iNow Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 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. But marriage is not a "religious" union, as evidenced by the fact that atheists and the non-religious have been getting married for years, and all without challenge. The term "marriage" was usurped from religion long ago, and it is now being used primarily to grant certain privileges and benefits, privileges and benefits which are conferred by the state and the laws which are enforced by the state. Additionally, nobody here is arguing that people are not allowed to have opinions. The argument is that those opinions alone cannot serve as the basis of laws which are inherently discriminatory. If there is a law (or set of laws) which is being differentially applied (privileges differentially granted) based on sexual preference alone, then it's up to those who wish to implement said law to adequately demonstrate a relevant secular reason for so doing, otherwise, their ban is unconstitutional and to be stricken. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 We're drifting off topic, in the libertarian fringe-land again. Can we not waste time discussing a purely hypothetical option which has zero chance of becoming reality within even this century? Let's restrict ourselves to *viable* options, by *viable* parties. You know, the *real* parties who have actual power beyond local school boards and city halls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 We're drifting off topic... You know, I just read this whole thread, and I really couldn't say what the topic is supposed to be. Is it just the umpteenth gay marriage thread? Presumably it's not just about breast implants, since that's not really "politics," per se. Does the answer a beauty pageant contestant gave really deserve the scrutiny it's (sort of) being given here? So, anyone: Is there a good reason for this topic to remain open? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 But marriage is not a "religious" union, as evidenced by the fact that atheists and the non-religious have been getting married for years, and all without challenge. The term "marriage" was usurped from religion long ago, and it is now being used primarily to grant certain privileges and benefits, privileges and benefits which are conferred by the state and the laws which are enforced by the state. I am an athiest...I wouldnt care if the church said I couldn't get "married". So long as the law permits to show that my relationship is seen as any other relationship. The thing is Atheist are being denied to be married by the church...unfortunate for couples who are of the same sex...can't really hide it...I don't see why Atheist would want to get "married" except for legal recongnition. If I went to a preist and said "Hey we don't believe in God we think it's BS! Can you marry us?" I doubt it will go over so well. That's not even the point though...I do believe everyone should be recognized....which isn't as mokele said even exists. But I believe that's what gay people and straight people, atheists and theists should be fighting for. I think it more correct and fair. I think we can all agree though that model is hot! (probably not...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Additionally, nobody here is arguing that people are not allowed to have opinions. No - you are arguing that someone who voices a contrary opinion to your accepted doctrine should be forbidden from winning a beauty contest. (Sorry for going on-topic.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Would you be OK with a beauty contest who was an active member of the KKK? Same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 No - you are arguing that someone who voices a contrary opinion to your accepted doctrine should be forbidden from winning a beauty contest. Please use the Quote feature offered by the vbulletin infrastructure on which this forum is run to point out precisely where I did any such thing. I don't recall doing anything of the sort, and welcome you supporting your assertion with an actual quote of mine, or acknowledging openly that your claim is baseless. Thanks so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 Would you be OK with a beauty contest who was an active member of the KKK? Same thing. You know full well that it is not the same thing. You really shouldn't troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappy Posted May 4, 2009 Author Share Posted May 4, 2009 Before Pangloss closes this thread I'd like to know why women think they need to have their breasts augmented. Are there any ladies here who think their breast ought to be augmented? And, if so, why? Is it for the attention of men? Other women? Pure vanity? I don't like fake tits. Makes me wonder why men don't go out and get their penises augmented to impress the women...or other men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 You know full well that it is not the same thing. You really shouldn't troll. Bigotry is bigotry. Why does it make a difference what minority it's directed towards? Give me any good reason why a homophobe is any different from a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Additionally, nobody here is arguing that people are not allowed to have opinions. The argument is that those opinions alone cannot serve as the basis of laws which are inherently discriminatory. If there is a law (or set of laws) which is being differentially applied (privileges differentially granted) based on sexual preference alone, then it's up to those who wish to implement said law to adequately demonstrate a relevant secular reason for so doing, otherwise, their ban is unconstitutional and to be stricken. I'd say the law is applied exactly the same way, and the privileges granted are exactly the same. Gay people are allowed to marry, but they want a same sex union instead (and additionally to also call that same sex union a marriage). What is different is the preferences of those involved, not the law. Nowhere does the law ask if you are gay. It may still be discrimination, but not on the level that you are trying to portray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) I'd say the law is applied exactly the same way, and the privileges granted are exactly the same. Gay people are allowed to marry, but they want a same sex union instead (and additionally to also call that same sex union a marriage). What is different is the preferences of those involved, not the law. Nowhere does the law ask if you are gay. It may still be discrimination, but not on the level that you are trying to portray. We've already covered that tired old argument, Mr S. You're saying that since the law is applied equally that there is no discrimination. What that clearly ignores, however, is how the law itself is implicitly discriminatory (regardless of how it's applied) since it is allowing people of opposite sex to marry the person they love, but preventing people of the same sex from marrying the person they love, and all for no relevant secular reason. It's discrimination EXACTLY as I'm portraying, since the issue is the content of the law, not its application (as you're now trying to suggest). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBefore Pangloss closes this thread I'd like to know why women think they need to have their breasts augmented. Are there any ladies here who think their breast ought to be augmented? And, if so, why? Is it for the attention of men? Other women? Pure vanity? I don't like fake tits. Makes me wonder why men don't go out and get their penises augmented to impress the women...or other men. I like boobies. I'm attracted to women with a nice set of 'em. Doesn't matter if they're real or fake, I've played with both in different shapes and sizes on numerous occasions. Real ones are obviously nice, and all... my current girlfriend is rather well endowed naturally, so she's lucky... but I personally prefer fake tits to none. That's just me... I'm more of a vagina man myself (actually, kidding aside, I like a shapely hind-quarters and a total package... brains and personality included). You're just one data point. Just because you don't like fake juggies doesn't mean that nobody does. The reasons women choose to have the operation is different for all of them. In addition to basing your judgment on your own preferences alone, your argument fails since there's no ONE single reason why a woman would augment her breasts. It differs person to person. Finally, LOTS of men have their penises enlarged, so that whole post of yours (while I commend you for trying to save your thread) was one big epic fail. Edited May 5, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts