Franklin Graham and the cultural battles.

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Being "tolerant" isn't being unfriendly at all towards anybody. However, openly and actively promoting something that Christians are against is "sort of" being unfriendly towards Christians (and anyone else who opposes it).
Yeah ... "sort of" ... lol ...

BTW - I'm not really sure that at this point, one can actually say - at least with any accuracy - that a majority of Christians (in the US) are against gay marriage ... although some certainly are, evangelical Christians - who only make up around 25% of those professing the Christian faith in the US - generally among them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...marriage-than-a-decade-ago-survey-finds-video

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Yeah ... "sort of" ... lol ...
You asked, I answered. I don't know what else you want out me.

BTW - I'm not really sure that at this point, one can actually say - at least with any accuracy - that a majority of Christians (in the US) are against gay marriage ...
Depends on how it's framed in the reporting. The are plenty of people who don't necessarily want to prevent same sex couples from marrying (don't really agree with it, but will tolerate it), and it usually gets reported as being "in support of" same sex marriage, because the poll-takers are looking for either/or, for or against. The history of popular voting on the issue perhaps tells a more accurate story than does carefully crafted polling questions and data analysis.

In any case, even those segments of Christians who "support" same sex marriage have very different numbers when adopting kids into same sex marriage is thrown into the mix, particularly when neither of the parents is the biological parent, and that's precisely what the Wells Fargo commercial promotes as being normal and heartwarmingly wunnerful.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I'd love to know what a popular vote would show, on both gay marriage and adoption. Problem is, the legislation against both [and abortion] isn't supported by citizens' vote, it's introduced and passed by legislators [usually at the state level, where ALEC and other extreme conservatives have better luck imposing their views] without public input beforehand. The Republican gerrymandering takeover at midterms put a lot of R legislators into positions where such legislation could be passed, and it has, in record numbers, the past 4 years.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
You asked, I answered. I don't know what else you want out me.
Nothing ... in fact, your response is perfect to illustrate my point:

"Unfriendly" is - at best - a stretch ...

But that's par for the course, for conservative religious fundamentalists, many of whom are forever in a desperate search for things to validate their own personal narratives of "victimhood" and "persecution" ... however delusional those narratives may be ...

Might even be a few around these parts that are inclined to toot that horn on a fairly regular basis ...

Depends on how it's framed in the reporting. The are plenty of people who don't necessarily want to prevent same sex couples from marrying (don't really agree with it, but will tolerate it), and it usually gets reported as being "in support of" same sex marriage, because the poll-takers are looking for either/or, for or against.

The history of popular voting on the issue perhaps tells a more accurate story than does carefully crafted polling questions and data analysis.
I'll bet it probably doesn't - at least in the sense that you mean it - because voting usually requires something a little more than just picking up the phone and answering some questions, or opening your mail, filling out a form and sticking it in SASE and then sticking in your mailbox.

People that vote are generally motivated - and at a minimum they have to have enough motivation to at least put forth the effort to make it to the polling place and deal with whatever they find there in terms of lines, waiting, etc.

And in terms of voter participation, religious fundies tend to participate more than your average Joe or Jane American ...

In any case, even those segments of Christians who "support" same sex marriage have very different numbers when adopting kids into same sex marriage is thrown into the mix, particularly when neither of the parents is the biological parent, and that's precisely what the Wells Fargo commercial promotes as being normal and heartwarmingly wunnerful.
Yup ... that will be the next shoe to drop.

Whatever will those poor, poor "Christians" do ?
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I know: complain of being 'persecuted' whenever anyone suggests they're wrong in any way. [Sarah Palin, Duck Dynasty, Duggars, et al]. It's what they do. Right before launching a speaking tour. :rolleyes:
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Nothing ... in fact, your response is perfect to illustrate my point:

"Unfriendly" is - at best - a stretch ...
I dunno. It's certainly not "friendly" towards Christians. And it's not neutral. I didn't say is was blatantly unfriendly, as if they mentioned Christians while they thumbed their noses at them, I said "sort of" unfriendly. "Sort of," of course, means to some extent; in some way or other (used to convey inexactness or vagueness, non-specific).

But that's par for the course, for conservative religious fundamentalists, many of whom are forever in a desperate search for things to validate their own personal narratives of "victimhood" and "persecution" ... however delusional those narratives may be ...

Might even be a few around these parts that are inclined to toot that horn on a fairly regular basis ...
You lost me there. Did someone claim victimhood over the ad?

I'll bet it probably doesn't - at least in the sense that you mean it - because voting usually requires something a little more than just picking up the phone and answering some questions, or opening your mail, filling out a form and sticking it in SASE and then sticking in your mailbox.
Trust me, it does, and in exactly the way I mean it.
Popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments concerning same-sex marriage, et al.

In Ohio, for example, the popular vote to amend the Ohio Constitution (section 15.11) to make is unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. Approved by popular vote as a constitutional amendment in 2004 under the name of "Issue One", it received support from 61.7% of voters. That's slightly different than what the results can be, and often are, from carefully crafted polling questions heavily weighted depending on whether the issue was Very, Somewhat, Not Too, or Not At All important.

In 2012 Maryland became the first state to allow same sex marriage by popular vote. That was after losing 32 times previously in states where it was voted on by the public. The winning margin is Maryland is not at all the same as the Pew polling analysis would suggest. The winning percentage was 51.9. Maine became the second state to approve same sex marriage (excuse me, marriage equality) by popular vote margin of 52.6 percent.

People that vote are generally motivated - and at a minimum they have to have enough motivation to at least put forth the effort to make it to the polling place and deal with whatever they find there in terms of lines, waiting, etc.
In most of the general ballot voting in the link above, you'll notice a rather healthy voter turnout percentage.

And in terms of voter participation, religious fundies tend to participate more than your average Joe or Jane American ...
Unless your average Joe or Jane American happens to be homosexuals with a well-funded and well-organized hearts-and-minds campaign to get the popular vote to go their way, then it can get more interesting.
 

Unclebob

Expert Expediter
Owner/Operator
People's feelings since 2004 have moderated quite a bit to 2015.

That's why you're seeing a change in people's attitudes to the same sex question.

I've never seen people's attitude change as quickly on any other social issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
People's feelings since 2004 have moderated quite a bit to 2015.

That's why you're seeing a change in people's attitudes to the same sex question.

I've never seen people's attitude change as quickly on any other social issue.
The mainstream media would have you believe that attitudes are changing. These matters rarely reflect change when put to a popular vote by secret ballot.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Things (including attitudes) are also skewed when gay rights are presented as civil rights (who wants to be known as being against civil rights?), and same sex marriage is presented as "marriage equality" (which isn't even a thing, but who wants to be known as being against equally?). These are conscious, deliberate tactics used to obtain the desired results. And many people buy into it without thinking it through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aristotle

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
The mainstream media would have you believe that attitudes are changing. These matters rarely reflect change when put to a popular vote by secret ballot.

But how often does that happen? None of the laws being passed by conservative legislators [on 'religious rights' or abortion] are in response to popular vote, they're just proposed and passed without the public's input.
I don't know about the "mainstream media", but doesn't the fact that it is mainstream offer a clue? Attitudes are changing, and not in response to pressure tactics, or strategies, either. It's because gay people aren't hiding it anymore, and people are discovering their friends & relatives & coworkers are gay - and so what? It makes no difference at all, they're still the same person they were before. It's easy to revile "other" people, but it gets a lot harder when they turn out to be someone you already know, and like [or love].
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I don't know about the "mainstream media", but doesn't the fact that it is mainstream offer a clue?

They are commonly called mainstream media but that's code for liberal left media. You know, like affirmative action is code for discrimination.
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
Yes, the MSM is owned and controlled by the Left. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, all hardcore left when politics or social issues come into play.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
One, legislative bodies don't pass legislation in a vacuum, with no input. Two, about 2% of the population is gay, so it's not like people have been suddenly inundated by gay friends, family and coworkers they previously thought were straight.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Yes, the MSM is owned and controlled by the Left. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, all hardcore left when politics or social issues come into play.

The MSM is owned by corporations, who rely on advertising - what does that tell you about the make up of the genpop?
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
One, legislative bodies don't pass legislation in a vacuum, with no input. Two, about 2% of the population is gay, so it's not like people have been suddenly inundated by gay friends, family and coworkers they previously thought were straight.

Oh yes they do! Or they get "input" from strictly controlled groups, excluding those who disagree. [Check out the photo of Mike Pence signing the controversial Indiana bill]
The "sudden inundation" has been rather more gradual, over the past decade or so, but the "outing" of formerly hidden gay people has caught a lot of people by surprise. They got over it - but the religious right [as usual] just can not.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
The media is definitely pushing that gay rights is civil rights meme.

Daily Beast: North Carolina Guilty of 'George Wallace' Bigotry on Gays
By Bryan Ballas | June 14, 2015 | 8:55 AM EDT
George-Wallace.jpg
Though they pride themselves on embracing new ideas and leading the nation to new progressive heights, the cultural left’s arguments have been reduced to tired old memes. Case in point is the Daily Beast’s commentary on North Carolina’s new religious freedom law, which allows government officials to opt out of performing weddings if it goes against their religious beliefs.

By allowing magistrates to recuse themselves from weddings that violate their religious beliefs, says Michael Tomasky, North Carolina’s legislature and “extremist governor” have engaged in legal discrimination at “the level of George Wallace defying integration, albeit without the pulse-quickening, schoolhouse-door histrionics.”

Tomasky’s hysteria doesn’t stop there. He claims that the new recusal statute permits law breaking,

“Read that again. Recuse from ‘lawful marriages.’ In other words, disobey the law. So, magistrates who still think the races shouldn’t mix can now take that brave stand with the weight of the law behind them.”

This might be news to Tomasky, but if the law provides legroom on a matter, in this case recusal from a service, and people use said legroom, they are not breaking the law. Also, how likely is it that a magistrate is going to be foolish enough to draw such negative attention to himself by opting out of mixed marriage ceremonies? Even if one does opt out, there will be plenty of other magistrates who will have no problem with mixed marriages or gay marriages for that matter.

So far Tomasky is sticking with the same tired, discredited mantras: homosexuals suffer the same discrimination as African Americans and religious freedom laws are vehicles of bigotry. He outdoes himself, however, with his incoherent attack on the North Carolina,

this is arguably more extreme [than George Wallace] because…North Carolina isn’t defying Washington, but itself. The state passed a ban on same-sex marriage back in 1996 and amended the state constitution in 2011 to emphasize the point. But then, a mostly religious coalition of North Carolinians brought suit, and last year a federal judge seated in North Carolina ruled the state’s ban unconstitutional. The governor, extremist though he is, knew enough law not to fight it, and indeed knew enough law to veto the magistrates’ bill when it came before him. But now the legislature has spoken, or re-spoken, and overridden him.

So the state banned gay marriage by statute, solidified the ban in their state constitution, a federal judge struck it down, and the legislature used its lawful authority to override a veto of the recusal statue, thus making North Carolina guilty of defying itself? How does that make sense? Even if North Carolina did defy itself, what’s wrong with a state changing its mind?

Putting aside the fact that Tomasky appears to be conflating the legality of same-sex marriage with the ability of religious objectors to individually opt out of ceremonies, his anger is directed at the wrong target. It was the federal courts, not the state legislature that defied North Carolina’s authority.

Finally, Tomasky decides to go varsity and charge that contemporary religious freedom laws actually violate the original intent of the Religious Freedom Act (RFRA),

The point needs making:Laws like this magistrates’ law and those Pence-style religious-freedom laws have turned the original intention of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 completely on its head.That law was meant to protect the religious rights of minorities. It emanated from a lawsuit brought by two Native American men who took peyote, they claimed, as a religious rite.The Supreme Court backed them, and then President Clinton signed the RFRA. Protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority has a long history in this country, back to the famous Federalist No. 10, and in fact the concept goes back to ancient Greece. But now, the majority (or near-majority, depending on which poll you believe) in North Carolina that opposes same-sex marriage can bully the minority.

First of all, the Court did not back the Native American men; it ruled against them. This is why RFRA was necessary.

Second, the law’s purpose was “to restore the compelling interest test as set forth inSherbert v. Verner (1963) andWisconsin v. Yoder (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.”

Third, the law’s “provi[sion] [of] a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government” was for everyone, not just minorities.

Finally, LGBT individuals did not meet the definition of a “minority” in the eyes of the Founding Fathers or the 1993 RFRA law, rendering Tomasky’s argument a moot point.

Tomasky concludes his rant with a bittersweet observation, “Presumably, a court will toss this magistrates’ law….But who’ll be denied a license in the meantime? And what constitutes religious freedom, and what is simply bigotry?"
 

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
The MSM is owned by corporations, who rely on advertising - what does that tell you about the make up of the genpop?
MSNBC operates in defiance to economics. They are a huge financial liability to their parent company, but MSNBC is kept on the air because it gives an outlet to Al Sharpton and the like. CNN has denigrated to the point they air game shows hosted by Anderson Cooper. ABC, CBS and NBC news divisions are shells of their former selves. Headline News used to do a pretty good job of straight-up reporting. That's changed as well.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Things (including attitudes) are also skewed when gay rights are presented as civil rights (who wants to be known as being against civil rights?), and same sex marriage is presented as "marriage equality" (which isn't even a thing, but who wants to be known as being against equally?). These are conscious, deliberate tactics used to obtain the desired results. And many people buy into it without thinking it through.
The right to marry is a civil right ... as The Supremes have stated on a number of occasions.

Now, it might be my opinion that the State has no business being involved in something that has traditionally been a religious sacrament ... but as long as they are, one is going to have to live with the ramifications and consequences of that involvement.

Particularly as regards equal protection under the law ...

My guess is that this one is a pretty much done deal ... on the basis stated above.

Those that can't stomach the thought should perhaps consider emigrating to somewhere more in line with their own type of thinking.

Saudi Arabia might be a good fit.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The right to marry is a civil right ... as The Supremes have stated on a number of occasions.
And homosexuals have always had that right. Many have even been married.

Those that can't stomach the thought should perhaps consider emigrating to somewhere more in line with their own type of thinking.
Are you seriously advocating the "America, Love it or Leave it" mantra? That people should simply leave the country instead of voicing their opinions on certain issues? That instead of fighting for what they believe in, that gays should have just shut up and moved to some other gay-friendly country? That instead of fighting for civil rights that blacks should have just gone back to Africa?
 
Top