Kluwe Owns Anit-Gay State Delegate

[Baha]

The bible has more to it than issues on same-sex marriage, get over it.

Yet if you're gay and somehow raised christian, you'll most likely (70+% easily) end up in a sect that thinks homosexuality is a sin. So you simply change to another, cooler sect that's a different kind of fucked up? Ok.

And even if you are born into one of the larger, more "accepting" sects, chances are they'll still have to argue if you can get married or not, can adopt, should be allowed to openly, nay BRAZENLY rub your sexuality in everybody's (thinkofthechildren~) faces and so on. Tolerated? Maybe, if you keep your mouth shut and keep your disgusting gay handholding indoors.

True acceptance exists, but it's laughably negligible.

[Ksandra]

Yet if you're gay and somehow raised christian, you'll most likely (70+% easily) end up in a sect that thinks homosexuality is a sin. So you simply change to another, cooler sect that's a different kind of fucked up? Ok.

so? if someone wants that religion in their life and they have to change the sect to help fit in their world view, I don't see anything wrong with that. Also, times are changing in regards to many sects, this does not mean that gays should abstain from being involved in trying to push towards change within their religion just because the change doesn't exist RIGHT NOW.

I mean I think a good example of this in regards to Catholism is that survey that came out that said something like 80% of catholic women use birth control. I guess woman and catholism makes no sense eh?

And even if you are born into one of the larger, more "accepting" sects, chances are they'll still have to argue if you can get married or not, can adopt, should be allowed to openly, nay BRAZENLY rub your sexuality in everybody's (thinkofthechildren~) faces and so on. Tolerated? Maybe, if you keep your mouth shut and keep your disgusting gay handholding indoors.

True acceptance exists, but it's laughably negligible.

your ignorance is showing. Don't let the loudmouths confuse you into thinking the less vocal are so insanely small.

[Howie Roary]

why do they focus so much on one particular sin?

isn't taking the lord's name in vain just as equally a cardinal sin or whatever


and why can murderers marry?

[Howie Roary]

never mind, it's just a catholic thing

disregard, since we're talking about christianity

[Ksandra]

even in regards to catholism, I just don't even know. It's one of the things I am strongly against when it comes to the way the vatican has treated it. As is, technically homosexuality isn't even a sin. Just the actual act of having sex with the same sex is. ya I know that doesn't mean much of a difference to most, just that I dunno why this has become their parading sin to fight against.

[Plow]

What reasons would a gay person in this country have for being christian? Most around here wouldn't even accept gay people as members.

I went to quite a few different churches when I was younger cuz my parents could never decide on one they liked.

Of probably 10-15 different churches we attended for at least a few weeks at some point, I can only think of one where I think they'd have an issue with a gay person showing up, and that's the one my sisters' ballet teacher told us about before she told us how Santa is really just Satan in disguise trying to change the meaning of Christmas into pure greed.

[archibaldcrane]

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.

As for your question, I don't know if they would marry an admitted atheist or other religion couple and I don't care.

Jesus christ Yugl.

When you demonstrate clearly that you know absolutely fucking nothing about the origins and current legal ramifications/requirements of marriage, how can you think it's a good idea to spout a bunch of nonsense.

You seriously know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about and simultaneously think you have an opinion that must be shared.

[Andalusian girls]

it's the bg way

[Yugl]

Jesus christ Yugl.

When you demonstrate clearly that you know absolutely fucking nothing about the origins and current legal ramifications/requirements of marriage, how can you think it's a good idea to spout a bunch of nonsense.

You seriously know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about and simultaneously think you have an opinion that must be shared.

Are you saying that the term "marriage" hasn't created legal loopholes that undermine the rights of LGBT members? Certain tax and adoption laws de facto exclude members of the LGBT community because they explicitly refer to marriage.

As for the origin of the term, that really doesn't matter for what I'm proposing. If you really want to be bitchy and moan about it, do realize that Oxford dictionary has said the term originated as a Middle English term taken from Old French. Old French is 9th-14th century; Middle English is 10th-15th century. So how you explain why Oxford is saying 10th-15th century and Eurrell's post is talking BC? My guess is that the dictionary is talking about the term while Eurrell is talking about the concept. Guess what? The legal ramifications relate to the term.

How about you do a little less rhetoric (I know that's all you seem to do, but step out of the box for once) and explain how the origins of the term matters and why you think fighting over the semantic meaning of marriage is more productive.

Finally, you can't tell me whether a particular church will marry a given couple because we've seen that, even today, some churches aren't willing to marry black people. Is that all churches? No. However, if you were to go around saying you know, 100% guaranteed, whether a church would marry a couple, you need to be ready to predict (INC ESP!) that that church would not marry the couple and know which ones would a priori.

[archibaldcrane]

Wait, why do I have to explain whether the origin of the practice matters? You're the one who incorrectly attributed it to Christianity for some reason.

[Yugl]

Wait, why do I have to explain whether the origin of the practice matters? You're the one who incorrectly attributed it to Christianity for some reason.

You seriously know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about and simultaneously think you have an opinion that must be shared.

You're the one trying to undermine the claim by saying I don't know the origin, so yes, you do need to explain why origin matters. If you cannot do that, you're jumping all over one point to try and disprove a completely unrelated claim.

You're also conveniently overlooking several other rebuttals I had for you:
1. You criticize me for not knowing the origins, but cannot explain why Oxford's dictionary (The reason for my belief about the origin) and Eurrell's uncited source disagree. If the disagreement is due to terminology v concept, then that actually favors me since the issue is terminological, not conceptual.

2. You act like I just made that shit up on the spot when I said I received the information from Oxford dictionary. Are you suddenly suggesting that I shouldn't have trusted Oxford dictionary as a source?

3. You claim I don't know the legal ramifications of this, but what proof do you have for that? Using marriage has allowed discrimination of LGBT even if you have a civil union. This is commonly taught at universities. Even RKenshin has alluded to this issue within another thread. If you don't believe me and need some online support, go look at Wiki's LGBT adoption page. The page clearly states that they may discriminate on the basis of marital status. That is also an issue raised during multiple policy and legal courses, so I'm not to sit here and think some random dipshit knows better than people within the field. The fact of the matter is that using the term "marriage" within policy has allowed for discrimination of LGBT without access to same-sex marriage.

[archibaldcrane]

You say "using the term marriage has allowed for discrimination" and I say "not allowing gays to marry" has allowed for discrimination.

The point is that it's more efficient and fair to allow gays to legally marry, than to rewrite every single law at the state and federal level that grants different rights to those who are married and make them instead say "civilly unionized".

Declaring "they should try to get the government to call it something other than marriage and get the government out of the marriage licensing game" is simply a stalling tactic.

And again, you made the initial claim that the "christian origin of marriage" matters, therefore it's your responsibility to demonstrate why that matters in the slightest. All i have to do is demonstrate that you're hilariously wrong.

And no, the "how could people get married in ancient Rome when they didn't even speak english or old french to use the word 'marriage'!" argument is another example of how retarded you are.

tl;dr you're completely fucking retarded

[Yugl]

You say "using the term marriage has allowed for discrimination" and I say "not allowing gays to marry" has allowed for discrimination.

This is rhetoric and quite idiotic on your behalf. What undermines the rights of LGBT is political and strictly due to the fact that you can discriminate on the basis of marital status. That discrimination stems from the fact that our law uses the term "marriage." The denial of rights and discrimination due to poorly written laws is what is important; not the fact that you cannot participate in some ridiculous religious ceremony. If you can't grasp this, you're a moron.

The point is that it's more efficient and fair to allow gays to legally marry, than to rewrite every single law at the state and federal level that grants different rights to those who are married and make them instead say "civilly unionized".

Declaring "they should try to get the government to call it something other than marriage and get the government out of the marriage licensing game" is simply a stalling tactic.

Yes, years without accomplishing what you propose has been absolutely more efficient. There's much less resistance to redefining adoption and tax laws as they pertain to this matter. Furthermore, my proposal completely undermines a common talking point of the opposition. This is where we see your second line is absolutely absurd because the point is to get marriage out of government; not to get government out of the licensing game. The government can already grant civil partnerships; the problem is that the wording of legislative text means unequal rights. If you've read the In Re Marriage case, they cite several differences between Civil Unions and Marriage and explain that civil unions only designate some of the legal rights. Thus, the goal isn't to get the government out of the union licensing; it's to get religious institutions out of the game and rectify existing law. Know what the fuck you're talking about.

And again, you made the initial claim that the "christian origin of marriage" matters, therefore it's your responsibility to demonstrate why that matters in the slightest. All i have to do is demonstrate that you're hilariously wrong.

I didn't say it matters; I said it's probably a Christian product because Oxford cites the term as such. It's very easy to play the "NAH YOU GOTTA PROVE IT BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED IT" card when you don't have anything to back up your claims. Here's a hint: Saying "X is not the case" is as much of a proposition as saying "X is the case." For the last two pages, you've done nothing but play the ad hominem and rhetoric shit you usually do. How about stepping up and actually proving the shit you say? I've supported my claims on multiple occasions despite the fact that you continue fall silent when I return with criticism.

And no, the "how could people get married in ancient Rome when they didn't even speak english or old french to use the word 'marriage'!" argument is another example of how retarded you are.

Nice twist of words and strawman combo. The question asked for you to explain why Oxford and the uncited quote by Eurrell have different answers as to the origin other than one talking about term and the other talking about concept. A little less time pandering to posters and more time with the facts would do you good. Of course, that's too much to expect from you I suppose.

[Ksandra]

is yugl actually trying to claim that people went from saying "mariage" to "marriage" because of christian reasons?.......ya we love dem Rs.....

Do you understand how etymology works?

It's like fucking banana phone. Ya sure, the current SPELLING of the word "marriage" came out in middle English from the word "mariage", from the french word "marier" which came from the latin word "marītāre" and so on and so forth. That doesn't fucking mean in middle English all the sudden Christians everywhere said "WE MUST CALL IT MARRIAGE." Dialects fucking change over time gradually. Trying to point fingers at one group because of it's current incarnation and claim it had an agenda with it is so ultimately wtf.

[Yugl]

is yugl actually trying to claim that people went from saying "mariage" to "marriage" because of christian reasons?.......ya we love dem Rs.....

Do you understand how etymology works?

It's like fucking banana phone. Ya sure, the current SPELLING of the word "marriage" came out in middle English from the word "mariage", from the french word "marier" which came from the latin word "marītāre" and so on and so forth. That doesn't fucking mean in middle English all the sudden Christians everywhere said "WE MUST CALL IT MARRIAGE." Dialects fucking change over time gradually. Trying to point fingers at one group because of it's current incarnation and claim it had an agenda with it is so ultimately wtf.

The bold is all that's referenced in the original post. The rest of your post is strawman nonsense you're supplanting onto the argument. It's current incarnation, conventional association, and origin of the spelling precisely pertain to the discussion. Don't let the point fly by you.

[Ksandra]

if you think that saying marriage is more significant that mariage then you are the one creating strawman nonsense.

Again YOU claimed it was a christian spelling because of when the word came out. If you think christians added the extra r you are retarded.

[Yugl]

Strawman more Ksandra. Read the post. I said it's probably a Christian product. I specifically said probably because I only knew of the time of origin and not the actual creator.

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.

Read the post; don't create one that's convenient for you. In case it's not clear, "Probably X" and "Definitely X" are completely different statements.

[Ksandra]

even thinking it is probably a christian product is retarded. And trying to make that sound like oh "MAYBE" is stupid when you keep bringing it up again and again against archi.

I didn't say it matters; I said it's probably a Christian product because Oxford cites the term as such. It's very easy to play the "NAH YOU GOTTA PROVE IT BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED IT" card when you don't have anything to back up your claims. Here's a hint: Saying "X is not the case" is as much of a proposition as saying "X is the case." For the last two pages, you've done nothing but play the ad hominem and rhetoric shit you usually do. How about stepping up and actually proving the shit you say? I've supported my claims on multiple occasions despite the fact that you continue fall silent when I return with criticism.

I fucking proved it for you. Be a man, grow some balls, and realize your "probably" assumption was retarded to make.

[Demosthenes11]

everyone in this thread is dumb and should feel dumb

[Milkster]

Yugl isn't Leroy is he?