Which of these are morally acceptable? (question courtesy Gallup)

[courts]

same-sex relationships

But sex out of wedlock is wrong? I see a conflict here.

Define same-sex relationships.

Everyone knows what we're referring to, no need to get graphic here.

[RI]

Everyone knows what we're referring to, no need to get graphic here.

I don't find same-sex relationships inherently wrong per se. Same-sex sexual intercourse? I don't think it's wrong per se...I think. I guess I don't really care about it that much. I guess it would ideally take place in a marriage situation.

[courts]

Everyone knows what we're referring to, no need to get graphic here.

I don't find same-sex relationships inherently wrong per se. Same-sex sexual intercourse? I don't think it's wrong per se...I think. I guess I don't really care about it that much. I guess it would ideally take place in a marriage situation.

Well the point is, gay couples can't get 'married' most places. So that sort of throws a monkey wrench in that. Not that potential child birth is an issue.

But besides that what exactly makes married-sex so special? Is it the ceremony? Or the judge? The legal protection?

[RI]

Everyone knows what we're referring to, no need to get graphic here.

I don't find same-sex relationships inherently wrong per se. Same-sex sexual intercourse? I don't think it's wrong per se...I think. I guess I don't really care about it that much. I guess it would ideally take place in a marriage situation.

Well the point is, gay couples can't get 'married' most places. So that sort of throws a monkey wrench in that. Not that potential child birth is an issue.

But besides that what exactly makes married-sex so special? Is it the ceremony? Or the judge? The legal protection?

Well, no, they can't in a lot of places, but I don't think marriage is something that exists only as a record in a courthouse.

To answer your question properly, I would need to explain a good deal of the metaphysics of my moral philosophy, so my answer wouldn’t apply for a good number of people that you ask that question to.

I’m too tired and in need of getting sleep for my exams in the morning to properly explain it at the moment, but suffice to say that I believe “marriage” exists as the spiritual union of two individuals in a state of perfect spiritual intimacy (regardless of legal status). Physical intimacy serves (or at least should serve) as the tangible manifestation of inner intimacies, and in order to most healthily conduct a relationship, the level of physical intimacy should reflect the level of inner spiritual (and emotional/intellectual/etc.) intimacy. As sex serves as the highest form of physical intimacy, to most healthily engage in it, one should be in the highest state of inner intimacy. Marriage as we know it is, or at least should be, an outward sign of the state of a relationship, but this doesn’t always happen.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

According to my personal morality....

Physician-assisted suicide
Abortion   
Having a baby out of wedlock       
Same-sex relationships       
Sex out of wedlock       
Cloning animals       
Embryonic stem-cell research       
Gambling       
Pornography       
Divorce       
Suicide (not including physician-assisted)       

[Antonio the Sixth]

All but cloning humans, death penalty and polygamy.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

What the hell is the justification for finding medical testing of animals morally acceptable, but cloning of animals immoral? Obviously its not an animal rights position- so it must be a kneejerk reaction against "unnatural" things(never mind the fact that humanity including themselves has essentially abandoned nature, and good riddance).

With polygamy, I don't see any moral issues with it(I'm curious what issue folks that consider it immoral have with it-no it's not sexist, since polygamy can also be 2 men and 1 women, although that is rare). I wouldn't legalize it however because from a legal perspective it's doesn't really fit within the existing legal framework.

[John Dibble]

All of them except cheating on your spouce/significant other, with caveats on a few items of course.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Also odd that the younger generation is less progressive on two issues(whilst being more liberal on all others)- they are more opposed to suicide and animal testing then older generations.

Also, why the hell wasn't marijuana/drug use included in the poll?

[Antonio the Sixth]

To be fair, opposition to animal testing is generally considered as a left-wing position (even though I personally support them).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Depends on the circumstances, for a lot of them. Would suggest that most are 'morally unacceptable' when looked at generically and stripped of context, but that nothing in life is actually generic and stripped of context.

[LBJer]

The only ones I didn't mark as being morally acceptable were buying or wearing clothing made of animal fur, medical testing on animals, cloning humans, and the death penalty. 

Regarding animal fur, I make an exception for groups like Eskimos who depend (now or in the past) on animal fur for clothing. 

I think medical testing on animals is only okay if it's absolutely necessary to prevent death or great suffering to humans or other animals. 

I think cloning humans is wrong because I worry it could lead to the embrace of "master race" ideas like those of the Nazis, and attempts to create such a race.

As far as the death penalty, I do think some people do things that are so bad that they deserve to be killed, and that moreover, sometimes it's one hundred percent clear they did them.  In these cases, I think killing them is justifiable or excusable.  In the show NCIS, for example, I didn't have a problem with Leroy Jethrow Gibbs killing the drug dealer who killed his family.  But I think it's wrong to have the death penalty as a legal punishment which anyone could be subject to, because the potential for an innocent person to be executed is simply too great.

Although these four things are the only ones I didn't mark as morally acceptable, I think there are other things on the list that are wrong in certain situations.  I consider gambling and cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable, but not using your family's life savings to gamble, or having unprotected sex with prostitutes and then going home and doing the same with your wife, putting her at grave risk for serious STDs.

[Phony Moderate]

Depends on the circumstances, for a lot of them.

This. But I'd only outlaw medical testing on animals and the death penalty.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why?

[LBJer]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why?

I think someone has a right to have sex with whoever they please, provided the person they're having it with is a consenting adult.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why?

I think someone has a right to have sex with whoever they please, provided the person they're having it with is a consenting adult.

A right that is absolute and cannot be impinged upon by prior promises to other people?

I think someone has the right to have promises kept, consenting adults or not.

[LBJer]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why?

I think someone has a right to have sex with whoever they please, provided the person they're having it with is a consenting adult.

A right that is absolute and cannot be impinged upon by prior promises to other people?

Yes.

I think the idea that people automatically have to keep promises they make is childish in the extreme.  Whether a promise must be kept depends on the nature of the promise.  I certainly don't think a promise like this one, that restricts basic human freedom, has to be kept.

What if a couple promised each other they'd stay together for at least 20 years?  What if they promised to never divorce?  Would those promises have to be kept too?  If you're not going to say yes, then I don't see how you can say that breaking a promise not to have sex with someone else is automatically wrong.

[Cincinnatus]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why?

I think someone has a right to have sex with whoever they please, provided the person they're having it with is a consenting adult.

A right that is absolute and cannot be impinged upon by prior promises to other people?

Yes.

I think the idea that people automatically have to keep promises they make is childish in the extreme.  Whether a promise must be kept depends on the nature of the promise.  I certainly don't think a promise like this one, that restricts basic human freedom, has to be kept.

What if a couple promised each other they'd stay together for at least 20 years?  What if they promised to never divorce?  Would those promises have to be kept too?  If you're not going to say yes, then I don't see how you can say that breaking a promise not to have sex with someone else is automatically wrong.

This is not about who has a right to do what.  It's about what's morally acceptable.  Can I assume that you find it morally acceptable to cheat on your wife?  If so, I hope she takes everything...

[LBJer]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why?

I think someone has a right to have sex with whoever they please, provided the person they're having it with is a consenting adult.

A right that is absolute and cannot be impinged upon by prior promises to other people?

Yes.

I think the idea that people automatically have to keep promises they make is childish in the extreme.  Whether a promise must be kept depends on the nature of the promise.  I certainly don't think a promise like this one, that restricts basic human freedom, has to be kept.

What if a couple promised each other they'd stay together for at least 20 years?  What if they promised to never divorce?  Would those promises have to be kept too?  If you're not going to say yes, then I don't see how you can say that breaking a promise not to have sex with someone else is automatically wrong.

This is not about who has a right to do what.  It's about what's morally acceptable.  Can I assume that you find it morally acceptable to cheat on your wife?  If so, I hope she takes everything...

I just explained why I believe infidelity is morally acceptable. 

By the way, I'm not married and I don't intend to ever get married.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I consider....cheating on a spouse/significant other generally acceptable,

...must I ask why

I think someone has a right to have sex with whoever they please, provided the person they're having it with is a consenting adult.

A right that is absolute and cannot be impinged upon by prior promises to other people?

Yes.

I think the idea that people automatically have to keep promises they make is childish in the extreme.  Whether a promise must be kept depends on the nature of the promise.  I certainly don't think a promise like this one, that restricts basic human freedom, has to be kept.

What if a couple promised each other they'd stay together for at least 20 years?  What if they promised to never divorce?  Would those promises have to be kept too?  If you're not going to say yes, then I don't see how you can say that breaking a promise not to have sex with someone else is automatically wrong.

Congratulations. I'm going to say yes.

The right to expect honesty is more basic than the right to have somebody make your penis or vagina feel good.

ETA: I should clarify that I do think that there are things that people can do to each other that can justify oathbreaking, things that are just too much to bear. Domestic abuse is one. Having the attitude towards relationships that LBJer seems to is another.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Morality, I think is something very personal.

I would never cheat on a partner as a relationship is entirely about trust for me... If I cheat, I'm breaking that trust - if they cheat, they're doing the same to me.

[Person Man]

One thing I don't understand is why cloning is so bad if were going to be ok with abortion. In all honesty, abortion is probably more wrongful than human cloning. All human cloning involves is a new way of conception, just as in vitro fertilization did in the late 70s. I could see that human cloning may increase the risk of a birth defect, but that in itself doesn't make it an intentionally injurous act for no just reason, an act of fraud, a felony or a misdemeanor with malice aforethought (acts of moral turptitide). That's how I decide what is and is not morally acceptable.

For example-

Physician-assisted suicide - Acceptable, an adult is consenting when both patient and doctor agree that there is no palpable options for end-of-life care.
Abortion - Women and girls have abortions for all kinds of reasons....some people consider abortion to be violent homicide and some people simply consider it a dishonest misdemeanor or simply a mistkae and some people don't think there's anything wrong with it. I personally beleive it could be any one of these things but I don't think you can prove that anything with certainty about abortion.
Having a baby out of wedlock - Just because a dishonest act caused a girl to become pregnant does not mean that it would be dishonest to have the child.
Buying/wearing animal fur  - A person isn't being harmed and its not dishonest to do what has been established as a survival behavior of people.
Same-sex relationships  - Getting effed in the a by another dude simply isn't dishonest, violent or causes anyone to be dishonest or violent in itself. 
Medical testing on animals  - I guess violence against animals would be a violent act if it were gratutitous, but I think this isn't gratutitously violent.
Sex out of wedlock - Dishonesty has to be based on a promise give or the right of another. sex between unmarried people doesn't do any of these things.   
Cloning animals - Not gratutiously violent
Cloning humans  - See above
Embryonic stem-cell research - see abortion
Gambling   - There's nothing dishonest about taking someone's money when they offer it unless the gamble was fraudulent.
Pornography - see sex out of wedlock
Death Penalty - It probably is somewhat less acceptable than abortion. In abortion, you may or may not prove that the act is felonious violence in itself. Here, you must prove that it was absolutely  neccesary for the defense of others. Simply killing someone who killed someone isn't defending someone.
Divorce - Its not dishonest to mutually end a contract through accord.
Suicide (not including physician-assisted ) - Violence for no apparent reason is a morally turpid act though it would not prevent it or treat it by making it a crime.
Polygamy  - I don't know if it is possible to honestly love more than one person.
Cheating on a spouse/significant other - This is dishonest and therefore morally unacceptable.

[Frodo]

I see I am more conservative than most here. 

All except abortion, having a baby out of wedlock, buying/wearing animal fur (in the context of modern society, that is -I am more understanding of isolated tribal societies still living in the Stone Age), human cloning, suicide, polygamy, and cheating on your spouse/significant other. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Suicide, polygamy, cheating, cloning humans, the baby out of wedlock depends, although I'm not keen on it. Call me a traditionalist.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand most of the positions I disagree with, but why the hell should suicide not be acceptable ?