MisterMike said:
Wow. OK. I'm not even going to touch that. I'll let you ponder it a bit more.
Herein lies the disconnect. Apparently, you have not discussed same-sex marriage with any people who are denied the right to marry based on this policy. Because certainly, they would inform you that it is not a 'Gender Issue'. Just as your male gender does not make you a heterosexual person.
As long as you are defining it as an issue of gender, your parachute is not all the way open.
I remind you the same arguements were made about race some 40 or 50 years ago, when it was not legal for couples of different races to marry.
"Blacks and Whites shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are of different race."
MisterMike said:
Well, while you have provided a few for the same-sex marriage arguement, I really don't see how it matters how many I come up with for going topless.
Let's say the "score" was your 8 to my sayyyyy 1.
Legal marriage grants between
120-300 state rights and responsibilities, depending upon the state of residence. On the federal level, more than
1,049 rights and responsibilities are granted.
Hopefully, there is more than 1 right denied to a woman who desires to go topless, when compared to the number of rights that are granted to women who wear their tops covered in public. Certainly, if you provide a comprehensive list, I will join the fight to guarantee equal protection under the laws of state and country, because ALL citizens should share in the privledges and responsibilities of citizenship.
MisterMike said:
You can't possibly try to change the focus of the issue, which is the fact that if we are to allow one thing for a person based on gender, we have to allow all decisions to be non-discriminative. Nice try.
Well, yes, I can try to change the focus of the issue. In fact, I think I have done a convincing arguement on changing the focus of the issue; which, incidently is that opposite-sex couples that choose to marry are granted more than 1000 rights which are denied to same-sex couples because of the 'Traditional' (whatever that means) definition of marriage. (by the way, the definition of 'Traditional' Massachusetts is that "city clerks can arbitrarily decide to deny same-sex couples what is legally their due under the state constitution - what about 'Activist City Clerks' those ba$tard$).
But, regardless of how adept I have been at focusing light on the issue at hand ... even the issue you put forth here is a fallacy. You say, if we grant a right for one thing, based on gender, it follows that all other gender based rights must be granted. This is just not true.
For example, the right to operate a motor vehicle is granted based on written and driven tests, as well as age. But because you have the right to drive an automobile, it does not follow that you have the right to operate an aircraft, a commercial vehicle, a schoolbus, or a locomotive.
The right to freedom of speech, does not give you the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater.
MisterMike said:
Now for the record, I am not for either of these, but I enjoy the Socratic approach and logic (granted it is based on a premise you do not agree with and are really failing at convincing me otherwise).
I find it odd that you mention the Socratic approach in the same sentence that you state your beliefs. As I understand the Socratic method, it begins with the professed ignorance of the topics to be discussed. By stated that you are not for either same-sex marriage or women going topless in public, you have staked out your position. (although I will grant you .. you did not start the topic by stating a position).
I really don't think that Same-Sex Marriage and Toplessness have anything to do with one another. - Mike
P.S. I'm still amazed that ShaolinWolf said that "most guys go nuts when they see boobs" ... again ... please insert your own ad hominem joke here.