# North Carolina, amendment one



## IMSLOW1097 (May 9, 2012)

For all of you north carolina residents out there, i do NOT want this to become an argument over gay rights. I just want to hear what both sides of the story are.
For those of you who have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about, then here's the story: north carolina banned gay marriage. 
So, what are both sides to the story? why do some people want gay marriage, while some others completely oppose it? what do you guys think?

I, for starters, just want to say that although i am not a homosexual, i am totally for Gay marriage. They have every right that straight people have. Was our country not built on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? well, homosexuals across the country are losing their rights to liberty and their pursuit of happiness; what's next? take away their right to live?


----------



## Mikel (May 9, 2012)

I agree with you. There is everything wrong with banning gay marriage. Who cares if they want to get married? Who would it hurt if they were allowed to? I'm glad I am from a state that allows it (Iowa).


----------



## Dene (May 9, 2012)

Mikel said:


> Who would it hurt if they were allowed to?


 
I don't think you should treat this question as a throwaway. To be honest I don't really feel like getting involved in this debate, but it's not as black and white as you make out. There are plenty of problems with gay marriage. A quick google search brought up this article which is the main point I had in mind http://joemoderate.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/how-gay-and-straight-relationships.html


----------



## Reprobate (May 9, 2012)

Interesting blog, but I don't feel any of those statistics gives the state the right to meddle with personal relationships. 

On the other hand, I am too libertarian to be happy about marriage as a state institution. I don't care who says what vows in front of who, but I don't believe it should have any _legal_ status at all for anyone.


----------



## applemobile (May 9, 2012)

America has completely screwed up any sanctity that Marriage had and turned it into some menial piece of paper. Trying to claw back some meaning by not letting same sex marry is futile. Instead they should just sit back and wallow in the religious disgrace that they have produced.


----------



## IMSLOW1097 (May 9, 2012)

if i could like your post, apple mobile, i would like it infinity times.


----------



## Specs112 (May 9, 2012)

**** North Carolina. **** everything about this.


----------



## shelley (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> I don't think you should treat this question as a throwaway. To be honest I don't really feel like getting involved in this debate, but it's not as black and white as you make out. There are plenty of problems with gay marriage. A quick google search brought up this article which is the main point I had in mind http://joemoderate.blogspot.com.au/2008/01/how-gay-and-straight-relationships.html


 
So same sex relationships are statistically more likely to break up. I don't see how that's a problem with gay marriage. It's not like straight people aren't divorcing all the time. If you found that a particular group of people tended to have shorter relationships on average, is outlawing marriage for them the right (or even relevant) response?

Really, the only reason against gay marriage I've seen is a purely religious one. And religious arguments should have no place in our government.


----------



## Dene (May 10, 2012)

It's one reason among others. What about all the problems for the kids?


----------



## Specs112 (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's one reason among others. What about all the problems for the kids?


 
What problems for the kids? Citation needed.


----------



## Ranzha (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's one reason among others. What about all the problems for the kids?


 
Without any specifics, it's hard to formulate an opposition.

I honestly don't think the issue of which gender can marry which is valid, let alone should it be brought up in the judicial system. Some people will advocate strongly for it, and others will be die-hard opposers to the notion. That's an ideological impasse, not a legal one.
I support the notion of same-sex marriage. If the legislature wants to rule for it, then that's cool. Same-sex relationships are fine. They serve no detriment to society as a whole. The individuals in them are not evil or wicked or condemned for manifesting their attraction towards another person, no matter what gender. If the legislature wants to rule against it, then what I see is an infringement of basic freedom.


----------



## shelley (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's one reason among others. What about all the problems for the kids?


 
That's irrelevant to whether or not someone's marriage should be legally recognized.


----------



## Hershey (May 10, 2012)

IMSLOW1097 said:


> why do some people want gay marriage, while some others completely oppose it? what do you guys think?


 
I think people support it because they believe gays and lesbians should have equal rights (which I personally believe),
and people oppose it because of they are bigots, closet homosexuals, or religious (not all religious people though, just a few).


----------



## Mikel (May 10, 2012)

President Obama is in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/us/politics/obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html


----------



## calebcole203 (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's one reason among others. What about all the problems for the kids?



These are my views on the subject of children of gay couples, and, please do not take it in any way ill intent directed towards you, Dene, but it is much easier to set up my reasons for support in juxtaposition to yours. 

I, personally, have not seen any studies showing nor do I think that a gay couple has any detrimental effects to the children that they may adopt. This itself is irrelevant to the subject of gay marriage, i.e. in most states gay couples can adopt regardless of whether they are married. But, for the sake of a healthy discussion, I will continue my post, assuming that it is a pressing matter in determining if gay couples should be able to get married.

As I see it, and please inform me if there are other concerns, there are two possible arguments against gay couples raising children. They are that either the child will be more likely to become a homosexual, or the child will be somehow be stunted developmental, or something to that affect, because of the lack of having two differently gendered parents. But, to address the former, that is only a problem if you are already against homosexuals, and, again, I can't remember seeing any studies that gay parents increase the likelihood of a homosexual child, just a more tolerant one. And, also, coming to terms with my own sexuality, I think that the state of being openly in any way queer is mostly, if not all, a self-understanding rather than conforming to what your parents think you should be. And, for the latter, the most commonly cited counter-argument for this, of course, is the fact that single people can adopt (or children can be raised solely by only one of their biological parents,) and therefore those children are just as much stunted developmentally as are children of gay couples. 

I truly can see nothing wrong with a child being raised by a gay couple, married or otherwise. I truly can see nothing wrong with gay marriage. And I truly can see nothing wrong with my own personal orientation and others'. My name is Caleb, and I am proud to be a bisexual, I am proud to live in a state that fully allows gay marriage, and I am proud to be a speedcuber.


----------



## Noahaha (May 10, 2012)

calebcole203 said:


> These are my views on the subject of children of gay couples, and, please do not take it in any way ill intent directed towards you, Dene, but it is much easier to set up my reasons for support in juxtaposition to yours.
> 
> I, personally, have not seen any studies showing nor do I think that a gay couple has any detrimental effects to the children that they may adopt. This itself is irrelevant to the subject of gay marriage, i.e. in most states gay couples can adopt regardless of whether they are married. But, for the sake of a healthy discussion, I will continue my post, assuming that it is a pressing matter in determining if gay couples should be able to get married.
> 
> ...


 
I recommend a member introduction.

Also, have you met emolover?


----------



## Specs112 (May 10, 2012)

calebcole203 said:


> I am proud to be a bisexual, I am proud to live in a state that fully allows gay marriage, and I am proud to be a speedcuber.


 
One of these things is not like the others.


----------



## emolover (May 10, 2012)

@Dene's second post.

The only "problems" the kids would face is harassment. I get plenty of harassment in a similar way as the child of a gay couple would get because of my own sexual orientation. But I don't take **** from people and if people try to **** with me, I **** with them to a greater extent.

As happy as I am that Obama now openly supports gay marriage, the fact that some states make it punishable to perform gay marriage is just wrong. I'm glad Indiana is impassive about gay marriage.

People need to realize that civil rights laws will be passed eventually as they did 50 years ago.

Lol Noahaha and shut up specs.


----------



## Specs112 (May 10, 2012)

emolover said:


> shut up specs.


 
love you too


----------



## Dene (May 10, 2012)

shelley said:


> That's irrelevant to whether or not someone's marriage should be legally recognized.


 
Oooh good response.



calebcole203 said:


> And, for the latter, the most commonly cited counter-argument for this, of course, is the fact that single people can adopt (or children can be raised solely by only one of their biological parents,) and therefore those children are just as much stunted developmentally as are children of gay couples.


 
Good point, I agree, single parents shouldn't be allowed. Depriving a child of a proper father figure and mother figure leads to too many issues. I don't care about the fact that the person themself will be screwed up, but the damage that they go on to do to society is a problem.


----------



## Reprobate (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> Good point, I agree, single parents shouldn't be allowed. Depriving a child of a proper father figure and mother figure leads to too many issues. I don't care about the fact that the person themself will be screwed up, but the damage that they go on to do to society is a problem.


 
I'm not sure I buy that. I've seen some studies, but I'm not sure they properly adjust for socioeconomic issues rather than the fact of a single parent. Obviously a poor child from a broken home has few resources than one adopted by a high income single person or gay couple. 

And I might add that being raised by a pair of hate-spewing religious bigots (as I was) can do a fair job of screwing a kid up as well.


----------



## applemobile (May 10, 2012)

Scientifically speaking, a homosex couple cannot have a child, so they must adopt. Although giving a child two fathers may well screw them up, it will do them a lot more good than bringing them up in an orphanage.


----------



## Specs112 (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> Good point, I agree, single parents shouldn't be allowed. Depriving a child of a proper father figure and mother figure leads to too many issues. I don't care about the fact that the person themself will be screwed up, but the damage that they go on to do to society is a problem.


 
Not sure if sarcasm...


----------



## aronpm (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> Good point, I agree, single parents shouldn't be allowed. Depriving a child of a proper father figure and mother figure leads to too many issues. I don't care about the fact that the person themself will be screwed up, but the damage that they go on to do to society is a problem.


 
As a child of a single parent I find this offensive and think that you're full of ****.


----------



## Escher (May 10, 2012)

Dene said:


> Good point, I agree, single parents shouldn't be allowed._ Depriving a child of a proper father figure and mother figure leads to too many issues_. I don't care about the fact that the person themself will be screwed up, but _the damage that they go on to do to society is a problem_.


 
Evidence or stfu.

Besides, using terminology to describe someone's marital/relationship status in the context of what is important to a child's perception of the world is silly.


----------



## Dene (May 11, 2012)

aronpm said:


> As a child of a single parent I find this offensive and think that you're full of ****.


 
Cry me a river.



Escher said:


> Evidence or stfu.



There's no way I can be bothered to find real evidence, but this will do.



Escher said:


> Besides, using terminology to describe someone's marital/relationship status in the context of what is important to a child's perception of the world is silly.


 
Children are extremely important in the context of relationships, they should always take first priority, and should be the determining factor in any law.


----------



## radioactivechee (May 11, 2012)

this is a cubing forum. not a lifestyle one!


----------



## Dene (May 11, 2012)

radioactivechee said:


> this is a cubing forum. not a lifestyle one!


 
This is the off-topic subforum on the cubing forum. This is exactly the place to discuss lifestyle.


----------



## emolover (May 11, 2012)

Dene said:


> There's no way I can be bothered to find real evidence, but this will do.


 
You're assuming that all fathers and all mothers are suppose to conform to the normal gender roles.



radioactivechee said:


> this is a cubing forum. not a lifestyle one!


 
That it is but discussion of more real life subjects is in reality more important than cubing.


----------



## Escher (May 11, 2012)

Dene said:


> There's no way I can be bothered to find real evidence, but this will do.



Why did you even bother posting this?



Dene said:


> Children are extremely important in the context of relationships, they should always take first priority, and should be the determining factor in any law.


 
Congratulations on entirely missing my point.


----------



## Specs112 (May 11, 2012)

Dene said:


> There's no way I can be bothered to find real evidence


 
So why are you attempting to have an intelligent conversation?


----------



## calebcole203 (May 11, 2012)

I think he had a respectable point in that he had an opinion and was at first polite in contrasting with the majority here, however much I disagree with him, and it would have stayed so as long as he supported some of his evidence and did not completely neglect everyone else's comments, which he did and derisively.


----------



## shelley (May 11, 2012)

Dene said:


> Children are extremely important in the context of relationships, they should always take first priority, and should be the determining factor in any law.


 
Is there a law requiring all married couples to have children? Or prohibiting non-married couples or single parents from raising children?

Until that is sorted out, your argument holds no water.


----------



## Escher (May 11, 2012)

shelley said:


> Is there a law requiring all married couples to have children? Or prohibiting non-married couples or single parents from raising children?
> 
> Until that is sorted out, your argument holds no water.


 
Dene has already said he'd be perfectly happy stopping single parents from raising children in order to keep consistent.


@Dene: since you didn't reply to me; what I meant was that the language used to describe a relationship between two individuals isn't useful when describing the child's relationship to either. Plenty of societies have and do exist whereby childcare is a group task, and parents are not expected to particularly favour their child to the exclusion of others. 

The problems you describe only exist to the degree that a child of a single-sex partnership, or of a single parent, is not 'normal' compared to their peers. Of my friends who are from this type of background, they only have negative experiences because of the rest of society. Your objections are only relevant in respect to the current norm.


----------



## shelley (May 12, 2012)

Escher said:


> Dene has already said he'd be perfectly happy stopping single parents from raising children in order to keep consistent.


 
Yes, that's not the way the law works now. Nor does the government prohibit marriage between straight people who cannot and/or do not want to have children. Which debunks



Dene said:


> Children are extremely important in the context of relationships, they should always take first priority, and should be the determining factor in any law



at least in the context of the legality of same sex marriage.


----------



## Dene (May 12, 2012)

shelley said:


> Is there a law requiring all married couples to have children? Or prohibiting non-married couples or single parents from raising children?


 
There should be. I feel sorry for the kids. Well, at least, some of them anyway.

EDIT: In reference to the second question. The first is obviously silly.


----------



## shelley (May 12, 2012)

The first is to determine just how relevant the issue of raising children is to the legal definition of marriage. Obviously it's a silly question, because no, children do not take first priority when considering the legal status of someone's marriage.


----------



## scotzbhoy (May 12, 2012)

Dene said:


> It's one reason among others.


It's not a reason. So homosexual relationships are more likely to end. So what? Correlation does not imply causation. I can guarantee that if it were the other way around, this would never be used as an argument against heterosexual marriage.


Dene said:


> Good point, I agree, single parents shouldn't be allowed. Depriving a child of a proper father figure and mother figure leads to too many issues. I don't care about the fact that the person themself will be screwed up, but the damage that they go on to do to society is a problem.


Firstly, problems do not always occur. Secondly, what do you propose doing about single parents then? Should any woman who has an unplanned pregnancy outside of marriage be arrested and the child raised in an orphanage? That's far more likely to result in issues for the child than being raised by a single parent. Should divorce not be allowed? That would be unfair on both the parents and the child(ren). As much as you may not like it (an I accept that being raised with two parents is better for a child's psychological development than one) there is no way of prohibiting single parents, and single parents should have every right to raise children on their own.


----------

