Why are so many people terrified about re-defining marriage but okay with re-defining torture?
What affects our national credibility and honor more? What is more reprehensible, torturing enemies (many held indefinitely without being charged) or marrying homosexuals?
Tags: gay marriage, torture
June 5, 2008 at 11:37 am
ha ha jackson.
I can honestly say that I haven’t considered comparing these two things, but you make a good point.
June 8, 2008 at 7:08 pm
haha, i have to not agree with the comparison here, man, bit of a stretch. Not that I am expressing any inclination one way or another on these issues – just saying i have to veto the comparison haha
June 8, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I don’t think it’s a strecth but very logical.
Through the legal memos of John Yoo (White House legal counsel) and other Executive lawyers, the current administration has been using “legal jujitsu” to justify water-boarding along with physical and sexual abuse by any means necessary, including:
1) Re-labeling terrorism prisoners as “enemy combatants” not under the jurisdiction of the Geneva convention
2) Re-defining waterboarding as “an enhanced interrogation technique”
3) Several conservative judges, including Antonin Scalia, have defended torture’s use, saying it didn’t violate the US constitution banning “cruel and unusual punishment” because it wasn’t “punishment”
The main argument argument against the gay-marriage position is that marriage is a centuries or millennia old tradition that meant the union of a man and woman. Critics argue that it is an ancient institution that benefits society through procreation and child rearing with both sexes–that changing it through redefinition is wrong and harmful.
The justices in the California Supreme Court basically found that marriage is an inalienable human right (a stretch IMO) and effectively redefined marriage as a monogamous union between any two people, instead of a man and woman.
I find this reasoning an awful dodge and bad logic on par with the gay marriage redefinition because like “marriage,” torture is an ancient word that has had an understood meaning throughout human civilization. Whatever “exceptions” and loopholes John Yoo tries to carve out for water-boarding or other forms of torture, it has been understood to mean severe physical and mental abuse and of captives, either for the purpose of interrogation, punishment, or sadistic pleasure.
I drew the comparison chiefly because I found it ironic that a majority of people against gay marriage and the “redefinition” movement in courts are also apologetics for water-boarding and torture. Seeing how both are being argument amongst lawyers using loopholes, exceptions, and changing long-held understood definitions, I thought the comparison was apt.
I am confused what about the analogy you thought was a stretch.
If you want sources for the above info I can email you them.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I support gay marriage (but not using the reasons the California judges relied on) and oppose water-boarding and torture
June 8, 2008 at 11:20 pm
haha, i just meant the subject matter can’t really be compared across the two i don’t think. I understand what you’re saying, but people aren’t thinking of “it’s a been that definition for a long time” in the same way for both subjects. I know they’re both moral issues, but so is every law in that respect. I don’t think you’d convince anyone who’s against gay marriage that he/she shouldn’t be because they support redefining torture. They’d even probably say redefining torture is necessary for today’s times and threats while redefining marriage is exactly the opposite thing we should be doing comparatively.
They wouldn’t see the “redefining” in the same light – the reasons for redefining are for completely different reasons. One, they’d say, is national security issues – who cares what the long-standing definition is – the other is “picking sides on a culture war” blah blah
I’m not saying your stance isn’t coherent – I’m saying I don’t think someone on the anti-gay marriage (or pro-traditional-marriage-definition) side would be persuaded that they’re compellingly similar.