Why Are People Surprised at the Support for Gay Marriage?

A Pew Opinion poll just released showed a majority of black voters now favor legalization of gay marriage.  This changed over just one year.  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) approved support for gay marriage recently.

Political columnist, George Wills, wrote yesterday the increase in support for gay marriage is “stunning”.  He was referring to the various states which approved gay marriage last week.  In Iowa where I am just now, a judge who voted to legalize gay marriage won reelection.

None of this should have been a surprise.  U. S. history and its laws have never been on the side of  taxing everyone but depriving one group of benefits just because some do not like them.  Look at the history of segregation and women’s rights.

For some odd reason pundits have been saying for years, “The effort toward equal rights for gays is different than those for blacks and women.”  The reason they give is simply some Bible versus.  They ignore past use of the Bible to support for segregation and to put down women.

The fact is gays pay taxes, obey laws and exhibit the same good citizenship as straights.  For some reason, people who do not like them ignore this fact.

You didn’t ask for my prediction, but here it is.  You will see religion change its tune.  It always has.

I’m waiting for statements like this from the Pope and the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention, “God’s Bible supports gay marriage.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/polls-show-sudden-increase-in-black-support-for-gay-marriage-84738/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Why Are People Surprised at the Support for Gay Marriage?

  1. .e says:

    Don’t hold your breath that this or any future Pope will condone “same sex marriage.”. There is no such thing, so it would be impossible to grant. The state may offer what it may, but it is not marriage.

  2. Michael Ross says:

    “You will see religion change its tune. It always has.” Religion may well change its tune on gay “marriage” as it has on many other matters over the years.
    But God and His Word will never change:

    Malachi 3:6
    ” For I am the Lord, I change not;”
    Hebrews 13:8
    “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever”

    The American public is changing also because they cannot think for themselves and are influenced by the establishment media which is sympathetic to gay “marriage”.

    • Avatar of Mac Mac says:

      Michael, I am assuming you sent your wife to live outside the family home during her menstrual cycle, since you quote old testament verses to support your point of view that man’s behavior should not change based on God’s biblical directive. (Lev 18:19)

      I would also assume you had a medical examination of any brides in your family to ensure their virginity, and made plans to conduct a stoning should the results prove negative. (Deut 22:21)

      Micheal, people have been using scripture to support their personal agendas for hundreds of years.

      You’ve got to up your argument, because Google makes it super easy for everyone else to play the game.

      • James says:

        You need to up yours. Because you have no biological leg to stand on for your behavior. You’re quoting old testament. Jews are the ones who follow that. It has no bearing on christians who follow the new testament.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          I think it must be said, (and it has), that both testaments/covenants must be taken as a whole, and in context. “Without the New Covenant, the “Old” cannot be fully understood, and without the Old Covenant, the New cannot be fully appreciated, and accepted.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          It may be helpfull to consider the Hebrew Bible, AKA Old Testament, to be prologue, while the New Testament to be epilogue.

        • entech says:

          James. Which part of the new are you talking about.

          In Romans it seems to be a punishment on people that reject god, ” For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions” as well as having them break all ten commandments and then invent a few more. The sin was idolatory.

          Timothy and Corinthians groups them (homosexuals) in with idolaters, fornicators, the greedy, drunkards and so on as people that will not go to heaven.

          The main crime or sin seems to be rejection of the words of the apostles themselves, they are simply shouting out against people that can’t or won’t see what, to them, is obvious truth.

      • peggy says:

        Mac, I don’t think you know this but after Jesus died and rose from the dead the law was done with. That is why it is in Old Testament. Jesus did away with it so as believers we come directly to him who gave us life. Even though the ten commandments and the law is good for us to follow and look too for moral direction for our life. I should mention that when Jesus was on earth and teaching 2 commandments he really focused and they are to Love God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind; then to love your neighbor as your self. Then I remind you of a story in the gospels the woman with the issue of blood in thoses days she could not be around the people because of her condition, she would of had to call out “Unclean” and she could not touch anybody or they would be unclean but she touched Jesus and by the power that came from Jesus she was healed because of her faith. In those days s he could of be placed under arrest but since if you read the story the authority was trying to get Jesus to their child. I told you that until Jesus died and rose they were under the old covenant but today we are under the new covenant.

    • entech says:

      I think we should all be grateful that Malachi wasn’t quite correct, if he who is the lord did not change we would not be here to talk about it.

      Genesis 5-7
      5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
      Change I. Regret for creation creating human beings, and it seems regret for creating the creepy things and winged things an the etc. so wipe them all out.

      Genesis 8
      8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
      Change 2. Lucky change for us, without Noah we would all be gone. He might have been an old drunk that condemned his grandchildren to perpetual slavery but he could say “someone up there loves me”.

      Michael I don’t want to decry your honest beliefs just point out, now and then, that some things point to the actual, literal and error free words of the bible are not, in fact, inerrant, I think there is enough wrong in some of the detail to cast doubt on the whole.

      • entech says:

        :oops: should be Genesis chapter 6 verses 5 to 7 and then verse 8, but I guess you knew that. But: chapter 8-21
        ” … And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”
        Didn’t exactly destroy all living things, but we do hope the thought does not change.

    • Simple says:

      So, god is just the same as when he sent a bear to kill 42 children for calling a guy baldy.
      Where do I sign up to worship such a loving god. I am so overwhelmed with the love coming from evangelicals that I don’t know where to start.

  3. .e says:

    Jon, can you provide the reference to support your position that the Pope supported Hitler?

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Stan 2:34 I read that post with interest. Recently, I read a book written by a Pole who lived through the war. The Poles were caught between the Russians and Nazis, largely attacked by both.

        In reading your link, it was never stated explicitely Catholic clergy were singled out for capture or assasination, or, if they were rounded up with masses of other Poles. Certainly, they were given no pass.

        That does not change the basic fact that Catholic hierarchy manuvered for favor with Hitler early on. That is not to say they were really part of the Hilter program, just opportunists at the time then changed when there was not opportunity.

        The Catholic hierarchy was doing what they are doing at this moment, playing politics for whatever advantage they can get.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 1:50 “..support your position that the Pope supported Hitler”?

      I made the assumption the “Vatican”, “Sea” and Pope are one and the same. Maybe a Catholic would separate them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

      • Stan says:

        Like anything involving Hitler, it was complicated and depended on Hitler actually holding to the promises he gave the signers. Gee Hitler never , EVER signed anything and then changed his mind did he…..Non-Aggression Act with the Soviet Union.

        • entech says:

          As you say, complicated. He abrogated all of his racist ideals when he signed up with the Japanese.

          Jews were only the top of a long list, which included homosexuals (of course) Slavs, gypsies, non-white and probably eventually Catholics.

    • entech says:

      In 1993 a concordat was signed by the Vatican and the Nazis. That this was viewed as being of temporary benefit to both sides and by both sides is in little doubt – it was a marriage of convenience. The main bond was anti-communism at any cost. I don’t think a bit of paper would have stopped Hitler getting rid of anyone speaking against him, Priests often go against the dictates of the hierarchy, there some writing daily in my local papers decrying the continuing cover up of priestly abuse (the same inquiry is, at the same time, disclosing how widespread the problem was even the Salvation Army are apologising for misconduct, note Stan widespread not just your lot) I wonder how many priests were killed by the Inquisitions, at least a few for the terrible sin of turning protestant.
      Both sides were lying to themselves and to each other, the only purpose was obtaining and maintaining power.
      On the business of Hitler being a Catholic there is no doubt that he was, whether he maintain is faith depends on the viewpoint of who is writing. You can find “incontrovertible proof” justifying both views all over the web – the truth is somewhere in between.
      http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC/hitlerrcc2.bmp

      • Stan says:

        Why did Hitler start promoting the earlier religions concerning Odin and the Norse gods if he was a Catholic? To destroy the Christian religion of the German people. We have a thing called cultural Catholics even now. Just because your family is Catholic and you were baptized in the church, you may even have been confirmed, doesn’t mean you believe in God.

        • entech says:

          Part of Hitlers nationalism invoked a call to the ancient glory days of the Teutonic Knights. Strange because the Nazis suppressed the order while using the imagery as a propaganda tool. I suppose the new paganism (I suppose you would call it) blended better with the racial theories of the tall, blonde, blue eyed perfect figure of German manhood than the short dark Mediterranean image of Rome.
          More contradictions creep in Hitler himself was short and dark, and he made an alliance with Mussolini.

          • Stan says:

            Hard to guess what an insane person will do. If Hitler had listened to his regular army chiefs of staff Europe may still be under Germany’s heel. I was reading the accounts of the tank war in Russia. Hitlers orders to not give an inch is what defeated him in the East.

          • entech says:

            Apparently he was in favour of clairvoyants and astrologists, better advise would have been beneficial. I am usually not to keen on calling him insane and other analysis, leaves the way open for excuses, even a non believer can get the idea of pure evil and that is what he and his supporters amounted to.

          • entech says:

            Another aspect of the war in Russia, and it is the same thing that defeated Napoleon, supply lines were huge and the weather atrocious, the Russian scorched earth policy prevented any living off the land. Hard to fight without food or ammo.

  4. .e says:

    to quote Wiki, “The German Catholic Church and the Vatican both pursued a series of policies and agreements with Nazi Germany intended to further the interests of Catholics and the Catholic church and counter the rise of atheism and communism.”

    I could change a few words and get this-
    “The US Catholic Church and the Vatican both pursued a series of policies and agreements with The Obama Administration intended to further the interests of Catholics and the Catholic church and counter the rise of atheism and secularism.”

    Using this logic, our current president equals Hitler. I like your logic Jon.

  5. .e says:

    Entech is right, if Hilter was baptized Catholic, he was Catholic. But, those who do not cooperate with that grace given in that and the other sacraments, have chosen their own path.

    Jon, people change their minds. God doesn’t change.

  6. Avatar of Kevin Kevin says:

    The family lawyers are hoping to profit from gay divorces.

    • .E says:

      Also custody cases. Cha Ching!

      When you allow same sex “marriages”, there is no institution which binds children to their parents. Tell me how this doesn’t diminish our society.

  7. Henry says:

    “Why Are People Surprised at the Support for Gay Marriage?”

    Shouldn’t be surprising. In the last four years, we have had gay shoved upon us from the whitehouse. Reminds me of Larry Sinclare who was a friend of Obamba.

  8. Gay Marriage will certainly reduce the population…like legalized abortoin has already done….55 million dead unborn babies…and counting.

    • .E says:

      Yes. I have heard it said in the blogosphere that the secularists and atheists will just disappear because they will abort and contracept themselves out of existance. The horror of that is the death of all the innocent unborn.

  9. .e says:

    Simply demonstrates why I don’t throw out individual quotes from the Bible. It just doesn’t hold any weight of authority on this forum.
    Also, the nonchristians just throw back another verse that seems to contradict.
    The bible needs to be read in the whole context. Not ripping out bits and pieces.

    • entech says:

      It is sometimes difficult to work out what some Christians would call the whole context. So often people will say as an argument develops show me where it is says that in the “new” part, some of the more unpleasant quotes from the “old” are ignored, or, selectively chosen as “prophecies”. I do think both sides of the belief/non-belief spectrum are equally guilty of taking quotes out of context to try and prove a point (I plead guilty to that myself). The main difference is that non-believers do not accept that the series of books that make up the Bible has any ‘weight of authority’, it was written over a lot of time by believers for believers. Some things actually do contradict.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        Much of the Hebrew Bible, AKA Old Testament, is (What must be done) does seem to be a contradiction of the New Testament,(What has been done FOR

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Oops, hit wrong key; To continue;
          Much of the Hebrew Bible, AKA Old Testament, is (What must be done) does seem to be a contradiction of the New Testament, (What has been done FOR us.) The old familiar Law/Gospel paradox. Not difficult to explain, but hard to accept. Where there’s position of not accepting, there is also the position of ignoring the harmony between the OT and the NT. Much of what are today called “contradictions” are the result of Higher critical/ hyper literal, with the resulting refusal to ask “what do these words mean”? Timelines, translations , interpretations, cultural understandings are a challenge in coming to a reasonable concensus. What some may call “contradiction” can just as easily be called “I don’t know- – - yet.” Much of the “contradictions” presented are based on non important issues, and have nothing to do with the narratives of either the OT, or the NT.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            And then—There is an interesting thing that happpens with those of non faith; To justify their position on “contradictions”, they repeatedly drift in and out of hyperliteralism in a manner that would make the most strident Fundamentalist blush in envy.

      • .E says:

        I was nodding until I got to the last sentence.

        If the Bible is not relevant to your life, why do you bother to state that it contradicts itself.

        I know that the Catechism would also not hold any authority, but here is a quote to give you perspective:

        107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72 (702)

        The Bible isn’t a text book, or a history book. So it cannot be read as such. That is the errors that you see.

        • entech says:

          Even as non-believer the Bible is relevant to my life, many believers want the world organised in line with the Bible, it is relevant because this would and does affect me.

          Most contradictions that are claimed are quite nonsensical and can be easily explained as transcription errors, as minor as one says it was 13 and the other 14, and others explained by context, not all but most. My point is if, for instance, the difference between genesis 1 and genesis 2 are explained as the whole thing being metaphorical, as a way of explaining things to a population that were early in their development and not very sophisticated, allegorical as in Philo or Origen, then there is no problem. But if you try to say that the Bible is without error, I merely like to point out that it is not necessarily so. Even though I don’t believe I cannot avoid the idea that I could be wrong, I like to point out alternatives and invite others to consider that they too could be wrong.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Entech; Due to a phone call, I didn’t see your 2;15 before I posted my 2;20. I can agree with much of what you say on this at this time, but I still maintain that the “errors” are in the eye of the beholder, and the biases brought to the table on both sides.

          • entech says:

            Neither agreement nor discussion are required, as you inevitably resort to personal attack and insult. It would be better if did not waste time or bandwidth.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 10:34 Personal attacks are a larger part of some of our participants than others. I regret they appear here.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Oh poor boy. Your feelings are hurt from prior encounters. Your attitued of superiority makes you vulnerable to criticism, and disagreement. It would be better for you to exhibit a little humility. Even now you reveal you are incapable of it. Even your comments in your 2:15 are now revealed to be false and manipulative, in light of your 10:34. The more you talk, the more you reveal your insincerity.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            And you wonder why.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Jon; The insults dished out to and of those of faith here are of the highest order. Most deserving of response. If you and yours perceive them as personal, they are so only due to the fact that your insults are considered equally personal.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You will note the word; “RESPONSE”. Not iniation.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            That is my response. Whatever follows is your initiation. If you choose to, expect a response.

  10. .e says:

    To restate: Marriage between a man and a woman is an institution that not only unites them with each other but with any children born from their union. To accommodate the demands of the “gay rights” movement, marriage would have to be redefined as merely the legal recognition of a committed relationship for the fulfillment of adults. Removing marriage between a man and a woman from the law eliminates the only institution that unites children with their moms and dads.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 2:25 re: marriage has to include children

      Another equally valid reason for marriage to care for one another. Your opinion that is it about children, while popular within some groups, remains merely an opinion. But, as far as society is concerned, the more important reason is the care taker element. Children can be born to couples who barely know one another and have no lasting relationship.

  11. .e says:

    Marriage as I have described is in shambles in our society. It really could be seen as a class distinction too because those men and women most likely to be married before having children are more educated and have more wealth. A child has the right to be raised in the family of his own mother and father. This fact has significance to our society. So a solid society would value a family of a man and women and any children born from that union.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      .e 4:04 “Marriage as I have described it is in shambels in our society.”

      While a bit into hyperbole, that is factually correct. Legal marriage is becoming less popular.

      “A child has the right to be raised in the family of his own mother and father.”

      This, or course, is an opinion. There are studies showing children do better when raised by their bilological mother and father. But, there has been little about children raised by two long term gay parents. Then, there is the variable you mentioned, that stright couples with more education more often wait until marriage to have children. Could it be more education helps couples raise children who register as “successful” in the variables used to measure success? So far as I know, gay couples with the same variables as straight couples in stability, education and income raise children who are just as successful as those of straight couples.

      Opponets of gay marriage never consider that long term, legal, gay marriages may lead to more successful children and life long mutual care for each other. They use, instead, data reflecting successful straight marriages lead to more successful children which does not disprove the success of gay couples.

      • .E says:

        I am not debating whether there are cases of good parenting or bad parenting.

        Put yourself in the position of a child. Would you believe that it is your right to be cared for by your mother and father?

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          .E 9:07 “Put yourself in the position of a child.”
          If I were a child, I would want to be like other children. That’s what kids want. They want the same shoes and haircuts. They, and I,would want their biological parents like other kids.

          Are you saying if their parents are divorced, the child has the “right” for force them to live under the same roof. Even if both of divorced couple are invoved in parenting, the child would prefer them living together. If one parent goes off to war for a year, does the child have the “right” to call him/her home because that what he wants?

          If seems to me, every child has a right to good food, adults that provide love,attention, education and reaources to do well. This thing about a “right” to biological parents when it is simple impossible in some cases, and even undesirable when one of the parents is a jerk, is a little pie in the skyish.

  12. .e says:

    You are correct that there will always be situations that children are not raised by their mother and father. But would it be best for society to deliberately deprive children of this? This is what happens when marriage is redefined to be only for the good of the adults.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      e. “But would it be best for society to deliberately deprive children of this?”

      That is a profound question and gets to the heart of the matter. I would ask in turn, what is it we are depriving children of, and, what children are we talking about?

      What you have said it children would be deprived of what they would prefer, being raised by their biological parents. I, too, enjoy seeing children get whatever they most want. But, the more practical questions are, “Are they happy, or, unhappy, with their single parents, gay parents or grand parents. If they were universially unhappy in any circumstance other than being with their two biological parents, that would be an important piece of information. I don’t think we know they are universally unhappy.

      And, as I mentioned eariler, it is imparative we know how well the children do with the various way families are found today. If there is one way that is clearly bad, we should try to remedy that situation.

      The other thing is which children are we talking about. Gay parents often adopt children straight parent take a pass on. I know of such a woman here in ND who is sought out by social service people to take difficult cases. There was a couple of men in Florida who took children no other couples would take. Gov. Bush tried to pass a law taking away those children.

      Another complication is the preference of the biological parent(s). We have a dear friend who is a young gay man. He lived with us for several weeks while working here. He is a(white) single man and now lives in Chicago. A black woman there decided she could not raise the child she was about to have, notified an agency and then interviewed several couples and singles who appied to adopt the baby. She chose our friend who has now has had the girl for 3 or so years and she is doing great. I don’t quite see how this little girl would be better off being subject to a law based on a sweeping generalization about “what children would prefer”.

      Just my thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>