• 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

Jerry said:
lolwut? no, it's not.
Click to expand...

For me it is. If you don't trust you don't love. I cannot see how someone can love their wife/husband without trusting them. If my wife broke my trust in her then I could never love her again.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For me it is. If you don't trust you don't love. I cannot see how someone can love their wife/husband without trusting them. If my wife broke my trust in her then I could never love her again.
Click to expand...
A few days ago 2 civilian Oshkosh contractors trusted me with their lives as I used a loader with the fork attachments to hold up the ass end of an MRAP while they got underneath to do some work.

I'm pretty sure they didn't love me.

Every night I trust solders I've never met to guard the wall and man the cameras. I don't think I'v ever met most of them to then love them.

I love both my X and my sisters, but I don't trust any of them, at all, and for very good reason.

Love and trust are 2 compleatly different things, so if love is all you have, then you have no trust, and love is no enough since a marriage is based on trust.
 
Jerry said:
A few days ago 2 civilian Oshkosh contractors trusted me with their lives as I used a loader with the fork attachments to hold up the ass end of an MRAP while they got underneath to do some work.

I'm pretty sure they didn't love me.

Every night I trust solders I've never met to guard the wall and man the cameras. I don't think I'v ever met most of them to then love them.

I love both my X and my sisters, but I don't trust any of them, at all, and for very good reason.

Love and trust are 2 compleatly different things, so if love is all you have, then you have no trust, and love is no enough since a marriage is based on trust.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn that we were talking about marriages and love in respect to marriages.....you're twisting again.
 
I think it's more that he believes part of loving someone, to him, is trusting that person.

That doesn't mean all cases of trust require love.

Know how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares? At the same time we don't call a square a "Square rectangle", we call it a square with the understanding that it encompasses a rectangle in its foundation.

Kal seem's to be suggesting that trust, and likely other emotions and feelings, are inherent in a relationship built on love as they come about due to the love you have for that person. Not necessarily that you can't have trust or the other feelings/emotions he may equate with love WITHOUT love as well.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I could have sworn that we were talking about marriages and love in respect to marriages.....you're twisting again.
Click to expand...

No, Kal. He's asking why you equate trust and love together? Jerry's correct in his criticism of your assertion, EVEN in the context of marriage.

Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
I think it's more that he believes part of loving someone, to him, is trusting that person.

That doesn't mean all cases of trust require love.

Know how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares? At the same time we don't call a square a "Square rectangle", we call it a square with the understanding that it encompasses a rectangle in its foundation.

Kal seem's to be suggesting that trust, and likely other emotions and feelings, are inherent in a relationship built on love as they come about due to the love you have for that person. Not necessarily that you can't have trust or the other feelings/emotions he may equate with love WITHOUT love as well.
Click to expand...

The only way it works the way Kal used it is to suggest that he expects (trusts) that his wife loves him as much, or more than he loves her. He trusts that when his wife goes out with the girls that she remain true to their marriage vows and that she will return unscathed.. If he waivers in any way about that trust then he loses the love/trust link because he can love her, but he doesn't completely trust her..

Just sayin..


Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
I think it's more that he believes part of loving someone, to him, is trusting that person.

That doesn't mean all cases of trust require love.

Know how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares? At the same time we don't call a square a "Square rectangle", we call it a square with the understanding that it encompasses a rectangle in its foundation.

Kal seem's to be suggesting that trust, and likely other emotions and feelings, are inherent in a relationship built on love as they come about due to the love you have for that person. Not necessarily that you can't have trust or the other feelings/emotions he may equate with love WITHOUT love as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I could have sworn that we were talking about marriages and love in respect to marriages.....you're twisting again.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge those Oshkosh contractors had no intention of marrying me. It's been a long, lonely year, though, so who knows....

Unlike love, there is only one kind of trust. If you can trust someone with your wallet then you can also trust them with anything else in your life.
 
Zyphlin said:
I think it's more that he believes part of loving someone, to him, is trusting that person.

That doesn't mean all cases of trust require love.

Know how a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares? At the same time we don't call a square a "Square rectangle", we call it a square with the understanding that it encompasses a rectangle in its foundation.

Kal seem's to be suggesting that trust, and likely other emotions and feelings, are inherent in a relationship built on love as they come about due to the love you have for that person. Not necessarily that you can't have trust or the other feelings/emotions he may equate with love WITHOUT love as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not tracking the square/triangle thing, but if these meanings are so subjective, then surly folks can see the importance in clarifying their own subjective meaning when they make a statement about emotion. Maybe Kal has no experience relying on someone he doesn't have affection for, or still feeling attached to someone he has no confidence in, but not everyone in the world is Kal, and he should realize that.

That's assuming the meanings are subjective, which I maintain they are not, and refer the causal reader to the dictionary for objective meanings for any word.
 
Last edited:
The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other "advantage" of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people that disapprove of homos
 
VanceMack said:
Come on...you have to feel bad for them. They KNOW Obama is playing politics with them, he ignored the issue til AFTER the vote in NC that EVERYONE knew was coming, and even after he declared his verbal support for gay marriage he supported North Carolinas recent decision. It has to suck being a pawn and KNOWING you are a pawn.
Click to expand...

African-American Church Leaders Condemn Obama For Gay Marriage Support « CBS Baltimore

Now Obama has both sides pissed at him. :lol:
 
ric27 said:
The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other "advantage" of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people that disapprove of homos
Click to expand...
I've said it 100 times man: SSM is about gays trying to get society to validate their identity as gays through acceptance.
 
Jerry said:
I've said it 100 times man: SSM is about gays trying to get society to validate their identity as gays through acceptance.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct
 
ric27 said:
The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other "advantage" of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people that disapprove of homos
Click to expand...

Of course most gay people want to be accepted. And yes of course there are always going to be some people who disprove of homosexuality. What I fail to see is how its a bad thing to want to be accepted or how this relates to being treated equally under the law.
 
Jerry said:
I've said it 100 times man: SSM is about gays trying to get society to validate their identity as gays through acceptance.
Click to expand...

No its about equality under the law.
 
ric27 said:
The real problem that no one wants to talk about is the fact that the gay efficacy groups don't only want access to marriage and every other "advantage" of being heterosexual, they want the world to like and accept them also. Unfortunately for them, no matter how much money gays have or how good at paperwork they are, there are always going to be people that disapprove of homos
Click to expand...

They can want that as much as they'd like and they can fight for that through societal means all they want...but you can't legislate "liking" or "accepting".

However, whether or not their intent or hope is for the world to like and accept them, that's irrelevant to whether or not they should be constitutionally protected. Similarly, just because you may not like or accept them doesn't mean they should be denied rights that they may constitutionaly be deserving of.

Also, because there will be some people who "disapprove of homo's" is irrelevant. There's people who "disapprove of the negros". They're widely laughed at, insulted, and actually viewed by the larger portion of society as the thing that is bad and worthy of disapproval rather than blacks. Within the next 20 years a similar mentality will likely be common within society in terms of those who "disapprove of homos". That odesn't have anything to do with law, that has to do with culture and society and the realities of the younger generation that doesn't harbor the same disgust, horror, and disdain by and large that the older generation does.
 
Jerry said:
I've said it 100 times man: SSM is about gays trying to get society to validate their identity as gays through acceptance.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true imho.

However that goal is absolutely irrelevant to the worth of the argument of whther or not it's constitutionally sound.

Westboro's goal, imho, is to piss people off to the point where they get attacked and can sue them for cash....that ****ty reasoning for their stanec that their speech is protected by the 1st amendment is relatively irrelevant to whether or not their speech is protected by the 1st amendment.
 
American said:
African-American Church Leaders Condemn Obama For Gay Marriage Support « CBS Baltimore

Now Obama has both sides pissed at him. :lol:
Click to expand...
Since supporters of SSM so easily (willingly and eagerly) compromised their values for political expediency, is it REALLY too much to ask if they give us all the same courtesy and allow ALL of our opinions and positions time to 'evolve'? I mean...come on...its not like they havent already completely abandoned everything even REMOTELY resembling integrity already. Surely someday this may be something we all want to exploit for personal or political gain for all of us and we may then decide to use it when it best suits our needs too. Seems rather disingenuous to all of a sudden pretend this actually 'matters'.
 
Omgitsme said:
No its about equality under the law.
Click to expand...

Let me just agree here and now that gays should be able to legally "marry" in the exact same "marriage" institution as heteros; it's still about acceptance and validation, basic needs every human desires. The whole 'equality' thing is thus a tool to achieve that end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom