Breast augmentation, performance-enhancing drugs, and same-sex marriage

[scrappy]

I might not like breast implants myself, but I wouldn't judge anyone for having them, and wouldn't call them 'unnatural'. Are they any more unnatural than dental veneers, peirced ears or shaving her armpits?

Damn! You make a good point.

 

I think this is particularly ironic. Her answer was rather nicely put I thought, and showed that she was able of holding an opinion of her own and, more importantly, not bowing to the temptation to lie just to win the competition.

Another score.

 

I suspect she is brighter and more principled than the judge who made that comment.

 

And for the record, I am also opposed to gay marriage. Does that make me a "dumb bitch" too?

Then I guess I'm a "dumb bitch" too. (But I hate those coconut honkers!)

[iNow]

...

Edited May 4, 2009 by iNow
deleted

[Mokele]

You should be ashamed if that opinion results in the suffering of others for no reason beyond "my invisible friend sez so".

[Severian]

I wouldn't even go out on a date with a woman who had her breasts augmented, unless she was a cancer or accident victim.

 

Why would cancer or an accident make any difference?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You should be ashamed if that opinion results in the suffering of others for no reason beyond "my invisible friend sez so".

 

The "suffering of others"? Surely by advocating gay marriage you are the one encouraging the "suffering of others".

[iNow]

The "suffering of others"? Surely by advocating gay marriage you are the one encouraging the "suffering of others".

 

The people who suffer as a result of allowing gay marriage are suffering because of a self-inflicted, self-reinforced bias. There is no external harm caused them, only frustration brought on themselves from their own personal beliefs.

 

The people who suffer as a result of disallowing gay marriage are suffering because they are being prevented from equal representation and recognition under the law, their rights being stripped by others in a clear case of discrimination, and they are being treated differently for no relevant secular reason other than a distaste others feel about their lifestyle and mating preference.

 

They are not quite the same thing. You don't have a right not to be offended, but we all have the right to be treated equally under the law and not be discriminated against for our sexual preferences. It is the non-equal treatment and imposition of discrimination which is causing the suffering referenced above.

[Severian]

The people who suffer as a result of allowing gay marriage are suffering because of a self-inflicted, self-reinforced bias.

 

I was actually referring to the gay couples themselves. I take it you aren't married.

 

The people who suffer as a result of disallowing gay marriage are suffering because they are being prevented from equal representation and recognition under the law

 

No they aren't - or at least they shouldn't be (I am not very au fait with US laws, so I may be mistaking your legal context). Any rights they have to one another can be drawn up by a simple legal contract.

 

Which makes your other comment interesting:

 

They are not quite the same thing. You don't have a right not to be offended, but all have the right to be treated equally under the law and not be discriminated against for our sexual preferences.

 

It is actually only the word "marriage" which is the stumbling block here, not the legal rights themselves. The gay couples are offended that people would not hold their relationship in the same regard a dual-sex marriages. If they have a right to be offended, so do I (actually, I am not, but I still have a right to be).

[Mokele]

Any rights they have to one another can be drawn up by a simple legal contract.

 

Flat out wrong. Many of the rights cannot be replicated via contract, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right not to be forced to testify against a spouse in court.

[Lan(r)12]

"They" were offered all the rights of a married couple and recognition of their status as being together...but they still want it to be called marriage.

So no, its not all about their wanting equal rights.

[Severian]

Flat out wrong. Many of the rights cannot be replicated via contract, including hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right not to be forced to testify against a spouse in court.

 

Then it is your legal system you need to change, not marriage. I would expect the first two of these things to be rights that can be assigned to any close friend (irrespective of sexual orientation) as desired. The last one shouldn't be allowed for anyone.

[iNow]

It is actually only the word "marriage" which is the stumbling block here, not the legal rights themselves. The gay couples are offended that people would not hold their relationship in the same regard a dual-sex marriages.

 

I find it interesting how you, yourself, just a few minutes ago in post #22 this thread, referred to it as a marriage, and yet you're now here trying to claim that it's not a marriage. Notice any inconsistencies in your approach?

 

It's a marriage, since a marriage describes the relationship, not the genitals the partners in said marriage are required to have. Your own words in this very thread demonstrate the validity of my comment.

 

 

 

And for the record, I am also opposed to gay marriage.

[Severian]

Well, if we are going to argue semantics, lets examine yours.

 

It's a marriage, since a marriage describes the relationship

 

So if it is the relationship that is important, why does it need legal recognition? Surely by your definition, gay couples in long term relationships are already "married".

 

But I do partly conceed your point. I will be more careful to use quotation marks when refering to gay "marriage" in future. Promise.

[iNow]

So if it is the relationship that is important, why does it need legal recognition?

Good arguments could be made that it doesn't (and, some here at SFN have argued exactly that in other threads).

 

However, since the legal recognition (and the rights and privileges with which that comes) IS currently being granted to opposite sex couples, then this becomes a clear issue of equality.

 

There is no relevant secular reason to ban same sex partners from being married, especially since those marriages are being granted to opposite sex partners, and attempts to ban same sex partners from marrying are unconstitutional as per the 1st and 14th amendments.

 

 

 

But I do partly conceed your point. I will be more careful to use quotation marks when refering to gay "marriage" in future. Promise.

That does nothing to negate my point, as you are still referring to the relationship with the term marriage, not the genitals required to be in said relationship. Implicit in your word choice is a tacit agreement with my argument that the term applies to the relationship, not the genitals of the partners within, ergo use in our laws and conversations of the term marriage are perfectly warranted and appropriate even when discussing same sex partners.

Edited May 4, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I find it interesting how you, yourself, just a few minutes ago in post #22 this thread, referred to it as a marriage, and yet you're now here trying to claim that it's not a marriage. Notice any inconsistencies in your approach?

 

What's inconsistent? The word marriage is also defined to be a relationship similar to marriage, eg a marriage between two companies or between two ideas. But I don't know anyone who would argue that said marriage then gives them the rights granted by marriage laws.

[SH3RL0CK]

"They" were offered all the rights of a married couple and recognition of their status as being together...but they still want it to be called marriage.

So no, its not all about their wanting equal rights.

 

Interesting point, and I tend to agree. Polls tend to show wide public acceptance of civil unions granting equal rights and responsibililties, but for reasons I do not fully understand civil unions are not acceptable to the gay community.

 

If someday the public accepts the actual word "marriage" as applying to both gay and straight couples, what word is to be used to differentiate between hetero and homo marriages? Surely some word or phrase is necessary in order to convey all the details regarding a discussion of any couple. Doubtless society would coin a new word or phase to convey the meaning; which it seems would bring us all back to where all this started.

 

Why not just use the current terminology of marriage for hetero couples and civil unions for homosexual couples? This seems a reasonable course of action which would guarantee equal rights while maintaining the necessary vernacular.

 

If we are to continue to fight over the vernacular, then I have to wonder when this will stop?

[scrappy]

Why would cancer or an accident make any difference?

Because I would see a cancer or an accident victim's need for breast augmentation that wasn't motivated by pure vanity. But I'll also admit that this is my subjective bias. How should I know what truly motivates a woman to augment her breasts? I would judge a man as negatively if he were a competitive bodybuilder and had his muscles surgically altered to impress the judges and the girls on the beach.

[iNow]

All of these divisions you keep placing on people are so arbitrary and petty.

[Pangloss]

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.

 

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

 

Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open.

 

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

 

All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track.

 

This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

[GutZ]

I am with Severian.

 

Marriage is defined as heterosexual relation or at least in spirit is. Now the issue is with giving rights to people who "marry". That should not be the case anymore. We have evolved pasted that prejudice and we accept homosexuality much a part of humanity as heterosexualty. The system has to evolve as well.

 

Don't make marriage legally recognized. They should seperate it. Have people do the legal aspects of being recognized by the government...like filling out your taxes and leave the celebratory social thing up to the people.

 

I don't think forcing a group of people to adhere to your view is right. Why would you want to. The very reason you have homosexual exceptance is because someone accept that all people should have rights...even if the majority doesn't like it. So why do you have to force the church to recognise your relationship? Why not make your own method of celebration?

 

Acceptance goes both ways. I PERSONALLY think it's dumb that the church does want to wed gay couples, but that's their choice...This is the logic that has been going on for years, this is the very logic that allows for homosexuality to accepted, that people overall have choice as ;ong as it doesnt hurt others or disadvantages other.

 

All you have to do is make marriage ceremonial only. Problem solved.

 

Neither side wants this because they want it THEIR way...Supporters of gay marriage are no better...It's not based on reason, and equality.

 

People like to argue...

 

This issue would of been solved if people were to generally look at the jssue and see that really it's a non-issue if you change a few things and the sad part is that neither side would lose rights or their way of life....

Edited May 4, 2009 by GutZ

[iNow]

Marriage is defined as heterosexual relation or at least in spirit is.

Using any reference except the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I challenge you to show us where.

[john5746]

This issue would of been solved if people were to generally look at the jssue and see that really it's a non-issue if you change a few things and the sad part is that neither side would lose rights or their way of life....

 

I disagree. While many would be fine with sending marriage to its proper place, many who oppose same-sex marriage would not. It isn't just a language game for many people. They do not want social acceptance of homosexual couples - period. That is the basic fear - that little Johnny will go over to his friends house and "experiment" with Bobby, because Bobby has two fathers.

[Mr Skeptic]

nevermind

Edited May 4, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
wrong forum

[GutZ]

I disagree. While many would be fine with sending marriage to its proper place, many who oppose same-sex marriage would not. It isn't just a language game for many people. They do not want social acceptance of homosexual couples - period. That is the basic fear - that little Johnny will go over to his friends house and "experiment" with Bobby, because Bobby has two fathers.

 

 

It's true that some people hate homosexuality and will use whatever power to make sure they do not have the same right. These people should be pointed out and corrected. You can't ignore that the other side has every bit of hatred for those people condemning them and want to do similar things.

 

BUT I don't think the issue gets anywhere that way.

 

It's like a two brothers that want the same toy...it's childish way of always wanting what the other has...and they will destroy or try to ruin the other side.

 

I think we have come to the point of realization that this doesnt work, compromise (FAIR compromise) and understand is needed to move on....

 

except neither side is willing.

 

We know how we are....Even black people with all the rights that white people have STILL get discriminated against. We have this mentality of us/them....It doesn't do any good.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Using any reference except the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I challenge you to show us where.

 

I wasn't making a reference to anything, I know it's not written in stone, hense why I put in spirit anyway. Yes mostly the church state this...whatever...as stupid as it sounds...I ma not going to protest womens groups because it's only allow women to participate. That's how it's organized.

 

Privately I believe anyone can do anything aslong as it doesn't hurt anyone. Hell I'd be all for a group of gay people to make a satirical verison of the church and have a gay jesus and a gay God...and have gay orgies...so long as they are willing to except the indecent exposure laws that come with it. ( p.s. I am not saying that all gay people do is have orgies...I think every human species is sexually exporative...I ma just making the point that I don't care what they do)

 

The church will hate it, but they have no say...we respect their wishes...tough luck.

 

 

I am just not for telling people what to do if I see no reason to.

Edited May 4, 2009 by GutZ
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mokele]

Polls tend to show wide public acceptance of civil unions granting equal rights and responsibililties, but for reasons I do not fully understand civil unions are not acceptable to the gay community.

 

It's because it smacks of "separate but equal" and is a potent reminder that, no matter how far we've come, we still are 'less than' and second-class citizens who are inferior simply due to being different.

 

That may seem like an over-reaction, but when you've faced a lifetime of discrimination, usually with the looming threat of physical assualt and very frequently with actual assaults, sometimes including death, being reminded that large segments of society hate you isn't a pleasant feeling.

[Severian]

It's because it smacks of "separate but equal" and is a potent reminder that, no matter how far we've come, we still are 'less than' and second-class citizens who are inferior simply due to being different.

 

That may seem like an over-reaction, but when you've faced a lifetime of discrimination, usually with the looming threat of physical assualt and very frequently with actual assaults, sometimes including death, being reminded that large segments of society hate you isn't a pleasant feeling.

 

So what? Get over it. If you are gay, then large segments of society do hate you. The sooner you come to terms with that the better.

 

And although I think the people that hate in this way are wrong, and should be encouraged not to hate, I will still die to protect their right to their opinion (as long as it doesn't move beyond an opinion).

 

Besides, GutZ was not advocating that there be marriage for hetrosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals. He was advocating civil unions for both, separating the religious union from the civil one. I would go further and not even have 'civil unions' at all - make them draw up a legal contract (amending laws to make this possible if it isn't already) and let the market sort it out.

[Mokele]

So what? Get over it. If you are gay, then large segments of society do hate you. The sooner you come to terms with that the better.

 

Yeah, because the best thing you can do is just suffer, rather than, you know, changing things.

 

Martin Luther King Jr. should have just told everyone to go home and suffer quietly, right?

 

And although I think the people that hate in this way are wrong, and should be encouraged not to hate, I will still die to protect their right to their opinion (as long as it doesn't move beyond an opinion).

 

Nobdoy's saying they should be shot or jailed, but they should also know that their opinion can and will be challenged if they voice it. Freedom of speech/belief is not freedom from criticism.