• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian arrested for seeking marriage license in North Carolina

katiegrrl0 said:
You are expecting lesbian women in the US to change 17th century Shariah law.
Click to expand...
You completely misunderstood my post. I expect no such thing. I expect others to avoid making fraudulent comparisons such as the one I referenced above.
 
Last edited:
While I understand, and agree, with her point, she went about it the wrong way in my opinion.
 
I don't mind the civil disobedience part of it, but it's annoying at what passes as "journalism". She was not arrested for "seeking a marriage license", she was arrested because she wanted to be.
 
soccerboy22 said:
While I understand, and agree, with her point, she went about it the wrong way in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, if her purpose was to have standing to challenge it in court, I can see why she did what she did.
 
megaprogman said:
Well, if her purpose was to have standing to challenge it in court, I can see why she did what she did.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought of that, but in reality how much would change of her court case? The 4th district is the most conservative in terms of appeals if I remember correctly and the CA case will make it to the Supreme Court first. What could be good or bad for the SSM movement is that this event can become a poster event for the movement.
 
Hare-
I look forward to you attempting to call out a 'conservative' who 'stretches' the facts.

First fact is not all Sharia law is as draconian as the 'conservative' fearmongers say. In Fact a great deal of Sharia law is very logical and just...what you want to twist it to be is what radical Islamists do, warp it like our Christianity into something it is not.

You might want to stretch some, you seem hidebound.

Jerry-
Your 'example' is why many say the issue is same sex marriage, not sexual orientation marriage.

More deflection.
 
I still have a hard time believing there are people that would make laws against this. I have an even harder time believing there are people that support them. Gay marriage hurts no one.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I still have a hard time believing there are people that would make laws against this. I have an even harder time believing there are people that support them. Gay marriage hurts no one.
Click to expand...

Its ok, in the year 2000, nearly 40% of alabama voted for a ban for interracial marriage in the state constitution.
 
megaprogman said:
Its ok, in the year 2000, nearly 40% of alabama voted for a ban for interracial marriage in the state constitution.
Click to expand...

Really? Ugh I am too close to that state.
 
notquiteright said:
Hare-
I look forward to you attempting to call out a 'conservative' who 'stretches' the facts.

First fact is not all Sharia law is as draconian as the 'conservative' fearmongers say. In Fact a great deal of Sharia law is very logical and just...what you want to twist it to be is what radical Islamists do, warp it like our Christianity into something it is not.

You might want to stretch some, you seem hidebound.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your implying here, I confront irrational conservatives on a regular basis.

You made the comparison to Shariah law not me, Shariah law allows for the execution of homosexuals. The comparison is flawed and shouldn't be used in any rational discussion regarding gay marriage.

Hidebound? Why do you say that? I'm in favor of gays having the freedom to marry.
 
Last edited:
Hare said:
Careful, you might pull something stretching that far. Gays marrying would be fine with me, but let's not equate a lack of marital rights to the absolute atrocities gays are subjected to overseas.
Click to expand...
Hare said:
You completely misunderstood my post. I expect no such thing. I expect others to avoid making fraudulent comparisons such as the one I referenced above.
Click to expand...

Why do you bring it up if you don't want people to respond. I did not bring up the laws and oppression in other nations. You point out what these people go through and want no one to say anything. Why note get a pad of sticky notes and write posts to yourself. By the end of the day your desk will be full of your thoughts with no response. Why do you make a ridiculous statement about theocracies what is going on overseas like our problem is nothing. It is our problem. They have theirs. We fight for our issues they do not in most cases.
 
megaprogman said:
This is why people are claiming civil rights are denied.
Click to expand...
katiegrrl0 said that heteros have this right, but gays do not.Heteros do not have this right. No one does. While arguments can be made that this civil right should be made, it doesn't exist today for it to be an equality issue. No one is being treated differently than anyone else here.
 
Jerry said:
katiegrrl0 said that heteros have this right, but gays do not.Heteros do not have this right. No one does. While arguments can be made that this civil right should be made, it doesn't exist today for it to be an equality issue. No one is being treated differently than anyone else here.
Click to expand...

People don't have the right to marry? This is your argument?
 
katiegrrl0 said:
You twist the words to fit your view. You know very well what I am talking about. Oh, you should be able to marry him.
Click to expand...
Well, you said heteros have this right.

We don't.

Therefore it's not an issue of equality.
 
Under the law she should have been arrested. She violated the law and failed to respect a public place. This type of protest isn't going to help anyone. I understand her feelings and sympathize with her nor do I think she is a bad person for doing this, but under the law what she did was illegal regardless of if people think SSM should have been banned in NC or not.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
You twist the words to fit your view. You know very well what I am talking about. Oh, you should be able to marry him.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he'll have to consummate the marriage.
 
digsbe said:
Under the law she should have been arrested. She violated the law and failed to respect a public place. This type of protest isn't going to help anyone. I understand her feelings and sympathize with her nor do I think she is a bad person for doing this, but under the law what she did was illegal regardless of if people think SSM should have been banned in NC or not.
Click to expand...

Under the law, yes. It's called civil disobedience for a reason.
 
digsbe said:
Under the law she should have been arrested. She violated the law and failed to respect a public place. This type of protest isn't going to help anyone. I understand her feelings and sympathize with her nor do I think she is a bad person for doing this, but under the law what she did was illegal regardless of if people think SSM should have been banned in NC or not.
Click to expand...

Could a un-Constitutional law be considered illegal?
 
winston53660 said:
Could a un-Constitutional law be considered illegal?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I don't think it's unconstitutional for a state to define marriage in regards to gender.
rocket88 said:
Under the law, yes. It's called civil disobedience for a reason.
Click to expand...

She refused to leave a public place when asked to leave. From my understanding doing so is illegal. If she was arrested for simply filling out the form then that is definitely wrong. But if she camped out or was disruptive then she should have been arrested after refusal to leave.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
People don't have the right to marry? This is your argument?
Click to expand...
With your OP you lied about why this woman was arrested. She was arrested for refusing to leave a government office, she was not arrested for requesting a same-sex marriage license. Having set the theme of your thread as lies and deception yourself, this is all you will receive.

If you don't like silly games, I suggest you demonstrate an ounce of integrity and/or honesty the next time you make an OP.

So, to address your post:
I did not say people do not have the right to marry, and you knowingly lie when you suggest otherwise. It was argued that heteros can marry anyone we love. We can not. There are a number of restrictions heteros have to abide by, the sex of a spouse being just one of them. Maybe we should allow SSM, but that doesn't mean anyone is under any more or less restriction than anyone else.
 
digsbe said:
Yes, but I don't think it's unconstitutional for a state to define marriage in regards to gender.


She refused to leave a public place when asked to leave. From my understanding doing so is illegal.
Click to expand...

And that's the whole point of civil disobedience.
 
digsbe said:
She refused to leave a public place when asked to leave. From my understanding doing so is illegal.
Click to expand...

So then you would be opposed to sit-ins staged by civil rights activists, then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom