Do you support same-sex marriage in North Carolina? (sale, home)

[meh_whatever]

Originally Posted by arbyunc

So, did you sleep through Roman history class, or did you take "Popular Historical Myths 101" instead?

Well played!

[lovebrentwood]

Keep in mind that in the United States, we have freedom of religion, and that right applies to non-Christians.

If one's religion does not include quoting centuries-old words whose origins are murky (many stories are based on Jewish folktales) and whose translations have been myriad, why would one think that anti-gay biblical concepts apply to anyone in today's world?

If Jesus were alive today, as a gentle, loving, unmarried single man, spreading concepts such as being kind to others, he would be seen as gay. He certainly would not be against gay marriage. As I understand it, spreading hatred was not his thing.

[topchief1]

Originally Posted by lovebrentwood

Keep in mind that in the United States, we have freedom of religion, and that right applies to non-Christians.

If one's religion does not include quoting centuries-old words whose origins are murky (many stories are based on Jewish folktales) and whose translations have been myriad, why would one think that anti-gay biblical concepts apply to anyone in today's world?

If Jesus were alive today, as a gentle, loving, unmarried single man, spreading concepts such as being kind to others, he would be seen as gay. He certainly would not be against gay marriage. As I understand it, spreading hatred was not his thing.

Can you imagine the response someone would get today, if they were walking around some city, fitting the description you just stated?

[Time2Travel]

Originally Posted by GayCharlotteGuy

Premarital sex is a huge precursor to kids growing up with no father and being bastard kids because of people getting knocked up at a young age or at a point in their life where they financially can't raise kids in an appropriate way. This has a huge negative effect to almost all kids growing up in a situation where their mom just got knocked up. The moms generally can't afford a kid, has no means of raising the child well, the child does not grow up with a father, etc.

That is exactly why I said that the primary motive for the goverment sanctioning of marriage was for the benefit of raising a family.

[Charlotte485]

^ What about Government allowing for divorce? Was that for the benefit of the family and does the bible approve?

[Time2Travel]

Originally Posted by GayCharlotteGuy

^ What about Government allowing for divorce? Was that for the benefit of the family and does the bible approve?

I have no religious point of view to share on this topic. I don't think it is relevant nor do I think either side of the debate is going to convince the other that homosexuality is or isn't a "sin".

Divorce is probably a pretty good argument against any kind of government sanctioned marriage which would certainly agree with my point of view that marriage is a relationship agreement between two people and really isn't any of the government's business at all. However, divorce does provide some protection mechanisms for kids (ie child support, custody rights) so I see why it is a necessary legal procedure for dissolving a marriage.

[bellabrownn]

I am totally against with the same sex marriage. It is not good deal so I am against of this....

[Francois]

Originally Posted by Time2Travel

Divorce is probably a pretty good argument against any kind of government sanctioned marriage which would certainly agree with my point of view that marriage is a relationship agreement between two people and really isn't any of the government's business at all. However, divorce does provide some protection mechanisms for kids (ie child support, custody rights) so I see why it is a necessary legal procedure for dissolving a marriage.

Same-sex marriage also provides benefits for children of same-sex unions. If Jim and Joe are partnered and have custody of Joe's children from a previous marriage, Jim cannot legally adopt them and thus they aren't eligible for his health insurance or other "family" benefits offered by Jim's company (usually). If Jim dies, they aren't able to get Social Security survivors' benefits that they would otherwise. And, as you mention, if Jim and Joe divorce, they might be eligible for child support from Jim even if they stay with Joe, whereas currently, Jim's support for them is voluntary. There are many reasons why same-sex marriage would be a direct benefit to the children of such unions (hundreds of which exist right now, legally-sanctioned or not). So using the "For Thuh Chillllldren!!" argument against same-sex marriage is actually counterproductive. There is essentially no harm to children if same-sex marriages are legal but definitely potential for financial benefits and security to them if it were legal.

And before you say "Children deserve a mother and a father", I'm talking about families that already have two same-sex parents and children. No child will ever be ripped out of the arms of a mother-father situation and put into a mother-mother or father-father situation just because same-sex marriage were legalized. The issue is the many children currently being raised by one legal parent and one "parent" who is not given any legal rights or responsibilities for said child, even if they are the primary caretaker and the one who puts them to bed every night while the legal parent is working.

[Time2Travel]

Originally Posted by Francois

Same-sex marriage also provides benefits for children of same-sex unions. If Jim and Joe are partnered and have custody of Joe's children from a previous marriage, Jim cannot legally adopt them and thus they aren't eligible for his health insurance or other "family" benefits offered by Jim's company (usually). If Jim dies, they aren't able to get Social Security survivors' benefits that they would otherwise. And, as you mention, if Jim and Joe divorce, they might be eligible for child support from Jim even if they stay with Joe, whereas currently, Jim's support for them is voluntary. There are many reasons why same-sex marriage would be a direct benefit to the children of such unions (hundreds of which exist right now, legally-sanctioned or not). So using the "For Thuh Chillllldren!!" argument against same-sex marriage is actually counterproductive. There is essentially no harm to children if same-sex marriages are legal but definitely potential for financial benefits and security to them if it were legal.

And before you say "Children deserve a mother and a father", I'm talking about families that already have two same-sex parents and children. No child will ever be ripped out of the arms of a mother-father situation and put into a mother-mother or father-father situation just because same-sex marriage were legalized. The issue is the many children currently being raised by one legal parent and one "parent" who is not given any legal rights or responsibilities for said child, even if they are the primary caretaker and the one who puts them to bed every night while the legal parent is working.

Children are the responsibility of the biological parents. If the biological parents get divorced and the parent with custody gets child support from the parent that doesn't have custody there is no need for a third party to be involved. Financially or otherwise. My parents got divorced when I was 11 and my mother got child support until I was 18 even though she got remarried when I was 14. Just because my parents got divorced didn't relieve my biological father of his financial responsibility nor did it place any responsibility on my step father.

If Jim and Joe get married (which is NOT illegal in NC) it's STILL Jim and Nancy's responsibility to take care of the children. Joe is simply married to Jim, Joe doesn't become the father #2.

[Francois]

Children are the responsibility of the biological parents.

Um, no. Perhaps you are familiar with adoption? I am/was adopted as a baby. I don't even know who my biological parents are, and I have not been their financial responsibility since they (or "she") signed the papers. Upon adoption, the LEGAL parents are responsible. Many children are legally emancipated from their biological parents for various reasons, or abandoned by one. Or one dies. In the case I mentioned, the mother of the children might have died. In such case, the children could benefit by having LEGAL parenthood assumed by Jim in addition to Joe. Many step-parents legally adopt a stepchild, assuming financial and other responsibility.

But this moves into the realm of legal parenthood/guardianship, not legally-sanctioned marriage, which is irrespective of whether either partner has or adopts children.

You want to nitpick semantics about what marriages are "legal" vs "legally sanctinoed" but then you claim to know that "the primary motive for the goverment sanctioning of marriage was for the benefit of raising a family." In fact, the original motive for goverment sanctioning of marriage, centuries ago, was the dispensation of property, "kingdoms" and such. Even today, in many countries, marriages are arranged with this line of thinking in mind. But since we are talking about the USA (and, in this thread, NC in particular), there is nothing in the US nor NC constitution saying that production of and care for children is a requirement or element of legally-sanctioned marraige. It is, at its legal core, a business contract between TWO people, whether fertile, religious, or not.