Number Of Christians Against Biblical View Of Same-Sex “Marriage”

So this PRRI group did a survey in 2016 of over 40,000 folks to ascertain their views on same-sex “marriage” and the like, in Most American Religious Groups Support Same-sex Marriage, Oppose Religiously Based Service Refusals. The picture above is the main result, asking folks from various religions whether they favored or opposed “allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally.”

Calling Unitarian-Universalists religious is, of course, fair, in the same sense as calling progressives religious is fair, but U-U ties to Christianity are at best a distant, and for the most part unpleasant, memory. It is thus a curiosity why 2% of U-Us were opposed to gmarriage. Note: gmarriage means government-defined marriage: governments are free to call marriage whatever they like, whereas realists and traditionalists must follow Nature and God.

Point is, that 2%, plus the 4% of the U-U folks who refused to answer the question give some idea of the uncertainty in the numbers. Whether these exact same fractions would apply were we to poll all U-Us is not likely; however, the numbers probably aren’t too far off, either.

Christians by far outnumber all other religious groups, and the numbers of Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims are small, and so their extrapolated numbers—and don’t forget these are all in the USA—would be more variable, too. United States Buddhists, for example, are not of the same hip tribe (and I don’t mean race) as those in East Asia, and so pushing their 85% support to, say, residents of Thailand would be folly.

Catholics, to pick a group of interest, support gmarriage to the tune of 63%, or thereabouts. It’s “thereabouts” because we can’t know how many supporters were in the 9% who refused to answer. Either way, this is a remarkable number. It’s the same for White mainline Protesting Christians.

Now the correct number—whether you yourself are a believer—according to orthodox Christianity, should be zero supporters. The proof of this we can leave to Roger Gangnon and his magisterial (I use that word for good reason) The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Christian supporters of same-sex activities have been known to meet the fate of Lot’s wife after reading only one Chapter. Yours Truly wept when considering the sheer amount of labor that went into writing this essential reference.

Anyway, whether, as I say, you yourself are a Christian, and whether you enjoy or support same-sex activities, it must be acknowledged that the harsh and unbending proscription of homosexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing and the like is a tradition that stretches back to Noah. The only view that accords with Biblical Christianity is that of Saint Paul’s. Of course, that fine gentleman’s condemnations run to more than effeminacy and homosexual conduct (a reminder we are all doomed unless we seek repentance). It is only that lately the world wants to embrace same-sex conduct as a good.

Point is, if push comes to pinch (of incense), an approximate quarter of Catholics, and maybe up to 60% of white evangelists, would hold the line. No, that’s too opaque. Let me be blunt: these numbers represent a reasonable estimate of an upper bound of the number of Christians who would not apostatize if required to by government. Here’s another form of the estimate.

The question PRRI asked is not well put. They asked, “Do you favor or oppose allowing a small business owner in your state to refuse to provide products or services to gay or lesbian people, if doing so violates their religious beliefs.”

One of the main problems with gmarriage is that marriage (and not gmarriage) is a not a contract between a husband and wife, it’s a mating. But there is an implicit contract with that couple and the rest of society. You see a mated pair and you acknowledge they are man and wife. But with gmarriage, an orthodox Christian (or Jew or Muslim) cannot agree that two men or two women are married. It is an impossibility. It is a sin to agree, a sin in concert with one that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Now a pharmacist can sell a man with same-sex attraction a bottle of aspirins, just as a florist can sell two same-sex attracted woman a posey, and almost nobody disagrees with this, which is why the PRRI question is badly worded.

If you are in favor of gmarriage, answer these questions (and your lack of willingness to answer will be telling). Should a Christian photographer be made to film a homosexual pornographic video? These videos are, after all, legal. To refuse the business is discrimination. Should a Christian caterer be forced to cater a homosexual private, adults only party at which there will be open displays of sexual activity? These activities are legal. To refuse is discrimination.

Well, you can make up dozens more like this, each involving discrimination. Now the discrimination will be religious for the Christian and perhaps based on disgust for the non-believer. As is stands, disgust is still a legal motive for discrimination, but religion is not.

Gmarriage if it cannot be accommodated isn’t life threatening. A Christian refusing to participate in a gmarriage ceremony causes almost no burden on the participants. Yet society would force orthodox Muslims (which would be Islamaphobia), Christians, and Jews to participate, and the answer why this is so is not far to seek. Hate.

Bonus!

Item: “A mother-and-daughter bakery did not discriminate against a potential customer when the owners refused to make a cake with an anti-gay slogan, an administrative law judge decided this week.” Message? “Homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord.” Christians are forced by point of the sword to bake cakes, but non-Christians are free.

Item: “No Republicans Need Apply”; “If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic or a Trump supporter please don’t respond.”

7 Comments

  1. “A mother-and-daughter bakery did not discriminate against a potential customer when the owners refused to make a cake with an anti-gay slogan, an administrative law judge decided this week.” Message? “Homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord.” Christians are forced by point of the sword to bake cakes, but non-Christians are free.

    It was always about control, revenge and hatred. There was NO fairness, NO love, nothing but hatred, revenge and control. To say otherwise is to speak false words and mislead.

  2. Interestingly, in Europe there is not really a problem with Christians refusing to sell to Gays, or vice versa. This is probably because you cannot sue the living daylight out of a Gay baker for refusing to bake a Christian cake.

  3. Hi Briggs,

    Just a brief note that the spelling of Dr Gagnon’s surname is incorrect in the article above.

    Cheers!

  4. This may be of interest to some: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/02/alabama-committee-passes-bill-to-eliminate-marriage-licenses-nullify-federal-control-in-practice/, as a response to gmarriage, as our host calls it. This is the kind of thing that I thought of over a decade ago. NB that marriage is about the act whose nature is the act that can perpetuate the species, a sexually reproducing species. It does not change the essence of it just because accidents prevent this nature from being realized in certain limited situations.

  5. “In point of fact, there are no Catholics who publicly support gmarriage, because all who do so cease, ipso facto, to be Catholics.”

    Ah, the “no true Catholic” fallacy.

Leave a Comment

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