D
DrTaffy
Guest
Oh, I see. A phone-in ‘poll’ on a TV show would certainly explain why its results differ so much from the other polls.
Still, if you feel it’s results are valid you could try adding it to the Wikipedia page.
- Status
Still, if you feel it’s results are valid you could try adding it to the Wikipedia page.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Michael Voris is down there now … in Oz … he’s discussed this …
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Haha Michael Voris is down there?
That’s probably why they legalised it now, just to get him angry
That’s probably why they legalised it now, just to get him angry
A
ATeNumquam
Guest
Well, clearly you despise a TV phone-in poll, but I’d have no hesitation in saying that I believe that represents “heartland New Zealand” better than, say, the Herald Digi-Polls quoted in the Wikipedia article.Oh, I see. A phone-in ‘poll’ on a TV show would certainly explain why its results differ so much from the other polls.
Still, if you feel it’s results are valid you could try adding it to the Wikipedia page.
The Campbell Live programme is a serious post-evening news prime-time current affairs programme which I think is watched by a true cross-section of NZ society. “The Herald” is a big-city newspaper which would be read by more liberal-leaning, secular minded people.
Unfortunately the words and actions of too many who were against this bill and the lack of enough good, reasoned arguments (published) as to why it should not become law, will have swung the undecided or the uncaring to vote for it in those polls.
Yes, NZ is definitely a secular society - more so than the US and even Australia - but I bet that most people over 50 who are not intellectuals, or gay - just your average person in the street - would have been against this bill. Ditto indigeneous Maori and the very large Pacific Island and other immigrant groups of all ages who do not usually take part in polls. That’s my true gut feeling from actually living in this country, whatever those other polls say.
Well, whatever - it has passed now
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ezekiel 16:49 “Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor.” (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
meltzerboy
New member
And, just out of curiosity, has this created many problems in Canada regarding religious objections to performing wedding ceremonies, gay couple adoptions from Catholic agencies, legalization of polygamy on the horizon, and so on?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Canada justice department report has called for the decriminalization of polygamy:
wwrn.org/articles/20090/?&place=canada§ion=flds
washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/17/wetzstein-making-a-case-for-monogamy
Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada
thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Perhaps in part, but it’s certainly not what the text in Genesis implies. There was definitely something sexual going on there, and not merely refusing to care for the poor.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Yes it appears from the account that something was going on. Perhaps rape. We are told the entire population of men were involved. The first thing I question is whether every man was a homosexual when it is upwards of 10% of people that are said to be. But then we go on to read Lot offered up his daughters for sex in exchange for the angels. And if homosexuality was the issue and the entire population of men surrounding Lot’s house were gay men, offering his daughters as a bribe would not have worked. So I simply find it more plausible it perhaps was pride, arrogance, sin mentioned in Ezekiel in addition to not doing enough to help the poor. A desire to express prideful power and control, which was in this case, expressed by a desire to rape. But as with many things, Christians continue to debate this. Peace.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Sure. I’d say it was probably more a case of some kind of pack/group rape situation, not strictly “homosexual” in character though, in this case, it would have involved homosexual activity. Obviously, these fellows were condemned for quite a lot!!!
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t say I despise them, but they are very different beasties from a properly conducted random-sample poll. Nor am I saying that every poll listed in the Wikipedia article was conducted ‘properly’ - that’s why I suggested you try adding your poll if you think it is indeed valid.
The fact that this was a self-selecting phone in poll from the audience of a particular programme does, however, give a likely explanation of why its results were so different from the others.
Because people who are under 50, gay or ‘intellectual’ don’t deserve a say in running the country?
O
OriginalJS
Guest
This raises an important point. Demographics play a big role on the issue of same sex marriage. In Minnesota last year the Church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a campaign supporting a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man one woman. The effort failed. A hard look at the county by county results showed that rural counties with older populations supported the amendment, but the urban counties which had larger populations and more young people, and more highly educated people, did not. (All the election information is available on the Minnesota Secretary of State’s website. Other demographic information is easily available on the net.) Driving around Minneapolis before the vote there was a large number of signs that said things like, “Another Catholic for Marriage Equality.” You just didn’t see those signs in rural areas.Because people who are under 50, gay or ‘intellectual’ don’t deserve a say in running the country?
A
ATeNumquam
Guest
This is exactly how it is here.
New Zealand is a largely agricultural, rural country, and these rural populations are both older and more conservative. Who polled these people? Not big-city newspapers or other research organisations.
They are also the majority of the total population here.
Young people are far more likely to be in the cities, and city people, “intellectuals and liberals” as I called them, and gays, are considerably more likely to have voted in favour of the bill. (Incidentally, I am a city person with a decent education myself, and not extremely conservative - but on this marriage issue I am. My workplace is full of gays and I am a million miles from being anti-gay)
Of course the above-mentioned have a right to an opinion, but the point I was making in my earlier post was that in THIS country (I’m not talking about anyone else’s) they are not the majority, so there is an element of the undemocratic about this result.
A
ATeNumquam
Guest
See my reply above.The fact that this was a self-selecting phone in poll from the audience of a particular programme does, however, give a likely explanation of why its results were so different from the others.
Because people who are under 50, gay or ‘intellectual’ don’t deserve a say in running the country?
And, as to your first sentence - this telephone poll was probably the only poll to even reach our large rural population, so that’s why I believe it was valid.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
If they are not in the majority, why would a randomised telephone poll of voters over-represent them? Why do you need to go to a self-selecting ‘poll’ of one TV programme’s audience to get the response you want?
What is your evidence for that assertion (the one highlighted in red above)? Given, for example, the statistics explicitly listed in the Colmar Brunton Poll for results from “Small towns/rural areas” which still show a majority of 59% in favour of gay marriage to 33% opposed. The methodology explicitly states: “using stratified random probability sampling to ensure the sample includes the correct proportion of people in urban and rural areas”!
Does your ‘large rural population’ not have telephones, or not appear on the electoral roll?
Obviously if you restrict the ‘eligible’ voters to ridiculous extents such as “illiterate heterosexual christian white people over 75 who go the same church as you”, then you might any result you want. But isn’t it the opinion of an unbiased cross-section of society that counts most?
S
Slaney
Guest
David Cameron is economical with the truth, defend marriage my big toe !
- Status