Thursday, November 1, 2012

Debating the marriage amendment on Facebook brings out the brave warrior in us all

Hey everyone!

During these times of political import, I've decided to treat you the extended cut of a debate between two people on Facebook.

A high school friend of mine posted this photo, which touched off the following epic debate about the proposed marriage amendment. It's long, folks, so if you're just checking in for a few seconds, you might want to come back later. But I wouldn't post this if it wasn't entertaining. So here you go.

Enjoy ...

  • Joe Kessel I am confused. Can you remind me of when it was that Americans sold their daughters for three goats and a cow?
  • Zach Lais 1492-1865
  • John Micheal Rock I believe marriage should be between one man and two woman!!! Lmao one to cook and one to clean!!!
  • Joe Kessel So according to Zach the United States was founded in 1492 and slaves sold their own children for farm animals. I guess it's pretty obvious that pubic education dollars aren't being used as affectively as they could be. 

    If you are going to reply to something I say at least have enough respect to make sure that you actually understand what it is that we are talking about!
  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace Joe, the word American is nowhere in that photo. If you are going to talk about the photo, at least have enough respect to actually talk about what's in it. And frankly the onus should be on you to tell us why you think marriage should be defined in the traditional sense by the government. 

  • Is it that you want the government to legislate who churches can perform their rites on, or are you just willing to give up that freedom for your church in order to make sure that other churches can't perform the marriage rite on two people of the same sex? If you are going to tell your fellow American citizens that there is a freedom they can not have, then you need to have a damn good reason for it, and we're all interested in what that reason is.

  • Joe Kessel Well Robb the laws of this time and country are the ones that are in question so any argument about what happened 2000 years ago and half way around the planet is irrelevent. MOREOVER, even if the Biblical definition was what we are currently using as a baseline then it would be the Christian definition found in the book of Thesolonians that was established at the Conference of Jeruselem and defined marriage as one man and one woman and would NOT be the older version found in Laviticus. A point, which in essense, makes the premise of the orginal post moot because it lacks any validity in the current argument! 

    Just because you talk to people that either don't understand, or are incapable of properly making their arguments, doesn't mean that their arguments are invalid or incorrect. The thing that is invalid and incorrect is the assertion that the current marriage debate has anything to do with exchanging young women for goats!

  • Mark Jorgensen if I had a big yard I would trade them for goats :-p

  • Joe Kessel Chris you are wrong in your assertion that the burden falls to me to define marriage. The original post makes a point, I made a counter point to question the original post's validity. The burden is on the original point of argument to validate their position. I am merely required to support my challenges with logic and reason.

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace Since it seems like maybe you are a little slow, I'll try to help you out Joe. The photo is a kind of joke, poking fun at people who think that tradition is a good reason to define marriage a certain way or who believe that it has always been a certain way. It's a sort of comedic take on the idea that the current definition of marriage is outmoded and it mocks people who think the traditional definition is so important. 

    I'm also curious if you think that Laviticus is not God's word or if you think his word was flawed or is now outdated? If you are trying to make your religion the law of the land, then you can expect people to attack it and you better be ready to defend it.

  • Mark Jorgensen You guys are WAYYYYYY over analyzing this-LMAO

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace I have yet to hear anyone defend the traditional definition of marriage with logic and reason, but I would love to hear you give it a shot.

  • Mark Jorgensen Here's an attempt- a person's personal beliefs on an issue are just that-THEIR beliefs- they don't need to explain it if you don't agree with them-LOL

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace When you are supporting legislation that restricts the freedoms of your fellow Americans, you should have the balls to defend those beliefs and explain them to the people whose rights you are infringing. If someone asks me why they can't sell crack, I can give them a good reason why I think it should be illegal. If they want to have sex with a 14 year old, I can tell them why I think they should go to jail. 

    When it comes to gay marriage, the only reason I ever hear that people are against it is their religion. And legislating your religion isn't an acceptable reason to take freedoms away from others. I think it's bullshit when it's Sharia in a muslim country, just like I think it's bullshit when right wingers want to do it in America. 

    So far all I hear is "It's how I feel, it's my personal belief."

    I feel like it should be illegal to threaten your child with eternal damnation based on a silly belief in an outdated mythology and that it's no better than telling them the boogie man will get them if they don't clean their room. Is it ok for me to vote to outlaw Christianity just because it's my personal belief?

  • Mark Jorgensen It's NOT a right now!!!!!! Where do people get that it is infringing on their rights????? And PLEASE tell me why then if it is the will of the people that in EVERY SINGLE CASE (32 times) gay marriage has failed to be voted in.

  • Joe Kessel Well Chris if I am a bit slow then you are at a complete stop! First of all the post is not a “joke” it is an attack on the beliefs of people that oppose redefining a core aspect of our culture. Maybe you think that words designed to “mock” other people’s beliefs are funny but the rest of the educated world calls that bigotry. You should probably actually look that word up so you are sure you understand it’s meaning. 

    Secondly what I believe about Leviticus and its application to Christina ideology is not the point of discussion here. What is at point is that the current marriage debate that is taking place in the US commonly comes down to a question of traditional values as defined by the majority of the People. Since the US is a Republic the will of the People is a cornerstone of the marriage debate and since the majority of the People identify as followers of the Christian faith the definition of marriage within that faith becomes a valid point of argument. (See how America suddenly became relevant without being mentioned in the original post?) Leviticus does not define Christian marriage, Thessalonians does, and as such any argument used to undermine the definition of “traditional marriage” must be in opposition to the definition within Thessalonians because it is THAT definition that is the base for the term “traditional marriage.” You can’t just grab a historical definition that is not used by the founders of this country and use it as a basis for your arguments. The question at hand is, “what is the definition within our culture and our country?” As a country founded on Christian ideals the answer is obviously a definition of one man and one woman; Leviticus dopes nothing to change that!

  • Joe Kessel I love it! Hey Chris you really need to learn the definition of the word "freedom" and "rights" before you go bashing people for their beleifs. You don't even understand simple words, what makes you think you have a grasp on complex concepts? Comparing marriage laws within a Republic to Sharia law within a Theocracy; now that is ignorance!

  • Mark Jorgensen I want someone to give me a brand new Cadillac Escalade- does that mean it's my right to have it just because I say it is??? :-P

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace A lot of groups didn't have rights when they should have in our past. Was slavery ok because it was tradition? How about women's right to vote? They never had that right before. And no matter how many times people voted on those things and voted to keep them the way they had always been, it was still wrong. Even if they had voted 32 times in a row. 

    I don't know where that stat came from by the way. Here's a list of voting records for same sex marriage laws.

    But, like I said, I could care less how it's voted on. That doesn't make it right. And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why they would vote against same sex marriage. All I ever hear are reasons why they think it's ok to vote against it, but never the reasons why they would actually do so. I hear that it's tradition, I hear that other people vote that way, I hear that other laws based on morality and religion have passed, but I never hear why anyone is voting against it. 

    I assume it's because they know it's a very tough position to defend and they really aren't justified in telling other people what to do based on their religion. How do you really justify a belief that the government should be telling people who they can marry in the current political climate where everyone wants less and less government? 

    Even most of the libertarians don't seem to realize that a true libertarian view would be that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage or putting any sort of sanction on personal relationships.

  • Mark Jorgensen name ONE religion that is OK with gay marriage

  • Mark Jorgensen It's not your right to criticize someone who doesn't agree with your opinion just because they don't give you a "good enough" reason- it doesn't sound like there is one for you so what's the point?

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace Exactly, it's religion that is the problem. Atheists could care less. Thus, you are attempting to legislate religion.

  • Mark Jorgensen you have to have some form of a moral code- otherwise it would be anarchy-give me new argument

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace The difference is that I don't need a book to teach me right and wrong. A simple moral code is that it's wrong to do things when they hurt others. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. How tough is that to understand? Why do so many people need someone else, often an invisible being with super powers, to tell them what is right? 

    I hate when I do this. I was going to stop arguing with conservative trolls. You are trying to limit the freedoms of your fellow Americans based on a book that was supposedly written by a giant invisible man in the sky who gets angry when you masturbate. Why am I trying to argue with someone like that?

  • Mark Jorgensen I'm a conservative troll??? Fuck You-I won't waste my time responding to you anymore

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace I bet you will. You hate when someone else gets the last word.

  • Mark Jorgensen last word

  • Joe Kessel You know what I find funny Chris? First off you are still using the word “freedom” incorrectly which tells me that you refuse to educate yourself even when people tell you that you are doing something wrong and secondly you keep insisting that Mark and I were the ones that brought religion into this discussion. Religion was brought into the argument by the insinuation in the original post; Mark and I have merely been pointing out the factual inaccuracies of the original post and the factual inaccuracies of your posts. 

    Other than to establish historical reference when did I or Mark ever say anything about our personal religious beliefs? In fact when did I personally take a position for or against gay marriage? Do you even know for sure where I stand on the issue? Who’s the “troll” now?

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace If you are a pro-gay marriage atheist then I will happily admit I was wrong and we should get a beer some time and talk about ow ignorant fundamentalist Xtians are.

  • Mark Jorgensen trollin trollin trollin Keep movin', movin', movin', 
    Though they're disapprovin', 
    Keep them doggies movin' Rawhide

  • Joe Kessel Yeah, Chris I don't see the beer thing happening. I tend avoid hanging out with people that are closed-minded.

  • Zach Lais Joe, you're trying very hard to seem very smart. It's adorable, but don't hurt yourself.
    Religion wasn't brought into the discussion by the original picture, tradition was. The tradition of marriage, to this day, has nothing to do with love. Bringing love into the contract is a bizarre redefinition. That's not religious, it's tradition. But the contract of marriage being overtly coercive is still not technically illegal in most places (ever hear of a shotgun wedding?) So, yes, you fellows did bring religion into it first.
    One religion that is okay with Gay Marriage--The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or if you want a more mainstream one, there are sects of both Jews and Christians who are.
    The founding fathers did everything they could to keep religion out of the hands of politicians, the idea that the USA was founded on Christian principals is beyond stupid.
    And a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. Such as a person who believes that the homos should not receive the same treatment under the law as straights.
  • Mark Jorgensen You gotta love when someone starts their comment by insulting you- pretty much makes me stop reading right there- just like Chris with the "troll" comment- but by all means guys- go ahead and write your novels impressing yourselves- LOL
  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace Bitch and cry and shout
    Pulling my hair out
    Wishin' the trolls were on my side

  • Joe Kessel Really Zach, are you actually going to sit there and say that “religion wasn't brought into the discussion bythe original picture, tradition was?” There is a cross clearly posted on the sticker and “” is a Christian website!!! Dude you have no clue what the hell it is that you are talking about! And really, are you insinuating that a “shot gun wedding” is actually legal??? Have you ever heard of the legal term “under duress?” How the hell is ANY relationship that you are forced into patently against your will legal? Do you even understand what it is that is being discussed here to begin with? Your comments surely indicate that you don’t. 

    I love how you claim that, “The founding fathers did everything they could to keep religion out of the hands of politicians.” Yeah, that’s why they have official Chaplains in both houses of Congress, open every session of Congress with an official prayer and have taken the oath of office while laying their hand on a BIBLE since the founding of this country. Yep, sounds pretty secular to me… NOT!!! Learn some damn history before you go running your mouth about it! I do like how you actually looked up the definition of the word bigot though; too bad you are still incapable of applying its meaning correctly. I am going to try to make this clear for you since you apparently missed it the last time it was pointed out… Neither Mark nor I have stated our position on the issue of marriage throughout this entire thread. We merely pointed out the inaccuracies of the original point made by the post and the subsequent comments made by others on the thread. Chris on the other hand actually said that he would be willing to have a beer with me as long as my political opinions were lock-step with his. Now who exactly is the bigot in this situation? (I will give you a hint… It’s not the guys that never even shared their personal beliefs on the issue!) 

    Now let me finish with a little history lesson for you so you can understand what the conversation of this thread was all about to begin with. When this country was founded in 1776 the definition of marriage; according to tradition, was one man and one woman not directly related. It doesn’t matter what the traditional marriage in other cultures, countries and time periods was, we are talking about the definition within OUR country and OUR culture. The “definition” of marriage has not changed since this country was founded so the claims in the original post ARE inaccurate just as I pointed out initially! Your original response demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issue at hand and your subsequent post has merely compounded that fact. In the future; if you want to avoid having people treat you dismissively, you should consider that before you go making smart-ass comments, and certainly before you go and insult the intelligence of another person, you should at least make sure that you know what it is that they are talking about and how it relates to the subject matter at hand. It is a matter of common courtesy and simple respect.

  • Chris 'Fox' Wallace I just scrolled through all that and didn't read it because it was too long, but I wanted to get a few words in before I leave so I'll say that it was bullshit.

  • Zach Lais Okay, you can have your religion was brought in by the picture, I didn't notice the little rainbow cross. But you continue to be COMPLETELY wrong in every other assertion that you make. 

    So yes, I will make the assertion that a shotgun wedding is legal. You should maybe look up duress. If one party in a shotgun wedding is killed in a car accident, his bride receives all the death benefits and properties, etc a spouse is entitled to. It's significantly easier to challenge than a marriage not made under duress, but it IS legal until such a thing happens.
    Again, with the patronizing. Yes, I know what's being discussed. In fact, you're the one who wanted to narrow it to "Americans" which is not exactly what the picture is talking about. Commodity currency was relatively rare, even in the American colonies, so a dowry of goats and cows doesn't actually make a lot of sense in the context of American history, but in a longer historical timeline it stands a little stronger.
    The definition of marriage, however, is a bit more flexible over time. Polygamy wasn't outlawed (in the United States) until the mid 1840s, and mixed race marriage was illegal until 1967. So, you know, the original point is still valid. The goats and cows, I'm pretty sure it's been pointed out, is called exaggeration, to point out how ridiculous the arguments, well, the arguments you've been making are.
    Another example of this is my original post. 1492-the year the americas became relevant to western society--and 1864, which is kind of a relative time between the emancipation proclaimation, and the 13th amendment. Flippiant, yes, but in answer to a ridiculous question.

  • Zach Lais Note: edited for length. I did, in fact, demolish your assertion that the congress has a chaplain, and that oaths are sworn on the bible is proof that the founding fathers did not separate church and state. And it was very funny and made you look very foolish. But it was also very long. Bottom line: both the chaplain and the book can be of any religion, or not religious at all, the chaplain can be ignored, there isn't even a requirement of silence during the prayer. And the words "so help me, God" can be omitted, or substituted. The free practice of religion allows for the option to swear your oath of office on a bible, and with the help of god, but it doesn't require others to follow suit. It lets them choose their own way of accomplishing the same thing.
  • Mark Jorgensen You guys really love to hear yourselves talk don't you? LOL

  • Zach Lais Says the fellow who hasn't contributed a single worthwhile thought in 13 posts

  • Mark Jorgensen you can count- I'm impressed. And you didn't post 6 paragraphs of meaningless dribble to explain how superior your intellect is- BRAVO!

  • Mark Jorgensen Yes I am- I just know that this is fucking Facebook dumb ass! LOL

  • Joe Kessel Zach you are a fucking moron! The ONLY reason I am responding to you is because I cannot in good conscious allow your level of stupidity to go unchecked and possibly contaminate other people’s understanding of the world. First off a “shot gun wedding” is NOT legal in Minnesota and is actually specifically prohibited under MN Statute 517.06! Second of all “mixed race marriage” as you call it has NEVER been outlawed in the state of MN because Minnesota has NEVER passed an anti-miscegenation law causing it to be outlawed! I am sure that you are confusing the passage of the Civil Rights Act with individual State laws concerning marriage witch of course doesn’t surprise me at all because you have confused every other aspect of your argument as well. Just a little insight for you… A federal law prohibiting something that you never had to begin with doesn’t affect you! Learn what Federalism means before you start running off at the mouth about shit you don’t understand! 

    And finally, I NEVER said that there was a religious requirement for office or one that applied to taking the Oath of Office! YOU said that the founders specifically separated religion and politicians. My points of argument demonstrated that to be untrue. So you did not “demolish” my assertions in any way because once again you have proven that you don’t even know what it is that is being discussed. Go learn some history and try to understand how it actually applies to current events before you open your clueless trap again. I’m done talking to your dumb ass!

  • Zach Lais So we have to keep narrowing it down so you get to be right? First it's "America" after the photo isn't anywhere near that specific. Then we get to disregard the time between the 'discovery' of the continent and it's founding in 1776. And now that your arguments have proven to be groundless even on that small a field, we finally narrow it down to the state, where you finally get to be right. On a technicality. The state of Minnesota, to the best of my knowledge, has never redefined marriage. I'm very proud of you, you've proven your point.

    I never said that the founders separated religion and politicians. I said that the founders separated the church and the state. Despite the fact that I'm pretty sure your reading comprehension is about as good as your spelling, I won't quote the first amendment at you, I'll let you look it up.
    (I SAID that I didn't demolish your assertions, at least here, because it was too long.)
    But how would I know what we're discussing, since you keep changing it...

  • Joe Kessel Hey dumb-ass, this post was NEVER about ANYTHING other than the MN Marriage Amendment and the argument by some people that marriage has already been redefined; a point that is patently false when held in proper context. Your whole point of argument is, and always has been, moot! And as for the “separation of church and state;” that phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut. The phrase is found NOWHERE in the founding documents of this country! So once again I will tell you that you are a fucking moron and need to learn some history before you run off at the mouth about shit you don’t understand!
  • Zach Lais And once again, it's not hard to show who's actually the one who hasn't got a clue. Absolutely nowhere has anybody mentioned the state of Minnesota until you decided that's what you wanted to talk about. You have, over and over, narrowed both the time frame, and geographical location that the photo is talking about. Obviously it's a reference to biblical times. But you've somehow decided that's it's point is... well, I have no fucking idea what your point is any more.
    The original point of the picture is that the definition of marriage is fluid, and has changed over the years, particularly since the time that Leviticus was written, (and yes, since Paul was writing his letters too).
    And yet you've rambled on about how the first amendment (which is what Jefferson was talking about, when he wrote that letter (found Wikipedia, did you?), did not establish a barrier between church and state and stated an asinine definition of bigotry, and the will of the majority, generally been retarded, all while calling ME stupid.
    Mostly because none of your so-called points have panned out. I've proven that the definition of marriage HAS changed, since the jews left egypt, since christ reformed the church, since paul clarified the church's definition, I skipped over the Lutheran reforms, the Church of England's reforms, and I've even stuck to your American idea, and given two examples of when the definition has changed in the last 150 years--when currency would have been used rather than the absurd notion of trading a goat for anything would have been a hundred years outdated--and you've decided that I'm the idiot. Grab a clue, Joe. I just hope you're not this big a dick to people you actually know.]

  • Joe Kessel Nobody had to mention the state of Minnesota you fucking MORON! It was a post put up by my SISTER!!! Do you REALLY think I don't know her political stance and what the purpose of this picture was when she posted it??? Get a fucking clue!!! I know damn well that Renee was making reference to the guidelines of Leviticus when she posted this and SHE knows damn well that I was making reference to the modern definition of marriage when I replied. Did you ever bother to notice how she “liked” my comment??? Idiot!

    You waded into a conversation without knowing what it was that was being said and all I have been doing this whole time is explaining to you that you are wrong in your assumptions, but like an asshole you keep insisting that I don’t understand the motivations behind something posted by my own sibling! Now THAT is fucking retarded!!! ! Don’t start acting like you have some factual high point or that you just sprang a “gotcha” on me because Minnesota was never specifically mentioned. It never had to be mentioned because it was already successfully implied! Well at least to those of us that ACTUALLY know what the conversation was about to begin with it was successfully implied. It obviously wasn't apparent to fucktards like you yet you still felt obligated to argue about it regardless!

    Seriously, if you aren’t even willing to acknowledge that the post was made in reference to the MN Marriage Amendment and my response was obviously applicable because of the nature of the relationship between myself and the person that posted it then you really have no business commenting on it at all! So please, shut the fuck up and stop posting your stupid shit!

    My god Renee, where in hell did you find this idiot and do you consider befriending him charity work?

  • Zach Lais Weirdly, it's not that hard to figure out what the post is about. I'm in this because the very first thing after I answered your question was you being a colossal prick to me, and others, and then being completely stupid and condescending (neat trick, by the way) for several hours before I came back on line. If you hadn't personally attacked me, I'd have just sat back and let you go on spewing your vile and ignorance. I made a flippant comment on a friend's post because I thought it was funny. And then you turned it into this fucking diatribe of whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say.

    This post IS about the Minnesota marriage amendment. But it's much larger than that, and we both know it. And perfectly reasonably, you don't want to have to admit what a shit head you've been, so you keep narrowing it down until you get to be right.
    We both know it's also about federal recognition of same-sex marriage, and about civil rights in general. It's the counter argument to quotes from Leviticus, and Romans, and all the other biblical bullshit that has no place in civil law in the united states. So it can be a conversation between you and your sister, who I don't know if you've noticed hasn't been talking back much, but when you're being a dickhead to me, I get to talk back too. Next time, make a joke. You won't wind up looking stupid on the internet

  • Joe Kessel Wow Zach I can’t believe that you are actually going to try to lie about what was said when we have the thread posted right above these comments. Let’s get something straight here; it was not me that initiated this exchange in a negative fashion. You were the one that interjected yourself into MY conversation. Your very first post was a snark intended to insult me and I merely responded in kind. Moreover, I specifically pointed out in that very first reply to you that you did not know what was being talked about and should show more respect before making a comment towards me in response. (So now unless you are going to tell me that you knew that I was talking to my sister about specific aspects of this particular post then it is without question that you in fact DID NOT KNOW what you were talking about and were in fact completely out of line by posting the veiled insult that you did to begin with!) YOU were the one that wanted to start a pissing match before you ever took the time to understand who it was that was posting on Renee’s thread and what was meant by the post itself. Don’t start acting like you are some kind of victim now! 

    I must ask though Zach, if you knew that is was about the MN Marriage Amendment than why would you say that it wasn’t? The ONLY reason that somebody would do that is because your desire to argue is stronger than your concern about being correct in your arguments. This entire thread I have held one position and that is the belief that the marriage definition being cited in the original post is irrelevant to the current debate in Minnesota because that definition has NEVER been a definition of marriage within our culture, and as such is not applicable to the discussion. YOU are the one that insisted on creating straw-man arguments that had no relevancy to the original post. Whether it was your off topic points about religion and the founding fathers or your utterly absurd comments about polygamy and inter-racial marriage NONE of the arguments that you brought to the discussion had ANY merit in regards to my original post and the intentions behind it. YOU were out of line in your very first post and now want to act as if being called out for your antics is the fault of the people calling you out! 

    Don’t respond to me anymore because I am completely done dealing with you. Go troll somewhere else. 

    By the way you dumb fuck, you may want to look into that whole 10th amendment thing and see what it says about federal authority before you continue talking about marriage as a federal issue. Talk about looking stupid on the internet! Dumb ass!

    Zach Lais Well, Joe, while I think it's a bit thin skinned to find my original post insulting, if you did, I will apologize for that one. It was a bit esoteric, I suppose.
  • And despite all the idiocies you tried to put across, I could have let it all go, except ...See More
  • Renee Kessel I think I need to build a bigger sandbox


  1. If you guys want to have some real fun, go read and comment on the delicious letters and editorials at new ulm journal online...its a real hoot.

  2. Oh my, and we end with insults and derogatory comments. And question why people with different opinions turn a disagreement into war? If you cannot contain your passion and emotion enough to hold back your anger and contempt, you will never be heard. You all lost credibility with immaturity. What a WASTE of passion and knowledge. If you can't disagree without making the rest of those that agree with you look foolish, do NOT be the voice. Three of you couldn't tolerate each other and you expect to help make a change? Shame on you all, whatever your beliefs(opinions), for contributing to more conflict.