Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
WTF???!!! That is so shocking and ridiculous. NExt thing you know they'll be making them wear special clothes, so that they can be ditinguished easier from everybody else.
|
They aren't really doing it. It was an example to show how two things that are exactly identical in effect aren't equal by definition because of the fact that they need a second name to show it. The second name shows bias because one group is deemed unworthy to share the original name.
The secondary made up term becomes devalued below the original because there is no need for the term in a logical case except to exclude the group of people to whom the term applies. Even if in theory legally they are identical.
|
Oh, I get it, in the post I quited you meant to say "what if". I actually thought they passed such a law over there. FTR, if they actually did that, it would be much worse than the "whole marriage vs. civil union thing", as it would be probably done especially to single out muslims from the general population (kinda like how Jews were singled out in the Middle Ages or in Nazi Germany).
|
Isn't that exactly what is being done with the term Civil Union? It's being put in place specifically to single out homosexual marriages. Otherwise they'd just call them marriages.
|
You know what Kasz, you're right. I think I was focusing too much on the legal aspects and the rights they recieve, but when you look at the bigger picture it's quite an injustice.