To promote the idea that the union of two people of the same sex is equal to the union of two people of the opposite sex is a dishonest scale. It will not matter who or what entity declares this to be the truth, the law, justice, or whatever term anyone wants to attach to this issue, same sex marriages will never be equal to opposite sex marriages.

Well, first off, what you're really saying here is that promoting the idea is a "dishonest scale." I don't get how that works, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you meant that the idea of a same-sex union being "equal" to a heterosexual union is a "dishonest scale," which apparently means to you that they're not "equal."

In what sense? What do you mean by "equal"? If you mean they're not the "same," well, that's true; but it's also true that no heterosexual union is the "same" as another such union; all pairings, by their very nature, are unique.

If you mean, rather, that the same sex union can't produce children, well, that's true for a number of heterosexual unions, too. Should those, then, be outlawed?

The notion of "equality" is usually taken in these discussions to mean "equal before the law." In this case, it means that the same rights are afforded to a same sex couple as to a heterosexual couple, in the same sense that a rich man and a poor man are equal before the law, or a white woman and a black woman, or ... any other such comparisons.

Can you explain to us why you think two such unions should not be equal before the law? Other than the "ick" and "God forbids it" arguments, I mean?

So far, these are the only two arguments that have been advanced. If your argument is different from those two, you'll have to do a great deal more work to explain how it differs.

I am an Orthodox Christian who objects to gay marriage on religious principles. Marriage is a sacrament of the church, sacred. . . . . In conclusion, I do not want the government telling churches what to do and that is what I fear will come of this. Less government is always a good thing.

Marriage is a civil contract. You may regard it as a "sacrament," but the secular reality is that it's a contract sanctioned by the state.

The principle you refer to is "separation of church and state." No one has raised this as a serious matter in the case of same sex unions. No one has suggested, save as a straw man argument, that churches will be forced to marry people against their faiths. As has been pointed out numerous times, today churches are allowed to discriminate based on their faiths.

Finally, you think less government is always a good thing? Always? The logical outcome to this is that no government would be near-perfect. There are many places in the world you can move to in order to test this theory out. I suggest you consider moving to, say, Somalia, Chad, or perhaps uninhabited parts of the Arctic Circle. There, you can experience all the lack of government you want. I await your report on how it is better than living in, say, Peoria.

Cheney's notions of what America's interests are have little or nothing to do with what I think America's interests are.

Cheney believes that America's interests are synonymous with those of multi-national predatory-capitalist corporations.

I think that America's interests are synonymous with truth, with justice, and with democracy.

Who stands with me?

The question is not whether torture is effective, or has been in a particular case. I'm perfectly willing to grant that torture may indeed be effective.

The question is whether the ends justify the means.

If they do, well then, torture away! With no holds barred! Bring back the Iron Maiden. Employ the methods of the Gestapo, the South African apartheid state, the Inquisition! Because if the ends justify the means, then what the hell! Let's use their families against them--certainly threatening a six-month infant with hot irons or gang-rape of a thirteen-year-old will make almost anybody talk. And if the ends justify the means, then who cares?

But if the ends don't justify the means--if the means used define and distort the ends--then we really should consider what the the hell we're doing. Because torture makes people the bad guys--if the ends don't justify the means. Because torture in and of itself is morally wrong; it can only be justified in some larger context.

So those of you who think torture is just fine, let me ask you: where do you stop, and why? Would you torture a child in order to get the parent to talk? Would you kill innocents in order to provoke a confession? If you would have a stopping point--why?

There are some things in this world that are absolutely binary. The use of torture is one of those things.

The use of force is often justified, primarily in self-defense. I'm not a pacifist. It should never be undertaken lightly; it should never be undertaken without a thorough understanding of the consequences (cf. Bush II's Iraqi War); it should never be undertaken without the willingness to shoulder the burdens of the consequences.

But the use of force in self-defense is precisely the opposite of torture. Torture is the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on a passive subject who is unable to resist. The use of force is justified against active subjects, not those who have already come under our control.

Again, the question is ends and means. If the ends justify the means, then this discussion is entirely moot. If, however, the ends can be compromised by the means, then one must look carefully at the correlation between the two.

And you never answered my question: where would you stop in torture, and why? Why, if you can save innocents, should innocents not be tortured?