ES Gay Marriage Poll

[ixcuincle]

[Rocky21]

Wow. This is kind of amazing. ES is split right down the middle with yes and no votes on this subject.

[Unforgiven]

Wow. This is kind of amazing. ES is split right down the middle with yes and no votes on this subject.

I'm slightly concerned about the people who don't even want to allow civil unions.

I understand the people that for religious reasons don't want to give up the term marriage but are ok with the whole civil union concept for legal reasons.

The ones who just don't want them to have any legal rights either....that's troubling.

[Rocky21]

I'm slightly concerned about the people who don't even want to allow civil unions.

I understand the people that for religious reasons don't want to give up the term marriage but are ok with the whole civil union concept for legal reasons.

The ones who just don't want them to have any legal rights either....that's troubling.

Me too. The majority of the voters did just this in the last election in North Carolina.

[USS Redskins]

It's great to see people up in arms about this. I sure hope that these Americans can get the rights they deserve.

That said - so much energy is being focused on this... do people realize there are like 15 million Americans still out of work and underemployed?

Politicians sure seem to have forgotten them - Obama and Boehner sure dont seem to give a rats rear end about them...

I saw that lots of people put an = sign on twitter for equality - that's awesome but I would rather see some avatar for Jobs.

[GhostofSparta]

but I would rather see some avatar for Jobs.

Too on the nose?

[USS Redskins]

http://www.yalibnan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/steve-jobs1.jpg

Too on the nose?

Thats perfect!

Very well done....

[visionary]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/27/one-after-the-other-democratic-senators-endorse-same-sex-marriage/

One after the other, Dem senators endorse same-sex marriage

Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina on Wednesday became the latest Democratic senator to unveil support for same-sex marriage, saying on Facebook the "time has come."

"After much thought and prayer, I have come to my own personal conclusion that we shouldn't tell people who they can love or who they can marry," she wrote.

She joined a chorus of Democratic senators this week who rolled out support for same-sex marriage. The endorsements came as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two cases-the ban against same-sex marriage in California and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes same-sex married couples from certain federal benefits.

Sen. Jon Tester of Montana and Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia also backed same-sex marriage on Facebook this week, following Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who announced support on her Tumblr page Sunday night.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This poll needs another option. It should read "get the government out of marriage altogether."

I don't know what that means. Does that mean that judges or justices of the peace cannot marry people any longer? That you are no longer allowed to file taxes jointly? That health benefits are no longer tied to marriage?

In the actual act of marriage, all the government does is record it. Do you no longer want marriage records?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, I missed part of this, got in late. Also have to give me a post #, I use more posts per page than most people on here I think...so I see this post on page 15.

I'm actually arguing the side that I don't support, because in all honesty I think it does two things, 1) it illustrates that opposition to gay marriage can be rationalized apart from hatred, 2) it shows the debate without the vitriol.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to say "for religious beliefs, I don't believe so and so should be legal." I'm not trying to take away your voice on the issue, I'm simply saying at the most basic point of all this there is one side that wants to limit the rights of people that in no way harms them, and the other side simply wants everyone to be equal.

I hear what you're saying, but as I've already established we already accept that under certain circumstances we do limit the rights of individuals when they are doing something that in no way harms us personally.

How is equality a bad thing? I mean what about equality in this situation is harmful? If they got their way, what is the negative impact on you?

Again, personal impact on me or you is already seen as non-bearing in certain restrictive laws. I am not going to marry a 13 year old, therefore I have no reason to believe there should be a law forbidding others from doing so? Sure the criteria for why we might argue for such a law may be different, but that's just the point that based on our ethics (contrived from philosophy) we have determined certain things like consent, and age to be important determining factors in order to deny others specific rights. Others simply put more weight on some other criteria.

[elkabong82]

Wow. This is kind of amazing. ES is split right down the middle with yes and no votes on this subject.

Look at the date the poll was created: 2007.

I bet if you make the same poll now that it would be majority in favor of SSM. A lot of people's opinions have changed over the years as the subject has become more openly discussed and the arguments against have been shot down.

Judging off the posts recently, I'd say it's 70/30 in favor.

Asbury: the age argument is a very poor one. There are consent laws because it is believed minors are not fully capable of making informed, rational decisions. That's also why they can't vote. Two consenting adults are not the same, even legally, in a union as a minor and an adult. Consent laws and SSM aren't the same thing. The criteria used to justify consent laws does not exist in SSM. The argument you're trying to make seems like it could also be used to justify banning interracial marriage so maybe you should move past it.

Also, in terms of the religious defense, I often wonder with those against SSM based on religion, where is the same clamor to make divorce illegal? It's over 50% in this country, yet there doesn't seem to be nearly as much noise with protecting the sanctity of marriage from that perspective.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You are so far off topic. Minor laws have zero comparison to laws between consenting adults. ZERO.

Yes they do, and for all the reasons I cited earlier, not long ago we would have allowed a 30 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl, but because our ethics say this is wrong we now don't. Your philosophy is not universal, nor is it constant, the ethics of the church on this issue have been consistent much longer. Sure age doesn't mean right, but neither does the fact that you adhere to a specific ethic make it right.

I still have yet to get an answer to my question. Is religion the only reason that SSM would be unconstitutional?

Psychologists have made various arguments against, I'd recite them but you'll just post the opinions of psychologists who disagree.

[Bliz]

Wow. This is kind of amazing. ES is split right down the middle with yes and no votes on this subject.

Only if you put all of the people who answered "pro civil union but not marriage" in with option 3. I wouldn't interpret the vote that way and it's not fair to do that, unless you create a different poll that said civil unions are impossible, the only 2 options are marriage or nothing.

I would say its 78% pro legal recognition of same sex relationships. 22% anti legal recognition. Not split right down the middle.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, its not really the same, if you're coming from a purely religious viewpoint (teh ghey is not allowed in the bible so gay marriage is not ok). The Constitution prohibits that, which religious people and institutions acknowledge, even if implicitly, by the fact that when they are trying to change or introduce laws to comport with religious doctrines they have to come up with secular "workarounds" and not actually mention the bible.

Current interpretation of the Constitution does not permit that to be sure, but this was not always so lest we'd not be having this discussion 200 years after it was written.

So are you part of a religion or a philosophy? How do you define yourself? How is a religion differentiated legally from a philosophy? At this point we're just going down a rhetorical and semantic rabbit hole.

I place my faith in God and trust in the scriptures as true and I derive my ethics from a sound and informed reading of scripture, I also employ reason/logic, tradition (the thinking and decisions made by those who walked this road before us), and personal experience (whether mine or someone else's). Now are you going to argue that my thinking on this issue should be irrelevant because one of my sources is the Bible?

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 04:20 PM ----------

It's great to see people up in arms about this. I sure hope that these Americans can get the rights they deserve.

That said - so much energy is being focused on this... do people realize there are like 15 million Americans still out of work and underemployed?

Politicians sure seem to have forgotten them - Obama and Boehner sure dont seem to give a rats rear end about them...

I saw that lots of people put an = sign on twitter for equality - that's awesome but I would rather see some avatar for Jobs.

There is probably a thread for that discussion.

[elkabong82]

Yes they do, and for all the reasons I cited earlier, not long ago we would have allowed a 30 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl, but because our ethics say this is wrong we now don't. Your philosophy is not universal, nor is it constant, the ethics of the church on this issue have been consistent much longer. Sure age doesn't mean right, but neither does the fact that you adhere to a specific ethic make it right.

Ethics based on age and maturity concerns are not the same, or similar, to ethics based on the naturality/morality/whatever of SSM. That issue is based on gender dynamics.

So what if the church ethics have been around longer? Length of existence is not a form of validation. If the church's ethics are so valid, then why has there been the pedophelia problem with Catholic churches? How about the churches that don't allow women to be anything other than nuns? Maybe in the case of SSM it is time religious folk revised/adapted their views. You adapted to accept divorce, to accept that the sun does not revolve around the Earth, that disease and disasters aren't acts of God to punish the wicked (though some still hold to that but are viewed as extreme). No religion is infallible, and they all have gotten things wrong over the centuries. Maybe it's time to consider that religious arguments against SSM are wrong.

[mistertim]

I place my faith in God and trust in the scriptures as true and I derive my ethics from a sound and informed reading of scripture, I also employ reason/logic, tradition (the thinking and decisions made by those who walked this road before us), and personal experience (whether mine or someone else's). Now are you going to argue that my thinking on this issue should be irrelevant because one of my sources is the Bible?

I get what you're saying and that's fine from a personal belief standpoint. I'm certainly not going to argue that you have no right to those beliefs, no matter where they come from. I will, however, argue that if you are trying to write, change, or influence laws in this country based upon those religious beliefs (no matter what the law or belief is) then it should at the very least be subjected to heightened scrutiny so as not to violate our current interpretation of church/state separation.

I do think there are some areas where secular law/philosophy and religious tenets/philosophy intersect in such a way as to have the backing of both and be fine from a legal perspective as there are rational, valid reasons for it beyond "it says so in the bible" (providing for the poor and sick for example). I also happen to think that denying gay people equal marriage rights is not one of those areas.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ethics based on age and maturity concerns are not the same, or similar, to ethics based on the naturality/morality/whatever of SSM. That issue is based on gender dynamics.

Only because your philosophically informed ethics creates the difference in the use of those categories.

So what if the church ethics have been around longer? Length of existence is not a form of validation.

Which I stated for you in the post you quoted.

If the church's ethics are so valid, then why has there been the pedophelia problem with Catholic churches? How about the churches that don't allow women to be anything other than nuns?

Is the pedophilia a teaching of the church's ethics? Your philosophy states that women must be given the same opportunities as a man, this is not a universal philosophy, so what makes you's the right one?

Maybe in the case of SSM it is time religious folk revised/adapted their views. You adapted to accept divorce, to accept that the sun does not revolve around the Earth, that disease and disasters aren't acts of God to punish the wicked (though some still hold to that but are viewed as extreme). No religion is infallible, and they all have gotten things wrong over the centuries. Maybe it's time to consider that religious arguments against SSM are wrong.

You present the argument as if I and others haven't considered whether religious arguments aren't correct. But, you need to consider what you're asking. For instance, to say as you'd have us to consider religious arguments against SSM wrong we would then have to question all of scripture's teachings on things that are in against God's will. After all we wouldn't want to be accused of cherry picking. This may not sound like a big deal to those who already reject scripture, but for those who trust very much in the teachings it is huge.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 04:45 PM ----------

I get what you're saying and that's fine from a personal belief standpoint. I'm certainly not going to argue that you have no right to those beliefs, no matter where they come from. I will, however, argue that if you are trying to write, change, or influence laws in this country based upon those religious beliefs (no matter what the law or belief is) then it should at the very least be subjected to heightened scrutiny so as not to violate our current interpretation of church/state separation.

I do think there are some areas where secular law/philosophy and religious tenets/philosophy intersect in such a way as to have the backing of both and be fine from a legal perspective as there are rational, valid reasons for it beyond "it says so in the bible" (providing for the poor and sick for example). I also happen to think that denying gay people equal marriage rights is not one of those areas.

Perfectly stated!!!!! :applause:

My work here is done!:ack:

[elkabong82]

Only because your philosophically informed ethics creates the difference in the use of those categories.

Which I stated for you in the post you quoted.

Is the pedophilia a teaching of the church's ethics? Your philosophy states that women must be given the same opportunities as a man, this is not a universal philosophy, so what makes you's the right one?

You present the argument as if I and others haven't considered whether religious arguments aren't correct. But, you need to consider what you're asking. For instance, to say as you'd have us to consider religious arguments against SSM wrong we would then have to question all of scripture's teachings on things that are in against God's will. After all we wouldn't want to be accused of cherry picking. This may not sound like a big deal to those who already reject scripture, but for those who trust very much in the teachings it is huge.

No, what creates the difference in those categories is age vs. gender. Ethics doesn't tell you that minors aren't equipped to handle the same responsibilities as adults, real life experiences and history do. Tell me, where is the historical and real-life evidence that SSM is wrong?

The pedophelia stuff is proof that just because a church has ethics doesn't mean those ethics are all stringently followed, and in fact seem typically to be enforced on a pick-and-choose basis. The other examples I gave about various churches/religions being wring was to point out that religion has adapted itself to society throughout history, so its ethics are not steadfast, can be adapted, and in this case should be too.

When divorce rates were accepted, when it was accepted that the earth revolves around the sun, when modern medicine was accepted, were all of the scripture's teachings questioned then as well? No, they weren't. One thing is adapted, the rest stays intact until science and/or society force the next change. That is a bogus argument that changing the SSM view will require changing of views on all scripture since historically that hasn't happened when other major changes occurred; in fact it is pretty close to a slippery slope argument.

It doesn't sound like a big deal to those of us that accept scripture for what it is: man's fallible interpretation of holy words and events, many years after the fact. You come across awfully arrogant trying to imply that I outright reject scripture as do others who have adapted their views. I accept scripture for what it is, which, again, is man's interpretation which is subject to the follies of man's abilities. So no, scripture isn't set in stone and can be wring on a number of things. It has been all throughout it's existence, it will be in the future, and each time eventually the majority's view will adapt but retain faith, same thing is already happening with a lot of Christians and other religions with SSM.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No, what creates the difference in those categories is age vs. gender. Ethics doesn't tell you that minors aren't equipped to handle the same responsibilities as adults, real life experiences and history do.[/Quote]

If that were universally true then has it been done in the past? Answer, because it isn't universally true that life experiences and history teach these things. In fact it probably wouldn't be too hard to find positive examples of arranged marriages between an adult and a 12 or 13 year old.

Tell me, where is the historical and real-life evidence that SSM is wrong?

In the same place you find yours against the aforementioned arranged marriages.

The pedophelia stuff is proof that just because a church has ethics doesn't mean those ethics are all stringently followed, and in fact seem typically to be enforced on a pick-and-choose basis. [/Quote]

Whether those ethics are followed or not is not the fault of the ethics, and if your arguments is based on the fact that those ethics were not followed, then that is not an argument to not follow more ethics, but instead it is an arguments to better follow the original ethic.

The other examples I gave about various churches/religions being wring was to point out that religion has adapted itself to society throughout history, so its ethics are not steadfast, can be adapted, and in this case should be too.

And in many cases society has adapted itself to religion. Are the ethics the same throughout time, no. But, I would argue that Christian ethics are much more consistent than current secular humanist ethics.

When divorce rates were accepted

Who says they are accepted?

when it was accepted that the earth revolves around the sun, when modern medicine was accepted, were all of the scripture's teachings questioned then as well? No, they weren't.

Those are issues of fact and verifiable science, not morality and ethics. To say homosexuality is no longer viewed as sin is to also suggest that theft should no longer be viewed as sin.

It doesn't sound like a big deal to those of us that accept scripture for what it is: man's fallible interpretation of holy words and events, many years after the fact.

We would obviously disagree on that assessment.

You come across awfully arrogant trying to imply that I outright reject scripture as do others who have adapted their views. I accept scripture for what it is, which, again, is man's interpretation which is subject to the follies of man's abilities. So no, scripture isn't set in stone and can be wring on a number of things. It has been all throughout it's existence, it will be in the future, and each time eventually the majority's view will adapt but retain faith, same thing is already happening with a lot of Christians and other religions with SSM.

Again, this is solely your opinion, but far from the universal acceptance of what scripture is.

[Stadium-Armory]

Saw this all over facebook today. Do not think it is analogous.

[Bang]

Nah, no insecurity there.

~Bang

[Forehead]

Look at the date the poll was created: 2007.

I bet if you make the same poll now that it would be majority in favor of SSM. A lot of people's opinions have changed over the years...

Very true, mine certainly have, though I've never voted in the poll at any point. I waffle between option 1 and option 2.

[Hubbs]

Okay, I know I'm supposed to be seeing something more than a gun and an upside-down gun, but I can't possibly tell you what the would be... can I get a little help?

[dchogs]

Okay, I know I'm supposed to be seeing something more than a gun and an upside-down gun, but I can't possibly tell you what the would be... can I get a little help?

just a play on the red "equal sign" that folks are using as profile pictures on FB and twitter.

[mistertim]

Okay, I know I'm supposed to be seeing something more than a gun and an upside-down gun, but I can't possibly tell you what the would be... can I get a little help?

Bad Wolf.