You know, I am wondering how they are able to determine the difference between a “burkini” and a creative (like maybe a superheroine theme) bodysuit that a surfer or diver might be wearing? Are they going to require fashion police at the beach?
That’s the first thing I thought of, a wet suit. I didn’t know what a burkini was - other than a strange name, nothing “kini” comes to mind when I finally saw one.
Well gosh, burkhini means that as a gay man, I get persecuted, tortured, thrown off a building, beheaded, stripped naked, tied to the back of a vehicle and dragged through the city streets.
Wet suit means I get to swim in the ocean.
Totally the same!
wut
Stupid law. As a matter of fact, having seen some of the women at the beach(and men too), I wish more people would cover up their bodies.
That is why you aren’t in charge.
Burqini as a gay man?
What are you trying to say?
Fuck Islam?
Yes, it is you. The rest of us can comment on the actual topic of the thread without feeling the need to talk about problems in America.
Still have no idea what you’re saying. How do burkinis = violence? Or is it some sort of sarcasm?
To translate gibberish-to-English, I’d say the argument was something like ‘A Burkini symbolizes a philosophy that supports the violent persecution of homosexuals, while a wetsuit does not, and that is the fundamental difference between them’.
Needless to say, I myself find that sort of argument unconvincing.
How does Islam equal homophobia?
I’d love to hear the reasoning of anyone who is in favor of this law. I can’t understand the logic.
It’s not because the swimsuit represents the oppression of women; otherwise there are other fashion choices that need to be outlawed.
It doesn’t help the women - it prevents them from enjoying the beach.
It’s not because it’s religious garb, or they would be outlawing yarmulkes and priest collars.
So I’m left wondering if there is a reasonable defense, or this is simple anti-muslim pandering.
That’s the problem with this thread: so far, it’s a debate in search of someone to take the “resolved: the French law is sensible and justified” side.
I still can’t tell for sure, but I think levdrakon might be taking that position.
???
Maybe this is some kind of performance art?
Well done! No easy task either! And I agree, ridiculous argument.
Doesn’t France still have nuns wearing head coverings and full body coverings?
Any chance this is electioneering for the anti Islam vote? Because this kind of thing has been seen before in a run up to an election, in various other countries.
Malthus got the gist of it in #31, but I’d substitute “religion” for his “philosophy”.
Islam is the most violently homophobic religion on the planet. Ask a gay Muslim. Do you not consider gay Muslims to be Muslim? Not sure why you’d bend over backwards trying to defend it. Is there something about gays that makes you think wishing them death is somehow appropriate? religious freedom and all that. Except that, you know, some of them are gay.
Going to a beach and seeing a woman in a burka means she want’s me dead. That’s a trigger. I’m assuming you defend triggers, and yet you value Islam more than you value gay triggers. Interesting. Islam wants to kill gays? Not a trigger. Gays feeling Islam wants to kill them? Not a trigger.
Yes, interesting.
It doesn’t look like it to me.
Because while the PM’s comments made it a bigger headline, he seems to have been reacting to bans instituted by local authorities in resort/beach towns. So it’s not all about national elections, anyway.
What might be a factor on the local level is a fear of scaring away the tourists and their revenue. But this is pure speculation.