ES Gay Marriage Poll

[Hubbs]

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

Ahhh, that explains both what it is and why I wasn't familiar with it, I haven't been spending a lot of time on either site lately. But a quick Google search fixed that, haha.

Bad Wolf.

Damnit, I see what you did there but I wish I could see even more, I was only introduced to Who after Matt Smith took over and I'm slowly catching up on some of the older story lines when I can. (Even that process isn't diluted much by the fact that I'm aware of quite a few spoilers before I watch them because of the nature of the show. You can watch long story arcs unfold while knowing parts of the ending. Even re-watching a few episodes because you saw them out of order is practically like watching them for the first time because you pick up on so much new stuff. Really amazing what good writers can do with the time travel concept.)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

Those marriages took place in churches. The same churches that would not have allowed inter-racial marriages between consenting adults. Churches evolve just as much as the rest of society.

You seem to have this belief that "The Church" is this constant, unchanging beacon in a world. Yet, you probably couldn't even define the term "The Church" in that scenario. Are you talking about The Catholic Church? Jewish Synagogues? Southern Baptists? Anglicans? Muslims? Unitarians? Methodists? Quakers?

[MartinC]

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.

Excuse me? No its not.

Its to say you view the questions separately and on their merits and if you can't see the difference in the question of whether homosexuality is a sin and theft is a sin because the Bible tells you they are both sins I think you need to reflect very carefully on your trust in scripture or at least your interpretation of it.

Its also worth pointing out that for a long time the Church actively suppressed information on and denied the truth of things like the earth revolving around the sun - the Church (however you define that - perhaps better stated as religious opinion) was eventually forced to accept reality on that and eventually in one way or another it will be forced to accept the reality that peoples sexuality is not a choice or a sin and is in no way equated with someones choice to steal.

[Bacon]

I am a Christian and follow the teachings of Christ. Jesus never said a word about homosexuals and homosexual relationships, so I defer to his command to treat others as you wish to be treated.

But even if I had no religious affiliation, I would fail to understand what gives me the right to restrict the rights of others. I'm a married man and believe everyone deserves an opportunity to experience it, for better or worse. Besides, on a practical level, others' relationships have no effect on me anyway. This seems to be a classic example of time revealing the flaws of discrimination and carefully stripping it away. There will always be some resistance in that scenario, but it's necessary.

[Koolblue13]

It is so hard to find love in this life and to tell somebody that they can't consummate their relationship, because your religion says it is a sin, is the true sin.

Love each other, don't judge and accept. Everybody has a hard path, embrace others abilities to find love, not your own hate.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 06:13 AM ----------

ASF, have you really compared SSM to pedophilia and thievery in this thread? SMH.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am a Christian and follow the teachings of Christ. Jesus never said a word about homosexuals and homosexual relationships, so I defer to his command to treat others as you wish to be treated.

I know many use this logic, but it isn't as strong as you might think, because Jesus never spokevdirectly about a great number of things that were already clearly established in the Mosaic Law. What you are suggesting is that somehow Jesus should be viewed apart from the Old Testament when it is the Old Testament that allows us to even understand who Jesus even is.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 07:18 AM ----------

Excuse me? No its not.

Its to say you view the questions separately and on their merits and if you can't see the difference in the question of whether homosexuality is a sin and theft is a sin because the Bible tells you they are both sins I think you need to reflect very carefully on your trust in scripture or at least your interpretation of it.

Not when the scriptures speak as clearly on homosexuality as they do theft.

Its also worth pointing out that for a long time the Church actively suppressed information on and denied the truth of things like the earth revolving around the sun - the Church (however you define that - perhaps better stated as religious opinion) was eventually forced to accept reality on that and eventually in one way or another it will be forced to accept the reality that peoples sexuality is not a choice or a sin and is in no way equated with someones choice to steal.

These are COMPLETELY different issues, there is nothing in science that says homosexuality is a regularly occurring human behavior, the psychology on this issue is debatable at best.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 07:22 AM ----------

]ASF, have you really compared SSM to pedophilia and thievery in this thread? SMH.

Yes, and if you actually read WHAT I said rather than kneejerking because the two words show up in the same paragraph then you'll understand that I used pedophilia as an example of relationships that we already regulate based on our shared philosophy. The whole line of argument was on that basis if you read the argument you'll see that it is not the same use as what you're probably used to in this debate.

[MartinC]

Not when the scriptures speak as clearly on homosexuality as they do theft.

I know from our interaction on ES that you are a reasonable and intelligent person. THINK! Use your brain and your own life experiences and judgement and tell me honestly if you REALLY think homosexuality is a sin in the same breath as theft.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 06:34 AM ----------

These are COMPLETELY different issues, there is nothing in science that says homosexuality is a regularly occurring human behavior, the psychology on this issue is debatable at best.

Debated by a small percentage of society perhaps - probably the same percentage who debate evolution and believe intelligent design should be taught alongside it. THINK!!!!

[Koolblue13]

I read exactly what you wrote. All of it. Minors are protected for a reason and you're not allowed to just take others things for a reason too. None of that has anything to do with the private or even public lives of two consenting adults that just want to share their love. That line of thinking disgusts me. You're just reaching for anything now.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I know from our interaction on ES that you are a reasonable and intelligent person. THINK! Use your brain and your own life experiences and judgement and tell me honestly if you REALLY think homosexuality is a sin in the same breath as theft.

Sin is not understood as only something that one person does in harm to another, sin is a deviation from the will of God for our lives.

Debated by a small percentage of society perhaps - probably the same percentage who debate evolution and believe intelligent design should be taught alongside it. THINK!!!!

Then show me the empirical evidence that proves homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon within the human race. There is none.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 08:14 AM ----------

I read exactly what you wrote. All of it. Minors are protected for a reason and you're not allowed to just take others things for a reason too. None of that has anything to do with the private or even public lives of two consenting adults that just want to share their love. That line of thinking disgusts me. You're just reaching for anything now.

KB, if you read all of what I wrote you would understand that the whole point was to show that 1) we do restrict certain relationships by law. 2) we use our subjective and not universal philosophy to construct an ethic that places importance on consent, and the difference between adulthood and childhood. 3) but also to demonstrate that our philosophy is not universal considering 12-13 year old girls are and have been for a very long time given in arranged marriages to 30 year old men. You would object to that, we've written laws against it, and rightfully so, but all of our laws are based upon our subjective philosophy and ethic.

[skinsmarydu]

I don't know about empirical evidence, all I know is what I see. My mom and grandmother get a giggle about an older man in their town that walks around with a purse. No one was surprised when we drove by and I rolled down the window and waved.

I'm not Jewish, so I don't live by the Old Testament. I live by the new one, where Jesus said we're all children of God and should be loved as such.

Once again, my broken record...John 3:16 doesn't exclude anyone. God "created" us all, we evolved into walking upright humans, and we should help each other, not hurt. Whether this turns into a change in the law of the nation, I don't know. But I have hope.

And I have love for all of God's creations, no matter who they are. I have been told not to judge by that same God. (every once in a while I'll call twa an idiot, but that's as far as I go.)

~Peace, ya'll.

[Larry]

.Then show me the empirical evidence that proves homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon within the human race. There is none.

You mean, other than the fact that it has existed throughout recorded human history?

Tell you what. Hiw about you point out to us the time in human history in which homosexuality did not exist. Using the same standard that you're demanding of others.

[MartinC]

Sin is not understood as only something that one person does in harm to another, sin is a deviation from the will of God for our lives.

Enough with the double talk and wrapping yourself in the bible as an excuse not to question. What do YOU think - actually scratch that question lets try another tack, DO you think or do accept 'scripture' as fact and follow it unthinking and unquestioning? I'm starting to doubt my previous characterisation of you as reasonable and intelligent.

Then show me the empirical evidence that proves homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon within the human race. There is none.

What you mean apart from the evidence of the whole of recorded human history? In various societies and at various times homosexuality has been the norm and totally unremarkable - Sparta springs to mind as an extreme example.

This exchange with you has been very enlightening and reminds me again just why religion, or at least the unthinking adherence to it and other totalitarian philosophies is such a dangerous and corrosive phenomena in our world.

[Bacon]

Then show me the empirical evidence that proves homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon within the human race. There is none.

"Naturally" is a loaded word that suggests something is not only biological but "normal." Homosexuality is most assuredly not the norm, but there is a wealth of empirical information showing that homosexuality is influenced by genetics, though not solely. One study I found claimed 52% incidence of shared homosexuality in monozygotic twins, whereas the number dropped to 11% for adoptive brothers.

This site has a compilation of studies that, at the very least, agree to 40-50% shared incidence:

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000019

In a nutshell, homosexuality is a mixture of nature and nurture that influences a child's sexual orientation long before they have an opportunity to make a lifestyle choice of their own. Whether or not it fully occurs due to genetics is irrelevant when home life is also a strong factor; that 11% figure I threw out is still very high compared to the global average and suggests the child's environment is just as important as their biology and also out of their control.

If you want to discuss what is a sin and what isn't a sin, surely a homosexual could make the "choice" to be celibate before marriage just as a heterosexual could. It's fornication either way if they don't. It would be interesting to see someone make an argument that homosexual intercourse within a marriage is equally sinful to heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You mean, other than the fact that it has existed throughout recorded human history?

Tell you what. Hiw about you point out to us the time in human history in which homosexuality did not exist. Using the same standard that you're demanding of others.

Poor argument Larry, many things have existed throughout human history that societies then and now have deemed worthy of prohibition.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 08:51 AM ----------

Enough with the double talk and wrapping yourself in the bible as an excuse not to question. What do YOU think - actually scratch that question lets try another tack, DO you think or do accept 'scripture' as fact and follow it unthinking and unquestioning? I'm starting to doubt my previous characterization of you as reasonable and intelligent.

And this is where discussion ends, when you reject the basis for someone's point of view because it isn't the same basis you use. I could easily say the same thing about secular humanism, and then question your intelligence for believing in its principles, but that doesn't help.

What you mean apart from the evidence of the whole of recorded human history? In various societies and at various times homosexuality has been the norm and totally unremarkable - Sparta springs to mind as an extreme example.

First, see my response to Larry. Second using Sparta as an example of a society that we should use as a pattern is problematic to say the least.

This exchange with you has been very enlightening and reminds me again just why religion, or at least the unthinking adherence to it and other totalitarian philosophies is such a dangerous and corrosive phenomena in our world.

That's twice you've insulted my intelligence, when I have done nothing to warrant insult.

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 08:53 AM ----------

"Naturally" is a loaded word that suggests something is not only biological but "normal." Homosexuality is most assuredly not the norm, but there is a wealth of empirical information showing that homosexuality is influenced by genetics, though not solely. One study I found claimed 52% incidence of shared homosexuality in monozygotic twins, whereas the number dropped to 11% for adoptive brothers.

This site has a compilation of studies that, at the very least, agree to 40-50% shared incidence:

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000019

In a nutshell, homosexuality is a mixture of nature and nurture that influences a child's sexual orientation long before they have an opportunity to make a lifestyle choice of their own. Whether or not it fully occurs due to genetics is irrelevant when home life is also a strong factor; that 11% figure I threw out is still very high compared to the global average and suggests the child's environment is just as important as their biology and also out of their control.

If you want to discuss what is a sin and what isn't a sin, surely a homosexual could make the "choice" to be celibate before marriage just as a heterosexual could. It's fornication either way if they don't. It would be interesting to see someone make an argument that homosexual intercourse within a marriage is equally sinful to heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage.

None of which is conclusive, heck even one of the main voices for LGBT reversed himself on the born gay issue a couple years ago. He was the editor of an LGBT magazine and caught hell from the LGBT community for his reversal.

[MartinC]

Poor argument Larry, many things have existed throughout human history that societies then and now have deemed worthy of prohibition.

You asked for empirical evidence that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena - note evidence not proof - how is its constant presence through the whole of human history not the evidence you asked for?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You asked for empirical evidence that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena - note evidence not proof - how is its constant presence through the whole of human history not the evidence you asked for?

I said empirical evidence that proves. I know how to choose my words well enough. The key is in naturally occurring, using your argument about the presence of it throughout history then would also suggest that every human behavior seen throughout history is a naturally occurring phenomenon and should be legalized. I can't cite specifics, because when I do people get inflamed because of the emotional connections to those specifics.

[MartinC]

I said empirical evidence that proves. I know how to choose my words well enough. The key is in naturally occurring, using your argument about the presence of it throughout history then would also suggest that every human behavior seen throughout history is a naturally occurring phenomenon and should be legalized. I can't cite specifics, because when I do people get inflamed because of the emotional connections to those specifics.

Specifics are important though because they expose the serious and dangerous flaws in your thinking to wit equating homosexuality with theft. Its nonsense or the most abhorrent kind.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Specifics are important though because they expose the serious and dangerous flaws in your thinking to wit equating homosexuality with theft. Its nonsense or the most abhorrent kind.

I already got flamed by KB for citing one specific, there are others similar to that one.

[Larry]

Poor argument Larry, many things have existed throughout human history that societies then and now have deemed worthy of prohibition.

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

You didn't claim that heterosexuality was accepted or legal. You claimed that it didn't occur.

That's twice you've insulted my intelligence, when I have done nothing to warrant insult.

You mean, other than your continued insistence that there is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality occurs?

[MartinC]

That's twice you've insulted my intelligence, when I have done nothing to warrant insult.

Unthinking acceptance of a position based on scripture that homosexuality is a sin akin to theft qualifies in my book. I think we are done here though.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

You didn't claim that heterosexuality was accepted or legal. You claimed that it didn't occur.

You mean, other than your continued insistence that there is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality occurs?

Instead of putting words in my mouth, you are taking some out.

[Larry]

I said empirical evidence that proves. I know how to choose my words well enough. The key is in naturally occurring, using your argument about the presence of it throughout history then would also suggest that every human behavior seen throughout history is a naturally occurring phenomenon and should be legalized. I can't cite specifics, because when I do people get inflamed because of the emotional connections to those specifics.

Ah, now we get to the weasel words.

"Well, if you define the word 'naturally' to mean 'things I approve of', then . . . "

Tell you what: Since you're going to insist that the fact that something has occurred throughout human history (and occurs in the behavior of several animals, as well) doesn't fit with your definition of "naturally", how about you grace us with your definition?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Unthinking acceptance of a position based on scripture that homosexuality is a sin akin to theft qualifies in my book. I think we are done here though.

That's because you refuse to understand how other people might actually think, and since they don't think like you then you believe they are unthinking. That's a pity.

[MartinC]

That's because you refuse to understand how other people might actually think, and since they don't think like you then you believe they are unthinking. That's a pity.

One last time THINK! The line of fundamentalist thinking you are exhibiting is what brings us suicide bombers and planes being flown into skyscrapers. Now THATS a pity.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ah, now we get to the weasel words.

"Well, if you define the word 'naturally' to mean 'things I approve of', then . . . "

Fine Larry, would you define pedophilia as naturally occurring?

And if so would you use it's natural occurrence throughout history as a basis to argue for its legality in the same way that you and MartinC have been trying to do for homosexuality?

---------- Post added March-28th-2013 at 09:08 AM ----------

One last time THINK! The line of fundamentalist thinking you are exhibiting is what brings us suicide bombers and planes being flown into skyscrapers. Now THATS a pity.

Yep, we're done.