Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on July 21, 2014, 09:13:33 AM
-
I remembered this question has come up before. I heard mention of this last week and thought I would pass it on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.
The overwhelming majority of adults, 96.6 percent, labeled themselves as straight in the 2013 survey. An additional 1.1 percent declined to answer, responded “I don’t know the answer” or said they were “something else.”
The commentary I heard last week was pointing out that based on actual population, gays and lesbians over represented in media and have a lot of political influence.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm
This was another link that popped up on the Bing search of other data.
-
fabulous!
-
There are probably another 5% that might be maybe/sorta/kind of or experimented once in college once while drunk that are being counted in the usually statistics. :laugh:
-
There are probably another 5% that might be maybe/sorta/kind of or experimented once in college once while drunk that are being counted in the usually statistics. :laugh:
Are you trying to tell us something? ;)
-
So, really, it's less than 2.5%?
So, the fewer of them, the more special they are? The more oppressed, and in need of our help? Maybe they can demand reparations.
-
Look at the bright side.
In another couple of generations straight white males will be in such a minority that they'll probably put us in a zoo.
All kinds of special then.
:police:
-
Look at the bright side.
In another couple of generations straight white males will be in such a minority that they'll probably put us in a zoo.
All kinds of special then.
:police:
Can I be in the cage with the spider monkeys?
-
Look at the bright side.
In another couple of generations straight white males will be in such a minority that they'll probably put us in a zoo.
All kinds of special then.
:police:
I think we have already reached the point where straight white males should automatically qualify for Minority Business Enterprise status. Add "Christian" to that and it should be a slam dunk.
-
I think we have already reached the point where straight white males should automatically qualify for Minority Business Enterprise status. Add "Christian" to that and it should be a slam dunk.
I think there should be some kind of hate crime victim status for us after all the things I read after the recent Hobby Lobby decision about ridding the Earth of all old white males. Seems to me that talk of genocide should qualify.
-
think we have already reached the point where straight white males should automatically qualify for Minority Business Enterprise status. Add "Christian" to that and it should be a slam dunk.
Political/religious minority status worked out really well for others in fascist countries in the 20th century.
-
Political/religious minority status worked out really well for others in fascist countries in the 20th century.
We still have our guns.And the lessons from history to learn from.
-
We still have our guns.And the lessons from history to learn from.
If we learned anything from history, those guns would have been used a long time ago. :facepalm:
-
If we learned anything from history, those guns would have been used a long time ago. :facepalm:
Careful.Or this thread will get moved to politics. [tinfoil]
-
Can I be in the cage with the spider monkeys?
Suit yourself. I want to be the limited commodity in the cage full of straight women.
-
Then consider that only a single digit percentage of that small minority will avail themselves of same sex "marriage" if it's available.
The battle against gay marriage is a pointless exercise IMHO. Much ado about nothing.
-
Then consider that only a single digit percentage of that small minority will avail themselves of same sex "marriage" if it's available.
The battle against gay marriage is a pointless exercise IMHO. Much ado about nothing.
It was never about the numbers, for either side.
-
It was never about the numbers, for either side.
As professed followers of Christ there is a contingent of the homosexual/progressive population who have chosen to be our enemy.
Our responsibility is to love them.
Generally what I'm observing in the media from "Christian leaders" is a wide scale condemnation of all gay folks, stereotyping all of them into an easy to hate enemy. In fact I'm not seeing any love at all from "Christians" toward the militant gay crowd (except from the old line liberal and doctrinally confused progressive Christian crowd) . I'm pretty sure the vast middle of marginal or non-believers aren't seeing any love either. What they do see is an almost irrational dislike of the "other" from institutional orthodox Christianity. Now it may be a natural response to the militants actions but in practice it alienates not only homosexual folks but their friends and families.
Maybe as followers of Christ we should focus on some other sins like our love of money, gluttony or our abdication of taking care of the poor and in need to the secular state.
Considering the state of true marriage in our churches a little bit of humility is in order.
-
As professed followers of Christ there is a contingent of the homosexual/progressive population who have chosen to be our enemy.
Our responsibility is to love them.
Generally what I'm observing in the media from "Christian leaders" is a wide scale condemnation of all gay folks, stereotyping all of them into an easy to hate enemy. In fact I'm not seeing any love at all from "Christians" toward the militant gay crowd (except from the old line liberal and doctrinally confused progressive Christian crowd) . I'm pretty sure the vast middle of marginal or non-believers aren't seeing any love either. What they do see is an almost irrational dislike of the "other" from institutional orthodox Christianity. Now it may be a natural response to the militants actions but in practice it alienates not only homosexual folks but their friends and families.
Maybe as followers of Christ we should focus on some other sins like our love of money, gluttony or our abdication of taking care of the poor and in need to the secular state.
Considering the state of true marriage in our churches a little bit of humility is in order.
x100
I think the gay folks are picked out because it is easier to find fault in others than in yourself.
-
"Doctrinally confused progressive Christian crowd"? What is that?
-
"Doctrinally confused progressive Christian crowd"? What is that?
Those Christians who have abandoned objective truth for some type of post modern view of truth.
The Emerging Church movement is pretty much rife with post modern thought and I fear for where that will lead them in the long run.
Having said that, I appreciate some of the challenges to orthodox thought they have mounted while being very leery of their shaky hermeneutics.
-
Those Christians who have abandoned objective truth for some type of post modern view of truth.
The Emerging Church movement is pretty much rife with post modern thought and I fear for where that will lead them in the long run.
Having said that, I appreciate some of the challenges to orthodox thought they have mounted while being very leery of their shaky hermeneutics.
Maybe you need to go find a Cowboy Church. My boss is active in one of those. I have never been to one.
-
As professed followers of Christ there is a contingent of the homosexual/progressive population who have chosen to be our enemy.
Our responsibility is to love them.
Generally what I'm observing in the media from "Christian leaders" is a wide scale condemnation of all gay folks, stereotyping all of them into an easy to hate enemy. In fact I'm not seeing any love at all from "Christians" toward the militant gay crowd (except from the old line liberal and doctrinally confused progressive Christian crowd) . I'm pretty sure the vast middle of marginal or non-believers aren't seeing any love either. What they do see is an almost irrational dislike of the "other" from institutional orthodox Christianity. Now it may be a natural response to the militants actions but in practice it alienates not only homosexual folks but their friends and families.
Maybe as followers of Christ we should focus on some other sins like our love of money, gluttony or our abdication of taking care of the poor and in need to the secular state.
Considering the state of true marriage in our churches a little bit of humility is in order.
The "Christian leaders" you're referring to have as much to do with actual Christians as Al Sharpton has to do with non-ghetto blacks.
-
Also, Ron, here's a good example of why we can't just "live and let live, ignore it and concentrate on important things" etc etc.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/07/22/want-prove-dont-hate-gays-all-you-have-to-do-is-worship-at-their-feet/
I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I’ve never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal’s rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, “man, these people REALLY need to chill.”
It’s because they’ve claimed so many victories that they have earned the luxury to demand more than a cowering tolerance from their ideological opponents. Conservatives and Christians who tried to keep their hands clean by merely putting up with the slaughter of children and the destruction of the nuclear family are now faced with a dilemma. They can’t just tacitly endorse evil anymore — they are going to be required to give their enthusiastic and active approval. Silence will be viewed as dissent, and dissent is the highest crime.
This isn't really relevant, but it is hilarious.
I’ll say this for Olbermann: once he’s fired again, he can look back at his stints on Current TV, MSNBC, and ESPN 2, and take pride in being the only guy who wasn’t good enough to hold a job at the three most irrelevant networks in the history of television.
-
Ron,
I share your concerns. Unfortunately, it is not very loving to paint with such a broad brush. You also treat these things as if they were mutually exclusive. There's no reason why churches can't fulfill their God-given mission to love the poor and the sinners, while also reproving sin. While doing that, they can also join other pro-reason folks in opposing irrational govt policies (same-sex marriage, etc.).
-
n/m
-
Ron,
I share your concerns. Unfortunately, it is not very loving to paint with such a broad brush. You also treat these things as if they were mutually exclusive. There's no reason why churches can't fulfill their God-given mission to love the poor and the sinners, while also reproving sin. While doing that, they can also join other pro-reason folks in opposing irrational govt policies (same-sex marriage, etc.).
I guess I need to ask specifically what you are referring to as being broad brush and where I was unloving.
Over the years I've attended my fair share of fundamentalist as well as evangelical churches. I've listened to Christian media and read the tomes and editorials from the movers and shakers from across the spectrum of Christendom.
Personally I think the "church" has gone astray and is seeking influence and authority to use coercion (the power of the state) to define the culture.
That is not the way.
IMHO
-
I guess I need to ask specifically what you are referring to as being broad brush and where I was unloving.
How about right here:
Personally I think the "church" has gone astray and is seeking influence and authority to use coercion (the power of the state) to define the culture.
That's just not true. It may be true of some churches (or "churches"), but it's an unsupportably broad accusation.
Even if you're correct about the above, the church has no right to choose its own program. It is commanded to spread the Gospel, care for the downtrodden, love our enemies, families, friends and neighbors, AND expose the "deeds of darkness." So while I agree that we sometimes lose sight of loving those outside the church, that doesn't mean we stop speaking against sin.
Caveat: I don't mean to say that every Christian, or every local congregation, must do all of those things to the same extent, at the same time. Nor do I think politics must always, or even very often, be involved.
-
You've never heard of the Moral Majority? The impact of the evangelical embrace of political power in the 80's and 90's is still reverberating to this day. My conversion to Christ occurred during the Reagan revolution at the heyday of the moral majority. I've thought on our missteps for decades. Instead of changing hearts for Christ evangelicals/fundamentalists have become a "hiss and a byword".
The defense of marriage laws across the country seek to codify, in law, for believers and unbelievers alike, a "Christian" standard of marriage (that I concur with BTW). I'm just opposed to using the power of the state to impose our standard. Yes calling anything other than a male/female union marriage is silly...
The formulation of life, liberty and property seems an appropriate realm to limit government involvement in an individuals life, and then only protecting the free exercise thereof not providing or entitling. Freedom of conscience works both ways, nobody should dictate by coercion how it will be on matters not infringing on life, liberty or property.
Since when is pointing out the "Churches" reflexive moves using the power of the state against cultural shifts and decline unloving?
I've just adopted the original concept of separation of church and state as expressed by Roger Williams. Whenever the two are mixed the pure is fouled and the foul is no better.
-
Oh, OK, then feel free to characterize a huge, diverse group of people based on a bygone movement that some of them supported, and a set of laws that could not possibly have forced any moral standard or belief system on anyone.
Ron, you're badmouthing your own people in public, and that speciously. I'm sorry if that doesn't seem very kind, to me.
-
"Doctrinally confused progressive Christian crowd"? What is that?
Some body that doesn't believe the exact same thing he does.
-
Some body that doesn't believe the exact same thing he does.
Well I guess that is somewhat true. I do have a problem with the importation of post modern philosophy into Christian theology. That I guess is a whole different discussion.
Like I said earlier though I do appreciate and am challenged by some of the ideas about the church and Christs life that they have espoused.
Thanks for your great contribution to this thread ;)
-
Oh, OK, then feel free to characterize a huge, diverse group of people based on a bygone movement that some of them supported, and a set of laws that could not possibly have forced any moral standard or belief system on anyone.
Ron, you're badmouthing your own people in public, and that speciously. I'm sorry if that doesn't seem very kind, to me.
How many states were motivated to make laws specifically aimed at keeping gay folks from getting "married" and weren't conservative Christians of every stripe the primary actors in that reactionary movement? Institutionally Christians have joined battle against the progressive homosexual lobby. There is a struggle for power, for control of the coercive force of government instead of a struggle for hearts and minds. This is not obvious? I fail to see how my argument is specious.
If pointing out where we are deviating from what I perceive to be Christlike behavior is considered "badmouthing" then so be it. Nothing I've said is a secret to the folks reading these pages, they are widely read and politically aware. Not all of them see this political battle as a fight between the forces of light and darkness, good and evil. Many are opposed to what they see as Christians grabbing ahold of the levers of power in an attempt to build the Kingdom of God on earth. We need to reflect and consider if there is some truth to that. Just because you disagree with my analysis you consider it badmouthing. If someone agrees they would call it speaking the truth. Myself, I call it dialog.
-
Some body that doesn't believe the exact same thing he does.
Yeah, not so much.
For instance, examples of doctrinally coherent denominations are the Roman Catholic Church, the (big-O) Orthodox church, and those churches from the reformation that trace their current doctrine & practice back to Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli. They have had ~2000 or ~500 years to refine their doctrines into logical and coherent wholes. Heck, even those denominations that coalesced in the 19th century and were initially heavy on religious enthusiasm and light on doctrinal rigor have done a fair job in their 100 years of existence. Think the pentacostal movement, LDS, and others.
You or I may disagree with their initial assumptions or logical conclusions along the way, but because/despite they have had 200/500/100 years for some very sharp men to help explicate their doctrine, their doctrines are coherent and not confused.
On the other hand, there are the church bodies that have attempted to graft contemporary sensibilities on to their doctrine and end up with a Frankenstein's Monster where nothing lines up and coheres with the foundational doctrine. Part of the reason they are dying is that once you get past the surface, the incoherence and doctrinal confusion is damn near impossible to miss. Toss in the "new" church movements that come about every generation ("emergent church," for example) that usually are nothing more than ancient or medieval heresies long since discredited gussied up in hippie/hipster garb and you have the stable of "doctrinally confused progressive Christian" groups/denominations.
Ron:
You assume that Christians can not chew gum and walk at the same time. And that somehow their doctrine requires them to exit the civil realm...when most Christian's doctrine requires them to participate in civil society, to include gov't policy. It is a weak argument logically and unsupported by most churches' doctrine.
-
=D [popcorn]
-
<snip>
Ron:
You assume that Christians can not chew gum and walk at the same time. And that somehow their doctrine requires them to exit the civil realm...when most Christian's doctrine requires them to participate in civil society, to include gov't policy. It is a weak argument logically and unsupported by most churches' doctrine.
Thanks for hopping in and speaking to orthodoxy. Even though we are pretty far apart in the Christian continuum I think you do a much better job at that than I do.
There are some areas where I believe followers of Jesus must try and influence the laws of civil society. In areas regarding the protection of life, liberty and property Christians should be in the vanguard.
Any law that expands or protects the individuals freedom is worthy of our support.
In America, let alone the world I don't find Christendom as a whole to be very small government minded, despite the occasional rhetoric otherwise.
-
As a Christian the only political philosophy(s) I find consistent with my walk with Christ would be classical liberalism or some form of libertarianism, just short of anarchy.
I believe in free will, freedom of conscience as well as inalienable human rights.
That also means the freedom to choose to reject my particular world view.
Governments like physicians should be charged first with do no harm (to life, liberty and property rights)
We should reject the use of government as a cudgel to forge the city of God.
-
=D [popcorn]
Announcer: "To my left in the unrelieved black trunks, Thomas Aquinas! with his Summa Theologica, weighing in at over three thousand pages of closely argued objections & refutations rendered in tiny font. To my right, in the stylish and mildly ironic light blue trunks that hearken back to the golden age of boxing (sourced from a store you wouldn't know somewhere in Austin, Texas) Brian McLaren! with his Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?, weighing in at 281 pages of humorous and thought-provoking anecdotes deliberately lacking in propositional truth."
--three minutes later--
Ringside Commentator: "Bob, I tell you, I have not seen such a rout since Tyson destroyed McNeely in 90 seconds. And the drama of Aquinas's trainer, Aristotle, encouraging him by shouting, "Give him the Averroes/Augustine combo, Thomas, for the love of faith and reason!" as Aquinas stepped out of his corner at the bell. Despite his age, Aquinas was nimble on his feet and landed hammer blow after hammer blow with his Summa. McLaren, careful up to this point to avoid a bout in the Theological Heavyweight division, quickly had his latest tome knocked from his grasp and could resort only to shouting out claims of tolerance and bad imitations of southern accents such as "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," in a snarky and ironic fashion. At 1:29 McLaren's trainers, Jacques Derrida and a previously unknown child who we were informed by McLaren's publicist is a Muslim refugee from Algeria, seeing McLaren in unrecoverable distress after being knocked down repeatedly, threw in the towel, shouting, "This is only a loss in this context!"
---ten minutes later---
Announcer: "Be sure to come back next week, to see Martin Luther and his Small Catechism take on Rob Bell and his Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. Sure to be a knock-down drag-out fight to the finish..."
-
Announcer: "Be sure to come back next week, to see Martin Luther and his Small Catechism take on Rob Bell and his Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. Sure to be a knock-down drag-out fight to the finish..."
:lol:
-
Thanks for hopping in and speaking to orthodoxy. Even though we are pretty far apart in the Christian continuum I think you do a much better job at that than I do.
There are some areas where I believe followers of Jesus must try and influence the laws of civil society. In areas regarding the protection of life, liberty and property Christians should be in the vanguard.
Any law that expands or protects the individuals freedom is worthy of our support.
In America, let alone the world I don't find Christendom as a whole to be very small government minded, despite the occasional rhetoric otherwise.
In America, let alone the world, almost no one is small .gov minded. It's an extremely minority position globally as well as locally.