Posted on 04/29/2015 8:24:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Finally, an answer to the most important question of the 2016 election.
Kidding aside, though, this is a bit surprising.
The question of whether or not a candidate would attend the gay wedding of a loved one has become an increasingly common litmus test for candidates on the issue…
The poll showed 56 percent of Republicans would attend the gay wedding of a loved one if invited. That compares with 80 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents, who said they would go.
Overall, 68 percent of Americans would attend, the poll showed, while 19 percent would not and 13 percent were unsure…
Though a right-leaning, anti-marriage position may appeal to important conservative voters in states with early nominating contests such as Iowa and New Hampshire, that stand could hurt an eventual nominee in the general election, in which cross-party appeal and independents play a larger role.
Most polls show GOP support for legalizing gay marriage somewhere between 30 and 40 percent, so apparently there’s a chunk of 20 percent or so that would show up for a gay family member’s wedding even though they … don’t think it should be legally recognized. That’s an odd position but I think it may end up being the majority position of the Republican presidential field: Rubio, Rick Perry, and Jeb Bush all oppose legalizing SSM, last I checked, and all of them have said they’d attend a gay wedding if invited. (“Claro que si” said Jeb when asked yesterday in Puerto Rico.) In fact, Ted Cruz ducked the question when Hugh Hewitt put it to him instead of replying with a flat “no.” You can see why this stance might appeal to a socially conservative pol hoping to face the national electorate next November, though. Being anti-SSM but pro-attendance is a way in theory to show righties you’re on their side of the legal debate while showing swing voters you’re not the “hater” Democrats accuse you of being.
Surely these numbers shift, though, when you look specifically at Republican primary voters, right? It stands to reason that the GOPers most motivated to vote are more likely to be members of the base, which usually means they’re more conservative than Republicans generally. And as it turns out, the numbers do shift — but not as much as you might expect. Using Reuters’s nifty crosstabs tool to refine the data so that it shows only GOP primary voters, we find that 49 percent would attend versus just 35 percent who wouldn’t, suggesting that the Rubio/Bush/Perry position is a winner in the primaries too — at least if you’re competing for center-righties, as each of them is. Surprisingly, the numbers are even better among older (i.e. age 60 or over) Republicans, 56 percent of whom say they’d attend. Women are also noticeably more supportive of attending than men are, with just 51 percent of Republican men saying they’d attend versus 62 percent of Republican women. Among the broader population, 61 percent of men would attend versus 75 percent of women. Maybe that has less to do with women being more pro-gay than men than women being more pro-wedding? You tell me.
Exit question: Is the fact that this was an online poll, not a phone poll, significant?
You did, really, in post #88, where you said no one attains martyr status by not attending a wedding---as though that's what it is.
"how do you know what I know or don’t know...?"
I can only go by what you post, of course, and you say you don't believe homosexuals get married to make political statements.
"sigh...again, how many people get married (legitimate or not, I won’t argue that point)"
There's no point, since we know the answer.
" in order to terrorize their families with political diatribe...the issue turns on one’s willingness to lose a loved one based on maintaining a clear conscience, and that’s a question one must ask before pontificating on this topic..."
I addressed those points in my post to you.
No, actually the question is the hurt to a loved one measured against my faithfulness to my Lord and Savior
fair enough...and my point is not to stipulate right from wrong...merely to point out that this topic is far more complex than a knee jerk, rote response can address...
Funeral food is free, plentiful, and delicious and the deceased doesn’t expect a present. ;)
hmmm...I would respond to your points, but I think you’ve made it clear that you’re not inclined to entertain a reasonable discussion of the topic...
Reuters = Barbara Streisand
LOL
What about the chicks in grief? Surely you have seen the movie “Wedding Crashers” toward the end with the Will Farrell character. Or the Steve Martin movie “All of Me”.
No it was not curiosity, I have been exposed to homosexuals a good bit in my life, there was nothing I saw there that surprised me.
It was an in law, and while I don’t agree with their life, its their life to lead. As much as some evangelicals try to argue they are following the rule of God when they shun the sinners, they frankly are wrong. The only obligation on a Christian is to point out to a sinner they are sinning, because they may not know what they do is a sin... to not do so means that persons sin is also yours. If however they continue to engage in the sin that is on them and not you, you have met your moral obligation to God.
I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I also do not believe that anyone is “born that way” though a small percentage without question are born with urges. By and large homosexuality is a Mental Disorder, I have not seen any evidence to the contrary in my lifetime. The removal from the DSM as a mental defect was done for politics not because any science proved it not to be.
With all that said, I am not here to be the judge and jury of other mens lives. They will stand before their maker one day for what they have done and he will judge them. I do not expect everyone to live the life I live, and I can’t imagine any sane rational adult to expect others to as well.
I will never accept their actions to be normal, no matter how much they can try to propagandize it as such, my children will never see me accept their behavior, they will also never see me treat them without basic human dignity because of it either.
As for your latter question, yes they are still legally “married” and I would suspect they will remain so.
Does that mean that I view their “marriage” the same as I do a traditional marriage? Absolutely not, but I am not worried about the secular world, it has swung to and fro varying attitudes around sexuality over the lifetime of the Church, and Judiasm before it, and both have survived throughout such trials. Their marriage clearly was a political event, it cannot be sanctioned by God and it cannot ever have any chance of procreation through natural means. If the state wishes to call what they have a “marriage” that’s just secular nonsense. No judge or legislature can overturn or rewrite the teachings of the Lord. There will always be sinners in this world, and most deserve pity more than disdain.
My wife is the greatest thing that ever happened to me, and my respect for her is unmatched. And I have no doubt if I talked to her about it, she would listen to me and let me do what I thought I would need to do.
And she is no liberal...she is a believer in being prepared, not depending on others, frugality, responsibility, but there are some things that simply don’t matter to her, or matter much more to me than to her.
I don’t watch television at all, I stopped around the mid-Nineties, and apart from some sporting events, it is excruciating to me to even be seated near a television.
My wife watches television, so it is often on when I walk by, and I sometimes cannot help but growl at something I see.
She often works from home, and has the television on all the time...it doesn’t bother her at all, though it would drive me crazy. Well, one morning I walked by and she had the Today Show on, and they were talking about the book where the guy called Reagan an “amiable dunce”. And every time I walked by, they were still talking about it until I left to go to work.
Next day, same thing
On the third day, I was walking by, and she had it on again, and three days in a row, they were talking about the exact same thing, and I growled loudly “Good God. These people are deranged...I don’t understand how you can watch those mental midgets!” or something like that.
My wife stood up and calmly put her foot down: “I don’t comment or care about what you watch, write, or do, that is your own business as long as you don’t bring angst to our relationship or family, and I expect you to extend me the same courtesy.”
Well, she was right. I live in New England, and she has given me free reign to take part in any political thing I want, she lets me take off and drive down to Washington for demonstrations or to visit with the FR DC Chapter people and Freep outside Walter Reed/Bethesda/Olney, doesn’t say a word and gives me her encouragement and approval. What could I say?
She is entitled to that, and she is right. I can still think the liberals on television are a bunch of self-centered, imbecilic, anti-American, freedom-hating, tyrant-loving morons, but...I keep it to myself.
I don’t know why, but the way you phrased that made me laugh out loud...:)
Which proves absolutely nothing. I went to my nieces gay “wedding”. Did not change anything. I still love my niece and I still oppose the redefining of marriage.
I think everything you described is perfectly reasonable, and as I said, I meant no disrespect to your wife.
All I’m saying is that, if you have misgivings about attending a homo wedding and your wife doesn’t, you shouldn’t be guilted into it. By anyone.
I believe it’s a very serious issue. God created marriage as a sacrament. Homo “weddings” are an open, defiant poke in His eye.
They take something He called detestable, which involves deviants messing with each other’s filthy anal areas, and masquerade it as a holy union. I don’t blame you for having grave misgivings about attending.
Not much of a movie person, haven’t seen either. Do you recommend them? :)
I was just trying to think of the positives. :)
You hit the nail on the head-the wheat is being separated from the chaff. The sodomite agenda is one of the tools being used. God said that He can take that which was meant for evil, and use it for good, and this appears to be a perfect example. True Christians who try to exalt God above all, including family who are living in unrepentant sin, will be separated as wheat from the tares who would allow themselves to be blackmailed by the sodomites. AFAIK, and I have plenty of proof to think I’m right, none of my family is homosexual. (If they are, they’ve hid it well through decades of marriage, many children, homeschooling, witnessing for the Gospel, teaching their children to live Godly lives per the Bible, etc. But if the unthinkable happened, all of my family know the rest of us and where we stand-on the Bible-well enough to know that if they asked any of us to participate in a homosexual union ceremony, to not expect us. I don’t even think they’d be “offended”. The positions of my deceased parents, and that of my 9 siblings, has been clear over the decades. There’s not a chance that they don’t know. This would be one of the fruits of the harvest of trying to live by Bible precepts all these years-that our beliefs are not a secret, and anyone who issues us such an invitation, would only be doing so to test our conviction.
It’s a political statement because homosexuals know that Christians don’t believe that any such thing as “marriage” can exist between two same-sex people, in the sight of God or man, no matter what the law winds up being. Just as we believe that abortion is murder, no matter what Roe v Wade says.
I don’t understand anyone taking a “clear conscience” so lightly. This is a new thing to me. If one believes in the concept of conscience at all, and especially from a Biblical standpoint, how can anyone just toss it off that violation of conscience does not trump “offending” someone, especially when the person is a Christian and our consciences belong to the Holy Spirit? For what other sins should we just blithely ignore our consciences-and God’s plain Word, in order to not “offend” someone? As I said before, everyone draws a line, the only difference is where they draw it. Would these people who are so worried about offending the sodomites, attend the KKK wedding of a family member? Attend a NAMBLA-based ceremony, once that’s legal? Where is their line, and when will they decide that offending someone is less important than answering to God and our consciences, guided by the Holy Spirit? Consistency usually can’t steer you wrong, when it comes to following Biblical precepts. God through His Word will never steer us wrong. And after all, Jesus said that the world would hate us, and that He came not to bring peace, but a sword (the Sword of His Revealed, Inspired Word), which will divide mother from daughter, father from son. This is the perfect example of that.
“My wife is the greatest thing that ever happened to me, and my respect for her is unmatched. And I have no doubt if I talked to her about it, she would listen to me and let me do what I thought I would need to do.”
That is a most excellent post. Spoken from the trenches of real life.
Thank you.
Is she a Christian? IOW, is she open to hearing from God’s own Word why we are not to allow ourselves to be used into even giving the appearance of condoning sin? The only way to show love to homosexuals is to, in agape love, show them their error-and the mercy and forgiveness which God avails to all of us sinners in our repentance. A sodomite union is hardly the place to show that love, as they want you there to help celebrate and memorialise their sin.
Ain’t that the truth, WestwardHo, ain’t that the truth!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.