Kluwe Owns Anit-Gay State Delegate

[6souls]

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/22cb3cc...es/monster.jpg

[6souls]

The issue of marriage has become a hot topic for NFL players in Baltimore and Minnesota.

After Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo supported gay marriage, state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote a letter asking Baltimore owner Steve Bisciotti hip to limit such comments from players.

That led Vikings punter Chris Kluwe to pen a profane letter to the delegate defending both free speech and gay marriage.

Now Ravens center (and former Viking) Matt Birk has penned an opinion in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune supporting free speech and opposing gay marriage.

...Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society?

Don't we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction? Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate. I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic pro-marriage culture in this upcoming election

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon...kluwe/1605365/
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...1.html?refer=y

[Talint]

Man, sure is tough being the persecuted majority.

[Milkster]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb...8enqo1_500.jpg

[Apelila]

People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society?

Well, I'm so glad your reality excludes basic rights for gay couples. Just like how 60 years ago your grandparents reality didn't allow for interracial marriage.

[Eurell]

.Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children

[Yugl]

Name calling on both ends is pointless if your goal is to resolve the issue. Any can do the name game and say "HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?!", say "THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE PEOPLE ON MY SIDE OF THE ISSUE FEEL YO", and use that as "justification" for their side of the argument. Marriage is a Christian product. This Christian product has allowed for legal loopholes that alienate the LGBT community.

So my qualm with this ordeal is that people want to keep the marriage within legal language, but make that term inclusive of non-straight unions. Why do that rather than advocate for the removal of marriage as a legal term and subsequently replace with civil unions? To me, that would be one step closer to getting religion the fuck out of government. When you consider this and a few other facts, the current path seems astronomically flawed.

1. By choosing gay marriage of legal revamp, you choose religious-legal unison rather than separation.
2. Why the fuck would you guys want to take part in this Christian institution? To me, that would be as if I bitched about KKK not offering membership.
3. This is where I get to look down at people who have made statements to the effect of "semantics doesn't matter" because here we are with a semantics argument that has consequences. The problem, of course, is that this term is probably a Christian product; thus, conventionally dependent on their membership. If you go with the legal rewrite, you side-step this entire issue and undermine the legitimacy of these religious institutions.

So what is to gain?
1. Any discussion of this matter for future legislation will solely refer to rights.
2. Having a legal process for the replacement term will settle any semantic discussion.
3. Secular legal language.

[Julian]

Oh man, just think of all those confused teenagers who don't understand what's happening to them, think it's wrong, and end up going into severe depressions and some even committing suicide.

Can't be stopping that from happening now, can we? :givememyanimatedrolleyesback:

[Eurell]

Name calling on both ends is pointless if your goal is to resolve the issue. Any can do the name game and say "HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL?!", say "THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE PEOPLE ON MY SIDE OF THE ISSUE FEEL YO", and use that as "justification" for their side of the argument. Marriage is a Christian product. This Christian product has allowed for legal loopholes that alienate the LGBT community.

So my qualm with this ordeal is that people want to keep the marriage within legal language, but make that term inclusive of non-straight unions. Why do that rather than advocate for the removal of marriage as a legal term and subsequently replace with civil unions? To me, that would be one step closer to getting religion the fuck out of government. When you consider this and a few other facts, the current path seems astronomically flawed.

1. By choosing gay marriage of legal revamp, you choose religious-legal unison rather than separation.
2. Why the fuck would you guys want to take part in this Christian institution? To me, that would be as if I bitched about KKK not offering membership.
3. This is where I get to look down at people who have made statements to the effect of "semantics doesn't matter" because here we are with a semantics argument that has consequences. The problem, of course, is that this term is probably a Christian product; thus, conventionally dependent on their membership. If you go with the legal rewrite, you side-step this entire issue and undermine the legitimacy of these religious institutions.

So what is to gain?
1. Any discussion of this matter for future legislation will solely refer to rights.
2. Having a legal process for the replacement term will settle any semantic discussion.
3. Secular legal language.

Marriage was not invented by Christians. That's the problem. They do not get to claim this word as their own just because they say so.

Even if it was a Christian product though, you still run into the issue that some homosexuals are in fact, Christian themselves. So it would still come down to 1 sect of christianity claiming to be right over the other sect, have fun figuring out which is correct 2 (hint: its neither).

Also, as far as I know, Christian Marriage is between man, woman, and the Christian God, correct? Does this mean atheists and people of other religions should not be allowed to be married either? After all, they aren't doing it how the bible says they should, right?

[Yugl]

Marriage was not invented by Christians. That's the problem. They do not get to claim this word as their own just because they say so.

What was the origin?

Even if it was a Christian product though, you still run into the issue that some homosexuals are in fact, Christian themselves. So it would still come down to 1 sect of christianity claiming to be right over the other sect, have fun figuring out which is correct 2 (hint: its neither).

Neither will be correct, but one of them will take conventional superiority (Guess which).

Also, as far as I know, Christian Marriage is between man, woman, and the Christian God, correct? Does this mean atheists and people of other religions should not be allowed to be married either? After all, they aren't doing it how the bible says they should, right?

The question of "should not" is ethical. There are no ethical truths; thus, that proposition will be false. If the question is "can they", then that depends on whether the institutions allow. If so, woo hoo? If not, who cares? Remember that my proposal is to divorce the legal and religious components of existing marriage. Without the legal component, marriage becomes a rather meaningless ceremony.

[Eurell]

How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

Records of marriage also in ancient greece and ancient rome. All BC stuff.


As far as your last paragraph, that seems like a bunch of semantics for no reason lol. Im asking if the Christians that believe Gays should not be allowed to get married, believe that atheist and people other other religions that don't believe in their God should be allowed to get married, as it would not follow their definition of marriage, which is between man, woman, and God.

[Yugl]

Records of marriage also in ancient greece and ancient rome. All BC stuff.


As far as your last paragraph, that seems like a bunch of semantics for no reason lol. Im asking if the Christians that believe Gays should not be allowed to get married, believe that atheist and people other other religions that don't believe in their God should be allowed to get married, as it would not follow their definition of marriage, which is between man, woman, and God.

Good to know.

If the the issue is semantics for no reason, then so is anyone putting forth an opinion. You (not just you specifically, but anyone with an invested interest in gay marriage) can't play "Just semantics" card then bitch about how the term is defined. As for your question, I don't know if they would marry an admitted atheist or other religion couple and I don't care. What I'm addressing is the fact that this word has grown a religious and legal component. Our legal text should divorce itself of this for a more secular concept to remain true to separation of church and state. As your uncited paragraph suggests, this term is not of Christian origin. However, whether rightfully or unjustly, the term has gained such context. If we void marriage of its legal power, the ceremony becomes a passing religious act with virtually no meaningful effect. If the greater issue is rights, why not take the secular approach?

[Eurell]

So only Christians can get married then. Fuck every other religion. Maybe they should all steal their own words that noone else will be allowed to use anymore.

This again ignores that the followers of Christianity themselves are divided on whether or not gays should be allowed to marry.

This isn't supposed to come off as angry either, though I think it probably reads that way lol. Its just frustrating as fuck that the opposing side just tries to change history and claim shit for their own whenever they feel like it.

[Yugl]

As long as the terms have no legal recourse, yes, every damn religion can make a "union" ceremony and they can call that ceremony whatever the fuck they want. I don't care. As for bickering within the Christian community about gay marriage, they can go ahead and bicker all they want because once conceptually divorced, there is no legal consequence. They can fight, bicker, and scream within their own community and I won't give a shit. Quite frankly, I don't see why any LGBT would want to remain Christian either. This is like the wife that bitches about a lousy husband, but doesn't want to divorce him; the difference being that leaving a church is far less consequential (Which makes the decision to stay there even more absurd).

As for the origin of the term, I'm not Christian so I didn't really care or know about the origins. Before writing that post, I looked on Oxford which said French/Middle English (Or some term to that effect), so that just seemed like the origin. Of course, that has no actual recourse for what I'm proposing.

[Eurell]

They do call it w/e they want. They call it marriage lol.

I also don't understand why some gays are still christian, though I don't understand why anyone is. I suppose though, if you believe. You would think that a religion telling you your very existence is a sin would push you away, but doesnt christianity tell everyone they are sinners anyway?

[Yugl]

Exactly. And they can keep the damn term. Why is the LGBT community fighting for this term when the rational and secular option is to rewrite legal documentations using a secular/governmental term?

[Eurell]

Idk, the principle? I'm married. And even if there would be no legal differences or anything, if we gave the word marriage to Christians only, and people told me I wasn't married anymore (do they take the terms husband and wife as well? They all go hand in hand dont they?) I would be pissed as fuck.

When a kid is crying that he wants someone elses toy, and keeps lying, yelling that its his, you don't just give in and give the kid the toy.

[Apelila]

For the Federal gov to create a classification for "union", they would have to create all new laws unless they granted it the same status as marriage. If it could be magicked away with another word I don't think a single gay would care, but it would not have the same protections.

[Howie Roary]

how does a football player write so well?

kudos

[Yugl]

They're going to have to create new laws one way or another because even if the courts say "Hey, fuck off", they have no backing. That's the same problem racial rights faced. Only when you take the mechanism out of their hands and create federal backing do you get the results desired.

What protections do you gain by continuing a semantic fight over the meaning of marriage that you do not gain by divorcing the legal component from the ceremony?