Yeah but not really.

I mean, what if the UK changed the Law so that from now on Muslims can't be called citizens anymore, but instead are to be called "Common Residents."

There is a lot of discrimination shown in the fact that they felt they needed a different name.  It's the same reason most pro-gay groups in the US don't agree with "Civil Unions".

It ain't called marriage, ain't it? And what about adoption? Can you adopt the child of your same sex spouse?

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.

Is a bigger brain a better brain though?

It was almost two decades ago when my junior high school science teacher was talking about a study done where they compared the size of people's brains and compared intelligence and (if I remember correctly) there was no correlation between the size of a person’s brain and their intelligence.

Even if you assume that size of a component of your brain is related to intelligence in that area, there is nothing saying that 'bigger is better'. After all, a person may have a brain that is highly efficient in processing some form of stimulus and may be able to deal with this stimulus in more time with less input at a smaller physical size.

Finally, I would like to see a comparison between sizes of these portions of the brain based on ethnic background, age, sex, highest educational level achieved, income level and as many other classifications as can be thought of. After all, the demographics of political parties are often quite a bit different and a small portion of either parties supporters could skew the total results quite a bit.

Doesn't actually surprise me to be honest. It seems to be in line with a few other studies from various sciences I've read. But its early days yet of course.

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.

It's not being put to single out homosexual marriages, but rather it's offering them second rate marriages. Their similar, but not the same. The ideea of there being a law saying that muslims can no longer be called "citizens", but "common residents", would have the purpose of singling out muslims, a new population that people need to know they have to avoid, kinda like how Christians would force Jews to wear certain clothing in the Middle Ages, so that they knew who to persecute.

The whole marriage/civil union thing is more similar to when blacks were freed, yet recieved second rate "rights", the purpose being for it to look like they were "equal". The purpose of civil unions isn't to persecute gays, but to look like you're giving gays "equal rights" without actually doing that. The the purpose of using a term like common residents" woul be to "mark" that certain population, to let the "citizens" know who to avoid, who to ignore (think The Scarlet Letter).