Reality: Homosexual Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ice Dancer said:
Yes, there is a huge difference between a willingness to cause death and or physical pain and permanent physical damage to real soldiers, and using a carefully controlled interrogation method that does not cause any long lasting effects against a handful of self proclaimed terrorists...glad you can see the difference.
Click to expand...

So your definition of torture revolves around lasting effects?

As for the "against a handful of self proclaimed terrorists", we also used it on people we were not sure were terrorists or not. In fact, we used it on people we later released.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Yes, there is a huge difference between a willingness to cause death and or physical pain and permanent physical damage to real soldiers, and using a carefully controlled interrogation method that does not cause any long lasting effects against a handful of self proclaimed terrorists...glad you can see the difference.
Click to expand...

and when the liberal government gets around to calling people like myself terrorists, is it ok to carefully controlled waterboard me then?
 
WinterBorn said:
How does one define normal? Is it what the majority do? Do you really want to reserve gov't benefits for only those who do what the majority do?
Click to expand...

Lets get the record right....

Homos can and do get married all the time, sometimes even to each other.
so to claim homos aren't allowed to get married is incorrect in the first place...

Now their are restrictions to marriage....Men cannot get "married" to goats, cows, chickens, other men, etc.....and there is a variety of other restrictions.......the same can be said for women...and it doesn't matter if they are straight or homos...
 
WinterBorn said:
So your definition of torture revolves around lasting effects?

As for the "against a handful of self proclaimed terrorists", we also used it on people we were not sure were terrorists or not. In fact, we used it on people we later released.
Click to expand...

My definition of torture is what the Japanese did.

According to CIA documents that were released it was used on 3 detainees Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

You have other proof of its use on different detainees?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Are you saying that these men are not terrorists-- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri?
Click to expand...

i'm saying that their determination or status is irrelevant to the issue of torture. to deem it torture when applied to one group, but not torture when applied to the other is like saying it's discrimination if applied to irish americans, but not discrimination if applied to african americans. It just doesn't work. It's either torture for all, or not.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm saying that their determination or status is irrelevant to the issue of torture. to deem it torture when applied to one group, but not torture when applied to the other is like saying it's discrimination if applied to irish americans, but not discrimination if applied to african americans. It just doesn't work. It's either torture for all, or not.
Click to expand...

No, you are mistating my position. I am saying the technique used by American interrogators is not equal to the technique used by the Japanese. That in fact, enhanced interrogations are lawful. Are you saying that the technique used in Gitmo are the same as used by the Japanese?

If yes, how so?

Further you suggested that the men it was used on are either not terrorists or that someday you will be like them? You would have to commit crimes against innocent civillians for political reasons to be considered a terrorist. Are you planning on doing this?
 
bravo said:
Lets get the record right....

Homos can and do get married all the time, sometimes even to each other.
so to claim homos aren't allowed to get married is incorrect in the first place...
Click to expand...

So its ok for them to marry, but they will not be given the same benefits by the gov't?

That is actually a worse argument than SM's.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Further you suggested that the men it was used on are either not terrorists or that someday you will be like them? You would have to commit crimes against innocent civillians for political reasons to be considered a terrorist. Are you planning on doing this?
Click to expand...

Waterboarding was used against innocent civilians.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Who were these innocent civilians and can you support this accusation with proof?
Click to expand...

How many people were waterboarded at Gitmo? Were all charged as terrorists? Some who were waterboarded were released.
 
Ice Dancer said:
No, you are mistating my position. I am saying the technique used by American interrogators is not equal to the technique used by the Japanese.
Click to expand...
so you're saying that because regular water and not salt water is being used, that makes it not torture?

Ice Dancer said:
That in fact, enhanced interrogations are lawful.
Click to expand...
because the government now says so? but 60 years ago it was torture? is that your stance?


Ice Dancer said:
Further you suggested that the men it was used on are either not terrorists or that someday you will be like them? You would have to commit crimes against innocent civillians for political reasons to be considered a terrorist. Are you planning on doing this?
Click to expand...

herein lies the flaw in your support of only torturing certain groups and not calling torture. You're basing it on an imaginary line in the sand that you believe will never shift because you trust the government, but its a line in the sand and sand does shift, just like the government will continue to push the boundaries and change the goal posts on you. and what i suggested is not what you typed. I flat out said that making different classes of people in a legal definition in order to apply torture legally, is the same as making discrimination against a group of people with different skin color legal, even though it wouldn't really be.
 
Damocles said:
Other "abnormalities" that seem okay with all the people upset with homosexual marriage include:

Albino
Successful Screen Actresses
Pop Star Divas with parental issues
Drug abusers
alcoholics
Gem Stone cutters.
Click to expand...

strawmen are also abnormal, but to follow your argument, has anyone proposed redefining pigmentation to classify albinos as someone WITH pigmentation?.....

shall we propose laws saying that we should consider it proper for alcoholics to drink alcohol?....(not sure we should include drug abusers in the list....for each of the others it is true that their abilities/reactions are outside the expected, but don't we assume the normal reaction to addictive drugs is addiction?.....the same is probably true for pop star divas with parental issues.....perhaps if you just said pop star divas are abnormal).....

So is going on TV to marry some stranger because you want to "Marry a Millionaire" but that was perfectly okay...
Click to expand...
why do you consider that normal behavior?.....
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
Studying biology will show you that many species practice homosexual behavior. It is not the majority, but that is hardly an issue.
Click to expand...

studying biology will show you that engaging in abnormal sexual behavior is not restricted to the human species......you're lying if you claim homosexual behavior is normal......whether you believe in intelligent design or evolutionary origin, it is obvious to even the casual observer that no advanced species is built to engage in same-sex sexual behavior.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
strawmen are also abnormal, but to follow your argument, has anyone proposed redefining pigmentation to classify albinos as someone WITH pigmentation?.....

shall we propose laws saying that we should consider it proper for alcoholics to drink alcohol?....(not sure we should include drug abusers in the list....for each of the others it is true that their abilities/reactions are outside the expected, but don't we assume the normal reaction to addictive drugs is addiction?.....the same is probably true for pop star divas with parental issues.....perhaps if you just said pop star divas are abnormal).....


why do you consider that normal behavior?.....
Click to expand...

Your examples are of things that will harm people. Homosexuals marrying will harm no one. The arbitrary definition drawn, that only heterosexual couples can marry and get the multitude of benefits from the gov't shows a bias that has no basis in fact or logic.

Allowing this segment of the population (that much research has shown did not choose to be gay) the ability to marry and get the benefits will harm no one and do away with a bias that should not exist.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
studying biology will show you that engaging in abnormal sexual behavior is not restricted to the human species......you're lying if you claim homosexual behavior is normal......whether you believe in intelligent design or evolutionary origin, it is obvious to even the casual observer that no advanced species is built to engage in same-sex sexual behavior.....
Click to expand...

"built to engage in same-sex sexual behavior"?

The fact that numerous species do engage in homosexual behavior (and not limited to sexual acts) shows it to be a normal variant.

Should we only allow people who follow what the majority do the privilege of marrying??
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so you're saying that because regular water and not salt water is being used, that makes it not torture?

because the government now says so? but 60 years ago it was torture? is that your stance?

herein lies the flaw in your support of only torturing certain groups and not calling torture. You're basing it on an imaginary line in the sand that you believe will never shift because you trust the government, but its a line in the sand and sand does shift, just like the government will continue to push the boundaries and change the goal posts on you. and what i suggested is not what you typed. I flat out said that making different classes of people in a legal definition in order to apply torture legally, is the same as making discrimination against a group of people with different skin color legal, even though it wouldn't really be.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying because the Japanese used saltwater which in and of istelf can cause death, but was still used; jumping on the stomache and inducing vomiting can cause death, but was still used; because not timing the use or measuring the amount of the water can cause death and or brain damage, but was still used; that this is not close or equal to the careful use of watreboarding by American interrogators where none of these techniques were applied...where death or brain damage was ever a possibility, that they are in fact NOT equal.

Are you saying they are? If so how so?

60 years ago the issue was the techniques the Japanese used.

The problem is that you cannot answer the question. Are the 3 men Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri terrorists? Have you or are you, planning on commiting acts of murder against civillians for political reasons?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top