Atlas Sexual Morality Poll

[Idaho Conservative]

I came across the Relationships in America Survey and was curious how Atlas would compare to America at large (and various subsets). Please vote whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse.

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7) I support abortion rights.

And my answers

1) Disagree
2) Disagree
3) Disagree
4) Agree
5) Disagree
6) Disagree
7) Disagree

Same here.

The only one of these questions that had SOME wiggle room with me was #4.  Adultery is Biblical grounds for divorce, so I can't fault someone who makes that choice.  But, yes, I agree that two parents shouldn't divorce just because they've fallen out of love, or however they put it.

this

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I came across the Relationships in America Survey and was curious how Atlas would compare to America at large (and various subsets). Please vote whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse.

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7) I support abortion rights.

And my answers

1) Disagree
2) Disagree
3) Disagree
4) Agree
5) Disagree
6) Disagree
7) Disagree

Same here.

The only one of these questions that had SOME wiggle room with me was #4.  Adultery is Biblical grounds for divorce, so I can't fault someone who makes that choice.  But, yes, I agree that two parents shouldn't divorce just because they've fallen out of love, or however they put it.

this

ahahahahahahahahaha

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

[Xing]

Agree on all except 4. As difficult as divorce is for children, living in a household where parents constantly fight (even if no abuse takes place) can be much more damaging.

For number 5, while I'd personally never want to be in an open marriage, if both people in the relationship are aware of what's going on and okay with it, I don't think it's really my place to stand in their way.

[Idaho Conservative]

I came across the Relationships in America Survey and was curious how Atlas would compare to America at large (and various subsets). Please vote whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse.

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7) I support abortion rights.

And my answers

1) Disagree
2) Disagree
3) Disagree
4) Agree
5) Disagree
6) Disagree
7) Disagree

Same here.

The only one of these questions that had SOME wiggle room with me was #4.  Adultery is Biblical grounds for divorce, so I can't fault someone who makes that choice.  But, yes, I agree that two parents shouldn't divorce just because they've fallen out of love, or however they put it.

this

ahahahahahahahahaha

what's wrong with that?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse.

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7) I support abortion rights.

Several of these come with caveats, though.  For one thing I think that there are strong differences between pornography as opposed to erotica, and the use of hard pornographic material has already been proven to be psychologically damaging and harmful to committed relationships.  Also, I'm opposed to promiscuity and 'meaningless' sex, but I am not an absolutist on premarital sex either.

My own abstention from sex comes more from mental health issues than anything moral or religious, but I have great respect for people who practice chastity as well.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

If jmfcst wasn't banned I'm sure he would rattle off a dozen Bible quotes agreeing with that statement (I'll spare you ) but it's clear from both scripture and tradition (meaning the hermeneutic of continuity) that masturbation is sinful in the context of Christianity.

In a sick way it's almost funny reading this knowing what we know about jamfist and his murdered co-worker/fap friend.

[DC Al Fine]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

You moved so fast from posturing about facts to an emotional appeal I got whiplash. Fuzzy Bear's post was rational, you did nothing to attack his logic or dispute his facts and yet you accuse the pro-life side of only being concerned with feelings. Good grief.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

You moved so fast from posturing about facts to an emotional appeal I got whiplash. Fuzzy Bear's post was rational, you did nothing to attack his logic or dispute his facts and yet you accuse the pro-life side of only being concerned with feelings. Good grief.

Because believing that embryos are human beings who suffer like the rest of us and whose termination is murder is a belief. The fact that back-alley abortions can be very dangerous and that being forced to carry a child isn't a fun experience is not disputed by anyone. So yes, the pro-life side has no evidence to back up its belief that embryos are persons- it's merely a belief.

You have a right to believe that, but I'm not going to stand by when real humans suffer because of beliefs, whether they're women, LGBTQ folks or members of minority religions. Also, Fuzzy's post is ridiculous- "a stage of human development you and I were once at" is an emotional appeal if I ever saw one, you can claim it about the stage of a sperm just like you can claim it about an embryo.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok. ✓

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another. ✓

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further. ✓

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse. ✓

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse. X

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship. ✓

7) I support abortion rights. ✓

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I just took the opportunity to go back through some of these comments and the results. It's amazing just how far outside of the mainstream the youth, specifically on here, are these days. The results for #1, 3 and 6 are genuinely terrifying. Is this the price we pay for the Bush's quagmire? Total rebellion against all that is good because a southern Christian made a grave moral error. Forever the worst President.

Not to take too much blame off Blow Job Bill and his sidekick who invented the disaster known as the Internet.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I disagree with 1 and 3.  These both cause risk of addiction and damage as well as warped expectations that make stable, long term, committed relationships more difficult.

The rest are negotiable, though I am very uneasy about 6.  It would be very difficult to make work.  As for 5, there are limited circumstances where I think it would be appropriate.  A spouse that can no longer have sex for whatever reason being one.  In any case it would have to be consensual among all 3 involved.’

4 is tricky.  The couple should try to reconcile and fall back in love...but if they can’t, and it is especially hurting the children...they should split.

[DC Al Fine]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

You moved so fast from posturing about facts to an emotional appeal I got whiplash. Fuzzy Bear's post was rational, you did nothing to attack his logic or dispute his facts and yet you accuse the pro-life side of only being concerned with feelings. Good grief.

Because believing that embryos are human beings who suffer like the rest of us and whose termination is murder is a belief. The fact that back-alley abortions can be very dangerous and that being forced to carry a child isn't a fun experience is not disputed by anyone. So yes, the pro-life side has no evidence to back up its belief that embryos are persons- it's merely a belief.

You have a right to believe that, but I'm not going to stand by when real humans suffer because of beliefs, whether they're women, LGBTQ folks or members of minority religions. Also, Fuzzy's post is ridiculous- "a stage of human development you and I were once at" is an emotional appeal if I ever saw one, you can claim it about the stage of a sperm just like you can claim it about an embryo.

The lack of self awareness here is kind of funny. Like you go from criticizing emotional appeals to making them in the same paragraph. Like I said in my last post, I'm getting whiplash .

Now that that's out of the way, there are a few major issues with your argument:

1) You get your facts wrong on a couple of points. First, you criticize us for believing embryos "suffer like the rest of us". Fetesus do feel pain (around 30 weeks I think) and neither I nor Fuzzy claimed that embryos did. You either mistakenly believe that fetuses can't feel pain or misrepresented mine and Fuzzy's position. Second, you can't claim a sperm is a stage of your development because it isn't you. My daughter is genetically unique and distinct from me going back to when she was an ovum, while my sperm is not.

2) You're playing fast and loose with the words "fact" and "belief". We are discussing "personhood". It is a "fact" that someone is or isn't a person according to a definition of personhood, but I dispute that there is a single definition of personhood that is a "fact" on the same level as "2+2=4".

Rather, I posit:

a) Being a member of homo sapiens sapiens should be sufficient to meet the definition of personhood, regardless of stage of development or dependence on others to stay alive

b) Pro choicers (with a few exceptions like Peter Singer who bite the bullet) are being inconsistent when denying fetuses personhood either because a fetus meets their definition of personhood or because their definition excludes classes of people that they treat as non-persons.

This leads to my last point

3) You keep talking about "real humans" and "facts" and "beliefs" about personhood without ever stating your definition or why it is factual. Would you mind doing so?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Abortion is not immoral.

It is the taking of a human life at a stage of human development you and I were once at.  A human life that can feel pain in many cases.  

Or maybe start thinking about facts rather than feelings and beliefs when making policy decisions that could potentially sentence thousands of women to horrible suffering and even death from back-alley abortions, eh?

You moved so fast from posturing about facts to an emotional appeal I got whiplash. Fuzzy Bear's post was rational, you did nothing to attack his logic or dispute his facts and yet you accuse the pro-life side of only being concerned with feelings. Good grief.

Because believing that embryos are human beings who suffer like the rest of us and whose termination is murder is a belief. The fact that back-alley abortions can be very dangerous and that being forced to carry a child isn't a fun experience is not disputed by anyone. So yes, the pro-life side has no evidence to back up its belief that embryos are persons- it's merely a belief.

You have a right to believe that, but I'm not going to stand by when real humans suffer because of beliefs, whether they're women, LGBTQ folks or members of minority religions. Also, Fuzzy's post is ridiculous- "a stage of human development you and I were once at" is an emotional appeal if I ever saw one, you can claim it about the stage of a sperm just like you can claim it about an embryo.

The lack of self awareness here is kind of funny. Like you go from criticizing emotional appeals to making them in the same paragraph. Like I said in my last post, I'm getting whiplash .

Now that that's out of the way, there are a few major issues with your argument:

1) You get your facts wrong on a couple of points. First, you criticize us for believing embryos "suffer like the rest of us". Fetesus do feel pain (around 30 weeks I think) and neither I nor Fuzzy claimed that embryos did. You either mistakenly believe that fetuses can't feel pain or misrepresented mine and Fuzzy's position. Second, you can't claim a sperm is a stage of your development because it isn't you. My daughter is genetically unique and distinct from me going back to when she was an ovum, while my sperm is not.

2) You're playing fast and loose with the words "fact" and "belief". We are discussing "personhood". It is a "fact" that someone is or isn't a person according to a definition of personhood, but I dispute that there is a single definition of personhood that is a "fact" on the same level as "2+2=4".

Rather, I posit:

a) Being a member of homo sapiens sapiens should be sufficient to meet the definition of personhood, regardless of stage of development or dependence on others to stay alive

b) Pro choicers (with a few exceptions like Peter Singer who bite the bullet) are being inconsistent when denying fetuses personhood either because a fetus meets their definition of personhood or because their definition excludes classes of people that they treat as non-persons.

This leads to my last point

3) You keep talking about "real humans" and "facts" and "beliefs" about personhood without ever stating your definition or why it is factual. Would you mind doing so?

You see, that's the point. No one actually has an abortion after 30 weeks. Maybe except for a few exceedingly rare cases, and even they mostly in cases of danger to the woman's life. I oppose late-term abortions because, indeed, that's the stage the whole debate about personhood gets blurry. My problem is with "pro-lifers" like ExtremeConservative and others who oppose any form of abortion, which is ridiculous, and I see from your post you might agree with me. In the first trimester, there are no beliefs and beliefs, there are indeed facts and beliefs. And that's when the overwhelming majority of abortions occur:

http://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

I just took the opportunity to go back through some of these comments and the results. It's amazing just how far outside of the mainstream the youth, specifically on here, are these days. The results for #1, 3 and 6 are genuinely terrifying. Is this the price we pay for the Bush's quagmire? Total rebellion against all that is good because a southern Christian made a grave moral error. Forever the worst President.

Not to take too much blame off Blow Job Bill and his sidekick who invented the disaster known as the Internet.

I think it's a mistake to pin the blame so heavily on Dubya. Yes, his presidency helped to cause a backlash against Christian morality, but it ultimately goes a lot deeper than that. What may appear to be problem that is political, it's really philosophical and theological in nature. If all it takes for people to abandon moral principles is a president they don't like, then they never really believed in them in the first place. And I think we're seeing another iteration of it with some of the Never-Trumper Republicans. And I think as long as "moral principles" are actually just political positions taken as a means to an ends, it will never stop happening. Because any president who isn't a man of character beyond reproach will inevitably be open to reproach. And men beyond reproach couldn't get elected president anyway.

[MasterJedi]

Now I'm just waiting for the "you can't rape your wife" comments to come from you guys.

[TJ in Oregon]

Now I'm just waiting for the "you can't rape your wife" comments to come from you guys.

Opposing abortion = thinking you can't rape your wife?

[MasterJedi]

Now I'm just waiting for the "you can't rape your wife" comments to come from you guys.

Opposing abortion = thinking you can't rape your wife?

That's not what and I said and you know it. What I WAS saying was that generally that concept comes from the whole far right Christian morality people that it's marriage and you can't rape your wife generally comes with the views you guys are pushing for.

[TJ in Oregon]

Now I'm just waiting for the "you can't rape your wife" comments to come from you guys.

Opposing abortion = thinking you can't rape your wife?

That's not what and I said and you know it. What I WAS saying was that generally that concept comes from the whole far right Christian morality people that it's marriage and you can't rape your wife generally comes with the views you guys are pushing for.

I honestly have no idea what point you're making here. I know quite a few people who believe in Christian morality and no one who thinks it's impossible for a man to rape his wife. I also don't see how that view results from Christian morality.

[Goldwater]

Is it weird that, despite being mostly pro-choice, I generally think that pro-life posters are less toxic when talking about abortion? Obviously there are expections, but posters like TJ usually sound more reasonable to me than posters on "my" side.

[kyc0705]

1. Agree
2. Neutral, lean agree.
3. Agree
4. Depends on the circumstances, lean agree.
5. If it's a consensual, open relationship, agree. Otherwise, disagree.
6. Agree
7. Agree

[DavidB.]

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse. (adultery definitely qualifies as abuse)

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7) I support abortion rights. (too vague, depends on the specifics)

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

1) Viewing pornographic material is ok.

2) It is a good idea for couples considering marriage to live together in order to decide whether or not they get along well enough to be married to one another.

3) It is ok for two people to get together for sex and not necessarily expect anything further.**

4) If a couple has children, they should stay married unless there is physical or emotional abuse.

5) It is sometimes permissible for a married person to have sex with someone other than his/her spouse.

6) It is ok for three or more consenting adults to live together in a sexual/romantic relationship.

7) I support abortion rights.

* "Ok" is too vague. Viewing pornography may not be inherently wrong but it is deeply damaging to the people who consume it.
** See above.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

1. Disagree, but for health reasons, and not for morality reasons.
2. Disagree, because when someone feels the need to do that, then this is already a strong early sign that they will not be happy with their partner in the long term.
3. Agree
4. Disagree, and either parent in that case should have the option to unilaterally put the children up for 3rd party adoption in the process.
5. Agree, regardless of how their spouse feels about the subject.
6. Agree
7. Agree

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

5. Agree, regardless of how their spouse feels about the subject.

wow.