Bachmann: ‘Absurd’ to waterboard me to prove it’s not torture

[Huey Freeman]

By David Edwards
Friday, November 18, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is pretty sure waterboarding isn’t torture — but she says it would be “absurd” to find out for herself.

During a recent CBS/National Journal debate, the candidate enthusiastically said she supported the interrogation technique.

“It was very effective,” she claimed. “It gained information for our country.”

Speaking to Fox News several days later, Bachmann defended herself by comparing waterboarding to President Harry Truman’s decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan during World War II.

Both then-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee John McCain agreed during the 2008 campaign that waterboarding was torture.

In an interview this week, the Des Moines Register editorial board asked Bachmann about the matter again.

“Is it uncomfortable?” Bachmann asked. “Yes, it’s uncomfortable, but I am more concerned that we would prevent aircraft from going into the Twin Towers, taking them down, and taking out 3,000 innocent American lives, than I am about the comfort level of a terrorist, and what that means for them.”

“Because again, this is done under monitored conditions, where – is it uncomfortable? Yes, I don’t deny that it’s uncomfortable. But a person is not going to lose their life, nor will they be permanently injured or permanently impaired by this. And it’s done on very unique, strict circumstances.”

“You say it’s being done on terrorists, but actually it’s being done as an interrogation technique to determine who are terrorists,” one editorial board member noted. “These people have not been tried. … If you think it’s not that bad, would you ever willingly submit to it just to see what it’s like?”

“Well, I think it would be absurd to have the president of the United States submit themselves to waterboarding,” Bachmann declared, ignoring that she’s not yet president. “There are those that have submitted themselves to it so that they can talk about it and speak about it afterwards.”

In fact, two members of the media who supported the Iraq war — journalist Christopher Hitchens and Chicago radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller — submitted to the technique and came away convinced that it was torture.

“[i]f waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture,” Hitchens wrote following the ordeal.

“I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words ‘waterboard’ and ‘American’ could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath.”

Watch this video from Des Moines Register, broadcast Nov. 16, 2011.

imbed not working, follow link to see waterboarding part only

Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4lTYbJ_WhU&feature=player_embedded

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/1...s-not-torture/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/18/bachmann-absurd-to-waterboard-me-to-prove-its-not-torture/)

"It's very useful! Why, the very first Arab we waterboarded confessed to shooting down Columbia and Challenger, setting fire to the Hindenburg, pushing that ice in front of Titanic, and being Jack the Ripper!"

[Huey Freeman]

:lmao:lmao:lmao

Bachmann intro music: Lyin' what?!
By: Maggie Haberman
November 22, 2011 12:56 PM EST

The folks at CLICK picked up on a story that's getting some buzz, about the music played when Michele Bachmann walked onto Jimmy Fallon's talk show set last night: "Lyin' Ass Bitch."

The song, by Fishbone, was strummed by the "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" house band The Roots, Spin Magazine first reported.

As CLICK noted, Roots drummer Questlove tweeted in advance of the show airing, "aight late night walkon song devotees: you love it when we snark: this next one takes the cake. ask around cause i aint tweeting title.” Fallon, for his part, tweeted today: "@questlove is grounded."

Bachmann has infrequently talked about getting different treatment as a female candidate (an exception being her recent dust-up with CBS News' John Dickerson about the network's debate). Another female politician, Sarah Palin, spoke more often about the biases she felt she was exposed to as a conservative woman from the press.

It's not clear exactly why Questlove went this route. But it's safe to say that had Hillary Clinton walked onto the Fallon set - or any other talk show's set - to "Lyin' Ass Bitch," there would be an outcry from the left. And Bachmann would be within her rights to complain on this.

[baseline bum]

Holy shit, The Roots play on that douchebag's show? How did he ever land such a talented band?

[baseline bum]

Honestly, if Hillary came on I would want them to play "One Less "

EJDU48y4_8k

[Winehole23]

they also did the Friday send up on Fallon, maybe they're regulars?

[DMX7]

Liberal Lame Stream Media at it again.

[Nbadan]

here's the video

BqeVjopXLWI

[spursncowboys]

Pure class.

[Agloco]

Speaking to Fox News several days later, Bachmann defended herself by comparing waterboarding to President Harry Truman’s decision to drop an atomic bomb on Japan during World War II.

Only from the mind of Bachmann. :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

“Is it uncomfortable?” Bachmann asked. “Yes, it’s uncomfortable, but I am more concerned that we would prevent aircraft from going into the Twin Towers, taking them down, and taking out 3,000 innocent American lives, than I am about the comfort level of a terrorist, and what that means for them.”

:lmao classic neocon fear mongering

[spursncowboys]

:lmao classic neocon fear mongering

Sitting on the intelligence committee, I believe her when she says we got valuable intel from waterboarding.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

She's implying that water boarding preventing another 9/11, something I highly doubt.

She also sits on the right wing bible thumping tea bagger committee so I have a hard time believing anything she says.

[spursncowboys]

the tea party is not bible thumpers. Instead of doubting because she isn't in the same party as you, you should probably research that.

[Blake]

Sitting on the intelligence committee, I believe her when she says we got valuable intel from waterboarding.

so you are ok with torturing others to obtain intel?

[hater]

this stupid bitch still does not know the difference between an interrogee and a terrorist. Stupid cunt thinks they are one and the same.

someone needs to explain this whore that ppl get held up and interrogated all the time. Does not make them terrorists

[ChumpDumper]

Sitting on the intelligence committee, I believe her when she says we got valuable intel from waterboarding.So politicians never lie?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the tea party is not bible thumpers. Instead of doubting because she isn't in the same party as you, you should probably research that.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/features/24005-how-christian-is-the-tea-party

According to that article half are biblical literalists. Thats pretty bible thumper if you ask me.

What is with board 'conservatives' making up shit that just isn't true and inserting if or fact?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

she just has that blank clueless look on her face all the time. i don't know why she's still there.

[spursncowboys]

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/features/24005-how-christian-is-the-tea-party

According to that article half are biblical literalists. Thats pretty bible thumper if you ask me.

What is with board 'conservatives' making up shit that just isn't true and inserting if or fact? from the article, this is the only thing I could find from your distortions. FTR, it is a christian magazine and the article is about if the tea party is a christian. The author concludes that even if a large amounts define themselves as christian, it is not relevant.

Some have speculated that the Tea Party is actually a new expression of the old Christian right. According to an October 2010 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 47 percent of Americans who support the Tea Party also say they identify with the Christian right. Additionally, the study found that nearly half of Tea Partiers believe America is “a Christian nation” and the Bible is the literal word of God.




from your article posted.

When Tea Partiers were asked what most stoked their passions in a CBS News/New York Times survey, the top four responses were the health care reform bill, the government not representing the people, government spending and the economy.

“What the Tea Party movement is really about—fundamentally—is a desire to return America to its constitutional roots and its form of limited government and self-government,” Farah says. “Having spoken to tens of thousands of Tea Party activists and met hundreds and hundreds of them, I believe the mission statement that best represents this movement can be found in the Declaration of Independence.”




Perhaps the Tea Party agenda is made up of issues that Christians can, in good conscience, rightfully support. That’s a separate debate. But issues historically championed by most Christians have taken a back seat.

[Th'Pusher]

from the article, this is the only thing I could find from your distortions. FTR, it is a christian magazine and the article is about if the tea party is a christian. The author concludes that even if a large amounts define themselves as christian, it is not relevant.



from your article posted.

That does not change the fact that half of the tea bags are bible beaters which was the original assertion.

[spursncowboys]

which is a wrong assertion.

[spursncowboys]

unless to you a bible thumper is anyone who believes in god.

[boutons_deux]

Bible-thumpers for is anyone who thinks all they have to know and live by is in The Bible, they read it every day, everything else is secondary, or more likely just false.

They really nail themselves as BTs by insisting on the literal interpretation and inerrancy of the Bible.

They are very often stupid, ignorant fucks who are not well educated, and not well read outside of the Christian library.

They are responsible for pulling USA back towards a pre-scientific/anti-scientific Dark Ages dominated by superstitious, magical thinking.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Anyone who is pro-life and/or anti-gay marriage is a bible thumping dominionist in my book

[FuzzyLumpkins]

unless to you a bible thumper is anyone who believes in god.

What part of 47% are biblical literalists is hard to understand. At least i try and support my positions with something. You just spew shi and expeect people to take you at your word. Thats not good enough.

[mavs>spurs]

marriage is a religious concept and gays don't need to be "married" in order to live together and be in a relationship together.

[ChumpDumper]

marriage is a religious concept and gays don't need to be "married" in order to live together and be in a relationship together.But there's no good reason why they can't be "married" either.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Marriage has been around since Ancient Greece. It's not a Christian or religious concept at all.

It's just something dominionists credit to Christianity, similar to how they claim the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were Christian Documents.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

marriage is a religious concept and gays don't need to be "married" in order to live together and be in a relationship together.

Even if that were the case there are all kinds of religions out there. its just that the Levites were all no homo and they say everyone else is full of shit.

[mavs>spurs]

Ancient Greece's version of marriage wasn't like the definition used throughout history since then. In ancient greece, marriages were arranged and done for financial purposes. The man "bought" the woman from her parents in order to bear children, and the wife was required to stay home and take care of the children while the men went out and were promiscuous. it wasn't this modern marriage based on love at all, totally different then what "marriage" is today and has been for thousands of years for all intensive purposes. nice straw man though.

[mavs>spurs]

But there's no good reason why they can't be "married" either.

there is actually. marriage is a religious concept and religion defines it as a union between a man and a woman, gays don't need to undermine religion and say look at me world, you're forced to accept my way! in order to be happy. give me a good reason why gays can't just be together without having the church bless it?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Do you even know what a strawman is? Correcting your inaccurate knowledge of marriage isn't what a strawman is at all.

Regardless of how you define marriage, it's been around longer than Christianity is. I know you're a brainwashed little bible bot and you think everything good in society was created based off Christian values, but the Greeks get credit for inventing marriage.

One thing Christians have always been staunch advocates for is slavery though. That's something I can't take away from them.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

there is actually. marriage is a religious concept and religion defines it as a union between a man and a woman, gays don't need to undermine religion and say look at me world, you're forced to accept my way! in order to be happy. give me a good reason why gays can't just be together without having the church bless it?
No one ever said the Church had to bless it or had to recognize it. Only the government should have to.

Even though the bible advocates slavery, I don't think the Church blessed all the slave practice in America prior to the Civil War.

[mavs>spurs]

Do you even know what a strawman is? Correcting your inaccurate knowledge of marriage isn't what a strawman is at all.

Regardless of how you define marriage, it's been around longer than Christianity is. I know you're a brainwashed little bible bot and you think everything good in society was created based off Christian values, but the Greeks get credit for inventing marriage.

One thing Christians have always been staunch advocates for is slavery though. That's something I can't take away from them.

yeah i know what a strawman is, and your saying "but but the greeks actually invented marriage!" is just that. the greeks didn't invent marriage, it was more of a special type of slave ownership. the man bought the woman to bear kids, it wasn't "marriage" in the way it is defined and has been defined for thousands of years. go somewhere else with your weak little shit talk.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

slave ownership? Sounds pretty Christian to me.

And no that's not what a strawman is at all. Try again.

Lets also not act like Christian marriage was always two consenting adults from day 1. Christian marriage has had plenty of polygamy and arranged marriages.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Btw, seeing that you want to eventually, you should probably keep your homophobic views to yourself if you ever plan on working for a Big 4 accounting firm or any other semi-credible accounting firm. They all make a huge effort to advocate gay rights and hire openly gay people.

The country is progressing away from homophobia more and more every day, the people who refuse to move away from it will look more and more like neanderthals.

[mavs>spurs]

A straw man is a component of an argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) and is an informal fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0) To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-book-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#cite_note-files-1) Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggerated) or distorted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion) statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement.

Pretty sure i said marriage was a religious concept, and you drawing the false conclusion that the Greeks invented marriage as we know it was the straw man. I still stand by what I say too, what the Greeks did wasn't marriage at all. It was ownership.

[mavs>spurs]

Btw, seeing that you want to eventually, you should probably keep your homophobic views to yourself if you ever plan on working for a Big 4 accounting firm or any other semi-credible accounting firm. They all make a huge effort to advocate gay rights and hire openly gay people.

The country is progressing away from homophobia more and more every day, the people who refuse to move away from it will look more and more like neanderthals.

wasn't planning on asking the interviewer if he too was a gay hating motherfucker! when i walked in for an interview ya tard. unless you're implying that my spurstalk posts will be used against me rofl.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm not twisting your words at all, I'm simply disputing what you're saying. Not a strawman at all.

You're saying marriage is a religious concept, I'm saying it's a concept invented by the ancient greeks.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

wasn't planning on asking the interviewer if he too was a gay hating motherfucker! when i walked in for an interview ya tard. unless you're implying that my spurstalk posts will be used against me rofl.
Seeing how passionately you hate gays ya never know.

[ChumpDumper]

there is actually. marriage is a religious concept and religion defines it as a union between a man and a woman, gays don't need to undermine religion and say look at me world, you're forced to accept my way! in order to be happy. give me a good reason why gays can't just be together without having the church bless it?Who said a church has to bless it?

[mavs>spurs]

I'm not twisting your words at all, I'm simply disputing what you're saying. Not a strawman at all.

You're saying marriage is a religious concept, I'm saying it's a concept invented by the ancient greeks.

ya made up the part about greeks inventing marriage to discredit my original post without ever actually addressing it. that was your straw man. regardless of what you think my original point still stands, marriage is a religious concept and gays don't need to be married in order to be together. they need to just make a law where any type of common law union gets the same rights as a marriage and just leave it alone.

[mavs>spurs]

.

[mavs>spurs]

Who said a church has to bless it?

eehhh whatever

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

they need to just make a law where any type of common law union gets the same rights as a marriage and just leave it alone.
so a "separate but equal" type of marriage? Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

http://railroadiana.org/fakes/fakes_home/JimCrowATSFSign.jpg

Of course, the Jim Crow Laws were also Christian ideas.

[ChumpDumper]

eehhh whateverSo no one said a church has to bless it.

[mavs>spurs]

Whatever I'm not in the mood to argue with the Queer Brigade, obviously gay rights are a very sensitive and important subject to you two and I insincerely apologize for stepping on any toes. Maybe you 2 could go grab a beer together?

[ChumpDumper]

Whatever I'm not in the mood to argue with the Queer Brigade, obviously gay rights are a very sensitive and important subject to you two and I insincerely apologize for stepping on any toes. Maybe you 2 could go grab a beer together?No need to pout, princess.

[mavs>spurs]

You two could have a beer and a laugh about how you totally owned that backwards redneck neanderthal and showed him what real progressive butt fuckers are all about!

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Whatever I'm not in the mood to argue with the Queer Brigade, obviously gay rights are a very sensitive and important subject to you two and I insincerely apologize for stepping on any toes. Maybe you 2 could go grab a beer together?
We're not the ones taking two people we'll never meet getting married so personally and interpreting it as a slap in our face.

[ChumpDumper]

You two could have a beer and a laugh about how you totally owned that backwards redneck neanderthal and showed him what real progressive butt fuckers are all about!Language, princess.

[ALVAREZ6]

marriage is a religious concept and gays don't need to be "married" in order to live together and be in a relationship together.

Hey asshole, there are direct financial benefits associated with marriage that have nothing to do with religion. Religion should not dictate who is able to receive those benefits. Marriage isn't just terminology for a type of relationship. It's not just a facebook relationship status :lol.

[Drachen]

so a "separate but equal" type of marriage? Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

http://railroadiana.org/fakes/fakes_home/JimCrowATSFSign.jpg

Of course, the Jim Crow Laws were also Christian ideas.

I'm kind surprised that you are going this route. He suggested something that started that as far as the government is concerned it is identical. The only difference between the two is that some private institution that doesn't really matter won't recognize it.

[baseline bum]

I'm kind surprised that you are going this route. He suggested something that started that as far as the government is concerned it is identical. The only difference between the two is that some private institution that doesn't really matter won't recognize it.

It would only work if civil union and marriage were defined to be pure aliases of each other; e.g., if it's written in the law that any changes made to one must also apply in the same way to the other. Otherwise the civil union will have rights systematically eroded away and the definitions will be guaranteed to diverge.

[spursncowboys]

Btw, seeing that you want to eventually, you should probably keep your homophobic views to yourself if you ever plan on working for a Big 4 accounting firm or any other semi-credible accounting firm. They all make a huge effort to advocate gay rights and hire openly gay people.

The country is progressing away from homophobia more and more every day, the people who refuse to move away from it will look more and more like neanderthals.

What exactly did he say that is homophobic?

[Drachen]

It would only work if civil union and marriage were defined to be pure aliases of each other; e.g., if it's written in the law that any changes made to one must also apply in the same way to the other. Otherwise the civil union will have rights systematically eroded away and the definitions will be guaranteed to diverge.

of course. It is a travesty that this is even an issue, but as far as trying to get religion to recognize it, that is between the couple and their chosen religion

[Drachen]

What exactly did he say that is homophobic?

that a gay man or woman isn't worth enough in his book to be able to marry the consenting adult that they love, just like everyone else.

(though he did later clarify this a bit)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Certain segments of Christianity should not get to define what marriage is. And the 'Greeks did not have the marriage of love that we have today' bit was pretty bad.

If you derive your definition of what marriage is supposed to be primarily from Paul and the Levite priests in the Bible and not from any other authority then thats not good enough to dictate what the US government decides is to be the standard for marriage for all of its citizens.

If you have this notion that its 'unnatural,' get over it. They like to do that shit so let them.

[Winehole23]

If you derive your definition of what marriage is supposed to be primarily from Paul... Side note, but St. Paul took a rather dim view of marriage, viewing it as legalized carnality and wickedness.

...and the Levite priests in the Bible...Is not at all the same thing.

...and not from any other authority then thats not good enough to dictate what the US government decides is to be the standard for marriage for all of its citizens. Agree that the US government has no business dictating marriage customs whatsoever.

[Wild Cobra]

so a "separate but equal" type of marriage? Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

http://railroadiana.org/fakes/fakes_home/JimCrowATSFSign.jpg

Of course, the Jim Crow Laws were also Christian ideas.
Really.

Please show me where it is in the New Testament.

[spursncowboys]

Side note, but St. Paul took a rather dim view of marriage, viewing it as legalized carnality and wickedness.
Is not at all the same thing.
Agree that the US government has no business dictating marriage customs whatsoever.
agreed

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm kind surprised that you are going this route. He suggested something that started that as far as the government is concerned it is identical. The only difference between the two is that some private institution that doesn't really matter won't recognize it.
Jim Crow Law advocates said the same thing as this^. "Their schools and restrooms will be identical!"

Separate but equal was slogan Jim Crow advocates used and it's the same slogan "Civil Union" advocates live by.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Certain segments of Christianity should not get to define what marriage is. And the 'Greeks did not have the marriage of love that we have today' bit was pretty bad.

If you derive your definition of what marriage is supposed to be primarily from Paul and the Levite priests in the Bible and not from any other authority then thats not good enough to dictate what the US government decides is to be the standard for marriage for all of its citizens.

If you have this notion that its 'unnatural,' get over it. They like to do that shit so let them.
Anti-gay marriage people are dominionists. In their mind, whats derived from Paul and the Levite priests should be law in this country. That's why historically Christians supported slavery.

[spursncowboys]

DoK: are you speaking from experience? Where are you getting this overgeneralized assertion? abolitionists were christians. Also the founding fathers who put "all men are created equal" put that their because that came from their religion, who were all christians. John Adams was a huge Christian and always was against slavery.

[spursncowboys]

Oh thats right, your professor told you.

[Drachen]

Jim Crow Law advocates said the same thing as this^. "Their schools and restrooms will be identical!"

Separate but equal was slogan Jim Crow advocates used and it's the same slogan "Civil Union" advocates live by.

Different. This was a governmental organization creating separate (but allegedly equal) institutions for people based on some difference. That ended with the government using the same institution for these different people. I am advocating that, as far as the government is concerned, they should use the same institution (marriage) for all people. You are adding an orange to the apple basket by saying the government should go furtherby forcing religious institutions to recognize them.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Where did I say religious institutions need to recognize them?

I'm supporting the same thing you are, gays being recognized as a married couple by the government just like straight people. Not a civilly unified couple, a married couple. This is another example of you trying to argue with me while agreeing with me because you're butthurt by something I said :lol

[ChuckD]

We need to go the route of France: you MUST be married in a secular civil ceremony for it to be legal, and you can chose to go the religious route afterward if you want, for ceremonial purposes, but it has no legal standing. That recognizes the world as it really is: marriage is a secular, legal institution. That also takes the wind out of the "they'll force religions to marry gays if it's legal" sails. Very few gays would want to go through a strictly ceremonial union provided by an institution that despises them.

[LnGrrrR]

Different. This was a governmental organization creating separate (but allegedly equal) institutions for people based on some difference. That ended with the government using the same institution for these different people. I am advocating that, as far as the government is concerned, they should use the same institution (marriage) for all people. You are adding an orange to the apple basket by saying the government should go furtherby forcing religious institutions to recognize them.

Who's saying religious institutions should have to recognize them? He's just saying that governmental institutions should recognize them, if I'm not mistaken.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Side note, but St. Paul took a rather dim view of marriage, viewing it as legalized carnality and wickedness.
Is not at all the same thing.
Agree that the US government has no business dictating marriage customs whatsoever.

i was speaking of the condemnations of homosexual behavior in Leviticus and in Romans which is where the discrimination derives from. i realize they are not the same thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We need to go the route of France: you MUST be married in a secular civil ceremony for it to be legal, and you can chose to go the religious route afterward if you want, for ceremonial purposes, but it has no legal standing. That recognizes the world as it really is: marriage is a secular, legal institution. That also takes the wind out of the "they'll force religions to marry gays if it's legal" sails. Very few gays would want to go through a strictly ceremonial union provided by an institution that despises them.

i can go with that. i would much rather everyone have to get a civil union and eliminate the notion of marriage altogether.

[mavs>spurs]

getting married is for pussies anyway, i'm sure it once used to be good for past generations but in today's new generation all we want is the next new shiny toy, these sort of things never last and you're wasting your time pretending otherwise imho. marriage has turned into the biggest scam against the male gender, next to circumcision.

[baseline bum]

Agree that the US government has no business dictating marriage customs whatsoever.

In a perfect world, but good luck ever getting that legislated when there are tax incentives for married people. The church would let the gays shampoo each others' crotches out in the streets before they'd give up that perk.

[Drachen]

Where did I say religious institutions need to recognize them?

I'm supporting the same thing you are, gays being recognized as a married couple by the government just like straight people. Not a civilly unified couple, a married couple. This is another example of you trying to argue with me while agreeing with me because you're butthurt by something I said :lol

Who's butt hurt, I thought you were arguing with what I was proposing since you quoted me and insinuated that what I said was just like those that argued for separate but equal and just assumed you wanted something more than to have perfectly identical rights for all groups. I will own that. Just a suggestion though, if you agree just agree. You can even do the ever popular "+ 1" or any of many other options.

[Drachen]

We need to go the route of France: you MUST be married in a secular civil ceremony for it to be legal, and you can chose to go the religious route afterward if you want, for ceremonial purposes, but it has no legal standing. That recognizes the world as it really is: marriage is a secular, legal institution. That also takes the wind out of the "they'll force religions to marry gays if it's legal" sails. Very few gays would want to go through a strictly ceremonial union provided by an institution that despises them.

Fine by me.

[ALVAREZ6]

getting married is for pussies anyway, i'm sure it once used to be good for past generations but in today's new generation all we want is the next new shiny toy, these sort of things never last and you're wasting your time pretending otherwise imho. marriage has turned into the biggest scam against the male gender, next to circumcision.

:lmao