Galloping to our doom
Surveys of public attitudes in democracies are interesting. When pollsters aren’t lying (more on this another day), polls are crude snapshots of the adult “general public’s” attitude to some question. They are also attempts to ascertain what is best or true, for democracies have the preposterous conceit that “truth” and morality can be decided by vote.
Both aspects play in Gallup’s new poll “on Americans’ satisfaction with acceptance of gays and lesbians“. There’s no plus-or-minus on the chart above, so don’t put too much faith in any exact number. Anyway, any awareness of the state of our culture confirms the picture’s shape.
I’m not entirely satisfied with the wording of the question, because it’s better than a good bet that most of the folks in the 60% would welcome, or at least raise no objection, to “rights” increasing. “Rights” for whom? Well, for those who, at certain points in their lives, confess same-sex attraction. There are no such beings as “gays” or “lesbians”; there are only men and women. So gay “rights” can only mean the “right” to certain unimpeded unnatural sexual-like activities.
Even that’s not quite right. Consider that people could always have slunk off into the dark and done pretty much anything, and few would have cared. It was only when the slinkers emerged from the closet and announced that what they have just done was not immoral nor gross, but “good” and even “healthy.” Gay “rights”, then, are the extent to which buggery etc. is accepted—and mandated to spoken of—as good. And for that proposition, there are only about 10% claiming they disagree (only the Lord knows how many people lie to pollsters, or how many pollsters lie).
That, then, is the real story of this survey. The remnant. Given that, notice something interesting about the graph. The size of the remnant hasn’t changed much since 2001. I’m also considering the plus-and-minus to these numbers, and with that proviso the remnant has varied from 10-20%, and it’s only latterly decreasing, perhaps to a new low. Do you see? It’s not so much that the “Total % satisfied” has increased, because most of that increase came from the “% Dissatisfied, want more.” It’s that the remnant is finally shrinking.
If this reading is right, then in another decade the remnant won’t be more than 1 out of 100. I’m guessing it will be around then that unnatural sex-simulation activities are taught in public schools as a “healthy” alternative. This is already true at the university level, of course, so I mean grade schools. It may at that point become illegal “hate speech” to say (something like) “homosexual activities are dangerous and wrong.” Laws mandating we look the other way on sexual “orientation” will guarantee this. Hatred for the powerless remnant will only increase. Why? Egalitarians despise those who remind them of Reality.
Meanwhile in England…
Lancaster University announced a poll in which a “majority of white British people now identify as having ‘no religion’“. They say of “the adult population as a whole, 46% now identify as having no religion (nones) and 44% with Christianity.” Somewhat amusingly they write, “Only 13% of nones hold anti-religious views in the style of Richard Dawkins.”
It amusing because now that Dawkins is getting what he wanted, i.e. the disappearance of Christianity, he’s finally pegged the consequences. Pace: “Muhammed became the most common name given to baby boys born in London, and the second most common among newborn male babies across the entire UK and Wales.”
The survey author “claims Britain’s Christian leaders have lost touch with congregations on issues including gay marriage and abortion.” This explains the decrease, she thinks; but of course, she has it backward. In there is no sin, there is no reason to attend mass.
They didn’t try taking the smartphones away
The remnant is not entirely powerless now; at least, not in religious circles. Without going into details, the Anglican Church held a confab recently at which they took their Episcopalian branch to the woodshed and grounded them for three years. Why? Because the Episcopalians abandoned Christianity and embraced gmarriage (government-defined marriage).
Did the Episcopalians take their punishment like men? No, sir, they did not. One priest wrote “On Becoming Second Class Anglicans for Treating LGBT People as First Class Christians“, an article in which he speaks of “marriage equality.” And an Archbishop reminded the world that he was black.
The Anglicans, pressured by a still-faithful Africa, and bleeding members as we saw, are hoping the scolding will hold their version of protesting Christianity together. Stay tuned, because given the kicking and screaming from Episcopalians thus far, smart money says a formal split is coming.
These long term poll results are partially an indicator of the success of media influence on the naive as well as turnover in the surveyed population. Children become adults and replace those who “age-out” (to put it euphemistically). These are more influenced by propaganda than those they replace because they lack experience in reality. Longitudinal studies of the same respondents are needed to see true attitudinal changes instead of population changes. Of course, that’s only a research curiosity when social change is the goal.
Don’t worry. The Muslim invaders will take care of the problem.
The question really is open to interpretation. If all your friends still use very derogatory terms about those who engage in unnatural sex, you might agree with the statement because your world doesn’t like or accept gays and you believe the rest of the country thinks the same way.
Do we know who was polled here? I imagine that would help. Also, did those contacted fear Gallup would turn them in if the said anything but “yes”?
In another decade, pedophilia, incest and multiple partners will be all be accepted, unless the Muslim invaders stop it. Or AIDS mutates and homosexuals die off at what will be called an “alarming rate”.
British have Islam as their major religion, if we are to believe news reports. So does Sweden.
If the Episcopalians grew a set and threw out the nonbelievers, that would help. Leaving the wolf in with the sheep is never a good idea. Too many sheep get eaten.
I rather suspect that those figures would not transfer to different Cultures round the world. Possibly not even closely.
Well, of course a split is coming! Every dead tree splits and eventually falls. Maybe one branch at a time, sure. But eventually, the whole thing collapses. And the Anglish are no exception. Yes, the Afrikans are still faithful, and that faith will eventually lead them to Holy Rome, as that is the only option. Which brings us to the larger question; how quickly will the re-assimilation of the ‘remnant’ (amongst Protestants) occur? Isn’t it funny how the Prots are now protesting something other than Rome? Hahahahhah! Oh well….
And just to complicate things, the virus of disbelief is now raging within the walls of the Vatican itself, which will further the confusion of the Prot remnant, as they seek to find any port in this storm. My guess is that this will strengthen the Orthodox position that Rome is no refuge. This will further lead to the final choice amongst the faithful (and to be fair, the little Orthodox believers are just that, believers, from the standpoint of dogma, at least through the first 7 Councils). And that choice is this; who can we trust? Francis or Kyrill? Obama or Vlad? And then the Prot-folk will notice the apparent congruence of Vlad and Kyrill, and they will make the fateful choice. They will exchange the chimera of safety once perceived in Imperial (American) Exceptionalism for the perceived strength of Imperial (Russian) Exceptionalism. Bad choices, both. There is no safety this side of death.
Pingback: Gallup On Satisfaction With Gay “Rights”, The Remnant, & The Episcopalian Grounding | Reaction Times
“There are no such beings as “gays” or “lesbians””
Wow. Just going to plain ol’ in-your-face fascism now, huh Briggs? Anyone else doesn’t exist? Palestinians? Atheists? Native Americans? Who the hell are you to tell other people who they are and whether they exist? I’ll tell you who you are – the fascist.
I know you’re just playing around with controversy, as am I, but words like yours are why gay people got beaten up on the streets. When you dehumanize people, you encourage their abuse.
JMJ
Religion is only relevant with respect to gay marriage not to attitudes in general. Homosexuality is condemned by atheists just the same. They use different language.
Men don’t usually hold back in giving their opinion on this. This is just the way things are. As a female I look at a gay man differently. Lesbians on the other hand? different matter! I think this is all very normal. What is abnormal is the way that the social engineers and media together have messed up people’s heads about this to make things even worse. NONE of the christian churches have helped either as far as I can see.
Muslims have been throwing gay men from buildings in Syria and worse. I believe that the homophobia labelling sentiment has been exacerbated by use of the extreme anti gay actions of a few. Any man expressing what they really think is accused of wanting to throw gay men from buildings or similar.
Just like the race argument has been waged. PC and “hate speech” punishment
Infecting the workplace has been the biggest master stroke of all. Instead of leaving such things to social acceptability or common decency, those in authority have taken it upon themselves to regulate behaviour in an official way. Gay marriage passed in the same way as multiculturalism and all other cultural dismantlement that has taken place all over the world. The people don’t get asked. The silent majority are irrelevant.
I would like to have seen a stronger moral line taken by the churches in resisting gay marriage but also the church should have been the source of condemnation of hate. Now, people receive their moral guidance from the media, from Hello magazine with it’s do gooding celebs and from the latest equal ops form they have to sign in order to keep their job.
Other thoughts,
Douglas Murray helped argue for the church in a debate which Rowan Williams was losing. He condemned Rowan for agreeing to Sharia law courts being allowed. He was a christian, he became an atheist because of Islam, so he says. He’s not alone there. At Cambridge he managed to save “organised” religion, whatever that is, from being condemned altogether and convinced the room that the church does have a place in society and is of significant value despite his loss of faith. I wonder if the church would speak so highly of him.
All those students listening had a lesson of value.
The underlying attitudes of people towards gayness: Today if a person is asked whether they are ‘satisfied” they, I imagine, think “I couldn’t care less, I’m over it, I’ve got problems of my own.’ That flavours how people answer.
This is as much a measure of apathy and cynicism as anything real about satisfaction.
Extrapolation isn’t a good method of prediction.
It is wise always to assume that Polls are done to influence opinion not to show opinion unless and only unless one has inside knowledge of the poll itself and how it was carried out.
JMJ,
Briggs is anything but fascist as measured by the Merriam-Webster definition of fascism: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”
At least you could pick a more accurate pejorative.
Another person who knows naught the difference between epistemology and wishful desire. You won’t sell your book to this guy!
At my Catholic parish, the Father wrings his hands and wonders why cradle Catholics have gone to the Mega Church (or no church at all); but at the same time he stresses that there “no difference” between the Catholic faith and other faiths, and really, having no faith at all. “Mercy” is so freely available that there is no need to go church or have the sacraments.
In the dogma of the modern religion of humanitarianism, lust is a virtue.
Recall that scene in one of the Godfather movies — the cardinal pulls a stone from the water & cracks it open & he says:
“Look at this stone. It has been lying in the water for a very long time, but the water has not penetrated it.”
A lot of people have notions like that, where so much reality clearly hasn’t penetrated.
JMJ: Wow, liberal rant time. “Gays” and “lesbians” are sexual orientations. They are NOT people. Identifying as a “sexual orientation” is an interesting concept—you are who you bang. You do realize most people with a heterosexual orientation do not run around wearing t-shirts and sharing their lifestyles. Now they get beat up by the gays, under the guise of “caring”, which is actually revenge. So who is dehumanizing now???? Seems the liberals are really just nasty, vindictive people after all.
Joy: There are many churches that embrace gay marriage. Our town has a proudly lesbian minister. Of course, the church in no way follows the Bible, but that’s not what matters. It’s all about love—you know, for gays, pedophiles, rapists, people who behead others, etc. Love, love. love.
Gary in Erko: I believe lust was a virtue for much of history. The Romans took it to an art form. Always ends up the same way—downfall of society, but back then, society was brutal and uncaring, so lust was just a natural part. We were silly enough to think we could build a caring society and maintain it.
JMJ,
Rather, I’m re-humanizing. There are no such thing as non-, or rather extra-human, creatures as “gays” and “lesbians.” There are only human beings choosing to act in certain ways. This differs from say, whites, who do not choose to be white, or Palestinians, who do not (at birth) choose to be Palestinian. But every atheist (your example) and person acting on same-sex attraction chooses to do so. I’m talking strictly about choosing acts, now. Read the relevant link.
Since acts are choices, my central point remains. There are no “rights” for people, we’re talking about, but acceptance of acts.
Folks like me are in the shrinking minority, while folks like you are in the increasing majority. This being a democracy, our diminishing side has little or no influence. Yet the mere expressing of our ideas will come to seen intolerable, as I predicted, and as you demonstrate.
This story is apropos:
And do it this one: Tinder now helps you locate the nearest STD, HIV testing clinic.
“They are also attempts to ascertain what is best or true, for democracies have the preposterous conceit that “truth” and morality can be decided by vote.” – Briggs
Yes, I’ve noticed that too. How on Earth anyone for even a second can seriously believe such a thing baffles me beyond belief, and yet…
“There are no such beings as “gays” or “lesbians”; there are only men and women. So gay “rights” can only mean the “right” to certain unimpeded unnatural sexual-like activities.” – Briggs
Yes, exactly! What they get up to IS unnatural, and even though the common response by those who practice such unnatural acts to those who criticise their behaviour is to accuse them of being ‘homophobic’, ‘bigoted’ and so on, that doesn’t alter the objective fact that like forces repel, opposites attract. Two males cannot reproduce, and neither can two females, for that is not how nature works. Then again, trying to reason with such silly people is probably pointless anyway, for they are almost certainly to be counted among those who adhere to the principle outlined above, of reality and truth being determined via popular opinion.
Sheri, instead of calling these thugs “liberals”, perhaps a far better (because it would be more appropriate) term would be “Cultural Marxists”, or just “Marxists” for short. I’ve recently been investigating both the ideology and the people who adhere to it, and I have to say they are truly deranged and dangerous. ‘Liberal’ has many meanings, but it’s core meaning is an attitude of openness to new ideas, an acceptance of the possibility of alternative beliefs and ways of living, which doesn’t really reflect the hatred and intolerance that is displayed by the gay brigade whenever someone has the sense and decency to point out the obvious to them.
“Who the hell are you to tell other people who they are and whether they exist?” – JMJ
Well JMJ, who a person happens to be (as opposed to who they think they are, or how they themselves choose to define themselves) is determined by certain objective facts (ex. date of birth), physiology, their history and upbringing, genetics, ancestry and, to a lesser extent, psychology.
For example, nothing in the world can ever alter the fact that I myself was born in Lancashire, England. I could pretend to be Japanese if I wanted to, but that would just have the effect of making others think I was mentally unbalanced. I am, always have been and always will be, male: I will never be female. In Australia there are many people who abuse the welfare system by claiming to be aboriginal, even though they are whiter than I am, because if one claims to be an aboriginal one receives preferential treatment. This whole ‘identity politics’ nonsense is just one great big scam (like ‘global warming/climate change/the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it’).
“Homosexuality is condemned by atheists just the same.” – Joy
Yes, and I count myself as being one of those atheists. Homosexuality is wrong, objectively so. That is a fact, one as certain as heliocentrism.
Peter, it’s the water in Lancashire.
I agree with your points completely especially about abuse of systems and people. Actually, that’s why this is such a hot topic. Before society muddled along. The public have become “sophisticated” in the worst sense of the word.
Homosexuality is here to stay so what is a solution?
At least with respect to your atheism none of this matters a jot. Nothing matters a jot with atheism.
Joy: “Homosexuality is here to stay so what is a solution?”
So is murder, rape, pedophilia, theft, incest and every other bad behaviour. There is no “solution” that fixes this. However, it is not a “solution” to simply give up and allow all bad behaviours. Unless you are advocating for anarchy.
I’m C of E I wouldn’t belong to a church like that. I know of no churches with lesbian vicars. I won’t even go if the vicar’s a woman. Services don’t have the authority or gravitas that a male vicar can bring.
I once went to a church as a tourist in Harlem and was horrified at the political rally that it really was. We were taken there by bus! not my idea, We bunked off.
Reasons to be cheerful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPJuAu0THow
The question of the Gallup Polsters is unclear. Therefore the respondents will have been confused and so we can’t place any credence in the ‘results”
People who are attracted to the same sex have always been with us and part of society. Nowadays some of them seem to feel the need to flaunt their preferences in a vulgar manner… and childishly demand that everyone look at them being”gay” Probably encouraged by magazines, stage and films. The more adult balanced homosexuals will live ordinary lives as they always have.
The Orthodox Church feels that homosexuals are just like the rest of us , sinners.
They feel Christ came into the world to save sinners which is a matter of great joy.
(http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/roadsfromemmaus/2012/05/09/arent-you-supposed-to-hate-me-calvinism-and-the-politics-of-the-damned/
An American Orthodox site.)
So does the Catholic Church. Even most Protestants feel that Christ came into the world to save sinners.
People can refuse to be saved ,of course, since we are all free to chose. and are defined ultimately by our choices.
The Russian Church is not the only Orthodox Church. but they can be found on “http://www.pravmir.com/ and their views are interesting. Not at all what most Westerners think they would be.
The American Episcopal branch of the Anglican Communion have always felt they were different, and probably holier( judging by their words) than the rest of the Communion, and will now feel gloriously self righteous and hard done by.. no vestige of humility seems visible in their outrage.
And lastly. People put “No religion ” on the surveys because they feel they don’t want to be put into categories by government departments..(.this was so for our Census) so you can’t tell who is religious by counting respondents. It must have been a graduate student with no experience of people who came to those conclusions.
O.My.God.
Say bye to female Olympics, in name of LGBTAIEOUW rights
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/olympics-to-allow-more-transgender-athletes-to-compete-in-the-games-after-removing-surgery-a6829691.html
M E,
There is a new category of people who refer to being “spiritual not religious”. Some wrote Jedi on their census I know a few who did this to get it named as an official religion so they could demand rights on May 4th.
I would hazard a guess that there are many who believe in the God of the bible but don’t say so for fear of ridicule. Such is the power of the media mob and all their followers.
After the fact it is easy to see that the weakness of the Church is also at fault.
The Queen referred to dark forces several years ago now. Some people seemed mystified about what she meant.
I would hazard a guess that if this was carried out again with the knowledge of this study, people would fill out C of E or catholic. Polls influence opinion.