View Single Post
Old 08-31-2011, 04:17 PM   #136
little man
Member

How Do You Identify?:
mister
Preferred Pronoun?:
he
Relationship Status:
hard to hold
 
1 Highscore

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: where the road goes on forever and the party never ends
Posts: 1,003
Thanks: 169
Thanked 1,535 Times in 437 Posts
Rep Power: 13709164
little man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputation
Default

i've long been interested in the concept of social contracts. i've done some reading here and there and i can't say that my retention is much, but i have to wonder if this can't be used to advantage by not just queers in the larger community of the world, but all marginalized/oppressed groups.

seems to me there should be some lawyer clever enough to work this angle.

as i understand it, a simplified version of social contract is that in order to be a part of a community/civilization, the "citizens" agree to abide by rules, pay taxes, do what generally is best for the group as a whole. in return, the "state" agrees to treat the citizens equally and fairly, to protect all and to generally work to the benefit of all citizens. anyone...please correct me if i've got this wrong.

it seems to me the "state" is not holding up its end of the bargain here. i know they tax me on my wages, write me tickets for speeding or no seat belts, generally hold me to the laws of the land. in what seems like the same breath, i have been denied the right to marry whomever i choose, my taxes go to pay the salaries of those who would turn a blind eye to crimes committed against me and generally don't think i should exist in the universe, let alone in this particular society. is there not some point where the "state" can be called on not ensuring the safety of any portion of its population against the rest of the population?

when i was younger, i had a notion that all the queers should just take over a single state, secede from the union and take all the grand gloriousness with us. let the rest of the country live in leisure suits and poorly decorated homes, with bad haircuts. but, that's me.

tangent aside, i wonder if a class action suit was brought against not only state, but federal government for not holding up their end of the bargain...sue for return of taxes, punitive damages, whatever...if that would not serve as a way to bring the issues of second class citizenship to the forefront. it would be *just* about sexual deviants wanting to wreck marriage then...it would be about the dignity that all humans have a right to. it would be about all the groups who don't have a place at the table, not just the ones who didn't get silverware or a clean plate.

ok, i'm rambling off into hyperbole. that's what i've been wondering.

bueller? bueller? anyone???
__________________
i gots pitchers here

i'm a rambling man
i ain't ever gonna change
i got a gypsy soul to blame
and i was born for leaving

--zac brown band (colder weather)

Last edited by little man; 08-31-2011 at 04:18 PM. Reason: sentences make more sense with all the words.
little man is offline   Reply With Quote