Kluwe Owns Anit-Gay State Delegate

[Ksandra]

what you are dong is trying to sway people to a side by hoping they won't know any better.

What you just said sums up to:

Glenn Beck may have raped and murdered a girl in 1990. And even if that isn't true, he's still a terrible human being.


It's a terrible tactic to try and use, and you are being a cry-baby for getting called out on it.

[ronin sparthos]

Marriage is mariage. A term used to describe a unification between people or peoples. Hardcore religious can scream 1 man 1 woman until their blue in the face but the ignorance of their own historical polygamy betrays their cause. Practices change to meet societal needs and while polygamy has fallen out of favor we now have a duty to award rights to homosexual members of society.

The bible had no issue about 1 man and 7 women or selling women into sex slavery to pay debts so this appeal to tradition ulrimately goes beyond what is legit in Gods eyes and is more telling of personal fears and collective ignorance hiding behind the veil of religious faith. Issues like where pets go after death is just one issue of many where the churches have abiout faced due to societal demands and it ultimately will happen on the LBGT front as well.

As far as the govt should be concerned marriage should reflect the needs of societies. The US prides itself on freedom and thus if two women or men want to get married then rights should be awarded.

[noblemountain]

Holy shit my IQ dropped reading the last 3 pages.

[Yugl]

It's actually a recommended tactic to use at the university level of writing. You anticipate counterarguments and address them as such. In this case, I'm saying the point is irrelevant and that we can even hand them that luxury and still have a working proposal.

Your example is another strawman because I'm not saying "It is true and even if not", I'm saying "Even if it is true." There is a difference because the former attempts to use that as an additional proof of the argument while the latter does not. I'm saying the approach is viable even if the opponents are correct about that one issue. If you want to make an equivalent statement, you need to say "Even if Beck contributed $100000000000000 to Charity, he is still a terrible guy." That would be comparable and that statement would be stronger than "He is a terrible guy but only if he hasn't contributed $1000000000000 to charity."

[Eurell]

This isn't university level. This is an online video game forum. Know your crowd when you're building an argument. Regardless, this all still comes down to Christians trying to convince everyone a word is theirs, when it simply isn't. And the rest of the world should not be forced to give it up and just say, oh ok, go ahead and take it.

[Ksandra]

It's actually a recommended tactic to use at the university level of writing. You anticipate counterarguments and address them as such.

Your example is another strawman because I'm not saying "It is true and even if not", I'm saying "Even if it is true." There is a difference because the former attempts to use that as an additional proof of the argument while the latter does not. I'm saying the approach is viable even if the opponents are correct about that one issue. If you want to make an equivalent statement, you need to say "Even if Beck contributed $100000000000000 to Charity, he is still a terrible guy." That would be comparable and that statement would be stronger than "He is a terrible guy but only if he hasn't contributed $1000000000000 to charity."

might want to look up what the word "may" means before claiming mine is a strawman argument. I mean, you know that meme is because Glenn Beck does what you did almost 24/7, right?

Marriage is mariage. A term used to describe a unification between people or peoples. Hardcore religious can scream 1 man 1 woman until their blue in the face but the ignorance of their own historical polygamy betrays their cause. Practices change to meet societal needs and while polygamy has fallen out of favor we now have a duty to award rights to homosexual members of society.

The bible had no issue about 1 man and 7 women or selling women into sex slavery to pay debts so this appeal to tradition ulrimately goes beyond what is legit in Gods eyes and is more telling of personal fears and collective ignorance hiding behind the veil of religious faith. Issues like where pets go after death is just one issue of many where the churches have abiout faced due to societal demands and it ultimately will happen on the LBGT front as well.

As far as the govt should be concerned marriage should reflect the needs of societies. The US prides itself on freedom and thus if two women or men want to get married then rights should be awarded.

I agree, I am saying from a "ease of the law" standpoint civil unions would make things go a lot faster. It is not the best solution, however, because of everything you said.

[Yugl]

This isn't university level. This is an online video game forum. Know your crowd when you're building an argument. Regardless, this all still comes down to Christians trying to convince everyone a word is theirs, when it simply isn't. And the rest of the world should not be forced to give it up and just say, oh ok, go ahead and take it.

Again with the "should" Eurrell. That's automatically going to be false. If you want an ideological proposal, my proposal is not the way to go because an ideological proposal can ignore the facts of the situation. My proposal is a pragmatic one aimed at redeeming rights, not redeeming participation in some religious ceremony. I understand your initial sentence, but there's not much I can do about that.

might want to look up what the word "may" means before claiming mine is a strawman argument. I mean, you know that meme is because Glenn Beck does what you did almost 24/7, right?

It's a strawman because you're trying to generalize it into what it isn't. Saying "Maybe X, even if not, Y" is different from "Even if X, Y" when X and Y contradict each other in terms of the aim. To be clear, saying he is terrible and a rapist both aim towards the same goal. Saying "even if they are correct about the term, we can claim LGBT rights" is clearly different because the former component aims to say "No rights" while the latter says "Yes rights." So yes, you were strawmanning.

[Eurell]

Again with the "should" Eurrell. That's automatically going to be false. If you want an ideological proposal, my proposal is not the way to go because an ideological proposal can ignore the facts of the situation. My proposal is a pragmatic one aimed at redeeming rights, not redeeming participation in some religious ceremony.

The only thing needed to redeem rights is to allow everyone to get married.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony unless you make it so.

[Ksandra]

Again with the "should" Eurrell. That's automatically going to be false. If you want an ideological proposal, my proposal is not the way to go because an ideological proposal can ignore the facts of the situation. My proposal is a pragmatic one aimed at redeeming rights, not redeeming participation in some religious ceremony. I understand your initial sentence, but there's not much I can do about that.



It's a strawman because you're trying to generalize it into what it isn't. Saying "Maybe X, even if not, Y" is different from "Even if X, Y" when X and Y contradict each other in terms of the aim. To be clear, saying he is terrible and a rapist both aim towards the same goal. Saying "even if they are correct about the term, we can claim LGBT rights" is clearly different because the former component aims to say "No rights" while the latter says "Yes rights." So yes, you were strawmanning.

ok even if glenn beck may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, he's donated some money to some charities, is still the same retarded shit. I am not strawmaning, you just are constantly twisting the argument to try and make it sound like it's ok to give "probably" falsehoods to try and skew your point. No matter what way you want to slice it saying "glenn beck may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990" then ending it WITH ANYTHING is stupid because he didn't, and it shouldn't be put into people's heads that he might have.

The only thing needed to redeem rights is to allow everyone to get married.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony unless you make it so.

Well....I'd say marriage is both a union and a religious ceremony. While I don't think marriage should be taken away from others, I don't think it's fair to take marriage away from the religious either.

[Yugl]

The only thing needed to redeem rights is to allow everyone to get married.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony unless you make it so.

Well under state law, that is part of the requirement (Either civil partnership or religious ceremony). I'm not saying you don't get the desired result by allowing gay marriage; I'm just offering an alternative approach that undermines religious claims to terminology used within legal writing because it is this terminology that is abused to undermine rights. That is why the difference between civil union rights and marriage rights falls along those terms. Again, either way would get you rights, but I prefer to undermine a huge talking point of the opposition and centralize the focus with states rather than religious sects. If you recall Ksandra's post from a few moments ago, you recall her talking about how much more meaningful the religious ceremony is compared to the legal component. That is the type of ubiquity I hope to undermine.

ok even if glenn beck may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, he's donated some money to some charities, is still the same retarded shit. I am not strawmaning, you just are constantly twisting the argument to try and make it sound like it's ok to give "probably" falsehoods to try and skew your point. No matter what way you want to slice it saving "glenn beck may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990" then ending it WITH ANYTHING is stupid because he didn't, and it shouldn't be put into people's heads that he might have.

If it is false and you know it's false, then you're creating a problem. That belief right there is part of the strawman you're constructing. You're not doing any "wrong" if you say "probably X" based on limited data. That's what people do in real world experiments and even video game tests. When you parse an unknown DA value, you look at the parse and say "Probably is X%", but you cannot prove that it is X% and any subsequent beliefs stem from limited data.

[Eurell]

Well....I'd say marriage is both a union and a religious ceremony. While I don't think marriage should be taken away from others, I don't think it's fair to take marriage away from the religious either.

Im not saying to take marriage away from religion. I'm saying marriage is only religious if people want it to be. Religion in marriage is optional. I'm an atheist and I still had a big ceremony and huge reception and we still had all our family and friends there to celebrate our union. Probably the only difference between my wedding and a christians is that we didn't hold it at a church, and we were not making a pact with god.

Well under state law, that is part of the requirement (Either civil partnership or religious ceremony). I'm not saying you don't get the desired result by allowing gay marriage; I'm just offering an alternative approach that undermines religious claims to terminology used within legal writing because it is this terminology that is abused to undermine rights. That is why the difference between civil union rights and marriage rights falls along those terms. Again, either way would get you rights, but I prefer to undermine a huge talking point of the opposition and centralize the focus with states rather than religious sects. If you recall Ksandra's post from a few moments ago, you recall her talking about how much more meaningful the religious ceremony is compared to the legal component. That is the type of ubiquity I hope to undermine.

I get that. I just don't like that approach at all. Christianity does not get to just claim something that isn't theirs. Marriage was around before they were. I'm married, Christian or not, and I dont want people taking that (yes I'm aware its just a word) from me because (some of) Chritianity is throwing a tantrum.

[Talint]

[kuronosan]

Im not saying to take marriage away from religion. I'm saying marriage is only religious if people want it to be. Religion in marriage is optional. I'm an atheist and I still had a big ceremony and huge reception and we still had all our family and friends there to celebrate our union. Probably the only difference between my wedding and a christians is that we didn't hold it at a church, and we were not making a pact with god.




I get that. I just don't like that approach at all. Christianity does not get to just claim something that isn't theirs. Marriage was around before they were. I'm married, Christian or not, and I dont want people taking that (yes I'm aware its just a word) from me because (some of) Chritianity is throwing a tantrum.

My wedding was like that. We didn't mention God once. Our pact was to each other.

[Ksandra]

That video is awesome.

If it is false and you know it's false, then you're creating a problem. That belief right there is part of the strawman you're constructing. You're not doing any "wrong" if you say "probably X" based on limited data. That's what people do in real world experiments and even video game tests. When you parse an unknown DA value, you look at the parse and say "Probably is X%", but you cannot prove that it is X% and any subsequent beliefs stem from limited data.

except this wasn't about you trying to parse any data to find out the truth, it was you throwing in a random statement to try and convince people of something you aren't even sure is correct, AND THEN when people told you it wasn't a good argument, you threw a hissy fit.

[Yugl]

I get that. I just don't like that approach at all. Christianity does not get to just claim something that isn't theirs. Marriage was around before they were. I'm married, Christian or not, and I dont want people taking that (yes I'm aware its just a word) from me because (some of) Chritianity is throwing a tantrum.

Like I said, I know some people won't like this because they have a more ideological view of the situation. It's not enough to have equal legal rights; they must always welcome people within the religious tradition (meaning the ceremony at the church). That's fine; I understand, but I personally don't believe we should let obsession with the latter delay the acquisition of the former. I also think that fighting in that manner is childish. Oh well.

[kuronosan]

I think arguing over the use and interchangeability of the words marriage and union are fucking retarded in a country where people walk by rapes and homeless people who haven't eaten in days.

[Yugl]

Well they aren't interchangeable which is the issue lol.

[kuronosan]

Well they aren't interchangeable which is the issue lol.

What society deems interchangeable and what actually is contributes to the "problem". Homo and Gay don't even mean close to the same thing (gay means happy and has come to be used as homosexual).

Marriage, on the other hand, means the same thing as union.

[Yugl]

Not with respect to the legal rights. Typically, you'll see greater legal benefits afforded to marriages. If you wiki Civil Unions and LGBT Adoption, you'll see passages with the same claim and you can look at sources to see specific examples such as the In Re Marriage case. Some states have them on the same term I think (Like Vermont), but that's only done so explicitly. That's one of the reasons discrimination based on martial status is relevant to adoption. Having one or the other matters. That's assuming you meant Civil Union btw.

[kuronosan]

We're talking about raw definitions here. The point I'm making is that allowing a religion to define a concept of rites and rituals is fucking retarded and similar to trying to claim ownership of the word fire.