Thursday, May 10, 2012

The Polls vs. The Polls

The pollsters find that gay "marriage" is supported by a majority of US citizens--except for racial minorities, who do not support it.

OK.

The polls that count, however, tell a different tale:  the voters of 32 States have rejected gay "marriage."

Imagine that.

25 comments:

J. Strupp said...

Acceptance of gay marriage has taken great strides in recent history and I think most Americans are coming around. It's going to be an uphill battle and I'm sure the Bible belt will go kicking and screaming but what are you gonna do.

The President's long overdue support of gay marriage is just another step in the right direction on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Strip,

Homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity; they are mortal sins which cry to heaven for vengeance. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

No one has a civil right to do something morally wrong. I don’t have a right to steal. I don’t have a right to lie. I don’t have a right to commit adultery, and I don’t have a right to engage in homosexual acts.

A marriage based on the sin of homosexuality can simply not be a marriage.

Remember: Every single Catholic, out of fidelity to charity and truth, has the absolute duty to oppose any and all government attempts to legalize homosexual unions. the abomination of male-male or female-female “unions.” can never be marriage.

Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

Go to the link, let Bishop Williamson set you straight with a clear teaching on homosexuality.

http://mundabor.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/sspx-williamson-on-homosexuality/

or go to the link, let Fr. Rodriguez set you straight with a clear teaching on homosexuality.

http://www.courageouspriest.com/fr-michael-rodriguez-homosexual-acts-wrong

J. Strupp said...

Anon, you assume that I give a shit what the Catholic Church has to say regarding this issue. That was your first mistake. After that I read blah, blah, blah....

I'm more than comfortable with my support of homosexual marriage. I happen to know a happily married homosexual couple that has adopted 3 kids, all of them siblings from a broken home and worthless, drug addicted excuse for a mother and father. These guys have managed to take all 3 kids in and give them a chance in this world. They're good people. Better people than I'll ever be. If that's not doing God's work than nothing is.

So you go ahead cling to that Bible as tight as you can guy. There's nothing in there that's going convince me that I'm taking an immoral position on this issue.

Jim said...

Homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity; they are mortal sins which cry to heaven for vengeance.

Oh brother.

No one has a civil right to do something morally wrong.

Actually, they do.

I don’t have a right to lie.

Actually, you do. See Amendment I. You can lie all you want except when under oath.

I don’t have a right to engage in homosexual acts.

Actually, you do. See Lawrence v. Texas.

Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman.

How are you using the Internet from the 12th century?

let Bishop Williamson set you straight with a clear teaching on homosexuality.

Why would I want to do that? I already understand it. Clearly.

Dad29 said...

"Right to lie"? And, of course, the "right to abortion."

Well, Jimbo, you've managed to prove the veracity of the old saying that 'lies and murder go together.' (see, e.g., Hosea)

And you've also managed to demolish your credibility--that fragment which remained. Since you have a "right to lie," we can safely assume that you are lying--some, most, or all of the time.

From troll to total insignificance.

Dad29 said...

Struppster, your story is very nice, and undoubtedly true.

So we should accept your contention that since ONE homosex couple is really good, ALL of them will be, eh?

Or Most? Or maybe >33%?

I think that's called 'anecdotal' evidence, Strupp. IOW, it's worthless.

Dad29 said...

By the way, Strupp: you cannot name ONE major world religion which supports queer "marriage."

Not one.

So go ahead, deride the Catholics all you like. Don't forget the Orthodox Jews, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs, Shintos, and Muslims--not to mention the majority of Lutherans and damn near every Baptist (assuming they go to church regularly.)

Your minority is very small indeed, Strupp.

Jim said...

And you've also managed to demolish your credibility

I'm sure I've never had any credibility with you, Dadio. I couldn't care less. I only use your posts to strike up debates with people who seem to at least want to do that.

that fragment which remained.

I'm crushed. You've cut me to the bone.

Since you have a "right to lie," we can safely assume that you are lying--some, most, or all of the time.

As Spock might say, your "logic is like a bouquet of pretty flowers, that smell BAD."

But you can assume whatever you like. Your blog. Too bad though that you can rarely come up with a logical, honest and true reply to my posts but must rely on trite little non-sequiturs. But, again, it's your blog.

GOR said...

As to polls... The other night I was talking with a Falk supporter who expressed surprise that Barrett won so handily "because the polls said they were about even..."

My only surprise was that Falk did so poorly against Barrett on her home turf - Madison.

Like Tommy Thompson toying with the idea of running for President some years back I'm convinced most public figures think they are 'legends in their own mind...'

Anonymous said...

..........The Catholic New York state Senator James Alesi who announced last year that his priest “embraced” him at mass after he cast his vote for gay “marriage,” just made a new annnouncement. He won't be seeking reelection this fall because he can't win. Why? Because of his gay marriage vote............

Read More:
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2012/05/it-was-gay-marriage-what-done-me-in.html

.....Oh and the priest who'd embraced him had already been excommunicated..........

Read More:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/what-ny-sen-alesi-didnt-say-priest-who-embraced-him-is-excommunicated

Anonymous said...

The case for right-wing triumphalism

North Carolina has passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay “marriages” by a wider-than-expected margin of 22 points. The sentiment among leftists is muted triumphalism: you’ve won the battle, but we’ll win the war; in 150 years everyone will roll their eyes and laugh at this; that sort of thing.

Well, no, you probably won’t win.

I think we all intuit the natural instability of leftism. They’re contracepting, aborting, and sodomizing themselves into nonexistence. I think of two close friends of my girlfriend, both of them devout, married Catholics. One couple, in their late 20s, has three kids, and will almost certainly have more. The other, in their early 30s, just had their fifth, and will probably have at least one more. These folks aren’t exactly of the SSPX or FSSP sort, but they’re the kind who pray the rosary for an end to abortion and vote accordingly, and the kind of folks whose families tend to produce vocations.

By contrast, among my leftist friends, fertility is exactly zero. Not a single one of them has a child. Of them, I think maybe two-thirds will die childless and the rest will, maybe, consent to engineer one designer baby when they’re 42.

Truly devout Christians are an extreme minority everywhere right now, but so what? That puts us in the position we were in during the early Roman Empire, at worst. And like the Roman Empire, the numbers are trending all the wrong ways for our enemies. How long can institutional liberalism survive when its committed foes are outbreeding it by ratios of upwards of 5:1 or 6:1?..............


http://orthosphere.org/2012/05/10/the-case-for-right-wing-triumphalism/


Forget the "Buy more Ammo" Line......
I say have more babies!

J. Strupp said...

"I think that's called 'anecdotal' evidence, Strupp. IOW, it's worthless"

I cognitively broke my own rule of not providing anecdotal evidence to make my point. Fair enough Dadster. Figured that was coming.

The only reason I singled out the Catholic Church is because Anon was focusing on it. The other religions have dated themselves on this issue too. They were all designed for the same reason: Have as many kids as you can so that enough children survive long enough to be capable of harvesting the crops, providing for the tribe, overwhelming the other tribes to spread the word to more people, whatever. Homosexual marriage served no substantive "purpose" back then so why would any religion advocate it? Besides, it usually takes religions centuries to adapt to the times so I figure I'm just 1000 years ahead of the curve.

Hey look, I'm pretty much of the opinion that the written word of the various religions is pretty much a bunch of hocus pocus,(most of it "worthless" anecdotal evidence come to think of it) so I'm probably not the best person to be commenting on this issue.

J. Strupp said...

And BTW, my point not that all gay couples are doing what my friends are doing, my point is that they are, in every way, capable of providing and raising children as good as a heterosexual couple can.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's the ticket, the Christians will eventually triumph over liberalism because they will win the baby war. Good grief!

Anonymous said...

When did God become a bigot?

Dad29 said...

The other religions have dated themselves on this issue too

Actually, this has very little to do with "religion" per se--just as the ObozoCare aborto-mandate is not a "religion" issue.

ObozoCare's mandate is a First Amendment issue.

Homosex "marriage" is a Natural Law issue. IOW, you have the cart before the horse, and are beating the hell out of the cart.

Nature shows that procreation is NOT from homosex unions. Even Jimbo cannot deny this, much as he'd like to.

You certainly won't.

So--no matter whether Genesis is true or not--procreation preceded 'religion', as natural rights precede 'civil law.'

The fact that most civilizations believed in SOME 'god', 'gods' or God is not really relevant, but for the fact that those civilizations ALSO believed that their deity/ies ordained nature. (For the Greeks, the 'gods' were an order below the 'unknown god' who did all that ordaining.)

You may believe that "religion(s)" "push" fertility as an alternative to outright conversions--war by other means, if you will--but that is not true. My experience is that fertility is not "pushed", but rather, that obstructing fertility is either banned or actively discouraged.

There IS a difference, as you know.

Anonymous said...

I like Sister Sister Mary Diana, O.P. take on Sexuality, The disorders of Homosexuality.

A Nun and a Doctor who takes down homosexuality using science alone.

Please read:

"The facts of Life: Science Speaks"

http://www.stgertrude.org/sites/default/files/AC-mag-2011-spring_facts-of-life[2].pdf

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

"Homosex "marriage" is a Natural Law issue."

Only if ONE agrees with Natural Law, if one believes that God exists, if one believes in a Faith, if one believes in specifically how that Faith SHOULD be adhered to and practiced. YOUR argument is predicated on these notions. That is YOUR worldview.

Others would counter that Homosex marriage is a matter of CIVIL LAW, created by human beings, an issue that is NOT a matter of faith or religion or procreation, but one of love and respect and dignity and choice. That is THEIR worldview.

Who's worldview is "correct", "the truth", "moral", "just"? Your mileage will vary.

Dad29 said...

YOUR argument is predicated on these notions.

Wrong.

Strictly on nature. I mentioned 'gods' and/or 'God' only as a follow-on, as serious philosophers in the West (and East) concluded that there must be such.

But one doesn't need to concede a Deity to observe natural law.

Jim said...

I like Sister Sister Mary Diana, O.P. take on Sexuality, The disorders of Homosexuality.

Interesting article. I read the whole thing. I disagree with several of the things she wrote.

For instance, she writes:

responding to the sexual desire only by seeking to satisfy the urge for sexual pleasure, while denying the actual purpose of the reproductive system, is no less a problem to the human person than the disorders of anorexia, severe obesity, and bulimia.

So having sex without the purpose of procreation is equivalent to anorexia or bulimia?

You don't have a problem with that? I do.

Dad29 said...

"...while denying the actual purpose of the reproductive system..."

No problem with that at all. Note, please, that "denying" has a meaning.

So we are not talking about sex between OLD people, e.g., nor sex when one partner is infertile.

We are talking about a perverse practice, which happens to be exactly what homosexual sex is, too.

Jim said...

We are talking about a perverse practice, which happens to be exactly what homosexual sex is, too.

Proving that you got sucked in by Anonymous' "Science Speaks" link and DIDN'T READ IT.

See, the article is about contraception, not homosexuality. The only "perverse practice" alluded to by the good sister is a heterosexual sex act that could not result in pregnancy if a wife is within the fertile period of her cycle. In other words, anything besides coitus.

"If you shan't conceive, you must not cleave" is what she's saying.

Dad29 said...

You've spent a lifetime working on obtusity, Jim, and it shows.

Jim said...

Blah, blah, blah.