• 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

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:
It is a twisted semantic argument he wants to make, taking something out of context to fit his viewpoint.
 
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.

Me? I do not. However I do know people who have married someone they don't love. I've known people to marry someone because of money. I've known people to marry people because of citizenship. I've known people to marry others due to lust and naivety that they wrongfully believed was love. I've known people to be shot down for marriage by the person they love. I've known people to have the person they love die before they could marry them.

It's not a word game, its dealing with the things YOU'VE stated. You stated there was a right that does not exist, and I'm dealing with that. If you don't want people actually reading your words and talking about your words how about you stop 3 seconds and THINK about what you write. Rather than lecturing someone about being childish perhaps you should actually try and debate based on facts and reality rather than emotion and fantasy.

Don't want people to take issue with the words you say, don't say stupid words.

Love, when talking about the legality of marriage which when we're talking about marriage licenses and laws that's what we're talking about, is not inherent in terms of the constitutionality of marriage nor the "rights' that surround it. It's nothing but an emotional plea, worthless save for those who are either too emotionally invested or too lacking in knowledge to put together an actual legitimate argument as to why the laws are wrong.
 
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:

We have the right to marry. That's it. Whether you love the person or not, it's in general irrelevant when talking about it as a "right".

There's a fundamental right to marriage. Now due to that fundamental right to marriage there are a plethora of Constitutional arguments one can make as to why the current laws on the books regarding marriage are unconstitutional. However, none of those arguments revolve around the inability to marry the "person we love" because there's no requirement no right vested under the law that a person gets to marry the person they love. The law explicitly denies people the ability to marry the person they love in NUMEROUS cases, and not just in the case of Gay Marriage. Reality, ALSO, explicitly denies people the ability to marry the person they love in many cases. Because you have the right to marry, you may be able to be in a position where you're able to marry the person you love. But there is no inherent testable requirement that you love the person nor is there any power under the law to assure that the person you marry is the person you love.

If one wants to make an argument for the unconstitutional nature of laws regarding marriage...and mind you, I'm one such person...there are many ways to do it. When you try to make the argument with emotional based, illogical, and flat out wrong language and arguments however you hamper your own side by putting forth a weak and easily refutable position while steering the debate into avenues that are irrelevant and entirely opinion, not constitutional, based.
 
Last edited:
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.

And OP knows he lied with the thread title and the article. Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM.
 
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.

Correct, there's a fundamental right to marriage.

That's it. That's the fundamental right. Not the fundamental right to marriage for money, or for love, or any other. The RIGHT doesn't have anything to do what so ever with the impetus for the marriage, simply that of the marriage itself.
 
Me? I do not. However I do know people who have married someone they don't love. I've known people to marry someone because of money. I've known people to marry people because of citizenship. I've known people to marry others due to lust and naivety that they wrongfully believed was love. I've known people to be shot down for marriage by the person they love. I've known people to have the person they love die before they could marry them.

It's not a word game, its dealing with the things YOU'VE stated. You stated there was a right that does not exist, and I'm dealing with that. If you don't want people actually reading your words and talking about your words how about you stop 3 seconds and THINK about what you write. Rather than lecturing someone about being childish perhaps you should actually try and debate based on facts and reality rather than emotion and fantasy.

Don't want people to take issue with the words you say, don't say stupid words.

Love, when talking about the legality of marriage which when we're talking about marriage licenses and laws that's what we're talking about, is not inherent in terms of the constitutionality of marriage nor the "rights' that surround it. It's nothing but an emotional plea, worthless save for those who are either too emotionally invested or too lacking in knowledge to put together an actual legitimate argument as to why the laws are wrong.
You are bringing yourself down to the same level of argument as Jerry. You have both reduced this to some imagined absolutist argument NEVER made by the respective posters and you are both carrying on in an attempt to derail the thread. Now, Jerry can be excused since he does this a lot and apparently you mods don't stop such behavior.....but this is just a REALLY poor example on your part.
 
And OP knows he lied with the thread title and the article. Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM.

The OP didn't lie. The OP followed the laws of the forum which requires him to make the subject of the thread the same thing as the title of the article.

The more accurate statement would be that the reporter or editor who chose the title of the article engaged in an extreme level of hyperbolic editorializing to misrepresent the reality of the supposed NEWS story by using the title as a means of opining.
 
We have the right to marry. That's it. Whether you love the person or not, it's in general irrelevant when talking about it as a "right".

There's a fundamental right to marriage. Now due to that fundamental right to marriage there are a plethora of Constitutional arguments one can make as to why the current laws on the books regarding marriage are unconstitutional. However, none of those arguments revolve around the inability to marry the "person we love" because there's no requirement no right vested under the law that a person gets to marry the person they love. The law explicitly denies people the ability to marry the person they love in NUMEROUS cases, and not just in the case of Gay Marriage. Reality, ALSO, explicitly denies people the ability to marry the person they love in many cases. Because you have the right to marry, you may be able to be in a position where you're able to marry the person you love. But there is no inherent testable requirement that you love the person nor is there any power under the law to assure that the person you marry is the person you love.

If one wants to make an argument for the unconstitutional nature of laws regarding marriage...and mind you, I'm one such person...there are many ways to do it. When you try to make the argument with emotional based, illogical, and flat out wrong language and arguments however you hamper your own side by putting forth a weak and easily refutable position while steering the debate into avenues that are irrelevant and entirely opinion, not constitutional, based.

IMO the winning SSM arguments are those based on familial stability and raising children. I bet the vast majority of the 50% divorce rate also loved eachother when they married.
 
Correct, there's a fundamental right to marriage.

That's it. That's the fundamental right. Not the fundamental right to marriage for money, or for love, or any other. The RIGHT doesn't have anything to do what so ever with the impetus for the marriage, simply that of the marriage itself.
Again, this is just beyond silliness, the laws do not lay out each specific action within a right that is protected, and THAT WAS NOT WHAT KATIE SAID.

Quit with the semantic argument that completely ignores how rights are viewed, stop the derailing.
 
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.

Yes but you and I both know we marry those we love (in relation to marital love). We do not marry our enemies (they may turn out to be) but going in we marry for love. The right to marry is also a right to choose who we marry. The state does not arrange marriages. To extrapolate we select our partner and for what reason. There may be a few for money of prestige but mostly for love. I am sure you wouldn't or didn't marry for hate or dislike. The laws as they were written with regard to marriage in any given state were executed prior to any gay/lesbian rights at all. The gay/lesbian issue was never on the table at the time these were drafted. Just as interracial marriage was not addressed because of the timeline. As marriage evolved and it has we marry for love more often than not. The age of the arranged marriage in the US is pretty much history.
So we can marry for any reason we want and love is included as a reason in the mind of those who marry. It does apply in this way. It applies because it is a reason why people do marry.
 
You are bringing yourself down to the same level of argument as Jerry. You have both reduced this to some imagined absolutist argument NEVER made by the respective posters and you are both carrying on in an attempt to derail the thread. Now, Jerry can be excused since he does this a lot and apparently you mods don't stop such behavior.....but this is just a REALLY poor example on your part.

I'm dealing with an argument put forth regarding the topic of this thread by a poster. I have no issue with the woman's civil disobedience. I too think it's stupid, but I think in MOST cases civil disobedience is stupid on a personal level. I have no real animosity towards her, nor problem with her and sympathize with her for the REASONS she decided to go about it. However, the notion that it was right for her to do it for the "Civil Right" (American asked what civil right she had infringed upon) "marrying the person we love" (Katie's response to "what civil right") is idiotic because there IS no Civil right to "marry the person we love. There is arguably a civil right to marry, but when one begins to interject the love aspect of things as if that is part of a inherent "Civil Right" one is muddling the argument and arguing an inaccurate point.
 
The OP didn't lie.
Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM. OP lied.

The OP followed the laws of the forum which requires him to make the subject of the thread the same thing as the title of the article.

There is no forum rule which requires a person to make a thread based on an article which lies. Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM.

The more accurate statement would be that the reporter or editor who chose the title of the article engaged in an extreme level of hyperbolic editorializing to misrepresent the reality of the supposed NEWS story by using the title as a means of opining.

And OP perpetuated said extreme level of hyperbolic editorializing and misrepresentation by taking that article and making a thread about it.
 
I'm dealing with an argument put forth regarding the topic of this thread by a poster. I have no issue with the woman's civil disobedience. I too think it's stupid, but I think in MOST cases civil disobedience is stupid on a personal level. I have no real animosity towards her, nor problem with her and sympathize with her for the REASONS she decided to go about it. However, the notion that it was right for her to do it for the "Civil Right" (American asked what civil right she had infringed upon) "marrying the person we love" (Katie's response to "what civil right") is idiotic because there IS no Civil right to "marry the person we love. There is arguably a civil right to marry, but when one begins to interject the love aspect of things as if that is part of a inherent "Civil Right" one is muddling the argument and arguing an inaccurate point.
It is not inaccurate, you are missing the point. The argument is that state interest cannot restrict the right to marriage without just cause, Kate is not making "love" the factor as the right.

You have completely twisted the meaning of the argument in a pointless exercise just as Jerry has been doing throughout this thread.
 
Yes but you and I both know we marry those we love (in relation to marital love).

In general, yes. The fact that most people do that doesn't mean its a "Civil Right" though.

The right to marry is also a right to choose who we marry.

To a point I agree, but again...when talking about "RIGHTS" I believe you have to be very careful with language. The Right to Marry is the right to choose to enter into a marriage or not. Now, choosing who we marry may be the case in some instances. However, the Right to Marriage still applies if the marriage was arranged for you (IE you didn't' choose who to marry) because you're still choosing to enter into the marriage or not even though you're not choosing who with.

My point is this on rights.

Rights are generally board. The reason for this is because the more you state a right as a narrowly defined thing the more it then actually places limits on those who can or can't engage in it or how one can or can't engage in it.

The CIVIL RIGHT is that of "Marriage". Of choosing to enter into marriage.

WHY one chooses? Irrelevant. How one chooses? Irrelevant. How one chooses who it'll be? Irrelevant. What is relevant and it boils down to is they have the right to choose to get married.

Now, because everyone has that right that right must adhere to equal protection under the law...which then gets us into all the various things with disallowance of various groups.

But when you start adding things to the right you actually start limiting it.

Notice other people talk about the right to marry their love similar to you that I had no issue with. Why? It's simple. They used it seemingly in a way that it could be considered they were just talking about it in a general sense. You however gave it as an answer to what "CIVIL RIGHT" which, to me, indicated you were directly suggesting it was a CIVIL RIGHT. Not just taking about it in a generalized colloquial sense of the use of the term right in the sense of something people simply can do in general...but rather as some sort of actual, tangible, legal standing civil right in your mind.

That, I take issue with. That's why I spoke my issue with it. Yes is it word games to a point? Indeed. Because when talking about actual CIVIL RIGHTS words matter.

That was my issue. Not simply the notion of people believing, personally, they have a right to marry whoever they love. My issue was the notion that somehow the "right to marry the one we love" is a CIVIL RIGHT. To me, its not, and if it was it opens up a whole giant ball of wax beyond simply Gay Marriage
 
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:

The right to marry a specific person is not a fundamental right. Depending on who that person is in relation to you, whether or not they're already married to someone else...you can be prevented from marrying them.

Now these reasons, and the reasons we have them, would not apply specifically to gay people. The only regulation that applies specifically to gay people is the gender requirement. It's basically because some people think that gay sex is icky.

My position is that marriage is a religious sacrament (to use Catholic terminology). Denying a person the right to engage in an important ceremony of their religion is unconstitutional, because it infringes their right to the free exercise of their religion. The state should not be performing marriages anyway.
 
Why all the fuss and furor over all of this? Obama says the states can and should direct the course of marriage and hey...lets be honest...for the last 3.5 years liberals were perfectly accepting and tolerant of his position. Hell...many here defended the man repeatedly. If LIBERALS or so anxious and willing to completely sellout your 'values' in the name of politics how the hell is ANYONE supposed to take you seriously?

Oh...wait...he 'changed'. 3 whole days ago. Because he was pressured into it.
 
Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM. OP lied.

Where did the OP directly state their opinion otherwise?

There is no forum rule which requires a person to make a thread based on an article which lies. Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM.

No, but if the poster wanted to talk about THIS particular article he has to use that title. The title is mandated by the forum, which means it's dishonest and low to attempt and suggest that the title is the opinion, view, or belief of the OP. They are simply doing what they are mandated to do. It is also dishonest and rather ignorant of what goes on in this forum to suggest that anytime a poster posts a story it means that said story is their opinion or something they absolutely agree with or is their view. We routinely have posters put forward stories they simply wish to talk about and don't hold a strong opinion with either way, or that they only agree with a portion of it, or that they disagree with completely.

And OP perpetuated said extreme level of hyperbolic editorializing and misrepresentation by taking that article and making a thread about it.

Again, you are projecting...with complete ignorance as to what the OP actually thinks...your own OPINION of the OPs intent, views, beliefs, and reasons for posting this article onto him and then condemning him for it. It's dishonest and its inaccurate at worst and highly assumptive at best to do such.
 
Yeah because that makes so much sense. Where is your mind at?

On topic: I think that this woman did a good thing. As Your Star said, she had a good reason for making a scene as her civil rights are being infringed upon by the state.
Which civil right?

Sent from my blasted phone.
The right to marry the person we love as heterosexuals do everyday.
WHY one chooses? Irrelevant. How one chooses? Irrelevant. How one chooses who it'll be? Irrelevant. What is relevant and it boils down to is they have the right to choose to get married.
You are the only one trying to make "love" relevant.

Stop with the derail.


Again, you are projecting...with complete ignorance as to what the OP actually thinks...your own OPINION of the OPs intent, views, beliefs, and reasons for posting this article onto him and then condemning him for it. It's dishonest and its inaccurate at worst and highly assumptive at best to do such.
.....Indeed.
 
Last edited:
Me? I do not. However I do know people who have married someone they don't love. I've known people to marry someone because of money. I've known people to marry people because of citizenship. I've known people to marry others due to lust and naivety that they wrongfully believed was love. I've known people to be shot down for marriage by the person they love. I've known people to have the person they love die before they could marry them.

It's not a word game, its dealing with the things YOU'VE stated. You stated there was a right that does not exist, and I'm dealing with that. If you don't want people actually reading your words and talking about your words how about you stop 3 seconds and THINK about what you write. Rather than lecturing someone about being childish perhaps you should actually try and debate based on facts and reality rather than emotion and fantasy.

Don't want people to take issue with the words you say, don't say stupid words.

Love, when talking about the legality of marriage which when we're talking about marriage licenses and laws that's what we're talking about, is not inherent in terms of the constitutionality of marriage nor the "rights' that surround it. It's nothing but an emotional plea, worthless save for those who are either too emotionally invested or too lacking in knowledge to put together an actual legitimate argument as to why the laws are wrong.

I have not stated every reason we marry and you know what marriage is and why we do it for the most part. This is a word game just like Jerry wants to play and I don't do word games. I look for debate and discussion. If I wanted to play word games I would do crossword puzzles.
 
I don't know if you know this, but when you don't bold other parts of a sentence those parts don't magically stop existing or become invisible for others to se.

The right to marry the person we love as heterosexuals do everyday.

Notice that word there....eighth one from the beginning.

She stated the civil right that was being denied was "The right to marry the person we love" and then proceeded to suggest that it was a right "heterosexuals do everyday". Now, I'll admit it's an act heterosexuals do everyday...but it's not a Civil Right imho, and why I take issue with it was explained in my last post to Katie.
 
I don't know if you know this, but when you don't bold other parts of a sentence those parts don't magically stop existing or become invisible for others to se.



Notice that word there....eighth one from the beginning.

She stated the civil right that was being denied was "The right to marry the person we love" and then proceeded to suggest that it was a right "heterosexuals do everyday". Now, I'll admit it's an act heterosexuals do everyday...but it's not a Civil Right imho, and why I take issue with it was explained in my last post to Katie.
I know your focus is on the word "love"........BUT THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. You are missing the point because you think her view on the right is limited to "love"....IT IS NOT.

The subject was the civil right..MARRIAGE......the subject was not the REASON for MARRIAGE.

GET OFF THE FALSE ARGUMENT.

YOU ARE A MOD, START ACTING LIKE IT.
 
Last edited:
I'm dealing with an argument put forth regarding the topic of this thread by a poster. I have no issue with the woman's civil disobedience. I too think it's stupid, but I think in MOST cases civil disobedience is stupid on a personal level. I have no real animosity towards her, nor problem with her and sympathize with her for the REASONS she decided to go about it. However, the notion that it was right for her to do it for the "Civil Right" (American asked what civil right she had infringed upon) "marrying the person we love" (Katie's response to "what civil right") is idiotic because there IS no Civil right to "marry the person we love. There is arguably a civil right to marry, but when one begins to interject the love aspect of things as if that is part of a inherent "Civil Right" one is muddling the argument and arguing an inaccurate point.
Civil disobedience is a strong way to protest. It illustrates the point and gets you arrested so that point is brought into a courtroom and gets a hearing. The civil right is to marry whom ever you choose since we continue to play word games. We are debating on a forum not at Harvard University. If you want to debate in that fashion we would be typing forever trying to make all the tiny points. If you would like to debate that way you are in the wrong place and should find a stage and an audience to grade you on style.
 
I have not stated every reason we marry and you know what marriage is and why we do it for the most part. This is a word game just like Jerry wants to play and I don't do word games. I look for debate and discussion. If I wanted to play word games I would do crossword puzzles.

If you dislike the fact that I take umbrage with you clearly stating that something is a Civil Right, be my guest. If you want to bitch about the fact YOU think its a "word game" rather than come up with any kind of argument against it, be my guest. However, if you seek to choose to go that route rather than actually give me any good reason to think I'm incorrect or show why my points wrong other than the worthless and irrelevant whine that its "playing word games", then I'm holding onto my belief of it. If that's the impasse we're at, so be it. You made a claim, I disagreed with said claim, we've gone back and forth. I had no intent on continuing to talk about my issues with your claim unless you wanted to try and counter my counter. If you don't desire to do that and just want to whine "Word game!" then we should be fine with not continuing this line of discussion unless you try and make the erroneous, imho, claim again.

I still think, sadly, the main take away from this article is more the shoddy journalism and an instance of clear attempts to drive news stories with a particular agenda focused bend then it is anything revolving around the woman. The Gay Marriage issue is a contentious one in the country with little actual middle ground and with the population at a relative split. It's something that I think within 10 years, regardless of acts of CD or not, is likely to finally shift from the area it currently is at to beginning to lean the other way. It's in part why I think the act of CD was kind of dumb...it's a hollow act that will in the grand scheme of things do nothing but will cause her problems like for a bit of time. Cutting the nose to spite the face type of thing. I don't begrudge her the choice to do it, and if it makes her happy more power to her, but from an outside perspective it just seems dumb given the situation the countries in with regards to the issue now. Which is why the content of the story is less of note to me then the title. It's hardly an issue with just one issue or just one direction on an issue and is found throughout the news media but is symptomatic of the notion that this belief that the news is some impartial observer to give us facts is outdated...if it ever really existed. It's simply a means of propaganda and public steering, but since its not propaganda on the part of the government specifically it is so often given a pass and ignored. Part of me truly wishes we could actually have news portions of news institutions trying to be objective as possible in simply reporting the news and facts and part of me understands it's kind of like wishing to find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow at this point.
 
In general, yes. The fact that most people do that doesn't mean its a "Civil Right" though.



To a point I agree, but again...when talking about "RIGHTS" I believe you have to be very careful with language. The Right to Marry is the right to choose to enter into a marriage or not. Now, choosing who we marry may be the case in some instances. However, the Right to Marriage still applies if the marriage was arranged for you (IE you didn't' choose who to marry) because you're still choosing to enter into the marriage or not even though you're not choosing who with.

My point is this on rights.

Rights are generally board. The reason for this is because the more you state a right as a narrowly defined thing the more it then actually places limits on those who can or can't engage in it or how one can or can't engage in it.

The CIVIL RIGHT is that of "Marriage". Of choosing to enter into marriage.

WHY one chooses? Irrelevant. How one chooses? Irrelevant. How one chooses who it'll be? Irrelevant. What is relevant and it boils down to is they have the right to choose to get married.

Now, because everyone has that right that right must adhere to equal protection under the law...which then gets us into all the various things with disallowance of various groups.

But when you start adding things to the right you actually start limiting it.

Notice other people talk about the right to marry their love similar to you that I had no issue with. Why? It's simple. They used it seemingly in a way that it could be considered they were just talking about it in a general sense. You however gave it as an answer to what "CIVIL RIGHT" which, to me, indicated you were directly suggesting it was a CIVIL RIGHT. Not just taking about it in a generalized colloquial sense of the use of the term right in the sense of something people simply can do in general...but rather as some sort of actual, tangible, legal standing civil right in your mind.

That, I take issue with. That's why I spoke my issue with it. Yes is it word games to a point? Indeed. Because when talking about actual CIVIL RIGHTS words matter.

That was my issue. Not simply the notion of people believing, personally, they have a right to marry whoever they love. My issue was the notion that somehow the "right to marry the one we love" is a CIVIL RIGHT. To me, its not, and if it was it opens up a whole giant ball of wax beyond simply Gay Marriage

As I said to Jerry I am done playing word games with you as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom