Kluwe Owns Anit-Gay State Delegate

[Yugl]

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

Considering the period and location, you would be ridiculous to absolutely rule it out solely based on those two facts. Furthermore, your post only shows that the term was based on another term. That was already known. You obvious imply that it wasn't coined by Christian, but you don't actually say who coined the term. So tell me, who coined the current spelling?

[Ksandra]

So tell me, who coined the current spelling?

This just happened....

[Yugl]

Let me clarify; which individuals transferred the term from its Old French to the Middle English term we use?

[Ksandra]

first, the last step happened in middle english (mariage is also a middle english term)

second, I'll get back to you when you tell me the individual who transferred lol to lulz

[Restrat]

but which individuals invented the letter "r" in the first place? until we get that taken care of I don't see how this can continue.

[Ksandra]

but which individuals invented the letter "r" in the first place? until we get that taken care of I don't see how this can continue.

probably the christians, since ya know "christ" has an "r" in it. Don't bother reasoning with me I said PROBABLY.

[Yugl]

That sarcastic response is quite poignant to why I said probably given the time and region. When people say "religion" is responsible for war on these forums, they aren't saying a book waged war by itself. The people of a particular social group engaged in an activity just as how, conventionally and over time, both of those terms grew into what we know.

What's worst is that people are jumping on a point irrelevant to the original claim. The argument just said people lay claim to this term and the term may have originated among Christians given the time and locality. Whether that is actually true or not doesn't matter when it comes to making Civil Unions, not marriage, the standard.

[Ksandra]

doesn't matter when it comes to making Civil Unions, not marriage, the standard.

then why do you keep bringing it up and refuse to admit it was silly to do so in the first place?

I explained how words change over time so gradually that attributing it to a religious group to something that you say "doesn't matter" is foolish. Even if a christian started spelling it incorrectly and it spread does not mean it was for christian reasons or ideologies, and means jack shit. You tried to make it sound important and are now backpedaling when people point out it was a dumb thing to say.


If a gay guy were to have coined the term "lulz" would that then make it a gay thing? nope.

[Yugl]

then why do you keep bringing it up and refuse to admit it was silly to do so in the first place?

I don't bring this up! People want to address this like it's the biggest selling point of the claim and I respond to them. I don't think the assumption was silly given that the only facts at hand are the time and place. We can do the hippy "Duuude, a group can't own a term maaan" routine, but quite frankly, if you narrow the conditions enough, you do get an answer.

I explained how words change over time so gradually that attributing it to a religious group to something that you say "doesn't matter" is foolish. Even if a christian started spelling it incorrectly and it spread does not mean it was for christian reasons or ideologies, and means jack shit. You tried to make it sound important and are now backpedaling when people point out it was a dumb thing to say.

The point of bringing it up was the following:
1. As you have said yourself, we cannot definitively say "This term did not originate under the roof of Christianity", so fighting over "who's" term it is is fruitless until we can definitively prove one way or another.
2. Enough people conventionally associated the term with Christianity.
3. Christians use this term as a talking point for fighting against gay marriage.

If we don't know who actually started the spelling/people can use blurry lines to associate their group with the term (1), we cannot really fight "them" (I know you're Christian, so distinguishing between proponents of the claim and other Christians) on that point. We can say "Hey, this shit is gradual" until sunset, but that won't ever definitely disprove the claim. The point? Don't waste time disproving the claim. Points 2 and 3 basically read "Many people associate this term with Christians and they fight for 'dominance' over the term." So my question is why not side-step this semantic debate that neither side can win with truth (There is no "fact of the matter" that X term means Y concept) and the LGBT currently cannot win with necessary convention. We can easily resolve the rights issue without going through this mess of "what determines marriage" by making civil unions the default language of the law.

[Ksandra]

you are adding in too much extra info. fwiw I actually like the idea of "civil union" becoming the government term, though I think it will never happen. I think culturally too many non-chritisans use the term marriage, and they shouldn't have to (and probably won't) give it up either. None of that changes the fact that trying to throw in a "probably christian" was dumb and a poor attempt to try and throw that at their feet with a safety net. Who coined the current spelling is so ultimately irrelevant it never should have been mentioned. If it had stayed mariage, then we'd still have christians trying to "protect the sanctity of mariage". If you can't grasp this then I feel sorry for you.

[ronin sparthos]

Ah the inevitable semantic debate that means all of nothing in the long run. Bravo.

The bottom line is that religion in America hijacked the concept of marriage because of the reproductive, social and legal benefits offered to those that carry out the ceremony. Various cultures have unification ceremonies so to attribute the concept to Christians is silly as is the debate over the origin of a word because ultimately what matters is a debate over control and what is seen as legitimate within a social group.

We've seen this obstruction before and it had nothing to do with gays. Interracial marriage was shunned by many churches in ages past right up to the present pecisely because society deemed the practice immoral utilizing whatever excuses could be grasped to justifying their positions be it the Bible or just personal reservations against the practice.

Having control of the unification ceremony is powrrful precisely because if you make it difficult to marry then you discourage people to group into families, be happy, reproduce, pass inheretances and the ideal that such behavior can work. The point im trying to make is the marriage debate goes beyond religion - it touches on tradition, stereotypes, social acceptance and fear which ultimately is only molded by religion to protect a position. The bible only makes it easier but the root issues can exist without quoted text.

[Yugl]

I address that because seems to be a crucial component of the resistance against same-sex marriage. As for "throwing at their feet", the more you can shed from a argument, the stronger the argument is. So if you can say, "Even if X, Y, N, STILL G", you're making a much stronger claim than "Well X, Y, and N have to be true for G to be true." That is why I include the "extra info" when presenting the case.

Having control of the unification ceremony is powrrful precisely because if you make it difficult to marry then you discourage people to group into families, be happy, reproduce, pass inheretances and the ideal that such behavior can work. The point im trying to make is the marriage debate goes beyond religion - it touches on tradition, stereotypes, social acceptance and fear which ultimately is only molded by religion to protect a position. The bible only makes it easier but the root issues can exist without quoted text.

Yes, and I'm not making a plan that will suddenly force people to accept people. That cannot be done solely through law. What I am touching upon is rights. People say "Oh it's just a word", but having a Civil Union and having a marriage is a difference beyond "just words" because they have legal consequences. Again, In Re Marriage and other sources make this distinction very clear.

[Ksandra]

Ah the inevitable semantic debate that means all of nothing in the long run. Bravo.

The bottom line is that religion in America hijacked the concept of marriage because of the reproductive, social and legal benefits offered to those that carry out the ceremony. Various cultures have unification ceremonies so to attribute the concept to Christians is silly as is the debate over the origin of a word because ultimately what matters is a debate over control and what is seen as legitimate within a social group.

We've seen this obstruction before and it had nothing to do with gays. Interracial marriage was shunned by many churches in ages past right up to the present pecisely because society deemed the practice immoral utilizing whatever excuses could be grasped to justifying their positions be it the Bible or just personal reservations against the practice.

Having control of the unification ceremony is powrrful precisely because if you make it difficult to marry then you discourage people to group into families, be happy, reproduce, pass inheretances and the ideal that such behavior can work. The point im trying to make is the marriage debate goes beyond religion - it touches on tradition, stereotypes, social acceptance and fear which ultimately is only molded by religion to protect a position. The bible only makes it easier but the root issues can exist without quoted text.

completely agree!

I address that because seems to be a crucial component of the resistance against same-sex marriage. As for "throwing at their feet", the more you can shed from a argument, the stronger the argument is. So if you can say, "Even if X, Y, N, STILL G", you're making a much stronger claim than "Well X, Y, and N have to be true for G to be true." That is why I include the "extra info" when presenting the case.

making a case of "well you can't prove it wrong, therefore I can state it to support my claim"...hmmm who else uses that technique I wonder....

[Yugl]

making a case of "well you can't prove it wrong, therefore I can state it to support my claim"...hmmm who else uses that technique I wonder....

You may want to read the post again because I've stated clearly that the claim does not support my argument. Read what you quote. I said you can make a stronger case by saying "Even if X, Y, N, STILL G" meaning even if they're technically correct about the origin, this proposal still stands. Doing what you said is what people do when they fight about the semantic meaning of marriage.

[Ksandra]

You may want to read the post again because I've stated clearly that the claim does not support my argument. Read what you quote. I said you can make a stronger case by saying "Even if X, Y, N, STILL G" meaning even if they're technically correct about the origin, this proposal still stands. Doing what you said is what people do when they fight about the semantic meaning of marriage.

doesn't support your argument but can make a stronger case....wtf is this?

"saying god exists 'cause you can't disprove it doesn't support my argument that heaven exists, but it makes a stronger case that heaven exists"

This is so bad, and you should feel bad.

[edit] *probably exists

[Yugl]

doesn't support your argument but can make a stronger case....wtf is this?

Yes. If someone say "X, Y, N are true; therefore, S is wrong", you can retaliate by saying "Yes, X, Y, N (or even X, Y, N may be true) are true, but that S is still true." If you haven't learned formal logic (The same used for mathematical proofs), you may not understand.

[Ksandra]

Yes. If someone say "X, Y, N are true; therefore, S is wrong", you can retaliate by saying "Yes, X, Y, N (or even X, Y, N may be true) are true, but that S is still true." If you haven't learned formal logic (The same used for mathematical proofs), you may not understand.

see my quote above as to why that doesn't work IN THIS CASE.

you can't apply formal logic to unable-to-prove statements because you can't SAY "variable is true" since we don't know if it's true.

[ronin sparthos]

you are adding in too much extra info. fwiw I actually like the idea of "civil union" becoming the government term, though I think it will never happen. I think culturally too many non-chritisans use the term marriage, and they shouldn't have to (and probably won't) give it up either. None of that changes the fact that trying to throw in a "probably christian" was dumb and a poor attempt to try and throw that at their feet with a safety net. Who coined the current spelling is so ultimately irrelevant it never should have been mentioned. If it had stayed mariage, then we'd still have christians trying to "protect the sanctity of mariage". If you can't grasp this then I feel sorry for you.

The idea of civil unions and marriage being separate terms is nothing more than rehashed separate but equal legislation we have seen in the US. It didnt work then and wont work now.

Religion doesnt own the concept of marriage. Native americans completely isolated from European society had unification ceremonies and thus the idea that marriage belongs to any one group is silly. If a church doesnt want to marry gays or interracial couples or even people who are to old then fine that is their practice to draw parameters around but compromise on marriage rights in a country that champions freedoms is rediculous and telling of religious bigots lusting for power.

Keep the hateful behavior off my national platform.

[Ksandra]

The idea of civil unions and marriage being separate terms is nothing more than rehashed separate but equal legislation we have seen in the US. It didnt work then and didnt work now.

Religion doesnt own the concept of marriage. Native americans completely isolated from European society had unification ceremonies and thus the idea that marriage belongs to any one group is silly. If a church doesnt want to marry gays or interracial couples or even people who are to old then fine that is their practice to draw parameters around but compromise on marriage rights in a country that champions freedoms is rediculous and telling of religious bigots lusting for power.

Keep the hateful behavior off my national platform.

oh I meant the idea that gov't paperwork would be classified as civil union. If people have ceremonies outside of that they could consider that marriage. That definitely wouldn't be limited to christianity. hell, anyone could go to vegas and get hitched there if they wanted. It would get rid of the religious power over the laws.

I guess it doesn't seem like a huge issue to me since I consider my "church marriage" more significant than my "government marriage" one is just a piece of paper, the other is my pact with god.

but like I said, culturally, it could never happen because of what you just said. People who just go to the courthouse and sign a paper are still going to call themselves "married". I don't think that should be taken away from them, either, even if it would help progress the laws.

[Yugl]

You can apply formal logic to statements you cannot prove; you just cannot conclude that you've proven them. Asmada presented this concept within another thread when talking about Atheism. You cannot prove no god and you cannot prove there is god; therefore, you conclude that you don't know. However, if you're pressed, you have to pick "I believe he does/does not exist." And be careful, "believe" is different from "conclude." When you say believe, you're not saying you have proof of one way or another, you're just weighing probability. So if someone is an atheist, they cannot correctly say "We disproved the existence of god", but they can say they don't believe he exists because not enough evidence weighs towards that side comparatively.

As for your example, that was clearly a strawman and I think you need to learn formal logic more extensively to understand why my claim becomes stronger by saying "Event if X, Y is still true." Your strawman, however, completely misses this mark because it implies the claim "Even if god exists, heaven exists." That "god exists" is typically not a rebuttal against heaven's existence. If someone did say his existence refuted the existence of heaven, you could say "Even if he does exist, heaven exists" and your argument would be stronger than "It is necessary for a god to not exist for heaven to exist." What I imagine you were trying to do in that strawman was say "Even if no god exists, heaven exists" and that would still be a stronger argument than "For heaven to exist, it is necessary for god to exist" because the latter demands the existence for heaven's existence.

I understand the concept seems odd to you, but again, take a course on formal logic and you'll understand why that makes the argument stronger.