A Gallup poll released today found that 53 percent of respondents believed "flying pigs" are real, "with the same rights as other animals." It's an all-time high--that question has never gotten more than 50 percent support in Gallup poll.Okay, perhaps I altered the story, but, in fact, only slightly. Substitute "gay marriage" for "flying pigs" and you'll likely get the gist of the actual story. Understand that "flying pigs" are nonsensical, make-believe, non-existent animals, and you'll likely get the gist of this post. And choosing "flying pigs" as my non-existent example has an added benefit. When will public opinion determine God's reality? Well, you fill in that answer.
In one sense, this isn't quite news; Politico points out that other surveys have generated similar results in the past few months. In April, a CNN poll found 51 percent support for flying pigs, and in March, a Washington Post/ABC poll also found 53 percent support. Another CNN poll, last August, found 52 percent in favor of flying pigs.
Still, the Gallup poll is further evidence that support for flying pigs is climbing. Last year, Gallup found only 44 percent in favor of flying pigs, meaning there was a nine-point jump in support this year--the largest year-to-year change since Gallup began conducting annual polls about flying pigs in 2004. In April, Nate Silver at The New York Times noted that a similar jump was evident in the greater body of polling data.
Some other takeaways from the Gallup poll: In the past year, 13 percent more Democrats said that flying pigs should be considered real, compared with 10 percent more independents. Meanwhile, Republicans had a zero percent change in opinion--according to Gallup, they don't believe in flying pigs any more now than they did a year ago.
Gallup finds that among people age 18 to 34, 70 percent support flying pigs; among people 55 and older, only 39 percent support it. "More broadly," the poll notes, "support is highest among younger women and lowest among older men." It's also higher "among those who attend church less frequently, among Catholics than among Protestants, and among those who are unmarried."
Friday, May 27, 2011
When Public Opinion Defines Reality ...
The Atlantic reports that "For the first time, Gallup finds majority in favor of flying pigs."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Well said, Stan. I don't care if 99% believe in square circles. I'll be glad to be in the minority.
I haven't yet figured out why "There is no such thing as flying pigs" equates to "You hate pigs!" in the minds of so many.
I'll bet if they provided information as to who was polled and how many were polled, it would really shed light on the results. I think the polls are taken the way they want them to end up.
One would like to think that's true, Glenn, but I don't think it's likely. Consider three factors:
1) Humans are sinful by nature.
2) The majority of Americans today draw their point of view from the media.
3) The media has provided a massive "gay blitz", a major effort to "normalize" queer.
Given these three, I don't think it is unreasonable to say of these "inventors of evil things" (Rom 1:30) that it actually turns out that they "not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Rom 1:32).
Spreading sin is Satan's job. The general American public is not averse to his efforts.
One intention of the agenda that doesn't exist is to constantly present the lifestyle as normal and good, and it's participants as decent, loving people being victimized. The younger set, the stupid and gullible and liberals in general have been properly corrupted by this tactic and polls like these reflect that. There has been little of substance to counter it. Until there is, such polls will continue to show an inrease of acceptance for this abomination. How can they not?
There has been little of substance to counter it. Until there is, such polls will continue to show an inrease of acceptance for this abomination. How can they not?
I'm sorry, but if I may, Stan, could I offer a suggestion that would HONESTLY HELP you all?
IF you want to see these polls change direction, all you have to do is demonstrate HOW there will be harm to others if gay folk embrace faithful, loving, respectful, monogamous marriage.
IF you can demonstrate how there will be harm to others and how it is anyone's business if gay folk get the same rights as straight folk, then you can begin to make a (what you would consider) positive impact upon society in this regards.
But, mark my words, IF YOU CAN'T demonstrate that (and unfortunately for you all, you can't), then you will go the way of those who supported anti-miscegenation laws: In ten to twenty years, you will be laughed at as irrelevant and, believe it or not, quite immoral.
Honestly, this is something for your own benefit: Demonstrate harm or recognize that you've lost at least the popular battle, which it appears you have.
[And, while I am sure you will find this to be a hostile note, it factually isn't, and so I close with...]
God's blessings and peace upon you.
Perhaps, Dan, I was too obtuse. Perhaps I was unclear. Perhaps I didn't state my argument in a straightforward manner. Clearly, whatever the case, you didn't understand.
I did not say that "same-sex marriage" was immoral. I didn't say it was harmful. I didn't say it was even wrong. I said (as I have always maintained) that it doesn't exist.
Neil got it. The concept of "same-sex marriages" is the same as "square circles". It doesn't exist. My point was not that I would wish to change the polls. My point was that the opinions of people do not define reality. (Comparing it to racial disparity is nonsensical because "same-sex relations" are not a race.)
And you said you were trying to be "helpful", but, Dan, be real. If I could demonstrate that destroying marriage in favor of a new thing called "same-sex marriage" would be harmful -- just assuming that I really did demonstrate this -- do you actually think that my demonstration of the fact would change the polling results?
Final note. If the polls (as they did) said that "same-sex relations" were evil and marriage was the union of a man and a woman, would you say, "Well, since the polls say it, it must be true!"? Would you expect me to do so in reverse? "Well, marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman, but, hey, since the polls say otherwise, it must not be!"
Dan was just on another site with the same argument and was given all the facts as to harm from the idea of SSM and refuses to accept the facts.
Stan you are so right, and I keep saying the same thing on every site I visit about the subject - same-sex marriage doesn't exist no matter how many times people use the oxymoron term. I have also used the idea of calling circles squares. These people like Dan just don't want to admit that they support something that even God doesn't recognize!
Watch out, he will respond about how wrong we all are and that we don't interpret the Bible correctly, etc.
Under previous circumstances he would respond that it is my "hunch". He's mostly sworn off responding here for the bulk of this year, so I doubt he will respond at all. Nor can I imagine any value in him doing so.
By the same token I'm pretty sure that pointing out that all history, all cultures, all biblical accounts, and even the courts admit that marriage has had a "longstanding tradition" (according to the California court that consciously decided to throw out that definition) of being defined as the union of a man and a woman will shake the certainty that today we are much smarter and marriage no longer means what it meant. Nor has anyone from that side of the fence deigned to acknowledge the reality of the obvious damage, let alone the less obvious, that changing marriage into something else has already done and will continue to do.
Indeed, the harm has been spelled out repeatedly, though enablers like Dan Trabue dismiss it without rational counter arguments. This link speaks of how it will harm our society and culture. Others, using links to CDC reports, show how the lifestyle harms those who live it. Still, the enablers don't care. Nothing is more important to them than satisfying their wordly desires.
Stan, you note (aptly) that marriage has a long history of being between a man and a woman. But you don't mention that it was a *property* relation. The exchange of dowry and the giving of the hand in marriage symbolized an ancient tradition of seeing women as so much goods, which might be exchanged (or taken on) in exchange for other benefits. That's not to say I don't believe in marriage--I'm a big believer!--but it is to point out that not all traditions are good ones, and that tradition on its own doesn't signify value. If, like mean, one believes in a Living God, it seems to me that one also has to allow for the possibility for change in society. For example, the Bible was used to justify slavery. It was held up as testament to why interracial marriage couldn't happen. And I don't mean to suggest here that I think the Bible is racist (eeek, think of defending that at the Pearly Gates!), I do want to suggest that we, sometimes, are wrong when we read the text. And here I wonder about Glenn's glib claim that he'll be proven right (or gays will be proven wrong) on Judgment Day. Because while I think I've got it right, and I follow what I believe to be right, I don't claim that I know all the answers. After all, man, I read this book in translation--and as somebody whose worked on a lot of translations, texts get garbled. And even if we understand the Book to be infallible, Heaven knows we aren't--so there are no guarantees that we're getting the messages God is sending. So in the end, don't each of us just have to follow our consciences, follow our prayers, and hope that the way each of us reads this text is close enough to what God intended that he can recognize our vision of Him, in each of us? And isn't that partly why we believe in the Resurrection?
I personally believe that the relevant passages refer not to homosexuality, but to pederasty and prostitution--needless to say, practices quite separate from homosexuality.
Lastly, two things I have to say: it's an English teacher streak. Glenn, when you refer to God as Him, please, please, for Heaven's sake--and I mean that--capitalize it. He's not just any Him. And Stan, the reason people think *your particular metaphor* equates to "you hate pigs" is the association. Pigs=bad. If you had said "flying floppy-eared bunnies," it would hold very different connotations--not least of all, might I add, because--at least as far as I recall--the Bible doesn't have any commentaries on the uncleanliness of floppy-eared bunnies, airborne or otherwise. Language is powerful stuff. Are you sure yours *doesn't* respond to the image of pigs as unclean?
Anonymous,
Let me offer with all sincerity my heartfelt thanks for presenting your contentions without being contentious. You disagreed without being disagreeable and discussed ideas without attacking people and I appreciate it. The approach makes it so much easier to dialog, which, of course, must follow.
On the error of "the errors of marriage past", the logic breaks down. To say that in the past marriage has involved some sense of property is truthful, but by no means indicative of either definition or a reason to change the definition. It would be like saying, "In the past there was polygamy, so men shouldn't marry women." Marriage was not established by God as a property issue. Nor has it always been defined as a property issue. That there were times that it was is undeniable, but the fact that they deviated during those times from the basic definition of "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of propagation and complementing" doesn't negate the basic definition. It only highlights the sinfulness of Man. So contending that "because they got it wrong at times so therefore we ought to ditch the whole thing in favor of something new" just doesn't follow.
On the problem of infallible Scripture versus fallible humans, I understand and commiserate, but I have a little problem. The suggestion is that we cannot know. Texts are garbled, translations are iffy, interpretation is a nightmare ... well, you guys are pretty much on your own because it isn't safe for anyone to claim to know anything. I know that no one made such a claim ... but it seems the only rational conclusion. The suggestion is "You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want", but there is something that is true, isn't there?
On the redefinition of biblical injunctions against homosexual behavior (I say "redefinition" only because the Church throughout its history has always seen it as an injunction against all homosexual behavior) to only refer to pederasty and prostitution is fine, I suppose, except that it doesn't fit. It doesn't fit with the language. It doesn't fit with the context. It doesn't fit with the universal historical interpretation. The suggestion, then, must be, "Well, all of Christendom for all of Church history and all of the readers of the Bible through all time have been wrong. Fortunately, we here in the 21st century have finally figured it out. Too bad the Holy Spirit was so lame in leading His people into all truth." (No, of course you made no such contention. I'm just saying that it's the only possible conclusion that I can come to if all of Christendom and all the Church and all believers prior to the last 40 years were wrong.)
On the "flying pigs" thing, no one has actually suggested that my metaphor meant that I equate homosexuals with unclean pigs. (By the way, the Bible does say that hares are unclean.) I was simply carrying on the concept. When I say, "There is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage' because it doesn't fit with the definition of 'marriage'", someone will always pop up and say, "You're a homophobe, a gay-basher! You hate gay people!! Bigot!" Saying "there is no such thing" is not the same thing as saying "I hate them."
One last thing. You said (aptly), "So in the end, don't each of us just have to follow our consciences?" This really is the bottom line. Not in your case (perhaps), but in so many the voices seem to say, "We need to follow our consciences and you can't tell us it's wrong!" In other words, "We need to follow our consciences, but you must not!" To me, if I am convinced that homosexual behavior (not "gay marriage") is sin and that sin causes harm, my conscience requires that I warn people against that harm. Should I not do so?
Stan, that was an excellent response. The only thing you let slip by was the issue of following our own consciences. If everyone agreed on the fact of absolute truth (and only by intellectual schizophrenia can one deny absolute truth), then perhaps we could leave it to individual conscience. But if individual conscience says murdering Jews is okay, should we leave it to conscience? One must have established moral laws in order to leave it to individual conscience, and the moral laws must be based on truth. The truth is that homosexual behavior is condemned by God in no uncertain terms, it is deviant by biology, it is hazardous by health. Therefore, to sanction such behavior should be obviously wrong by anyone's conscience.
I tried to get somewhere close to that, Glenn, but ran out of room (character limit). :)
Speaking of running out of room, I had one other thing to mention to Anonymous that the lack of space prevented. The use of "flying pigs" in place of "same-sex marriage" was not any sort of suggestion of "unclean" (although your final question, "Are you sure yours *doesn't* respond to the image of pigs as unclean?", is precisely what disturbs me so much when I say, "Since marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, the joining of a man and a man or a woman and a woman doesn't fall in that definition", the opposition resorts to "Homophobe!"). The point of using "flying pigs" had nothing to do with "pigs", but everything to do with 1) things that don't actually exist (like "same-sex marriage") and the cute answer at the end (which you apparently didn't get). I wrote, "When will public opinion determine God's reality? Well, you fill in that answer." The answer is "When pigs fly." If I had used "flying floppy-eared bunnies", that just wouldn't have worked, would it?
Post a Comment