Equal but Different Rights are unacceptable for race, sexual orientation but seem to be perfectly acceptable for sexes. Case in point are federally funded sports that seperate the sport by sex. We don't seperate water fountains by race or sex, and people make an arguement for there to be no speeration for marriage rights by sexual orientation. Why do we accept it in federally funded sport?

Do we really need to talk about this

Some would ask why we have federally funded sport at all.

I was thinking along the lines of university and college sports.

Yes, precisely. You'd think they could scrape enough private money together to not even have to worry about article 10 or whatever it is.

Sex is treated as an "intermediate" classification that is suspect, but not as suspect as race in discrimination. This is because there are actual inherent differences between the sexes that make them unequal in certain ways, inherent differences that do not exist between races.

You've failed biology courses then if you've never noticed inherent differences between races. Skeletal frames differ, muscles mass and shape differ, hell by just about every measure we have intelligences differ. The way we react to illnesses and susceptibility to illnesses differ.

Hey, I'm just telling you what the law is.

Point is, all of those differences that you mention should have nothing to do with differing rights. However, there have been determined to be some sexual differences that can justify different rights, but there have been VERY few cases finding such laws constitutional.

But there inherent differences inside what is considered a same "race". Just take a look into caucasians or blacks, the average spanish man has a very different frame than a russian, the same can be said about black people from different tribes and ethnicities.

Yeah, I think it's along the same lines as having different weight classes in boxing or wrestling and the like.

I could be the greatest football player in the world. One good tackle from Peeps could seriously injure me, though.

holy christ, what kind of crackpot biology classes have you been taking? that's simply not true.

I think it's acceptable that only women can offer me shots out of their cleavage at Thee Doll House.

i was going to leave this alone, but i can't help myself. race is a social construct. scientific studies show that there is more genetic difference within races than between them. it's literally only skin deep; there is no muscular, skeletal or otherwise difference between say, an african and an anglo saxon.
if you won't take my word for it, try the american anthropological association http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
or even wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28cl ... _beings%29

You've failed biology if you think 'race' is any biologically determined. 'Race' is a grouping of phenotypes according to some cultural agreement (like Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda), and while genetic markers can be used to determine heredity, and to a large extent ancestral homeland, there is no defined set genes for "Cracker".

Also, black people walk like this, whereas white people, they walk like this.

men who play field hockey are teh gay.

Its true, but not the complete truth. I remember watching a documentary about an ancient grave found in England, and they wanted to know if the skeleton were a celtic or saxon guy. And there was this lady that could tell that just by looking at the ankle bone. And other evidencies proved her opinion right. Any decent anthropoligist can tell if a skull belongs to a caucasian, negroid or mongoloid person.

But we already know that race-related differences, although more visible, represents only a very small fraction of the differences that exist between every person.

And those differences are ultimately insignificant in any meaningful way related to human behaviors.

Tis wrong good sir. Science can sometimes determine ancestry from bone structure, but not race. There are far too many Obamas, Hallie Berrys, and Jeters in this world for that trick to work in a scientifically viable way. The ankle bone would work assuming a common ancestor had the same defect, but it can't be assumed that everyone who is Celtic has the same defect just because a preponderance of them do.

You are telling to someone from Brazil about the existence of mixed people?

Ah, they didnt took her word for granted, there were other evidencies being analyzed.