• 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:
No it's about acceptance and validation, basic needs every human desires. The whole 'equality' thing is thus a tool to achieve that end.
Click to expand...

You might have a point if that was what they where attempting to get legeslated. It's not so your point fails.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

For some yes it could be about acceptance and validation. Not all but some. But the main reason to legalize SSM is for equality under the law.
 
Redress said:
You might have a point if that was what they where attempting to get legeslated. It's not so your point fails.
Click to expand...

I disagree really. While I don't think it's the only thing they're fighting for, I do think it largely revolves around their goal.

For example, if the desire was simply the ability to be able to be married, with that term, under the law I would expect far more court cases to have been focusing on the gender discrimination angle...which is already clearly a higher level of scrutiny under the EPC...than the homosexual angle. However, most seem to go with the homosexual discrimination argument. Why? The logical answer to me is because it's not just about getting the ABILITY to get married, it's getting the legal recognition and acceptance of homosexuality being on even keel....across the board...with other protected categories. I think a large reason to want that, especially considering theere's already a number of laws which already effectively give them that anyways, is because that when the LAW begins to view your group as equivilent to other "protected" groups then it becomes more likely that society will begin to see you that way as well. Similarly, part of the desire for gay marriage...even at the expense of potentially having the same rights through civil unions at times...is the principled notion of seperate but equal but also because I believe there's an understanding that the more you are no different than anyone else "under the law" the less society has to point to and take notice of to make view you as "different" as anyone else.

I don't think the only intent is to push for societal acceptance and validation, and I don't think the movement believes you can actaully literally LEGISLATE societal acceptance and validation, but I do believe that a portion...and personally I think a large portion of it...is based around the general understanding that when something becomes legal and part of the law and the similar to other things under the law that it makes societal acceptance/validation of it far easier and quicker to obtain.

There's nothing wrong with that...but acting like that's not at least a partial goal I think is being willfully ignorant or stubborning disagreeable on principle of not wanting to agree with people even partially who are stating it in an over the top manner.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well possibly because you read "rectangle" as "triangle". That may be your first issue.
Click to expand...
In truth, when I read:
I think it's more that he believes part of loving someone, to him, is trusting that person....
Click to expand...
...my eyes just sort of slid off the page.

Words are not subjective, if love includes trust 'to him', then he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
The news article's title is deliberately deceptive. As noted by Jerry, she wasn't arrested for seeking a marriage licence, she was arrested for making a scene and refusing to leave.
Click to expand...

That's what civil disobedience is all about.

You go, girls!!
 
Zyphlin said:
I disagree really. While I don't think it's the only thing they're fighting for, I do think it largely revolves around their goal.

For example, if the desire was simply the ability to be able to be married, with that term, under the law I would expect far more court cases to have been focusing on the gender discrimination angle...which is already clearly a higher level of scrutiny under the EPC...than the homosexual angle. However, most seem to go with the homosexual discrimination argument. Why? The logical answer to me is because it's not just about getting the ABILITY to get married, it's getting the legal recognition and acceptance of homosexuality being on even keel....across the board...with other protected categories. I think a large reason to want that, especially considering theere's already a number of laws which already effectively give them that anyways, is because that when the LAW begins to view your group as equivilent to other "protected" groups then it becomes more likely that society will begin to see you that way as well. Similarly, part of the desire for gay marriage...even at the expense of potentially having the same rights through civil unions at times...is the principled notion of seperate but equal but also because I believe there's an understanding that the more you are no different than anyone else "under the law" the less society has to point to and take notice of to make view you as "different" as anyone else.

I don't think the only intent is to push for societal acceptance and validation, and I don't think the movement believes you can actaully literally LEGISLATE societal acceptance and validation, but I do believe that a portion...and personally I think a large portion of it...is based around the general understanding that when something becomes legal and part of the law and the similar to other things under the law that it makes societal acceptance/validation of it far easier and quicker to obtain.

There's nothing wrong with that...but acting like that's not at least a partial goal I think is being willfully ignorant or stubborning disagreeable on principle of not wanting to agree with people even partially who are stating it in an over the top manner.
Click to expand...

Prop 8 is going the gender discrimination angle at least partly. It is more irrelevant to the DOMA cases. In all those cases however, the legal arguments used are many and designed with an intent to win. The lawyers are using all the amunition they can bring to bear. The argument against civil unions instead of SSM is not acceptance, but legal practicality. Seperate catagories has historically not worked well in getting full rights.

As you point out, you cannot logically get social acceptance through legislation. Through legislation what gays and their supporters are trying to geet is those things denied to them through legislation.
 
All I see the gay rights movement as is a money grab. But hey, you want a small, very small in fact, slice of your over-inflated tax dollars back, sure, why not. Have at it. You're going to pay more in the long run anyway.
 
Redress said:
As you point out, you cannot logically get social acceptance through legislation.
Click to expand...

That line's a tricky one....

You can not LEGISLATE social acceptance.

You can gain social acceptance through legislation though.

I know that seems counter intuitive, but it's not.

You can't go "You will accept gays on a personal level" as a law and expect that to cause social acceptance. That's attempting to LEGISLATE the acceptance.

However, if you pass legislations that essentially makes the legal treatment of gays, both in the private and public sector, equal to that of non-gays then you can possibly find that social acceptance follows such legislation because one of the big barriers that makes them appear different...how they're generally treated by various entites that are touched by the legislation...goes away. In that case you got social acceptance, in part, through legislation but you didn't legislate the acceptance.

I know it's a bit of a chicken and the egg type of thing, but I do think there's a different. It's kind of like saying that you can't parent your kid healthy, but if you make your kid play basketball and eat well then you're making him healthy thorugh parenting. (that sentence structure fails a bit -.-)

Does that make sense at all, even if you don't agree?

Actually, I got it! The perfect analogy for you

You can't simply book that a wrestler is over. IE you can't just go out and go "We're going to just put this guy out there in the main event and say he's over, and thus he'll be over". But you cant get a wrestler over through booking.
 
Zyphlin said:
That line's a tricky one....

You can not LEGISLATE social acceptance.

You can gain social acceptance through legislation though.

I know that seems counter intuitive, but it's not.

You can't go "You will accept gays on a personal level" as a law and expect that to cause social acceptance. That's attempting to LEGISLATE the acceptance.

However, if you pass legislations that essentially makes the legal treatment of gays, both in the private and public sector, equal to that of non-gays then you can possibly find that social acceptance follows such legislation because one of the big barriers that makes them appear different...how they're generally treated by various entites that are touched by the legislation...goes away. In that case you got social acceptance, in part, through legislation but you didn't legislate the acceptance.

I know it's a bit of a chicken and the egg type of thing, but I do think there's a different. It's kind of like saying that you can't parent your kid healthy, but if you make your kid play basketball and eat well then you're making him healthy thorugh parenting. (that sentence structure fails a bit -.-)

Does that make sense at all, even if you don't agree?

Actually, I got it! The perfect analogy for you

You can't simply book that a wrestler is over. IE you can't just go out and go "We're going to just put this guy out there in the main event and say he's over, and thus he'll be over". But you cant get a wrestler over through booking.
Click to expand...

You get a like for the wrestling analogy.

You can legislate legal acceptance, but social acceptance is not necessarily going to follow, certainly not any time soon. To use a popular example in SSM arguments, miscegenation. It was legal long before it was widely accepted, and I would argue that it was not the legalization which made it accepted, but changing views on race. What gays want, contrary to Jerry and his strategy of making **** up, is legal acceptance through legislation.
 
Redress said:
You get a like for the wrestling analogy.

You can legislate legal acceptance, but social acceptance is not necessarily going to follow, certainly not any time soon. To use a popular example in SSM arguments, miscegenation. It was legal long before it was widely accepted, and I would argue that it was not the legalization which made it accepted, but changing views on race. What gays want, contrary to Jerry and his strategy of making **** up, is legal acceptance through legislation.
Click to expand...

What else could it possibly be? You're saying that they want legal acceptance through legislation? LOL Really?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
What else could it possibly be? You're saying that they want legal acceptance through legislation? LOL Really?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I dont see that is so hard to believe.
 
Omgitsme said:
I dont see that is so hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not.. That's the point! :)

They want legal acceptance through legislation.. What other kind of acceptance would one expect if they sought legal acceptance through legislation? There are a good number of people that are against the death penalty in states where the death penalty is legal. Has the government attained acceptance through legislation or haven't they?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Of course it's not.. That's the point! :)

They want legal acceptance through legislation.. What other kind of acceptance would one expect if they sought legal acceptance through legislation? There are a good number of people that are against the death penalty in states where the death penalty is legal. Has the government attained acceptance through legislation or haven't they?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I apologize. I misread your original post.
 
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...

If you want to have sex with and marry your male friend, you are not a "hetero" or a very confused one in any case, and the fact that you can't marry the person you want to marry simply because your desire is towards a person of the same sex, whereas someone else can if it were towards the opposite sex, makes this an inequality. Why should the sex of the partner relative to yours matter?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Words are not subjective, if love includes trust 'to him', then he's wrong.
Click to expand...

Words are subjective because everyone percieves things differently from others. Take a look at Christianity. How many different sub-groups are in Christianity? Off of ONE book? And all of those books have the same exact words in it. If words are not subjective then by all means tell me how in the world there are so many different Christian groups.

Love by itself does not include trust. I know that. I love my sister but I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw Jupiter or the Sun. But I also don't love my sister the same way that I love my mother. I also do not love my mother in the same way that I love my father. And I love none of them the way that I love my wife. When I say that I love my wife I include EVERY positive adjective into that one word. Because to me that is what loving your soulmate is like. One word can encompass a thousand words to a person giving the right circumstances. And I have that. It may be hard for you to understand or accept. But it is possible.
 
nonpareil said:
If you want to have sex with and marry your male friend, you are not a "hetero" or a very confused one in any case, and the fact that you can't marry the person you want to marry simply because your desire is towards a person of the same sex, whereas someone else can if it were towards the opposite sex, makes this an inequality. Why should the sex of the partner relative to yours matter?
Click to expand...

The question is... Why should it matter? What does homosexual marriage bring to the table? Why should we allow it, and what would be the fallout if we didn't?


Tim-
 
Last edited:
Hicup said:
The question is... Why should it matter? What does homosexual marriage bring to the table? Why should we allow it, and what would be the fallout if we didn't?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Why should something have to bring anything to the table in order to be allowed?
 
Omgitsme said:
Why should something have to bring anything to the table in order to be allowed?
Click to expand...

Ok... So then, what's the advantage of homosexual marriage over that of heterosexual? Is there one? If there were no prejudice, no discrimination, and if homosexuality were completely accepted, would the children of homosexual marriages ever feel "different"? Isn't it, or wouldn't it kind of be built-in?


Tim-
 
nonpareil said:
If you want to have sex with and marry your male friend, you are not a "hetero" or a very confused one in any case, and the fact that you can't marry the person you want to marry simply because your desire is towards a person of the same sex, whereas someone else can if it were towards the opposite sex, makes this an inequality. Why should the sex of the partner relative to yours matter?
Click to expand...
The only requirement given was love. Not sex. And what kind of love wasn't specified, so if you love your sibling as a sibling, you therefore have the right to marry them, according to pro-ssm. If you love your daughter as a daughter, you therefore have the right to marry them according to pro-ssm.
 
Omgitsme said:
Yup. However in this case it is broken. A group of people is treated differently under the law.
Click to expand...

It's more like not being treated special for being different. They can marry someone of opposite sex just like anyone else can.
 
Hicup said:
Ok... So then, what's the advantage of homosexual marriage over that of heterosexual? Is there one? If there were no prejudice, no discrimination, and if homosexuality were completely accepted, would the children of homosexual marriages ever feel "different"? Isn't it, or wouldn't it kind of be built-in?


Tim-
Click to expand...

There is no advantage or disadvantage to SSM. Why should there be? And why would the children of same sex parents feel different if homosexuality were completely accepted?
 
Hicup said:
Ok... So then, what's the advantage of homosexual marriage over that of heterosexual? Is there one? If there were no prejudice, no discrimination, and if homosexuality were completely accepted, would the children of homosexual marriages ever feel "different"? Isn't it, or wouldn't it kind of be built-in?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Bold: This part can be taken in two different ways Hic. And you've used it two different ways in the past so I've got to ask you...what do you mean by "feel different" and "built in"?
 
Mathematician said:
It's more like not being treated special for being different. They can marry someone of opposite sex just like anyone else can.
Click to expand...

Then its gender discrimination because a man can marry someone a woman cant and a woman can marry someone a man cant.

Also it wouldnt be a special right because heterosexuals and homosexuals would gain the right to marry someone of the same sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom