• 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

Gimmesometruth said:
I was not "removing" the motivation, the motivation was not the subject at all. The subject was whether marriage is a civil right. Again, you skipped over the entire argument between American, Kate, Zyph and I.


Again, the out of context semantic argument, this argument is specifically about SSM.




OK...fine, you are not going to support your underlying argument about rights being denied....sort of pointless....but then most of your debates are, they are simply arguments to nothing.





It is in the context of whether marriage is a civil right. You AGAIN are leaving out the CONTEXT of the debate.

You are arguing within the framework that marriage is limited to heterosexual unions. The question at hand, is whether one has a right to marrying someone of the same sex, outside of the traditional framework. I thought everyone understood that BASIC point.

Any other red herrings you want to toss out?
Click to expand...

Dude, look. You're confusing yourself again.

If a civil right is being denied to one group -- homosexuals -- and granted to another group -- heterosexuals -- then you should be able to explain exactly what it is which is being denied.

It's not "marriage" -- everyone can marry on exactly the same basis as everyone else.

If this is not true, explain exactly how, keeping in mind that YOU say the motivation for wanting to do it -- love, sexual attraction -- is irrelevant to the civil right. Tell me who I, as a heterosexual, can marry that a homosexual cannot.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Dude, look. You're confusing yourself again.

If a civil right is being denied to one group -- homosexuals -- and granted to another group -- heterosexuals -- then you should be able to explain exactly what it is which is being denied.

It's not "marriage" -- everyone can marry on exactly the same basis as everyone else.

If this is not true, explain exactly how, keeping in mind that YOU say the motivation for wanting to do -- love, sexual attraction -- it is irrelevant to the civil right. Tell me who I, as a heterosexual, can marry that a homosexual cannot.
Click to expand...
My god, you just absolutely refuse to engage in the conversation as it stands.

I don't know how to make it any simpler for you that to tell you: "The debate at hand is whether it is a civil right to marry someone of the same sex."

The debate is stepping outside of the traditional framework of heterosexual unions.

I'm not confused, you did not know what the debate was between Zyph and I, and now you have no idea what the basic debate at hand is.
Your only motivation here has been to try to defeat my points since we now have an animosity built up. But this backfired on you here, since you came into the middle of a discussion you didn't understand. So either understand it by reading it, or keep looking bad.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude, look. You're confusing yourself again.

If a civil right is being denied to one group -- homosexuals -- and granted to another group -- heterosexuals -- then you should be able to explain exactly what it is which is being denied.

It's not "marriage" -- everyone can marry on exactly the same basis as everyone else.

If this is not true, explain exactly how, keeping in mind that YOU say the motivation for wanting to do it -- love, sexual attraction -- is irrelevant to the civil right. Tell me who I, as a heterosexual, can marry that a homosexual cannot.
Click to expand...

A civil right isn't being denied to homosexuals. A civil right is being denied to men and to women. A man cannot marry another man simply because he is a man. A woman cannot marry another woman simply because she is a woman. The sexes of the people involved is what limits who they can marry. It works the same way when looking at interracial marriage bans. A civil right was being denied to black people and to white people. A white person could not marry a black person because he/she was white. A black person could not marry a white person because he/she was black. The races of the people involved is what limited who they could marry.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I don't know how to make it any simpler for you that to tell you: "The debate at hand is whether it is a civil right to marry someone of the same sex."
Click to expand...

Good grief.

I just asked you a simple question based on exactly this, and what you said about it.

It's you who are refusing to engage it. Is it because you know that in order to answer the question, you have to admit that yes, love and sexual attraction are a component of the civil right?

(And really, "since we now have an animosity built up"? Don't give yourself undue credit, Destepello. I actually thought you were Catawba when I first responded; I didn't even look very closely. :lamo)
 
roguenuke said:
A civil right isn't being denied to homosexuals. A civil right is being denied to men and to women. A man cannot marry another man simply because he is a man. A woman cannot marry another woman simply because she is a woman. The sexes of the people involved is what limits who they can marry. It works the same way when looking at interracial marriage bans. A civil right was being denied to black people and to white people. A white person could not marry a black person because he/she was white. A black person could not marry a white person because he/she was black. The races of the people involved is what limited who they could marry.
Click to expand...

That's a different discussion.
 
Harshaw said:
Good grief.

I just asked you a simple question based on exactly this, and what you said about it.

It's you who are refusing to engage it. Is it because you know that in order to answer the question, you have to admit that yes, love and sexual attraction are a component of the civil right?

(And really, "since we now have an animosity built up"? Don't give yourself undue credit, Destepello. I actually thought you were Catawba when I first responded; I didn't even look very closely. :lamo)
Click to expand...
Oh, THAT is what your grand play is.....that all marriage, whether it is hetero or homo, is based on "love/sexual attraction"?

No, not all are. Most might.

But that still has no bearing on whether or not the RIGHT to be able to marry exists.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, THAT is what your grand play is.....that all marriage, whether it is hetero or homo, is based on "love/sexual attraction"?
Click to expand...

Uh, no, I didn't say that at all, and I know what the context was.

This is the "civil right" as defined by katie:

katiegrrl0 said:
The right to marry the person we love as heterosexuals do everyday.
Click to expand...


But that still has no bearing on whether or not the RIGHT to be able to marry exists.
Click to expand...

According to katie, that's what it's all about. And that's what she and Zyph were discussing.

I don't see anything along the way which separated the "context" of the conversation from it. What I do see is YOU trying to separate love and homosexuality from the concept of marriage, though.
 
Harshaw said:
Uh, no, I didn't say that at all, and I know what the context was.

This is the "civil right" as defined by katie:






According to katie, that's what it's all about. And that's what she and Zyph were discussing.

I don't see anything along the way which separated the "context" of the conversation from it. What I do see is YOU trying to separate love and homosexuality from the concept of marriage, though.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't mind reposting this for you as I had to to get Zyp straightened out too, so AGAIN, here is the context:

Mr. Invisible said:
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.
Click to expand...
American said:
Which civil right?

Sent from my blasted phone.
Click to expand...
katiegrrl0 said:
The right to marry the person we love as heterosexuals do everyday.
Click to expand...


Again Harshaw, the discussion was not about love, or any other motivation, the subject of the conversation was.....wait for it.....the right to marry, and more specifically, the right to marry someone of the same sex.

I was not "separating" love from the conversation, because it was not a part of the conversation until Katie mentioned it, and Katie throughout this thread has been emphasizing the RIGHT over any motivation.


Again, you refuse, like Zyp and Jerry, to keep any semblance of context in mind when posting in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
Well, I don't mind reposting this for you as I had to to get Zyp straightened out too, so AGAIN, here is the context:




Again Harshaw, the discussion was not about love, or any other motivation, the subject of the conversation was.....wait for it.....the right to marry, and more specifically, the right to marry someone of the same sex.

I was not "separating" love from the conversation, because it was not a part of the conversation until Katie mentioned it, and Katie throughout this thread has been emphasizing the RIGHT over any motivation.


Again, you refuse, like Zyp and Jerry, to keep any semblance of context in mind when posting in this thread.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Dude.

Like Zyph said, you can ignore the rest of the sentence, but it's still there nonetheless.

"The right to marry the person we love as heterosexuals do every day."

What was I arguing? Why the rest of the sentence needed to be there. You want to dismiss the rest of it; I'm telling you why you can't.

So yeah, it was very much in keeping with the conversation. Why is that so difficult to follow? (Why do I have to ask you that so danged often?)
 
these women committed an act of civil disobedience, in the name of human rights.

more power to them.
 
It seems in this thread many want to debate the words like we are playing Scrabble. They have little to say about the issue of civil disobedience and SSM but they sure do like to fiddle with words. Maybe we should turn this thread into a word game.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Dude.

Like Zyph said, you can ignore the rest of the sentence, but it's still there nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I never said it was not there, what I am saying is that it is not the SUBJECT.

What was I arguing? Why the rest of the sentence needed to be there. You want to dismiss the rest of it; I'm telling you why you can't.

So yeah, it was very much in keeping with the conversation. Why is that so difficult to follow? (Why do I have to ask you that so danged often?)
Click to expand...
Again, Harshaw, it is the non-point Zyp tried to make, and you two can repeat it as much as you like, but the subject of the conversation in this thread was not the motivation for any couple, hetero or homo, to get married.....THE SUBJECT WAS WHETHER THEY HAD A RIGHT TO DO SO.
 
Last edited:
katiegrrl0 said:
It seems in this thread many want to debate the words like we are playing Scrabble. They have little to say about the issue of civil disobedience and SSM but they sure do like to fiddle with words. Maybe we should turn this thread into a word game.
Click to expand...

um...isn't it already?
 
Kal'Stang said:
What exactly has this got to do with what I said?
Click to expand...
How does it not?

I began my sentence with a conjuction, which serves to validate everything you accused me of and then add to it. I'm agreeing with you. How is what I said not related to your post?

I'll be more spicific:

Kal'Stang said:
So you're going to continue twisting what is said?
Click to expand...

YES! That is the the theme of this thread: to lie, distort and twist the facts. This is what the article did, this is what OP perpetuates, and so this is what I'm doing. As my oldest son says "you're playing silly-games".


Kal'Stang 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.
Click to expand...

Yes I do know that very well, and you know that I know it, so when I say something that seems out of place you know I'm up to something. This isn't hard to figure out.

The statement "heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love" is not grounded is law or fact, as others have soundly articulated. It's a retarded statement, and what do we do with retarded things? We make fun of them! In this case, we play little word games with "love" since no one qualified "love" in the statement.

Kal'Stang said:
To bring up what you did is disengenous and a distortion of what is actually being talked about, and you know it.
Click to expand...

YES! It was disengenous! That was the point. I know that I'm just another guy ****ing around on the internet, but you think I'm for real. Non of this is real.

Gays make up 2% of the population, only a fraction of that 2% even care about SSM, and of those who care, half will divorce within 7 years. SSM is a non-issue. It's just a political football we like to toss around.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

IMO if folks don't like a law and they decide to stomp their foot, stick out their lip and go get themselves arrested over it, God bless.

That doesn't change the fact that Mullet was arrested for trespassing, not for seeking a SSM.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
How does it not?

I began my sentence with a conjuction, which serves to validate everything you accused me of and then add to it. I'm agreeing with you. How is what I said not related to your post?

I'll be more spicific:

YES! That is the the theme of this thread: to lie, distort and twist the facts. This is what the article did, this is what OP perpetuates, and so this is what I'm doing. As my oldest son says "you're playing silly-games".

Yes I do know that very well, and you know that I know it, so when I say something that seems out of place you know I'm up to something. This isn't hard to figure out.

The statement "heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love" is not grounded is law or fact, as others have soundly articulated. It's a retarded statement, and what do we do with retarded things? We make fun of them! In this case, we play little word games with "love" since no one qualified "love" in the statement.

YES! It was disengenous! That was the point. I know that I'm just another guy ****ing around on the internet, but you think I'm for real. Non of this is real.

Gays make up 2% of the population, only a fraction of that 2% even care about SSM, and of those who care, half will divorce within 7 years. SSM is a non-issue. It's just a political football we like to toss around.
Click to expand...

See, this is why I don't like debating with you Jerry. Half the time you say it straight. The other half of the time you twist and twist as much as possible. I'm a straight forward kind of guy and hate when others twist and turn.

While you may think that SSM is a "non-issue" I don't. I consider a persons rights to be a very serious issue. Be it 1 persons rights, or a billion peoples rights.
 
Kal'Stang said:
See, this is why I don't like debating with you Jerry. Half the time you say it straight. The other half of the time you twist and twist as much as possible. I'm a straight forward kind of guy and hate when others twist and turn.
Click to expand...

If people would quit saying stupid **** like "heteros have the right to marry who they love" over and over and over then folks like myself wouldn't keep acting out against them. SSM should be legalized but not because some people marry for love. Love is not enough for a marriage to work, so that's just bull****.

If people would quite posing threads based on lies then folks like myself wouldn't act out against them either. Mullet was arrested for not leaving after being told to, not for seeking a SSM.

You came to a thread which OP based on a lie, not straight forward facts, and you crumb when I play the games back at OP.

Well what the **** did you expect for a piece of **** thread like this?

Kal'Stang said:
While you may think that SSM is a "non-issue" I don't. I consider a persons rights to be a very serious issue. Be it 1 persons rights, or a billion peoples rights.
Click to expand...
That's the same hyper-emotional gooie nonsense that got you into this mess.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If people would quit saying stupid **** like "heteros have the right to marry who they love" over and over and over then folks like myself wouldn't keep acting out against them. SSM should be legalized but not because some people marry for love. Love is not enough for a marriage to work, so that's just bull****.
Click to expand...

Me and my wife has been married for 10 years, been together for 11. All we have is love. Neither of us are that much alike. Love is more than enough for a marriage to work. So long as it is the right kind of love.

The number one reason that people get married is because they think they are in love. That is the reason. You and...who was it, Zyph? Like you two said, there is nothing saying that people have a right to get married due to love. Our laws are not that pin point oriented. And people do get married for reasons other than love. Some due for monetary gain. Others do it because they feel obligated to because the person they were screwing got pregnant or they did. And many other reasons. But that still does not change the fact that many, even the majority, do it simply because they are in love. But regardless of why heterosexuals get married it does not change the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry for those same reasons. All of which is valid in themselves and are points which are valid to point out. The reason that love is used is simply because that is the majority reason that people marry.

When talking about SSM and marriage in general we are not talking simply about marriage. We are also talking about why people get married. That includes love. You cannot talk about marriage without addressing the reasons that people get married. Well, you can, but then you're only getting half of the picture.

Jerry said:
If people would quite posing threads based on lies then folks like myself wouldn't act out against them either. Mullet was arrested for not leaving after being told to, not for seeking a SSM.
Click to expand...

It is not a lie from a certain point of view. In a strict literal sense, yes it is a lie. But would she have been arrested for not leaving when told to if she had gotten that marriage license? The answer of course is no. Why? Because she would not have had a valid reason to be civilly disobedient. She would have been quite happy and never would have stayed. She never would have stayed because she would not have had a sense of being treated unfairly under the law. Now you can of course ignore this and stick with just the minimal account of her not leaving when told to and as such broke a law. But the reason a person breaks a law is just as important. This is evidenced all through out our court history. Though it certainly seems like we have been pulling away from that more and more lately. :(


Jerry said:
You came to a thread which OP based on a lie, not straight forward facts, and you crumb when I play the games back at OP.

Well what the **** did you expect for a piece of **** thread like this?
Click to expand...

Just because you have an issue with the OP does not mean that you should take out that issue on others. I was trying to have a serious conversation with you. Hell, that conversation wasn't even about what was said in the OP until this post.

Jerry said:
That's the same hyper-emotional gooie nonsense that got you into this mess.
Click to expand...

No, it is the same exact thing that this country is founded upon. Individual rights. Which means if even ONE persons rights are being denied then that is too much. Now if that is being "hyper-emotional gooie nonsense" then I am guilty. Along with generations of Americans.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Dude.

Like Zyph said, you can ignore the rest of the sentence, but it's still there nonetheless.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice that if you were going to continue to quote me if you'd also stop misrepresenting what my statement was.

There is a civil right to marriage.

That civil right to marriage is not limited, save for legal issues, in terms of the decision metrics one uses to decide whether or not they want to marry someone.

Heterosexuals currently have a realistic expectation that they can make their choice for marriage based on the notion of love, attraction, or romantic engagement with the individual. Homosexuals currently do not have such a reasonable expectation under the law. Now, as I've said before and you've completely ignored in favor of misrepresenting my point over and over again and trying to use my name to wrongly give your own argument weight, while discrimination under the law is not inherently unconstitutional there's a lot of grey area as to whether or not it is allowable in this case squarely regarding homosexuality.

It also doesn't begin to broach the issues of gender discrimination that are potentially present.

So while there is no right specifically to "marry the person we love", there is a generalized right to marriage and the law discriminates against Homosexuals in terms of the reasonable criteria they have available under the law to mak their decision to engage in such an act.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Me and my wife has been married for 10 years, been together for 11. All we have is love. Neither of us are that much alike. Love is more than enough for a marriage to work. So long as it is the right kind of love.
Click to expand...
Wow so you don't trust eachother at all? Damn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom