginning?
|
| 97 responses total. |
polytarp
|
|
response 1 of 97:
|
Jun 4 02:16 UTC 2002 |
Quit a huffin', and please make my conference. According to the rules, I
should have had mine made by now.
|
aruba
|
|
response 2 of 97:
|
Jun 4 02:16 UTC 2002 |
I think we have to wait for the old generations to die off.
|
polytarp
|
|
response 3 of 97:
|
Jun 4 02:17 UTC 2002 |
Actually, don't quit a huffin', just make in addition to huff, please and
stuff.
|
lk
|
|
response 4 of 97:
|
Jun 4 04:01 UTC 2002 |
Yet even after the slaves and owners died, it took generations and we're
still not there with respect to black racism. (And once again the north
is ahead of the south?)
Yet my other concern is that these new generations will settle for
"tolerance" rather than equality. As a society, we tolerate African
Americans who speak white English and a gay man who can "pass" as
straight is more likely to be tolerated than some queeny faggot....
|
jep
|
|
response 5 of 97:
|
Jun 4 04:03 UTC 2002 |
"Toleration" as in "it's an evil, but necessary to tolerate it"?
Or "toleration" meaning "tolerance", more of the mindset of "I really
don't have any objection to it and don't see what the big deal is"?
I don't know many people who tell me they are homosexual. I've never
asked anyone if they were. There was a time when I thought gays
shouldn't be teachers; that's because I accepted the small-town opinion
of the place where I grew up, that gay people were potential child
abusers. I've since given up that view.
I'm no activist for gay rights, or for any group's rights. I don't
care any more or less about someone's rights if they're gay, black,
American Indian, a divorced father, a drug addict, or in a wheelchair.
People are people, not members of a group that needs special
protection. (I guess it's pretty common for white male conservatives
to say that sort of thing. I'm not a dynamic social thinker, which
suits me all right.)
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 97:
|
Jun 4 07:53 UTC 2002 |
I think that rights are purely an individual issue. Group identification
is employed both by the individual and by others as a means to
distinguish the individual from others, and often individual rights are
affected because of beliefs about the validity of the identified group.
To be an activist for gay rights or women's rights, or religious rights
is to be one of two things, depending solely on what agenda the activist
actually is pushing: 1) an individual rights activist, or 2) a [racist|
sexist|homophobe|bigot|fundamentalist wingnut|etcetera].
Anybody who is truly pushing for fairness and justice is pushing for
blindness in the formation and application of the law with regard to
group identification. The only exception to this that I can think of at
the moment is affirmative action, which seems to be predicated on
stimulating change within a group by enhancing certain opportunities
available to members of that group who can then become role models within
the group because of achievements those opportunities make possible. But
that's just my two cents.
Tolerance is a basic element of understanding, which is itself a
component of justice, which is essential to liberty. Education -- REAL
education, not what passes for it in bureaucratic institutions -- is the
process by which the soil is tilled and the seeds of tolerance are sown
and given what they need to flourish. What is described in paragraph 2
of response #4 is an essentially misleading position. We, as a society,
do nothing, tolerate nothing. We as individuals either embrace the
rights of individuals to self expression, or we deny them. We as
individuals ARE the society, but the solutions have to be implemented in
a way that targets individuals, not "society." Because "society" does
not exist, and as a target, guarantees failure.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 7 of 97:
|
Jun 4 08:15 UTC 2002 |
The little issues do go away. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone these
days who thinks that music is a tool of Satan, or that women should not be
allowed to wear pants, or that the Irish are a blight on America's cities.
The big issues don't go away. There's still religious zealotry, sexism and
racism everywhere.
I'm not sure where to put homophobia in that scheme, though. I'm sure
there'll always be some sexual practices that aren't considered respectable,
and some sorts of relationship that are frowned on. I suppose it's possible
that 200 years from now we'll have found some other kind of couple to dump
on. But I wouldn't hold your breath.
|
mdw
|
|
response 8 of 97:
|
Jun 4 09:09 UTC 2002 |
Well, it's hard to find anyone who thinks *all* music is a tool of satan,
but there are certainly people who think music *can* be a tool of satan:
http://www.christrocks.com/satanic.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar19.htm
http://www.tagnet.org/adventist.fm/bible/d12up.htm
http://www.probe.org/docs/music.html
http://www.umgministries.com/watch3.html
|
mdw
|
|
response 9 of 97:
|
Jun 4 09:25 UTC 2002 |
Oh, and I also found this:
http://uli.net/policies.html
oral roberts: no pants on women before 4pm
make of it what you will.
|
md
|
|
response 10 of 97:
|
Jun 4 12:09 UTC 2002 |
At last, a champion for us morning people.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 97:
|
Jun 4 16:09 UTC 2002 |
They are supposed to go naked before 4 pm? How liberal.
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 97:
|
Jun 4 16:29 UTC 2002 |
Must they get dressed after 4pm, or may they continue to be naked?
|
lk
|
|
response 13 of 97:
|
Jun 4 19:28 UTC 2002 |
jep:
>"I really don't have any objection to it and don't see what the big deal is"?
That's more in line with "acceptance" than "toleration".
I think toleration is more of "I do object and it stinks but I'll hold my
nose and not complain -- too much."
Other: Much taht you say about "society" versus "individual" is correct,
but how then do you reflect upon the common view of the majority of these
individuals? And can we not speak of a society by its laws?
Michigan law forbids gay marriage, just as once there were miscegnation laws.
Is it wrong to say that society forbids gay marriage and that it frowned on
mixed marriages even after they became legal?
|
brighn
|
|
response 14 of 97:
|
Jun 4 19:40 UTC 2002 |
Toleration is the nominal form of the verb tolerate. I tolerate filet mignon,
although that's an understatement. I tolerate brocolli; that's not an
understatement. "Tolerate" means "put up with, don't try to avoid or get rid
of."
It's morally reprehensible that, not only is gay marriage illegal, but
conservative politicians go out of their way to keep it so (I'm not meaning
"conservative" as a political term, here, either, since the biggest step back
for gay marriage was joyfully taken by Bill Clinton, who likes to get his cock
sucked by underlings while his wife is blissfully unaware, but who has strong
feelings about the sanctity of marriage *spit*).
|
bdh3
|
|
response 15 of 97:
|
Jun 5 07:33 UTC 2002 |
Tyranny of the minority. It is a fact that gays (including
female muff divers) make up about 2% of the population of the
US for whatever reason. Doesn't matter. The fact remains that
it is entirely possible to structure a 'gay marriage' legally
such that all the benefits (and little or none of the penalties
I might add) are equivalent. Sure and it takes a lawyer and
a good accountant just as it does among the 'rich and famous'.
(Pre-nuptual agreements are no more common than gays.) So what.
Both represent a small insignificant minority. The legal system
is intended to handle the vast majority, nothing less and nothing
more.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 16 of 97:
|
Jun 5 07:35 UTC 2002 |
And leeron, I'd be more impressed with your arguement if you
weren't married to a shiksa.
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 97:
|
Jun 5 13:48 UTC 2002 |
#15> How does it hurt the majority to allow same-sex marriage, beady? How does
it affect you if two fags get married? Obviously, you don't think it should
be fully illegal, otherwise you wouldn't be pointing out that it can be done
with huge lawyer fees (thousands of dollars, usually). So you're even more
nefarious than the people who want to ban it altogether: You think gay
marriage should be legal, you just think that fags should have to pay through
the nose for it.
Also, if the majority of people think that gay marriage should be legal (as
the cited poll indicates), isn't keeping it illegal "tyranny of the minority"
(Even if that minority is as much as 45% of the population)?
|
lk
|
|
response 18 of 97:
|
Jun 5 14:08 UTC 2002 |
Separate but equal? I thought that went out the window half a century ago.
I also reject the argument that laws that infringe on a small minority are
acceptable. Jim Crow laws worked for the majority and only infringed on a
minority....
|
md
|
|
response 19 of 97:
|
Jun 5 14:12 UTC 2002 |
Yeah, the "laws are for the majority" argument is easy to say if you're
a member of the particular majority under discussion.
Note that Brian's argument applies to straights as well as gays, btw.
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 97:
|
Jun 5 16:22 UTC 2002 |
I actually thought parts of the Bill of Rights -- especially the religious
clause of the First Amendment -- were written to prevent rule-by-majority on
certain topics.
As far as I'm concerned, polygamy and same-sex marriage are religious issues,
and the onus should be on the government to prove why they must be banned,
not on the petitioners to prove why they should be legal.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 97:
|
Jun 5 16:39 UTC 2002 |
Our laws and rules of governance are designed to let the majority rule
while protecting the minority. If you look at congressional rules of
order (like Roberts Rules of Order), they are rife with ways to ensure
that the minority can be heard and even stay the hand of the majority.
This goes even further, as brighn observes, with particular rules (as
in the Bill of Rights) that give specific rights to minorities that
overrule the majority (such as freedom of speech).
|
slynne
|
|
response 22 of 97:
|
Jun 6 14:37 UTC 2002 |
Tolerance isnt a bad thing but it should be viewed as only the first
step towards equality.
|
lk
|
|
response 23 of 97:
|
Jun 7 02:04 UTC 2002 |
I think that's exactly it, Lynne. Yet so often tolerance is what is
placed on the pedestal as the final goal.
|
slynne
|
|
response 24 of 97:
|
Jun 9 17:47 UTC 2002 |
I suppose but why worry about what comes after tolerance when you
havent even got that yet. I mean, if people are out *killing* gay
people for being gay, tolerance is a HUGE improvement. Let folks put
tolerance on a pedestal as the final goal. Goals can change or new
goals can be formed after the old ones are acheived.
I think tolerance is a pretty good goal for now and when our society is
tolerant, then one can go about trying to change people's deep
attitudes and feelings.
|