»

Majority of Americans now back gay marriage

And majority rules:

A slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.The results underscore the nation’s increasingly tolerant views about homosexuals, and parallel a string of recent legal and legislative victories for gay rights advocates.

Five years ago, at 36 percent, support for gay marriage barely topped a third of all Americans. Now, 53 percent say gay marriage should be legal, marking the first time in Post-ABC polling that a majority has said so.

via Slim majority back gay marriage, Post-ABC poll says – The Washington Post.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Thankfully, God does not operate on majority polls.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Thankfully, God does not operate on majority polls.

  • http://findingincandescences.wordpress.com/ midori

    I really don’t see the problem with allowing LGBT people to legally marry. Marriage, as viewed by God, isn’t going to change. And quite frankly, God views people as married regardless of how the state views them. By denying this group of people the piece of paper recognition, it also gives them a point to rally around. I’m not saying that they should be given whatever they want, or that everyone should be forced to recognise them. But, in a purely legal/governmental sense, I don’t see why their status shouldn’t be recognised.

  • http://findingincandescences.wordpress.com/ midori

    I really don’t see the problem with allowing LGBT people to legally marry. Marriage, as viewed by God, isn’t going to change. And quite frankly, God views people as married regardless of how the state views them. By denying this group of people the piece of paper recognition, it also gives them a point to rally around. I’m not saying that they should be given whatever they want, or that everyone should be forced to recognise them. But, in a purely legal/governmental sense, I don’t see why their status shouldn’t be recognised.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    midori,

    So what happens when a gay couple tries to “marry” and a pastor says no? I guarantee you, there will be discrimination lawsuits cropping up.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    midori,

    So what happens when a gay couple tries to “marry” and a pastor says no? I guarantee you, there will be discrimination lawsuits cropping up.

  • Joe

    This is why federalism is an important issues. It really should not matter what a majority of Americans think re: gay marriage or other social issues. These are state issues, it only matters what a majority of each state thinks. This is the social laboratory that federalism is designed to protect and encourage.

    Let New York have gay marriage and when the inevitable consequences are borne out, perhaps the populace with rethink it’s position.

  • Joe

    This is why federalism is an important issues. It really should not matter what a majority of Americans think re: gay marriage or other social issues. These are state issues, it only matters what a majority of each state thinks. This is the social laboratory that federalism is designed to protect and encourage.

    Let New York have gay marriage and when the inevitable consequences are borne out, perhaps the populace with rethink it’s position.

  • Carl Vehse

    And don’t forget to permit marriages for necrophiles, pedophiles, and every other animal-, vegetable-, and mineral-phile. You won’t want to give them a point to rally around. Also you’ll need to include polygamists, polygynists, and polyandrists. And then there’s the autogamists and agamists. Oops… don”t forget those who claim romantic encounters with extraterrestrials in UFOs, so be sure to include xenogamists.

  • Carl Vehse

    And don’t forget to permit marriages for necrophiles, pedophiles, and every other animal-, vegetable-, and mineral-phile. You won’t want to give them a point to rally around. Also you’ll need to include polygamists, polygynists, and polyandrists. And then there’s the autogamists and agamists. Oops… don”t forget those who claim romantic encounters with extraterrestrials in UFOs, so be sure to include xenogamists.

  • http://psalm305.blogspot.com Paul Schafer

    How can anyone say this represents a majority?

    The telephone poll was conducted March 10 to 13, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

    1005 adults of over 300,000,000 millions of US citizens is a majority? 1005 adults is a minority of the US population. How stupid! Who did they call? They didn’t call me.

  • http://psalm305.blogspot.com Paul Schafer

    How can anyone say this represents a majority?

    The telephone poll was conducted March 10 to 13, among a random national sample of 1,005 adults. Results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

    1005 adults of over 300,000,000 millions of US citizens is a majority? 1005 adults is a minority of the US population. How stupid! Who did they call? They didn’t call me.

  • WebMonk

    1005 adults of over 300,000,000 millions of US citizens is a majority? 1005 adults is a minority of the US population. How stupid! Who did they call? They didn’t call me.

    Schafer @ 6, are you being sarcastic or were you serious? Before I go on a rant about statistics, I probably ought to check to make sure.

  • WebMonk

    1005 adults of over 300,000,000 millions of US citizens is a majority? 1005 adults is a minority of the US population. How stupid! Who did they call? They didn’t call me.

    Schafer @ 6, are you being sarcastic or were you serious? Before I go on a rant about statistics, I probably ought to check to make sure.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Not sure you can trust telephone polls either. First of all, since “they” know your phone number and called you to ask the questions, you might give a different answer than if you knew you were completely anonymous. Second, what kind of people actually are willing to take the time to answer questions for such a poll? I generally decline to participate in telephone polls, regardless of the subject matter.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Not sure you can trust telephone polls either. First of all, since “they” know your phone number and called you to ask the questions, you might give a different answer than if you knew you were completely anonymous. Second, what kind of people actually are willing to take the time to answer questions for such a poll? I generally decline to participate in telephone polls, regardless of the subject matter.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    By the way, when was it that the states started “issuing paper” for marriages? In my limited study of family tree stuff, it seems that a long long long time ago, people got married by “publishing banns” (in church) and if by 3 or 4 weeks later nobody had objected, they were considered married, no government involved..

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    By the way, when was it that the states started “issuing paper” for marriages? In my limited study of family tree stuff, it seems that a long long long time ago, people got married by “publishing banns” (in church) and if by 3 or 4 weeks later nobody had objected, they were considered married, no government involved..

  • DonS

    I couldn’t get to the polling details, for whatever reason, including the partisan breakdown of the sample or the questions. Polls of “adults” as opposed to registered or likely voters” don’t typically have much value, however, except as a curiosity factor. So it is hard to know how valid or significant this particular poll is. I suspect it is considerably less significant than the news value the Post placed on it, or would have placed on it if the results had been different.

    In any event, the upshot of the series of polls since 2003 shows that about 10% of the population has shifted its views on this subject. The fickle 10%, in a media environment which has featured an endless drumbeat of propaganda about the legitimacy of a gay lifestyle. Not really too surprising in that context.

  • DonS

    I couldn’t get to the polling details, for whatever reason, including the partisan breakdown of the sample or the questions. Polls of “adults” as opposed to registered or likely voters” don’t typically have much value, however, except as a curiosity factor. So it is hard to know how valid or significant this particular poll is. I suspect it is considerably less significant than the news value the Post placed on it, or would have placed on it if the results had been different.

    In any event, the upshot of the series of polls since 2003 shows that about 10% of the population has shifted its views on this subject. The fickle 10%, in a media environment which has featured an endless drumbeat of propaganda about the legitimacy of a gay lifestyle. Not really too surprising in that context.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Mike @ 9,

    You’re right; the state should not be involved in marriage at all. It should be an institute of the church or by family arrangement only.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Mike @ 9,

    You’re right; the state should not be involved in marriage at all. It should be an institute of the church or by family arrangement only.

  • WebMonk

    J.Dean, there are the taxes and divorce issues (and others, but those are the biggest) which pull in state involvement. You could probably extricate the state from marriage, but you would have to change vast swathes of the cultural, economic, and political norms. Nobody* wants all those changes, even if they think the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage.

    *Nobody is a broad-brush description, not precise.

  • WebMonk

    J.Dean, there are the taxes and divorce issues (and others, but those are the biggest) which pull in state involvement. You could probably extricate the state from marriage, but you would have to change vast swathes of the cultural, economic, and political norms. Nobody* wants all those changes, even if they think the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage.

    *Nobody is a broad-brush description, not precise.

  • helen

    State involvement does not bother me as much as church involvement.
    The next demand after legalized marriages will be “fancy dress” weddings in churches which do not endorse homosexuality… just to prove that they have to go along or be sued.
    That’s when the “queer” [their term, these days] fist will be past my nose and slam into my face.

  • helen

    State involvement does not bother me as much as church involvement.
    The next demand after legalized marriages will be “fancy dress” weddings in churches which do not endorse homosexuality… just to prove that they have to go along or be sued.
    That’s when the “queer” [their term, these days] fist will be past my nose and slam into my face.

  • helen

    DonS @ 10
    <i.The fickle 10%, in a media environment which has featured an endless drumbeat of propaganda about the legitimacy of a gay lifestyle.

    Give them another decade or so. They’ve gotten this far by persistent teaching to that end in public school “sex education” classes. [By now they've been around at least 50 years and nobody in the system can remember when they weren't.] Present day parents don’t object because their parents didn’t, or because their parents did, to no avail.]

  • helen

    DonS @ 10
    <i.The fickle 10%, in a media environment which has featured an endless drumbeat of propaganda about the legitimacy of a gay lifestyle.

    Give them another decade or so. They’ve gotten this far by persistent teaching to that end in public school “sex education” classes. [By now they've been around at least 50 years and nobody in the system can remember when they weren't.] Present day parents don’t object because their parents didn’t, or because their parents did, to no avail.]

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I, for one, am glad that we finally have opportunity to discuss this important topic. At last.

    So, let’s see, what’s up? Oh, okay, we can’t trust polls anymore (@6, 8, 10)? Well, at least, polls that tell us things we don’t want to hear. Probably liberal media bias. Because, you know, it would be an utter shock if gay marriage were to become more popular at this point. There’s certainly not a trend there. And, if there is, it’ll certainly never get over 50%. And, if it does, it’s probably still untrustworthy. Even if it gets to 60% or 70%. Because, you know, they didn’t ask me.

    And the “take your ball and go home” approach — if the gays can have civil marriage, do we straights really want it? As such, “the state should not be involved in marriage at all” (@11). A thesis, by the way, that is easily tested. J. Dean, if you really believe that, why not go out and get a (civil) divorce from your wife? You can alert your pastor that you still consider yourselves married. But go ahead, free yourself from the shackles of state marriage! It is already in your power to do so!

    And, finally — and most seriously — there’s Carl’s point (@5) that vegetables and corpses are also, legally, people as well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I, for one, am glad that we finally have opportunity to discuss this important topic. At last.

    So, let’s see, what’s up? Oh, okay, we can’t trust polls anymore (@6, 8, 10)? Well, at least, polls that tell us things we don’t want to hear. Probably liberal media bias. Because, you know, it would be an utter shock if gay marriage were to become more popular at this point. There’s certainly not a trend there. And, if there is, it’ll certainly never get over 50%. And, if it does, it’s probably still untrustworthy. Even if it gets to 60% or 70%. Because, you know, they didn’t ask me.

    And the “take your ball and go home” approach — if the gays can have civil marriage, do we straights really want it? As such, “the state should not be involved in marriage at all” (@11). A thesis, by the way, that is easily tested. J. Dean, if you really believe that, why not go out and get a (civil) divorce from your wife? You can alert your pastor that you still consider yourselves married. But go ahead, free yourself from the shackles of state marriage! It is already in your power to do so!

    And, finally — and most seriously — there’s Carl’s point (@5) that vegetables and corpses are also, legally, people as well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As to the slightly more serious objection raised by J. Dean (@3), “what happens when a gay couple tries to ‘marry’ and a pastor says no?” You do realize this situation already exists, of course, yes? And not just for gays. I’ve had pastors that have said “no” to couples wanting to get married in our church. To my knowledge, this has not been something worth freaking out over yet.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As to the slightly more serious objection raised by J. Dean (@3), “what happens when a gay couple tries to ‘marry’ and a pastor says no?” You do realize this situation already exists, of course, yes? And not just for gays. I’ve had pastors that have said “no” to couples wanting to get married in our church. To my knowledge, this has not been something worth freaking out over yet.

  • SKPeterson

    My wife says I turn into a vegetable on a regular basis, but since she’s not a pollster I don’t take her seriously.

    As to the status of marriage licensing and celebration – perhaps the two should be separate. Allow for civil unions and call them legal “marriages,” but separate the religious blessing of these ceremonies and make them more effectively private, and thereby, exclusive. the easiest way is for pastors to no longer act as agents of the state or court; make the couple go to a judge or other magistrate and sign the contract. Then, present the consummated marriage contract to the pastor, and he can then proceed with a church ceremony to bless the wedding, exchange vows before God, family and congregation and do so without interference from the state.

  • SKPeterson

    My wife says I turn into a vegetable on a regular basis, but since she’s not a pollster I don’t take her seriously.

    As to the status of marriage licensing and celebration – perhaps the two should be separate. Allow for civil unions and call them legal “marriages,” but separate the religious blessing of these ceremonies and make them more effectively private, and thereby, exclusive. the easiest way is for pastors to no longer act as agents of the state or court; make the couple go to a judge or other magistrate and sign the contract. Then, present the consummated marriage contract to the pastor, and he can then proceed with a church ceremony to bless the wedding, exchange vows before God, family and congregation and do so without interference from the state.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@17), help me understand. What, exactly, would your proposed changes accomplish? People can already get married in a completely secular way. I suppose they could already do everything as you suggest. Again, to what end?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SK (@17), help me understand. What, exactly, would your proposed changes accomplish? People can already get married in a completely secular way. I suppose they could already do everything as you suggest. Again, to what end?

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    I read or heard recently that same sex marriage is really the outcome of heterosexuals redefining marriage to be a ‘for pleasure’ arrangement, that can be revoked at any point, children are not something that are to be sought and valued but rather ‘planned’ out of existence. Marriage was long ago redefined and this is just the logical outcome. Interestingly, in countries where same sex marriage has already been legal for quite some time, marriage in general has declined precipitously. This is surely the outcome of a devalued idea of marriage, just another signpost of a culture that was already headed that way? I don’t think same sex marriage caused this, but it is just how a culture that does not value marriage acts – “Why not allow same sex marriage? Who cares anyway?” I often wonder how the children are affected – those who have same sex married parents? I don’t really know, I just wonder how it affects their concepts of family and reality? I wonder if anyone has studied this?

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    I read or heard recently that same sex marriage is really the outcome of heterosexuals redefining marriage to be a ‘for pleasure’ arrangement, that can be revoked at any point, children are not something that are to be sought and valued but rather ‘planned’ out of existence. Marriage was long ago redefined and this is just the logical outcome. Interestingly, in countries where same sex marriage has already been legal for quite some time, marriage in general has declined precipitously. This is surely the outcome of a devalued idea of marriage, just another signpost of a culture that was already headed that way? I don’t think same sex marriage caused this, but it is just how a culture that does not value marriage acts – “Why not allow same sex marriage? Who cares anyway?” I often wonder how the children are affected – those who have same sex married parents? I don’t really know, I just wonder how it affects their concepts of family and reality? I wonder if anyone has studied this?

  • Grace

    YouTube – German Man Marries His Dying Cat

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Rnw3PQolY

    Only in Germany – what a surprise!

  • Grace

    YouTube – German Man Marries His Dying Cat

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Rnw3PQolY

    Only in Germany – what a surprise!

  • Grace

    Carl @5

    “And don’t forget to permit marriages for necrophiles, pedophiles, and every other animal-, vegetable-, and mineral-phile.”

    It’s sick – however there are people who embrace the gutter .

  • Grace

    Carl @5

    “And don’t forget to permit marriages for necrophiles, pedophiles, and every other animal-, vegetable-, and mineral-phile.”

    It’s sick – however there are people who embrace the gutter .

  • Grace

    It is being reported that Gaddafi’s son has been killed:

    Gaddafi’s son ‘killed in kamikaze pilot attack on barracks’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368410/Libya-crisis-Gaddafi-uses-civilians-human-shields-prevent-military-targets.html

  • Grace

    It is being reported that Gaddafi’s son has been killed:

    Gaddafi’s son ‘killed in kamikaze pilot attack on barracks’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368410/Libya-crisis-Gaddafi-uses-civilians-human-shields-prevent-military-targets.html

  • Grace

    Sorry, wrong thread.

  • Grace

    Sorry, wrong thread.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I think it’s important that we base our opinions on marriage on YouTube videos, even if we fail to understand that they are not real. As such, I submit this video of a man marrying a video game character as evidence of whatever it is that my point is.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I think it’s important that we base our opinions on marriage on YouTube videos, even if we fail to understand that they are not real. As such, I submit this video of a man marrying a video game character as evidence of whatever it is that my point is.

  • Grace

    Man in India Marries Dog to Atone for Stoning to Death Mating Canines
    Tuesday, November 13, 2007

    NEW DELHI — Selva Kumar had been hounded for 15 years by the memory of a horrible act he’d committed as a teenager.

    As an 18-year-old he had stoned and clubbed to death two dogs he found engaged in mating. He then hung their carcasses from a tree.

    That’s when his personal suffering began.

    READ the rest:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html

    Twenty years ago homosexual marriage would have been shocking, but now the homosexuals, hard at work to make their sin offical.

    What’s next? – whatever sinful man can imagine!

    Wake up America!

  • Grace

    Man in India Marries Dog to Atone for Stoning to Death Mating Canines
    Tuesday, November 13, 2007

    NEW DELHI — Selva Kumar had been hounded for 15 years by the memory of a horrible act he’d committed as a teenager.

    As an 18-year-old he had stoned and clubbed to death two dogs he found engaged in mating. He then hung their carcasses from a tree.

    That’s when his personal suffering began.

    READ the rest:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html

    Twenty years ago homosexual marriage would have been shocking, but now the homosexuals, hard at work to make their sin offical.

    What’s next? – whatever sinful man can imagine!

    Wake up America!

  • Joe

    25 posts deep and no Frank (i.e. FWS). Kind of odd, anyone hear from him lately?

  • Joe

    25 posts deep and no Frank (i.e. FWS). Kind of odd, anyone hear from him lately?

  • Bruce Gee

    Gosh. It does make one wonder what will be “shocking” twenty years from now. I’m running out of ideas, since DonS pretty much listed all of them.
    I know! A heterosexual couple will seek to be married in a Christian ceremony, all dressed up, in a church! If they can find one. Now that’ll shock the ole folks.
    End times.

  • Bruce Gee

    Gosh. It does make one wonder what will be “shocking” twenty years from now. I’m running out of ideas, since DonS pretty much listed all of them.
    I know! A heterosexual couple will seek to be married in a Christian ceremony, all dressed up, in a church! If they can find one. Now that’ll shock the ole folks.
    End times.

  • kerner

    I’ve done a little research on the the history of marriage, and how and by whom the records of it were kept. As near as I can tell, there were no standardized methods of keeping records of marriages prior to the middle ages. Interestingly, the Counsel included an early attempt to expand and standardize marriage records by requiring parish priests to keep records of births (and baptisms), marriages and deaths within their parishes. The desore to keep records seems to have grown out of the fact that marriages had legal implications and that the best way to keep the rights and obligations created by marriage enforced was for somebody to record them. Whether the record was kept by Churches or by local government was went back and forth for a long time, but the government seems to be the most popular choice today. There is a distinction between a marriage certificate (record that you are married) and a marriage license (permission from the government to get married.

    The concept of a license is to make sure that the legal requirements for the parties to marry have been met. State laws declaring who could marry and how and when are fairly recent phenomema. Common restrictions had to do with the age of the parties, the respective races of the parties, making sure that the parties weren’t already married, etc. For awhile, health was an issue as many states required the parties to prove via blood tests that they had no std’s.

    The blood test requirements faded away as the tendency to have sex prior to marriage sharply reduced their ability to prevent the spread of disease to someone who had already exposed himself to the danger. The requirement of posting “banns” in church became less popular as churches became less enthusiastic about devoting resources to record keeping and as fewer and fewer people came to church regularly.

    In my experience, most south-east Asian marriages are not recorded. Those cultures look for some kind of mutual promises that can be verified and public cohabitation. This is like common law marriage, which I find interesting. Under such a system there is no such thing as “living in sin”, because the act of moving in together creates the legal rights and duties of marriage.

    Some cultures encourage and today usually record “marriage contracts”. Old European culture, and contemporary eastern or mideastern cultures, that use marriage contracts usually had certain minimum requirements for the contracts, and often marriage contracts were negotiated between the families of the parties, or the entire clans of the parties.

    There was, however, one common thread in all this. Marriage was always between a man and a woman. Some cultures permited a man to have multiple wives and some even allowed a woman to have multiple husbands, but two men or two women have never been considered married. Even those cultures that considered homosexual relationships accepable always called those relationships something other than marriage. Often men would have wives and would also have homosexual partners, but just as the parties to the two kinds of relationships were different, the rules for each kind of relationship were different too. The factor that made marriage distinct from a same-sex elationship was that a marriage could produce childen and require the allocation of a significant amount of resources to raise them, while a same sex relationship could not.

  • kerner

    I’ve done a little research on the the history of marriage, and how and by whom the records of it were kept. As near as I can tell, there were no standardized methods of keeping records of marriages prior to the middle ages. Interestingly, the Counsel included an early attempt to expand and standardize marriage records by requiring parish priests to keep records of births (and baptisms), marriages and deaths within their parishes. The desore to keep records seems to have grown out of the fact that marriages had legal implications and that the best way to keep the rights and obligations created by marriage enforced was for somebody to record them. Whether the record was kept by Churches or by local government was went back and forth for a long time, but the government seems to be the most popular choice today. There is a distinction between a marriage certificate (record that you are married) and a marriage license (permission from the government to get married.

    The concept of a license is to make sure that the legal requirements for the parties to marry have been met. State laws declaring who could marry and how and when are fairly recent phenomema. Common restrictions had to do with the age of the parties, the respective races of the parties, making sure that the parties weren’t already married, etc. For awhile, health was an issue as many states required the parties to prove via blood tests that they had no std’s.

    The blood test requirements faded away as the tendency to have sex prior to marriage sharply reduced their ability to prevent the spread of disease to someone who had already exposed himself to the danger. The requirement of posting “banns” in church became less popular as churches became less enthusiastic about devoting resources to record keeping and as fewer and fewer people came to church regularly.

    In my experience, most south-east Asian marriages are not recorded. Those cultures look for some kind of mutual promises that can be verified and public cohabitation. This is like common law marriage, which I find interesting. Under such a system there is no such thing as “living in sin”, because the act of moving in together creates the legal rights and duties of marriage.

    Some cultures encourage and today usually record “marriage contracts”. Old European culture, and contemporary eastern or mideastern cultures, that use marriage contracts usually had certain minimum requirements for the contracts, and often marriage contracts were negotiated between the families of the parties, or the entire clans of the parties.

    There was, however, one common thread in all this. Marriage was always between a man and a woman. Some cultures permited a man to have multiple wives and some even allowed a woman to have multiple husbands, but two men or two women have never been considered married. Even those cultures that considered homosexual relationships accepable always called those relationships something other than marriage. Often men would have wives and would also have homosexual partners, but just as the parties to the two kinds of relationships were different, the rules for each kind of relationship were different too. The factor that made marriage distinct from a same-sex elationship was that a marriage could produce childen and require the allocation of a significant amount of resources to raise them, while a same sex relationship could not.

  • kerner

    In my first paragraph where I typed “Counsel”, I meant the “Council of Trent”.

  • kerner

    In my first paragraph where I typed “Counsel”, I meant the “Council of Trent”.

  • steve

    Church and State sovereignty issues aside, what is it we’re really concerned about with regard to same-sex marriage? If history is any indicator, as the country becomes more secular, same-sex marriage will almost certainly become a reality. So, we see pagans wanting to live as pagans. This is not surprising. But why is it that Christians seem, often, to be more concerned with pagans living as pagans than with pagans dying as pagans?

  • steve

    Church and State sovereignty issues aside, what is it we’re really concerned about with regard to same-sex marriage? If history is any indicator, as the country becomes more secular, same-sex marriage will almost certainly become a reality. So, we see pagans wanting to live as pagans. This is not surprising. But why is it that Christians seem, often, to be more concerned with pagans living as pagans than with pagans dying as pagans?

  • Grace

    Steve – 30

    “But why is it that Christians seem, often, to be more concerned with pagans living as pagans than with pagans dying as pagans?”

    I disagree with you. The church does care deeply about those who are lost. We cannot make anyone believe or seek the LORD.

    Most all Believers I know, concern themselves with our children, – any and all children and young people who must attend public schools, and then be taught all the vile sexual sins as normal choices.

    The pervasive view across this nation can be seen visualy as we look upon our youth. Many have zero self respect, no moral compass, they turn to drugs in dispair. The community at large, most without Christ, see the problem of drugs and pain, apart from sexual sin – the children and young people are dependent upon parents and educators, …… but their support system is sick.

    We as adults, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents friends, and most of all Christian Believers fight to keep marriage between a man and a woman. You can ask again WHY ?

    When same sex marriage becomes law, all public teaching institutions must allow teachers to flaunt their lifestyle, as though it’s normal.

    Think of all the children who don’t come from a Christian family. They are very vunlerable. This is why Christians concern themselves with pagans living like pagans, and then being in a position to teach and formulate ideas into the minds of our youth, that represent their pagan lifestyles.

    Many schools now allow children, boys and girls to use the same bathrooms. Think about all the possibilities, that face the fragil, younger child, the bullies.

    There is much more to the homosexual agenda than meets the eye.

  • Grace

    Steve – 30

    “But why is it that Christians seem, often, to be more concerned with pagans living as pagans than with pagans dying as pagans?”

    I disagree with you. The church does care deeply about those who are lost. We cannot make anyone believe or seek the LORD.

    Most all Believers I know, concern themselves with our children, – any and all children and young people who must attend public schools, and then be taught all the vile sexual sins as normal choices.

    The pervasive view across this nation can be seen visualy as we look upon our youth. Many have zero self respect, no moral compass, they turn to drugs in dispair. The community at large, most without Christ, see the problem of drugs and pain, apart from sexual sin – the children and young people are dependent upon parents and educators, …… but their support system is sick.

    We as adults, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents friends, and most of all Christian Believers fight to keep marriage between a man and a woman. You can ask again WHY ?

    When same sex marriage becomes law, all public teaching institutions must allow teachers to flaunt their lifestyle, as though it’s normal.

    Think of all the children who don’t come from a Christian family. They are very vunlerable. This is why Christians concern themselves with pagans living like pagans, and then being in a position to teach and formulate ideas into the minds of our youth, that represent their pagan lifestyles.

    Many schools now allow children, boys and girls to use the same bathrooms. Think about all the possibilities, that face the fragil, younger child, the bullies.

    There is much more to the homosexual agenda than meets the eye.

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    Kerner – I think your points are right – precisely because marriage has been separated from most responsibility for children and is seen just as a pleasureable relationship – and people find pleasure in all kinds of relationships – and that’s what marriage is now. It is not a place to grow and nuture children, it’s an often temporary construct for mutual enjoyment. And why is marriage needed at all for that?

    Steve – One of my concerns is how kids will come to view the world. My wife and I talk in code about these topics around young ears, but I wonder about those children raised in a a same-sex relataionship homes (I know it does not sound likely, but I have known/know 4 such couples with children).

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    Kerner – I think your points are right – precisely because marriage has been separated from most responsibility for children and is seen just as a pleasureable relationship – and people find pleasure in all kinds of relationships – and that’s what marriage is now. It is not a place to grow and nuture children, it’s an often temporary construct for mutual enjoyment. And why is marriage needed at all for that?

    Steve – One of my concerns is how kids will come to view the world. My wife and I talk in code about these topics around young ears, but I wonder about those children raised in a a same-sex relataionship homes (I know it does not sound likely, but I have known/know 4 such couples with children).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    If we want to ban marriages that are merely “constructs for mutual enjoyment”, absent any potential for “growing and nurturing children”, should we prevent old people from getting married, too? Should men and women have to prove their ability to have children before getting a marriage license?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    If we want to ban marriages that are merely “constructs for mutual enjoyment”, absent any potential for “growing and nurturing children”, should we prevent old people from getting married, too? Should men and women have to prove their ability to have children before getting a marriage license?

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    tODD – my main point is the temporary nature of it. It is not a commitment of any kind – and children are not necessary or not part of the equation in any decision made. It’s all about what makes me happy right now – and marriage is not really required for that – thus the declining view of marriage and “who cares?” attitude. I know committed couples without children – and would not disparage that.

  • http://journeytoluther.blogspot.com/ moallen

    tODD – my main point is the temporary nature of it. It is not a commitment of any kind – and children are not necessary or not part of the equation in any decision made. It’s all about what makes me happy right now – and marriage is not really required for that – thus the declining view of marriage and “who cares?” attitude. I know committed couples without children – and would not disparage that.

  • steve

    moallen, Grace,

    I understand your concerns, but the problem is not just same-sex marriage, it’s the culture at large. Same-sex couples can, and do already have children. Those children are no less likely to have a “Christian worldview” than children of any non-Christian couple. In fact, sometimes more. I know a lesbian couple who are raising their child in a mainline Protestant church.

    So, as I see it, the point isn’t gay or straight; the point is Christian or non. I think we do better to affect the world for Christ by loving our neighbors and sharing our faith with them in word and deed, so as to increase the Church regardless of what the State allows, than we do by forcing pagans to live by Christian rules. That’s not to say we shouldn’t vote our conscience but unless we do the other work, our collective conscience will be of smaller and smaller influence until the debate becomes merely academic.

  • steve

    moallen, Grace,

    I understand your concerns, but the problem is not just same-sex marriage, it’s the culture at large. Same-sex couples can, and do already have children. Those children are no less likely to have a “Christian worldview” than children of any non-Christian couple. In fact, sometimes more. I know a lesbian couple who are raising their child in a mainline Protestant church.

    So, as I see it, the point isn’t gay or straight; the point is Christian or non. I think we do better to affect the world for Christ by loving our neighbors and sharing our faith with them in word and deed, so as to increase the Church regardless of what the State allows, than we do by forcing pagans to live by Christian rules. That’s not to say we shouldn’t vote our conscience but unless we do the other work, our collective conscience will be of smaller and smaller influence until the debate becomes merely academic.

  • Grace

    Steve – 35

    “So, as I see it, the point isn’t gay or straight; the point is Christian or non. I think we do better to affect the world for Christ by loving our neighbors and sharing our faith with them in word and deed, so as to increase the Church regardless of what the State allows, than we do by forcing pagans to live by Christian rules. “

    Our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, friends children are at stake – we must protect our children from the artful and pretentious pagan values, the homosexuals dance about, to bestow upon our young people – their vile sinful practices have infected them, why should they spread their vitriol upon the rest of our young people?

    Pagans live by their own lusts and desires, they have no rules they haven’t made up to suit their sin, adding disease to the mix.

  • Grace

    Steve – 35

    “So, as I see it, the point isn’t gay or straight; the point is Christian or non. I think we do better to affect the world for Christ by loving our neighbors and sharing our faith with them in word and deed, so as to increase the Church regardless of what the State allows, than we do by forcing pagans to live by Christian rules. “

    Our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, friends children are at stake – we must protect our children from the artful and pretentious pagan values, the homosexuals dance about, to bestow upon our young people – their vile sinful practices have infected them, why should they spread their vitriol upon the rest of our young people?

    Pagans live by their own lusts and desires, they have no rules they haven’t made up to suit their sin, adding disease to the mix.

  • Joe

    Of course, procreation, child rearing, spiritual growth as a family, etc. are all parts of marriage – but it is not the primary reason God instituted it:

    “The Lord God said, ‘it is not good for the man to be alone.’” Gen 2:18. Curing man’s aloneness (perhaps loneliness) is the primary purpose of marriage.

  • Joe

    Of course, procreation, child rearing, spiritual growth as a family, etc. are all parts of marriage – but it is not the primary reason God instituted it:

    “The Lord God said, ‘it is not good for the man to be alone.’” Gen 2:18. Curing man’s aloneness (perhaps loneliness) is the primary purpose of marriage.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Joe (@37), I wonder if gay people ever get lonely.

  • http://Www.Toddstadler.com tODD

    Joe (@37), I wonder if gay people ever get lonely.

  • kerner

    Joe:

    That’s one way to put it, but what I’m trying to say is that marriage is a complex instution that can, among diverse cultures take many forms. Yet, there are certain characteristics that are essential. That marriage is the mating of a male and a female is one such essential component. A man can no more be your wife than he could be your sister or your mother. It is simply a different relationship.

    A society can, and some have, decided that man-man or woman-woman sex is acceptable, and institutionalize those relationships, and assign to them legal significance. Whether our society should do that is debatable and the several states are debating that issue. What is not, at least not really, debatable is that a marriage is the mating of a male and a female.

    steve@35:

    I have to disagree with you when you say that same sex couples have children. Heather never, in reality, has two mommies. What she has is one mommie with a lesbian companion, and a daddy she doesn’t know. Again, whether that arrangement is beneficial and healthy can be debated. The reality of the situation cannot be.

  • kerner

    Joe:

    That’s one way to put it, but what I’m trying to say is that marriage is a complex instution that can, among diverse cultures take many forms. Yet, there are certain characteristics that are essential. That marriage is the mating of a male and a female is one such essential component. A man can no more be your wife than he could be your sister or your mother. It is simply a different relationship.

    A society can, and some have, decided that man-man or woman-woman sex is acceptable, and institutionalize those relationships, and assign to them legal significance. Whether our society should do that is debatable and the several states are debating that issue. What is not, at least not really, debatable is that a marriage is the mating of a male and a female.

    steve@35:

    I have to disagree with you when you say that same sex couples have children. Heather never, in reality, has two mommies. What she has is one mommie with a lesbian companion, and a daddy she doesn’t know. Again, whether that arrangement is beneficial and healthy can be debated. The reality of the situation cannot be.

  • http://psalm305.blogspot.com/ Paul Schafer

    WebMonk @7,
    I am serious. The statistics paragraph came at the end of the article linked above and common knowledge that our population of USA is over 300,000,000 according to the last census.

    I am appalled that anyone or Post-ABC News can call 1,005 people, a majority of Americans polled. How is 1,005 people a consensus?

    Paul

  • http://psalm305.blogspot.com/ Paul Schafer

    WebMonk @7,
    I am serious. The statistics paragraph came at the end of the article linked above and common knowledge that our population of USA is over 300,000,000 according to the last census.

    I am appalled that anyone or Post-ABC News can call 1,005 people, a majority of Americans polled. How is 1,005 people a consensus?

    Paul

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@39), as I understand it, you have merely defined “marriage” so precisely that it ultimately becomse worthless.

    You are merely insisting that, whatever our society or government does or doesn’t do in regard to sanctioning certain relationships and their activities, whenever the particular collection of letters (or sounds) “marriage” is used, it can only be used for male-female relationships.

    Which, again, as I understand it, becomes little more than an exercise in word definitions, and not a question of what is right or wrong or should be done.

    Have I misunderstood?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Kerner (@39), as I understand it, you have merely defined “marriage” so precisely that it ultimately becomse worthless.

    You are merely insisting that, whatever our society or government does or doesn’t do in regard to sanctioning certain relationships and their activities, whenever the particular collection of letters (or sounds) “marriage” is used, it can only be used for male-female relationships.

    Which, again, as I understand it, becomes little more than an exercise in word definitions, and not a question of what is right or wrong or should be done.

    Have I misunderstood?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Paul (@40), it appears that you are not terribly familiar with statistics, much less standard polling practices.

    How do you think polls work? Are they supposed to call all 307,006,550 people and ask them what they think? If not, what would constitute a “consensus” to you? What do you think a “sampling error” means?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Paul (@40), it appears that you are not terribly familiar with statistics, much less standard polling practices.

    How do you think polls work? Are they supposed to call all 307,006,550 people and ask them what they think? If not, what would constitute a “consensus” to you? What do you think a “sampling error” means?

  • Grace

    Paul Schafer @ 40

    “I am appalled that anyone or Post-ABC News can call 1,005 people, a majority of Americans polled. How is 1,005 people a consensus?”

    You are right when you considerm as you posted, “300,000,000 according to the last census” – - 1,005 (poll) vs. 300,000,000 (population) isn’t an accurate poll by any standard, ……. but it gives them a news story.

  • Grace

    Paul Schafer @ 40

    “I am appalled that anyone or Post-ABC News can call 1,005 people, a majority of Americans polled. How is 1,005 people a consensus?”

    You are right when you considerm as you posted, “300,000,000 according to the last census” – - 1,005 (poll) vs. 300,000,000 (population) isn’t an accurate poll by any standard, ……. but it gives them a news story.

  • Joe

    tODD (@38) – I am sure they do. And, that they do is a terrible thing. However, the fact that God cured man’s loneliness by establishing a union between man and women does not mean that we must (or can) adapt that God-ordained institution to fix the problem of loneliness of same-sex attracted people in our own way or on our own terms. Marriage is what it is – a union between a man and a women. This is not true not because of culture, etc. It is this way because God made it that way.

    I do think we should love our neighbors – even the gay ones. But sanctioning or normalizing their sinful relationships is not love.

    Of course, the who is doing the sanctioning is kind of important and raises issues of the power and size of government. Issues that I have not fully resolved in my own mind …

  • Joe

    tODD (@38) – I am sure they do. And, that they do is a terrible thing. However, the fact that God cured man’s loneliness by establishing a union between man and women does not mean that we must (or can) adapt that God-ordained institution to fix the problem of loneliness of same-sex attracted people in our own way or on our own terms. Marriage is what it is – a union between a man and a women. This is not true not because of culture, etc. It is this way because God made it that way.

    I do think we should love our neighbors – even the gay ones. But sanctioning or normalizing their sinful relationships is not love.

    Of course, the who is doing the sanctioning is kind of important and raises issues of the power and size of government. Issues that I have not fully resolved in my own mind …

  • Grace

    No one can call even half the population, but a drop in the bucket being 1,005 isn’t even a drop.

    The best way to settle the dispute is put it on the ballot, let the American people vote. That is exactly what happened in California, ….. homosexual marriage LOST, but the liberal loons on the bench still fight against what we voted on.

  • Grace

    No one can call even half the population, but a drop in the bucket being 1,005 isn’t even a drop.

    The best way to settle the dispute is put it on the ballot, let the American people vote. That is exactly what happened in California, ….. homosexual marriage LOST, but the liberal loons on the bench still fight against what we voted on.

  • steve

    Paul #40:

    That’s a typical sample size of likely voters. In my understanding, using the standard formula, a sample size of 1,067 could be used for a population of 170 million with a 95% confidence level (=/- 3%). On the other hand, “Everyone believes in public-opinion polls. Everybody from the man on the street all the way up to President Thomas E. Dewey.”

  • steve

    Paul #40:

    That’s a typical sample size of likely voters. In my understanding, using the standard formula, a sample size of 1,067 could be used for a population of 170 million with a 95% confidence level (=/- 3%). On the other hand, “Everyone believes in public-opinion polls. Everybody from the man on the street all the way up to President Thomas E. Dewey.”

  • steve

    The above should read +/- 3%

  • steve

    The above should read +/- 3%

  • kerner

    tODD:

    “Have I misunderstood?”

    Probably not. But I don’t think my points are worthless, and I don’t think that I have defined “marriage” all that precisely.

    To have an honest debate about whether some behavior is right or wrong or should be done, we have to be honest about what that behavior is. I can, and have on this blog, argued till the cows come home about whether homosexual sex is right or wron; whether we should tolerate it, embrace it, or institutionalize it.

    What bothers me in particular about a debate about “gay marriage” is that it is dishonest from the outset. It tries to change our thinking by pretending that reality is different than it is. Some questions are not about how things should be done, they are about biological fact. When you allow false statements of fact to enter an argument, it skews the whole thing.

  • kerner

    tODD:

    “Have I misunderstood?”

    Probably not. But I don’t think my points are worthless, and I don’t think that I have defined “marriage” all that precisely.

    To have an honest debate about whether some behavior is right or wrong or should be done, we have to be honest about what that behavior is. I can, and have on this blog, argued till the cows come home about whether homosexual sex is right or wron; whether we should tolerate it, embrace it, or institutionalize it.

    What bothers me in particular about a debate about “gay marriage” is that it is dishonest from the outset. It tries to change our thinking by pretending that reality is different than it is. Some questions are not about how things should be done, they are about biological fact. When you allow false statements of fact to enter an argument, it skews the whole thing.

  • steve

    kerner #39,

    Of course I should have used the term “raise”, since it’s not mechanically possible for two people of the same sex to actually “bear” children. Least of all, two men. But, using that as a rule, adoptive parents would also be in the same camp. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for the appropriateness of it, just the reality of it. In my opinion, an ideal scenario would be a family with one mother and one father.

    That’s the most problematic thing about legalizing gay marriage. As far as I know, one of the big limiting factors for being able to adopt is the existence of a non-marital, co-habitational relationship. It seems that legalizing gay marriage would help same-sex couples to jump this hurdle. While that doesn’t mean that couple would necessarily be on equal footing as a straight couple, all else being relatively equal, I could see that the laws could gravitate in that direction.

  • steve

    kerner #39,

    Of course I should have used the term “raise”, since it’s not mechanically possible for two people of the same sex to actually “bear” children. Least of all, two men. But, using that as a rule, adoptive parents would also be in the same camp. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for the appropriateness of it, just the reality of it. In my opinion, an ideal scenario would be a family with one mother and one father.

    That’s the most problematic thing about legalizing gay marriage. As far as I know, one of the big limiting factors for being able to adopt is the existence of a non-marital, co-habitational relationship. It seems that legalizing gay marriage would help same-sex couples to jump this hurdle. While that doesn’t mean that couple would necessarily be on equal footing as a straight couple, all else being relatively equal, I could see that the laws could gravitate in that direction.

  • Joe

    Question for the group: God through Moses gave people the ability to divorce as a orderly way to deal with our sinfulness (i.e. civil law stuff). Matt. 19:8. Is this relevant to this topic?

  • Joe

    Question for the group: God through Moses gave people the ability to divorce as a orderly way to deal with our sinfulness (i.e. civil law stuff). Matt. 19:8. Is this relevant to this topic?

  • WebMonk

    Schafer @ 40, I was hesitant to start a rant because I didn’t believe anyone could possibly be that ignorant of what statistics are, and must be just making a joke.

    The 1005 people are something called a sample. No one can call ever person in the US to get their opinion, so they call a semi-random sample of the whole. If the sample is representative of the whole, then the percentages of the sample will match the percentages of the whole.

    Since 53% of the sample supported gay marriages, then it is very likely that if someone were able to call every single person in the US, that 53% of them would support gay marriage.

    No one is claiming that the 533 people in the group of 1005 is a majority of nearly 400 million people. Most people understand what a sample or survey is.

  • WebMonk

    Schafer @ 40, I was hesitant to start a rant because I didn’t believe anyone could possibly be that ignorant of what statistics are, and must be just making a joke.

    The 1005 people are something called a sample. No one can call ever person in the US to get their opinion, so they call a semi-random sample of the whole. If the sample is representative of the whole, then the percentages of the sample will match the percentages of the whole.

    Since 53% of the sample supported gay marriages, then it is very likely that if someone were able to call every single person in the US, that 53% of them would support gay marriage.

    No one is claiming that the 533 people in the group of 1005 is a majority of nearly 400 million people. Most people understand what a sample or survey is.

  • WebMonk

    And, 1005 people is a sufficient number to have as a sample size. Technically they should have a sample size of the infamous number of 1067. That said, I think the sample size of 1005 makes the confidence interval something like 3.08%

    Close enough, I guess! :-D

  • WebMonk

    And, 1005 people is a sufficient number to have as a sample size. Technically they should have a sample size of the infamous number of 1067. That said, I think the sample size of 1005 makes the confidence interval something like 3.08%

    Close enough, I guess! :-D

  • DonS

    Since 53% of the sample supported gay marriages, then it is very likely that if someone were able to call every single person in the US, that 53% of them would support gay marriage.

    Of course, there are caveats. Is the sample representative? In this case, it is claimed to be representative of “adults”, rather than “registered voters”, which is a more common sample, outside of election season, for political questions such as this. It doesn’t really matter what adults think, if they aren’t even registered to vote, except as a curiosity. Did they oversample one particular political affiliation, or ethnic or religious group? Another caveat — what was the actual survey question, and how was it presented? In the case of gay marriage, surveys find that support for gay marriage drops very substantially when the option for civil unions is also presented as an alternative.

    These caveats help to explain why different polls attain sometimes substantially different results.

  • DonS

    Since 53% of the sample supported gay marriages, then it is very likely that if someone were able to call every single person in the US, that 53% of them would support gay marriage.

    Of course, there are caveats. Is the sample representative? In this case, it is claimed to be representative of “adults”, rather than “registered voters”, which is a more common sample, outside of election season, for political questions such as this. It doesn’t really matter what adults think, if they aren’t even registered to vote, except as a curiosity. Did they oversample one particular political affiliation, or ethnic or religious group? Another caveat — what was the actual survey question, and how was it presented? In the case of gay marriage, surveys find that support for gay marriage drops very substantially when the option for civil unions is also presented as an alternative.

    These caveats help to explain why different polls attain sometimes substantially different results.

  • WebMonk

    Don, like you said, there can be drastic differences depending on what you are sampling – all adults or just those who vote, being an excellent example.

    Another fun one is to see the difference tiny changes in wording can make in the poll results. However, there are standards that reputable polls follow in wording their polls to encourage consistent results and I would guess this poll followed them. The place you REALLY should watch out is any poll done by a political group that is published to make some sort of point.

    I have watched a political office run two “identical” polls – one with the wording designed to tilt the results in the way they want, so they can use it for publishing purposes, and the second poll designed following proper standards for their own internal planning purposes.

    For this one, though, I don’t have too many suspicions. Assuming even vaguely moderate levels of competence (and large news organizations are generally decent at polls) this one appears to be fairly standardized. If you look at the graphic showing the poll’s results over time, there is some fine print that tends to reassure me somewhat.

  • WebMonk

    Don, like you said, there can be drastic differences depending on what you are sampling – all adults or just those who vote, being an excellent example.

    Another fun one is to see the difference tiny changes in wording can make in the poll results. However, there are standards that reputable polls follow in wording their polls to encourage consistent results and I would guess this poll followed them. The place you REALLY should watch out is any poll done by a political group that is published to make some sort of point.

    I have watched a political office run two “identical” polls – one with the wording designed to tilt the results in the way they want, so they can use it for publishing purposes, and the second poll designed following proper standards for their own internal planning purposes.

    For this one, though, I don’t have too many suspicions. Assuming even vaguely moderate levels of competence (and large news organizations are generally decent at polls) this one appears to be fairly standardized. If you look at the graphic showing the poll’s results over time, there is some fine print that tends to reassure me somewhat.

  • steve

    Another one: if they called people on landlines they excluded a growing portion of the population that no longer has a landline. Here’s the rub, most of those people are tech-savvy young adults who are not the most likely to come down in opposition to gay marriage.

  • steve

    Another one: if they called people on landlines they excluded a growing portion of the population that no longer has a landline. Here’s the rub, most of those people are tech-savvy young adults who are not the most likely to come down in opposition to gay marriage.

  • DonS

    Webmonk @ 54: I guess I’m not quite as trusting of public major media polls as you, particularly when they are on subjects where the media makes no effort to hide its bias. However, I was now able to access the crosstabs, which support the sense that both you and I have that gay marriage proponents have made headway in all demographics, thanks (I believe) at least in part to an extreme propaganda push on the part of the media to have those who oppose gay marriage “exposed” as “homophobes”. Here is the link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/support-for-gay-marriage-the-details/2011/03/18/ABIrctp_blog.html

    Now, as to the point I was making before, it is still the case that polls also including the option of civil unions don’t show anywhere near this level of support for gay marriage (more like 38 or 39%). The Daily Kos (no right wing organization, to be sure) runs such a poll, through PPP (also a Democratic polling unit), and that is the result they have been getting, though it, too, is slowly increasing as time goes by. Clearly, ABC-Post is not offering civil unions as a polling option, though they certainly are in many states in real life.

  • DonS

    Webmonk @ 54: I guess I’m not quite as trusting of public major media polls as you, particularly when they are on subjects where the media makes no effort to hide its bias. However, I was now able to access the crosstabs, which support the sense that both you and I have that gay marriage proponents have made headway in all demographics, thanks (I believe) at least in part to an extreme propaganda push on the part of the media to have those who oppose gay marriage “exposed” as “homophobes”. Here is the link:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/support-for-gay-marriage-the-details/2011/03/18/ABIrctp_blog.html

    Now, as to the point I was making before, it is still the case that polls also including the option of civil unions don’t show anywhere near this level of support for gay marriage (more like 38 or 39%). The Daily Kos (no right wing organization, to be sure) runs such a poll, through PPP (also a Democratic polling unit), and that is the result they have been getting, though it, too, is slowly increasing as time goes by. Clearly, ABC-Post is not offering civil unions as a polling option, though they certainly are in many states in real life.

  • WebMonk

    steve, if you would check the details of the poll, I think you’ll see that it called both land lines and cell phones.

    I believe the phrased it as “a random national sample of 1005 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones.”

    Don, there certainly are skewed polls that get put out even by the big news agencies, but this one, at least, seems pretty solid. However, I (and I suspect most people) consider civil unions to be less than full-blown, state-recognized marriages, while also recognizing that civil unions are only a pausing point on the way to full marriage status.

    So, I wouldn’t put much stock in the different poll results that happen when “civil unions” get added to the options – you can consider them to be mostly the same as marriages and lump the results together for many purposes. (not all purposes, I realize, but many)

  • WebMonk

    steve, if you would check the details of the poll, I think you’ll see that it called both land lines and cell phones.

    I believe the phrased it as “a random national sample of 1005 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones.”

    Don, there certainly are skewed polls that get put out even by the big news agencies, but this one, at least, seems pretty solid. However, I (and I suspect most people) consider civil unions to be less than full-blown, state-recognized marriages, while also recognizing that civil unions are only a pausing point on the way to full marriage status.

    So, I wouldn’t put much stock in the different poll results that happen when “civil unions” get added to the options – you can consider them to be mostly the same as marriages and lump the results together for many purposes. (not all purposes, I realize, but many)

  • steve

    Webmonk, thanks for the correction.

  • steve

    Webmonk, thanks for the correction.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Yawn.

    “Fix your eyes on things above and not things that will perish.” I like what St Paul says .

    Nothing we do here will bring us even a milimeter closer or further away in our desires to restore the lost Image of God and the Original Righeousness that Adam had.

    Only Holy Baptism can do that.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Yawn.

    “Fix your eyes on things above and not things that will perish.” I like what St Paul says .

    Nothing we do here will bring us even a milimeter closer or further away in our desires to restore the lost Image of God and the Original Righeousness that Adam had.

    Only Holy Baptism can do that.

  • Pingback: Trends: theistic evolution, gay marriage, and parents and immodesty « Strengthened by Grace

  • Pingback: Trends: theistic evolution, gay marriage, and parents and immodesty « Strengthened by Grace


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X