From the recent issue if National Review that arrived today
"An ABC/Washington Post poll found that 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. But don't believe it. For one thing, respondents seem to tell interviewers that they favor same-sex marriage because they think it's what they are supposed to say. Their answers are more negative when voting or responding to robo-calls. The question was also flawed: "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" Of course nobody is proposing to throw same-sex couples in jail for getting a friendly Unitarian minister to hold a ceremony for them, or for calling themselves married is social settings. We do not think that this behavior should be "illegal" or, to use another misleading word bandied about in this debate, "banned". What we oppose is official recognition of these unions, since such recognition would undermine the core purpose of marriage law, which is to link procreation to stable households. The poll is not evidence that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It is, however, evidence that its supporters have succeeded in setting the terms of debate."
...or as I like to say, they've succeeding in using their dishonesty to influence public opinion. Not a surprise since there is little that is honest that is used to support the agenda that doesn't exist.
40 comments:
but yet every time we vote it looses. Weird
"The question was also flawed"
No it wasn't. You are purposely mis-characterizing the question.
"Of course nobody is proposing to throw same-sex couples in jail for getting a friendly Unitarian minister to hold a ceremony for them, or for calling themselves married i[n] social settings."
The question asked is not as you are suggesting, "Should it be illegal for people to call themselves 'married'". The question is "Should it be legal or illegal....to GET married. The only way to GET married is through a legally recognized marriage.
Your premise here is bogus.
"The question was also flawed: "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" Of course nobody is proposing to throw same-sex couples in jail for getting a friendly Unitarian minister to hold a ceremony for them, or for calling themselves married is social settings."
Excellent point, Marshall. The question should have been, "Should the government recognize unions that have not met the historical definition of marriage for thousands of years in nearly every culture, and that by nature and design cannot produce the next generation, and if this recognition is granted will result in 5 yr. olds being taught how "normal" LGBTQ behavior is?" I think the results might have been different.
Sadly, too many self-proclaimed "Christians" love the praise of the world more than what God has to say about human sexuality.
I think Ben is Parkie.
Jim,
Ask Danny Trabue. They get married all the time. As the piece suggested, and as Neil, myself and others have stated, there are all sorts of churches that "marry" homosexuals. There are homosexuals who call themselves married, refer to each other as spouses, etc. Despite whether or not the state in which they live grants a license, they are married. Being married is a matter of committment, not licensing. Licensing merely establishes recognition by the state of the union, from which legal aspects flow. But is not necessary to marry. Common law marriages do not have the benefit of licensing.
Neil's question would be more accurate for the purpose of determing the general attitude regarding homo marriage. Another might be, "Do you think the state should recognize any union, regardless of members or number of them, the same way it recognizes traditional marriage?" or simply, "Do you think the state should license homosexual marriages?"
As Edwin stated, every time we vote on it, or are given the opportunity to vote on it, it loses.
Nonsense!
Why would anybody poll about whether it should be legal to call oneself married after a church ceremony or a pledge? The question as presented here is simple, straight-forward. The entire quote presented in your post is simply a "rationalization" for dis-believing results the author doesn't like. No evidence is presented to support the author's assertion about what those polled do or do not think despite their answers.
"As Edwin stated, every time we vote on it, or are given the opportunity to vote on it, it loses."
Yeah, but not much longer. Time marches on and attitudes are changing.
"Neil's question would be more accurate for the purpose of determing the general attitude regarding homo marriage."
Nonsense again. THAT question is laughably and intentionally biased.
The poll question is clear, simple and un-biased. You and the author simply don't agree with the result. Eventually you will stop voting and the 53% will continue to climb.
Jim,
You're not trying very hard. What does "illegal" mean to you? To most people it suggests that some penalty is in store for anyone found to have done something illegal. I don't know about my compatriots, but I don't seek jail time for homosexuals. Thus, as the question is put forth, I would have to answer "legal" or abstain from responding altogether. But it doesn't speak to how I truly feel about the notion of state recognition of such false marriages. It puts me in the position of appearing to support them. The piece doesn't suggest an alternative way to answer the question, so it has to be viewed in a manner that suggests the problems it poses as it is worded.
As to that, you don't like Neil's alternative question? Well what about mine?
And the author did indeed suggest that there is evidence that other polls go the other way, such a voting (the best poll for such information) and robo-calls. Research either of those to see what the majority opinion is.
The ABC/WP question is not a clear as it could be. My alternative gets to the point far better. And as it is not so clear, it is biased for not being so.
"You're not trying very hard."
No, you are trying TOO hard.
Your question, "Do you think the state should license homosexual marriages?" is the question being asked in other words.
That said, ABC/WP has been doing the same poll for over 9 years and during that time the trend has moved towards the majority favoring legal rights for same sex marriages. So even if you don't like the question, the trend speaks loudly.
Other polls are showing the same trends. You best get over it. You will eventually be out voted or you will not be voting.
"Your question, "Do you think the state should license homosexual marriages?" is the question being asked in other words."
Why do you suppose they don't use those words, which more accurately reflect the issue at hand? Your statement above supports the point being made in the NR piece, that the question isn't helping to provide an accurate assessment of public opinion.
"Other polls are showing the same trends."
Yet the polls that count, those where everyone gets to vote, continue to show most people oppose homo marriage. Those are the only polls that matter.
We may indeed be outvoted at some point, and we will suffer the same negative effects experienced in Scandinavia. The left is all for moral decline, and so as long as they are speaking unopposed in schools, universities, entertainment media and other public areas, they can win more converts to perversion and sexual dysfunction as a way of life. Those of us who want so much better for our nation will continue the struggle nonetheless. We will always vote.
Always but not forever.
As I always say, I don't care if homos are allowed to legally marry.
They may think they're legal but God knows they really aren't. They are just fooling themselves. Let 'em marry if they want to. Leaves more women for the rest of us normal men.
But... when they find a way to have children, that's where I draw the line. Allowing homosexuals to raise children is child abuse.
Once again, they ARE allowed to marry legally. That is, by whatever means they find to hold a ceremony and publicly state their commitment, there is no law preventing them from doing so to my knowledge. The obvious point of contention is whether or not the state, otherwise known as WE THE PEOPLE, should be forced to recognize it in the manner now done for real marriages. Of course that would be harmful to our society and culture, so I oppose it strongly.
I won't be surprised at all if the trend continues. We live in a depraved society where even many "Christians" are pro-legalized abortion and pro-oxymoronic "same-sex marriage."
The issue was the survey question. You said, "Your question, "Do you think the state should license homosexual marriages?" is the question being asked in other words." But those aren't the words used, and your paraphrase completely distorts it. The survey question clearly asked if people thought these unions should be illegal, and that isn't what is being debated.
"Once again, they ARE allowed to marry legally."
They may be "allowed" to "marry", but, no, they AREN'T allowed marry.
I know it. You know it. Everybody here knows it. Your argument is specious. There is no doubt that the issue and the question is about legal rights for gay couples.
I know it. You know it. Everybody here knows it.
"The survey question clearly asked if people thought these unions should be illegal"
No, the survey begins, "Do you think it should be legal or illegal...to get married." It didn't say "to call themselves married."
I know it. You know it. Everybody here knows it.
What everybody here knows, Jim, aside from yourself, that is, is that marriage is not dependent upon state sanctioning.
If two mentally and emotionally disturbed dudes wish to marry each other, all they need to is to commit their selves to each other, forsaking all others (though it would be far better for each to commit himself to counseling until they can overcome their abnormal desires).
I don't know about you, Jim, but with very few exceptions, mostly among the aged, I don't believe I've ever heard of any heterosexual couple marrying in order to take advantage of tax benefits or benefits of any kind, other then those associated with being betrothed to one's spouse, if you know what I mean. Indeed, even getting that license is not foremost in their minds. I know it wasn't in mine. The only thing I thought about was taking the vow and she taking hers. I would suspect that of those two gazillion benefits homos say only married heteros get, my wife and I likely don't know half of them.
In any case, it all still comes down to the only poll that matters. And that's the one they lose every time. As such, the ABC poll is worthless as an indicator of public sentiment on the issue. But there's no doubt that wording in such polls matters and if you want to believe that respondents, to a man, understand the question as you do, why, you go right ahead. And why not? The homos and their supporters do to drum up even more support.
"I don't believe I've ever heard of any heterosexual couple marrying in order to take advantage of tax benefits or benefits of any kind"
It's just comes with the territory.
I know a 90 year old lady and a 93 year old man whose pastor performed a marriage ceremony for them. The pastor did not send any papers to the state for legal recognition because it was better financially for them to remain single in the eyes of the state. So they were married in the "eyes of God" only. The man passed away recently and the lady, now 97, is living with her daughter.
I believe ANYONE who wishes to get married should be able to do so legally, with all the benefits, or as this elderly couple did to protect their personal finances.
"It's just comes with the territory."
Exactly, but it wouldn't matter to most people if it didn't. Marriages would still take place. In the history of man, these "benefits" the state provides are quite new. But they reflect the understanding of the state that it is an ideal that is beneficial to society and the culture. There has been no evidence that any other arrangement can provide that same benefit to society. "Almost" doesn't count. As Neil suggested, it very well may at some point, and that would be heinously sad, but now it doesn't.
"I believe ANYONE who wishes to get married should be able to do so legally, with all the benefits, or as this elderly couple did to protect their personal finances."
First of all, the couple denied themselves state recognition of their union. That's a far cry from demanding state recognition. No one is suggesting they should be jailed for their decision anymore than anyone is suggesting that homos be jailed for pretending to be married. The question revolves around state recognition and licensing.
Secondly, I don't believe you mean what you say regarding anyone being allowed to get married. What of two 12 yr old kids? Should they be allowed? What of a man and his mother? Should they be allowed? What of a man and his 13 yr old daughter, or the 13 yr old across the street, who really thinks he's cute and loves what he does to her? What of those two getting married along with the guy's best friend from childhood, and that guy's mother with her best friend? Should they all be allowed to marry as a group and should the state recognize it as they do real marriages? If not, why not? How could you deny them if you've already agreed to redefine the term to include homosexual unions?
My husband's great grandmother got married when she was 13 in a black wedding dress.
"There has been no evidence that any other arrangement can provide that same benefit to society."
Nor is there any evidence to the contrary.
"I know it wasn't in mine. The only thing I thought about was taking the vow and she taking hers. I would suspect that of those two gazillion benefits homos say only married heteros get, my wife and I likely don't know half of them."
Then why do you give one single CRAP whether or not gays get them? You've basically proved that gay marriage does nothing to endanger your marriage or any other marriage or the institution of marriage.
"My husband's great grandmother got married when she was 13 in a black wedding dress."
Ah, the good old days!
His great grandmother couldn't find a woman to give him the time of day, eh?
Was there a point somewhere in there, or are you just sayin'? One of Mohammed's wives was nine.
I said:
""There has been no evidence that any other arrangement can provide that same benefit to society."
Jim said,
"Nor is there any evidence to the contrary."
To which I say,
None is needed. But evidence that it makes sense to change the definition of marriage to include those with abnormal desires is. They need to show that it's good for the society that now sees no good in the notion.
"Then why do you give one single CRAP whether or not gays get them?"
That is hardly the point of the statement of mine you highlighted. The point is that access to benefits is part of their whine, and one used to demonstrate discrimination. Getting tax breaks or state recognition is a sorry reason to commit one's life to another.
"You've basically proved that gay marriage does nothing to endanger your marriage or any other marriage or the institution of marriage."
I've never sought to prove that homo marriage endangers my marriage or any other legitimate marriage. I've never suggested it does in the least. THAT is something idiots use to demonize supporters of real marriage.
But the institution is at risk should homos achieve their dastardly end, just as supporters of no-fault divorce have harmed the institution. If you need help understanding the distinction between an individual marriage and the institution of marriage, just let me know. I'm here to help.
Assigning civil rights status to sexual perversions impacts society in many ways. Examples:
Homosexual Activists Target Jim Walder, Illinois B & B Owner, for Denying ‘Civil Unions’ Ceremony http://americansfortruth.com/news/homosexual-activists-target-jim-walder-illinois-b-b-owner-for-denying-civil-unions-ceremony.html
Homosexual and bisexual indoctrination in elementary school [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ9z4uIUBJk&w=640&h=390&hd=1]
And more . . .
Homosexual Couple Files Complaint Against Dallas Morning News http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/03/08/homosexual-couple-files-complaint-against-dallas-morning-news/
Adoptions – some organizations will get out of adoption business. Adoptees will go with gay couples. That is child abuse.
Religious organizations, including schools, would have to hire transgender employees. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fired-trans-activist-rejects-settlement-from-catholic-school-board
And those are just for starters.
Marshall: "Was there a point somewhere in there, or are you just sayin'?"
You're the one who asked me if I thought it ok for 12 & 13 year olds to get married. I was just sayin' they used to do that without anybody thinking anything of it.
The only people who used to be required to get a license to marry were couples of different races. I can remember when people still thought it was immoral and should even be illegal for them to bear offspring. Some probably still think like that.
Recognition of same-sex marriages is coming and there isn't anything you guys can do to stop it. You can bloviate and protest all you want, but it's coming. And your children and grandchildren won't care in the least.
Marty,
"I was just sayin' they used to do that without anybody thinking anything of it."
They used to hang black people, too. The question still stands. Is that something you would condone or avoid opposing in any way, to allow adults to marry kids as young as 13 (or younger)?
"Recognition of same-sex marriages is coming and there isn't anything you guys can do to stop it. You can bloviate and protest all you want, but it's coming. And your children and grandchildren won't care in the least."
Perhaps. Perhaps not. If the former, how sad for them and the future. The Bible indicates all sorts of immorality will dominate world culture before the 2nd Coming. How nice you wish to hasten mankind's rush to that immorality.
But as far as what our kids or grandchildren might think, don't be so sure. They said as much about abortion back at the time of Roe v Wade. Take a moment a go here to get an idea of how that turned out.
How it turned out, Marshall, is that abortion is now legal and will remain so.
"His great grandmother couldn't find a woman to give him the time of day, eh?"
I'm sure you meant great grandfather and he was 15.
"The question still stands. Is that something you would condone or avoid opposing in any way, to allow adults to marry kids as young as 13 (or younger)?"
I personally wouldn't approve of that, but to each his own.
My ANYONE was a bit hyperbole. So I'll say ANY adult should be able to marry another adult of their choice, both consenting of course, legally in the eyes of the state.
"I personally wouldn't approve of that, but to each his own."
I personally don't approve of slavery. I personally don't approve of theft. I personally don't approve of a lot of things, many of which are or should be illegal or at least scorned by moral, responsible, thinking people. How telling that marriage of an adult to a child doesn't move you enough to have an opinion.
But then you qualify your position by saying any adult. Fine. An adult man marrying his mother? An adult man marrying his 18 year old daughter? Any adult marrying all of his adult children?
You cannot deny any of these possibilities because their arguments in favor are exactly the same as the homos'. If you truly believe "to each his own", then this must be true and if so, you deny or refuse to consider the ramifications of that position. This shows and incredible lack of reason or concern for your fellow man. And frankly, if you DO hold that position, I believe it's because you're willing to take any chance in order to grant special status for homosexuals, likely because you know some personally.
"How it turned out, Marshall, is that abortion is now legal and will remain so."
But if the trend continues, and more of our young realize the truth about abortion, as those in the peice do, then it will NOT remain legal, because more people will understand that the unborn are people endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. (Most likely, it will revert to a state's right issue or will be more heavily restricted--truly caring Christians can only hope that the restrictions will be such that the current number of abortions per week will go down to no more than that number per decade)
"How telling that marriage of an adult to a child doesn't move you enough to have an opinion."
I have an opinion and stated it. I'm opposed to it.
"An adult man marrying his mother? An adult man marrying his 18 year old daughter? Any adult marrying all of his adult children?"
That's incest and I'm opposed to it and so is the law. And I doubt any guy would want to marry his mother anyway...same for the father of his children, unless they were insane.
However, cousins have in the past and continue to marry. It's pretty prevalent in my husband's parent's Old German community. They used to frown on marriages outside their clan and religion. My daughter had a guy in her class once whose family was from that same area of Texas and told her they could never get married because they were probably related.
"You cannot deny any of these possibilities because their arguments in favor are exactly the same as the homos'"
That's a ridiculous statement.
"I believe it's because you're willing to take any chance in order to grant special status for homosexuals, likely because you know some personally."
Yeah I do know some personally. I wouldn't call same-sex marriage "special status". I'd call it equality under the law.
"But if the trend continues, and more of our young realize the truth about abortion, as those in the peice do, then it will NOT remain legal"
I don't believe there is any such trend. I wouldn't hold my breath.
I find the "too bad, it is coming whether you like it or not" comments to be childish. Slave owners probably said the same thing, and they were wrong. Maybe we never will completely outlaw abortion, but we are making great gains in restricting it.
And if we could have done something to hold off legalized abortion for a few years there would be a whole lot more people alive today, and it would have been worth it.
If we can keep some young kids from having their minds polluted with anti-biblical liberal perversions for a few more years, that will be worth it, too.
Re. interracial marriage and oxymoronic "same-sex marriage" -- skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.
"sexual behavior is not"
Missionary position only?
Jim,
Was that your Parklife imitation, offering a poor attempt at cleverness? Or was it meant to make a point? If the latter, what would that be? That sexual behavior is morally neutral, or that skin color isn't?
Marty,
""How telling that marriage of an adult to a child doesn't move you enough to have an opinion."
I have an opinion and stated it. I'm opposed to it."
Hard to tell with your tales of great-grandparents. So I guess two kids, say, 15 & 13 can marry in your view? And still, "to each his own" is opposition? What conviction!
"That's incest and I'm opposed to it and so is the law. And I doubt any guy would want to marry his mother anyway...same for the father of his children, unless they were insane."
Interesting. You think THAT'S insane, but two guys with the hots for each other isn't. Most normal people think all of that stuff is ABnormal. So who are YOU to decide that a guy and his mother loving each other is insane? What are you, some kind of bigot?
""You cannot deny any of these possibilities because their arguments in favor are exactly the same as the homos'"
That's a ridiculous statement."
It would be if it wasn't true. Polygamists, for example, see the push for homo rights as a coattail upon which they can easily ride. They use EXACTLY the same arguments. There's no reason the same arguments can't apply to incestuous relationships because the same false beliefs about what constitutes a normal healthy marriage exists, altered to their own peculiar desires. As such, there is no argument that can be placed against them if homo marriage becomes accepted nationwide. They would HAVE to be granted the same "rights".
" I wouldn't call same-sex marriage "special status". I'd call it equality under the law."
Of course you would. You're a lefty who sees things as you'd prefer, rather than how they are. Changing a long standing definition in order to force your way into it is not demanding anything special at all. They have equality right now. They want something extra. They want whatever floats their boat to be called something with an already distinctive definition, as well as to force the rest of the world to recognize the new definition regardless of whether the rest of the world wants to or not because THEY think it should be that way. Talk about forcing one's morality on the world!
"So I guess two kids, say, 15 & 13 can marry in your view?"
I suppose they could with parental approval. Two of my friends recently celebrated 65 years together. When they married she was 15 and he was 16. Another couple I know, the husband now deceased, were married at 14 and 17.
I would draw the line with incest however. I think the marrying of cousins is kinda weird as well.
"They have equality right now"
Only in your fevered imaginings Marshall.
"Only in your fevered imaginings Marshall."
Only in reality, Marty. Fevered imaginings include believing "marriage" is defined as the union of any two people or more without any restrictions whatsoever (except what Marty believes is weird). Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That's reality. That's how this country has always defined it. That's how God has always defined it.
But no homo is refused the right to make a lifetime commitment with anyone they choose. It's simply that if they do so with someone other than a woman not their sister, mother or a child, it won't be licensed by the state. And that's a good thing. In reality.
Post a Comment