• 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

Could a un-Constitutional law be considered illegal?

It could be considered illegal on a personal level...with the pitfall of that being that just about everyones personal OPINION on whether or not a law is unconstitutional is worth about as much as what came out of them this morning when they woke up.

An "unconstitutional law" can be considered "illegal" in a practical sense at the point and time where it's deemed "unconstitutional" by the entities that have the appropriate power vested in them to deem them such.
 
I'll repeat it...

Thanks for repeating something to beat up on a straw man.

Unfortunately for you I never stated that Marriage wasn't a fundamental right.

I stated no one has a "Right to marry the person we love".
 
A love for a brother, or father, or friend is entirely different from the kind of love being talked about. I'm quite sure that you know that.

Here you are in this thread talking about how the OP's article lied, please don't make yourself a hypocrit by denying or twisting the type of love that is actually being talked about.

So now you're imposing your own moral judgments onto my relationships. Hypocrite much? I guess gays really do support legislating who and how people can love.
 
Thanks for repeating something to beat up on a straw man.

Unfortunately for you I never stated that Marriage wasn't a fundamental right.

I stated no one has a "Right to marry the person we love".
Where do you derive this from? The court has said that for whatever reason a person wishes to marry, it cannot be denied unless the state has an overriding interest, ergo, you DO have the right to marry who you love, it is a protected fundamental right.
 
you're being very dishonest.

clearly, referring to them as lesbians was simply shorthand for "lesbian women".

you however, seem to want to totally strip them of their humanity & personhood.

OP stripped Flannel of it's very existence. At least Mullet, who was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM, lives on.
 
"Two wrongs do not make a right" is what my mother told me long ago. Murder is wrong even when done to prevent other murders (abortions)
Depends on the extent of the wrongs. It also depends on what the wrongs are. I do not believe in protesting abortion as I am on the other side of that debate. I do not agree with the killing of a doctor. If wrong headed law is being protested it is not wrong to protest that law. In South Afrika years ago when Gandhi had a community there he set out to protest the law which subjected those from India to social stigma and oppression. He protested the laws with civil disobedience. Later Gandhi set free the nation of India from British rule by the same way. Civil disobedience is a free way to protest wrong. Violence is never the way. The laws in South Afrika were wrong as was British rule in India. The civil disobedience was breaking the laws and thus would be considered wrong. In both cases two wrongs did make right and the laws were changed.
Just so you know abortion is not murder it is abortion.
 
Where do you derive this from? The court has said that for whatever reason a person wishes to marry, it cannot be denied unless the state has an overriding interest, ergo, you DO have the right to marry who you love, it is a protected fundamental right.

You have the right to Marry.

You have the right to marry for whatever REASON you may wish to marry someone.

You do not have the right to "Marry the person we love".

If you love, romantically love, your sister/brother/cousin of the opposite sex, you can't marry them.

If you love, romantically love, someone under the age of consent or someone over the age of consent when you're under the age, you can't marry them.

If you love, romantically love, someone who doesn't agree to marry you you can't get married to them.

On the flip side, you can absolutely and without question marry someone you DON'T love.

People have the right to marry. No one has the specific right in any way shape or form to "marry the person we love". They may have the ability that, if the situation is correct, they can end up marrying the person they love. But it is not a RIGHT that is somehow universally extended to straight people.

Individuals on both sides so often bring up the non-relevant and emotional based argument of "the person you love" into the conversation. It's irrelevant. There's a fundamental right to marriage that's been defined by the courts, however there is no fundamental right to "marry the one we love". The argument is one that needs to cease being made in these kinds of stations because it is not one that in any way is factually based nor a worth while argument as to why same Gay Marriage or Same Sex Marriage should be legalized.
 
I have always been a big fan of civil rights, particularly where race is involved. But marriage MEANS the union of one man with one woman. Publishing dictionaries with a different definition does NOT change that.
Blacks always knew they were being treated unfairly by bigoted laws and so do lesbians and gays.
 
Yup, and you have this right also.



Yes you do. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex who can otherwise marry, that you choose.



This is about the sexes of the people involved, not their sexual orientations. Who has what sexual orientation is precluded form the discussion the moment gays claimed discrimination based on sex.



There is no civil rights issue at all.

I'm done playing your silly word games. You can continue to play them with others who what to do this. You can be a good poster when you debate but when you play childish word nonsense you lack much.
 
Here's the truth of Civil Disobedience and Katie's last post really makes it clear...

Civil Disobedience will be viewed as a "Good" thing primarily by those that agree that what you're protesting is a "bad law" and as a "bad" thing primarily by those that disagree with it.

Notice how she has no problem with the CD in this case because its a "wrong headed law" but plainly says she doesn't believe in people protesting abortion because she doesn't believe that's a "Wrong headed law".

That is the danger of CD as a means of pushing an issue...it's going to be applauded by those that think like you and just strengthen and enflame those that disagree with you in MOST cases. It's worth while to do if you believe there is a significant, undecided, "middle" section that could go either way due to your act. However, if both sides are rather well entrenched....it's a somewhat worthless, hollow, and pointless gesture on the grand scale of things.

Additionally, the MANNER in which you perform the CD and the manner in which the government reacts to your CD can help slip it one way or another. If you look like you're someone whose doing it less to TRULY make a point or to be principled and more as someone whose just trying to get attention, be a nuisance, or make it all about themselves then it may actually hurt you with some leaning on your end. On the flip side, if the response to a bit of CD that's viewed as legitimate is way over the top then you may actually win some away from the other side.

But by and large, unless there is a large middle segment of undecideds, all CD really does is pump up the side that thinks the law you're protesting is "wrongheaded" and further give fuel to the side that thinks the law you're protesting is "okay".

It's all a matter of perspective, which Katiegirl showed amazingly well in her above post where she disagrees with CD in cases where she likes the law but supports it in cases where she doesn't.
 
oh, so you're just playing silly games.

I did try to make that perfectly clear in my first few posts on this thread. Since OP so obviously lied and has no intent to correct it, this thread is troll food. Notice I'm doing the same thing here as I did with the Zimmerman shooting (Hoodie and Pants)? It's a concept I picked up from TheOatmeal's rant against the Twilight saga. It's not particularly clever or original, but it's fun to post and fish for those who go off the deep end.

have fun.

I usually do :2wave:
 
Last edited:
I will repeat this post by Gimmesometruth for your benefit.

Thank you for repeating the irrelevant point to my statement that Gimmie already repeated and I already pointed out is irrelevant to my statement. It's amazingly helpful in beating up the straw man that you and he seem to want to hurt.

Unfortunately though, its of no benefit of me, because it doesn't apply one iota to what I said since I never stated that Marriage isn't a fundamental right.

Marriage is.

However, the "right to marry the person we love" is nonexistent under the law.
 
Thanks for repeating something to beat up on a straw man.

Unfortunately for you I never stated that Marriage wasn't a fundamental right.

I stated no one has a "Right to marry the person we love".
So you marry your enemy? Who else does one marry if not a person they love. Don't start playing word games like Jerry either. You know what type of love I am talking about just like he does. But he wants to play games with words. Perhaps you will debate instead of being childish.
 
If she's pregnant, she was unfaithful.

If you ever get remarried I hope your wife doesn't get raped...it'd be unfair for her to have you proclaiming her "unfaithful" for the rest of the marriage.

You know, since you seemingly believe that any method in which a person gets pregnant indicates they've been "unfaithful"
 
Thanks for repeating something to beat up on a straw man.

Unfortunately for you I never stated that Marriage wasn't a fundamental right.

I stated no one has a "Right to marry the person we love".

I don't understand what your point is.

we have the right to marry..but we don't have the right to marry the one we love?

:confused:
 
So now you're imposing your own moral judgments onto my relationships. Hypocrite much? I guess gays really do support legislating who and how people can love.

So you're going to continue twisting what is said? You know damn well that when the phrase "heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love" it is refering to someone of the opposite sex. The ones that heterosexuals normally marry. No heterosexual would ever marry a man for the traditional reasons that people get married. You know this, I know this. To bring up what you did is disengenous and a distortion of what is actually being talked about, and you know it.
 
You have the right to Marry.

You have the right to marry for whatever REASON you may wish to marry someone.

You do not have the right to "Marry the person we love".

If you love, romantically love, your sister/brother/cousin of the opposite sex, you can't marry them.

If you love, romantically love, someone under the age of consent or someone over the age of consent when you're under the age, you can't marry them.

If you love, romantically love, someone who doesn't agree to marry you you can't get married to them.

On the flip side, you can absolutely and without question marry someone you DON'T love.

People have the right to marry. No one has the specific right in any way shape or form to "marry the person we love". They may have the ability that, if the situation is correct, they can end up marrying the person they love. But it is not a RIGHT that is somehow universally extended to straight people.

Individuals on both sides so often bring up the non-relevant and emotional based argument of "the person you love" into the conversation. It's irrelevant. There's a fundamental right to marriage that's been defined by the courts, however there is no fundamental right to "marry the one we love". The argument is one that needs to cease being made in these kinds of stations because it is not one that in any way is factually based nor a worth while argument as to why same Gay Marriage or Same Sex Marriage should be legalized.
You are getting into state objections for marriage, ignoring what I said, what was said by the OP. You can expand it out as far as you want and to take it completely out of context to make a semantic "point".

Katie was NOT getting into any of the exceptions, the specifics, you want to toss in with the kitchen sink. Further I already acknowledged the state interest clause.

She stated "The right to marry the person we love as heterosexuals do everyday.", so your under age, cousins, non-consensual and "anything else in the universe" argument is silly on it's face.

If you want to get into a state reason for barring the marriage between gays, well we have Perry v. Brown pretty solidly decided and I don't see it being reversed.

Again, it doesn't matter if it is for love or money or any other reason, you have that right based on whatever your reason...within reason.
 
Last edited:
Abortion isn't a gay issue unless said gay couples are practicing adultery.
That was not the point of the post it was in reference to what the poster said. If you had read the post you might have realized that. You today are playing silly games. I did not see you mention the poster who mentioned the abortion issue. What are you just cherry picking posts in your childish way? LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom