Gallup: Americans Hold Record Liberal Views on Most Moral Issues

[Suburbia]

Millennials are not really a values group of people. They have the most out of wedlock babies in the U.S. generation, so this is not surprising. A lot of millennial women have 4 baby daddies in their lives. This is not surprising. There's a reason why this generation is the most whacked out, foolish generation in modern memory.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Medical testing on animals is still too high but moving in the right direction.
The 9% that thinks adultery is okay must be the same 9% that approvrd the job congress is doing or basically just say yes to everything.

I also find is distutbing more people say abortion is okay than porn. Not that porn is really moral buy seriously how can someone say abortion is okay and porn is not? Odd. This is not about legality but moral acceptance. People are strange.

If one finds pornography problematic because of the way it typically objectifies and dehumanizes women and the way it seems to screw with human sexuality by its very nature(though there hasn't been much objective research on the subject. "I want to study the effects of "sexy Cowgirls XXX" on the human brain" isn't exactly a grant-money magnet) instead of it violating ones idea of the natural order of things, then finding abortion acceptable at the same time isn't peculiar, especially if one considers the fact that fetuses don't develop mentally into something resembling a human until somewhere around 22(IIRC) weeks in as part of one's view on abortion.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Adultery is adultery is adultery. I would hope most Americans would agree, but I don't believe I have the luxury of being surprised if I'm wrong.

Considering the social-libertarian leanings that this poll suggests, I have a feeling that you would get different results if you asked about consenting adults in a relationship having sex with other people if they have the explicit permission of their partner. I don't know if the approval rate would be very high, but it would probably be higher than 9%.

You probably would, yeah. Honestly, I kind of wonder how much that would differ based on whether or not the question was worded to include the phrase "consenting adults", which has started to strike me as something akin to the "it's my First Amendment right!" of sexual morality in terms of "what I'm doing isn't a serious felony, therefore nobody can criticize me"-ism.

Of course, "It's my first amendment right" is usually a defense for things that actually hurt people/a poor attempt at avoiding criticism, whereas "consenting adults" is a defense against arguments that typically boil down to "it's icky" in less childish sounding language.

Atlas Forum is one of the last websites I want to have this discussion on, and frankly America is one of the last countries I want to have this discussion in, so I'll just say that you and I have very different thresholds for what constitutes hurting people.

I also find is distutbing more people say abortion is okay than porn. Not that porn is really moral buy seriously how can someone say abortion is okay and porn is not? Odd. This is not about legality but moral acceptance. People are strange.

Scarlet touched on this already, but, yeah, while I don't fully agree with it, there's a strong feminist argument to be made that abortion should be accepted as necessary to women's social and economic equality and pornography should be rejected as incommensurate with it. A number of people I'm close to hold that position.

Millennials are not really a values group of people. They have the most out of wedlock babies in the U.S. generation, so this is not surprising. A lot of millennial women have 4 baby daddies in their lives. This is not surprising. There's a reason why this generation is the most whacked out, foolish generation in modern memory.

lol, classic bronz.

[Blue3]

Hmm, the latest Gallup polling on these issues...

Some I'm still surprised at:
-animal fur being that high
-cloning animals being that low
-porn being that low
-suicide being that high

But overall, it looks pretty good, or at least be moving in a good direction.

[Brittain33]

The numbers on approval of gay and lesbian relationships defines my adult life. When I graduated from college, I lived in the bubble; now they do.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There are some trends and numbers in here that are heartening, and some that are deeply troubling.

Basically this (though we probably disagree on the exact balance).

[JA]

Millennials are not really a values group of people. They have the most out of wedlock babies in the U.S. generation, so this is not surprising. A lot of millennial women have 4 baby daddies in their lives. This is not surprising. There's a reason why this generation is the most whacked out, foolish generation in modern memory.

You guys need to decide if the problem is youth having 4 "baby daddies" or subreplacement fertility rates due to our supposed inability to "grow up."

[Bismarck]

One thing to remember is that the question is asked in terms of morality. It doesn't mean approval. For example I don't think divorce or having children out of wedlock is immoral but I certainly view both as things society should discourage. Also, why is opposition to cloning animals so high? I see no reason why that would be controversial.

[Mercenary]

Medical testing on animals is still too high but moving in the right direction.
The 9% that thinks adultery is okay must be the same 9% that approvrd the job congress is doing or basically just say yes to everything.

I also find is distutbing more people say abortion is okay than porn. Not that porn is really moral buy seriously how can someone say abortion is okay and porn is not? Odd. This is not about legality but moral acceptance. People are strange.

If one finds pornography problematic because of the way it typically objectifies and dehumanizes women and the way it seems to screw with human sexuality by its very nature(though there hasn't been much objective research on the subject. "I want to study the effects of "sexy Cowgirls XXX" on the human brain" isn't exactly a grant-money magnet) instead of it violating ones idea of the natural order of things, then finding abortion acceptable at the same time isn't peculiar, especially if one considers the fact that fetuses don't develop mentally into something resembling a human until somewhere around 22(IIRC) weeks in as part of one's view on abortion.

I am not sure why I totally forgot about the feminist opposition to it. Now it makes more sense. I guess I think of religion as the default POV when people say moral or immoral. Although the feminist argument is more interesting since it can be used to argue either for or against. Some would say it objectifies women and others may say it empowers. I tend to side with those who say it objectifies. Whether it is immoral or not I am not sure. I do not think it is really wong to look at but I would not say I consider it morally acceptable either. Kind of just view it as a bad habbit that nearly everyone has.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Millennials are not really a values group of people. They have the most out of wedlock babies in the U.S. generation, so this is not surprising. A lot of millennial women have 4 baby daddies in their lives. This is not surprising. There's a reason why this generation is the most whacked out, foolish generation in modern memory.

You guys need to decide if the problem is youth having 4 "baby daddies" or subreplacement fertility rates due to our supposed inability to "grow up."

Based on the results of this poll, it would probably be best if "you guys" didn't have any children. Open up the borders to get more moral replacements!

[RINO Tom]

And yet the party with the most power in the country is the most socially conservative and right-wing major party in the Western world...

That 30-40% are far more motivated to vote than the other 50-60%.  They feel like their "way of life"(ability to control others) are under threat while that other 50-60% are less motivated to vote.

They also tend to be Whiter and more affluent, two factors that indicate higher turnout, but I doubt you'd have as much fun focusing on those things.

[RFayette]

While many of these trends were troubling, the one that bothers me most is 62% finding having a baby out of wedlock to be OK.  Except in very rare circumstances, children are better served with 2 parents rather than just 1, and as such this behavior ought to be discouraged by society.

[RINO Tom]

While many of these trends were troubling, the one that bothers me most is 62% finding having a baby out of wedlock to be OK.  Except in very rare circumstances, children are better served with 2 parents rather than just 1, and as such this behavior ought to be discouraged by society.

Personally, my first image of "baby out of wedlock" is two people in a serious relationship (and likely to be married) accidentally getting pregnant and deciding to keep the baby and raise it together ... there was a time when even that was very much taboo, and I'm glad that time is over.  Again, it could mean other things, but it did not conjur up images of a bunch of folks getting each other pregnant and raising children as single parents.

[afleitch]

Adultery is adultery is adultery. I would hope most Americans would agree, but I don't believe I have the luxury of being surprised if I'm wrong.

Is it? You married? You know what arrangements couples have? You know anyone who's abusive partner refuses their consent for a divorce which stalls it in an uber-Catholic country and therefore their busy 'committing adultery' with the person who rescued from that abusive marriage? 'Adultery is adultery is adultery' is nothing more than a flippant observation from someone who's perpetually on the outside peering in.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Adultery is adultery is adultery. I would hope most Americans would agree, but I don't believe I have the luxury of being surprised if I'm wrong.

Is it? You married? You know what arrangements couples have? You know anyone who's abusive partner refuses their consent for a divorce which stalls it in an uber-Catholic country and therefore their busy 'committing adultery' with the person who rescued from that abusive marriage? 'Adultery is adultery is adultery' is nothing more than a flippant observation from someone who's perpetually on the outside peering in.

Obviously there are situations in which culpability for a whole host of immoral behaviors can be diminished or absent. My point was that (in my belief) extramarital sex is intrinsically wrong regardless of who's agreed to allow whom to do what. Obviously there are different degrees of culpability, and offense given to different people or ideals has different saliences, but all I was saying was that I don't understand the act of extramarital sex to be qualitatively different based on who's agreed to let it happen. I'd have thought that would be obvious from context. I don't expect you to agree with me on this sort of thing and I don't know why you always seem so incensed when I don't agree with you. Please stop doing this. It's starting to feel like bullying.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't know why you always seem so incensed when I don't agree with you.

His problems with your post included the idea that someone who couldn't get a divorce because of an abusive relationship would be committing "adultery". Considering the kind of mentality that often stems from flippant ultimatums like the one you made, I wouldn't necessarily blame him for assuming what he did. Even without that, how can you possibly be shocked that your comment isn't going to sit well with some people?!

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm not shocked.

[afleitch]

Adultery is adultery is adultery. I would hope most Americans would agree, but I don't believe I have the luxury of being surprised if I'm wrong.

Is it? You married? You know what arrangements couples have? You know anyone who's abusive partner refuses their consent for a divorce which stalls it in an uber-Catholic country and therefore their busy 'committing adultery' with the person who rescued from that abusive marriage? 'Adultery is adultery is adultery' is nothing more than a flippant observation from someone who's perpetually on the outside peering in.

Obviously there are situations in which culpability for a whole host of immoral behaviors can be diminished or absent. My point was that (in my belief) extramarital sex is intrinsically wrong regardless of who's agreed to allow whom to do what. Obviously there are different degrees of culpability, and offense given to different people or ideals has different saliences, but all I was saying was that I don't understand the act of extramarital sex to be qualitatively different based on who's agreed to let it happen. I'd have thought that would be obvious from context. I don't expect you to agree with me on this sort of thing and I don't know why you always seem so incensed when I don't agree with you. Please stop doing this. It's starting to feel like bullying.

I'm not bullying you. I publicly object to posts like these because I think you're better than that. I know you're desperate to confirm to whatever 1950's socialist Catholic theological persona you've been reading up in but don't expect to make broad brush moral ultimatums based, I might add, on absolutely zero adult (and I mean real adult) life experience. You've just said above 'I don't understand the act of extramarital sex to be qualitatively different based on who's agreed to let it happen.'

No, you don't understand. Marriage, broken marriage, divorce, abusive power structures within marriage, open relationships, affairs. Nothing seems to act as a mitigator for you. That's the point. And every time anything makes you uncomfortable you retreat (like the issue I raised on abortion with you about 18 months ago and I'm still awaiting a response to , I must be a patient 'bully' ) And that's okay. To a point.

If you don't see anything 'qualitatively different' in a male denying his consent to a divorce to continue to abuse his estranged wife from a distance, meaning therefore that his estranged wife has no option but to continue a technically adulterous relationship then I doubt your moral compass.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You're still reading an intimation into what I said that I clarified, or attempted to clarify, wasn't intended.

The fact that you remember that "issue" from eighteen months ago and I don't says way more about your attitude towards me than I could.

I haven't been "reading up in" a socialist Catholic theological "persona"; I've developed it myself and I'll have you know that in my actual relationships with other people it's made me more forgiving and allowed me to develop more sympathy for people who aren't like me. I'm sorry that doesn't come across in discussions on a political forum almost completely abstracted from what admittedly little ~adult life experience~ I do have, but I'm going to go ahead and say here and now that I'm not "better than this", I don't wish to be "better than this", and you're not going to make me "better than this" with your constant armchair criticisms of my personality or beliefs, which I "retreat" from because there is no point to engaging, BECAUSE WE HAVE ORTHOGONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. So stop, please.

[afleitch]

You're still reading an intimation into what I said that I clarified, or attempted to clarify, wasn't intended.

The fact that you remember that "issue" from eighteen months ago and I don't says way more about your attitude towards me than I could.

I haven't been "reading up in" a socialist Catholic theological "persona"; I've developed it myself and I'll have you know that in my actual relationships with other people it's made me more forgiving and allowed me to develop more sympathy for people who aren't like me. I'm sorry that doesn't come across in discussions on a political forum almost completely abstracted from what admittedly little ~adult life experience~ I do have, but I'm going to go ahead and say here and now that I'm not "better than this", I don't wish to be "better than this", and you're not going to make me "better than this" with your constant armchair criticisms of my personality or beliefs, which I "retreat" from because there is no point to engaging, BECAUSE WE HAVE ORTHOGONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. So stop, please.

No. If you can't engage with what makes you uncomfortable, even where it pisses you the world off, then there's no point in you being here.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

You're still reading an intimation into what I said that I clarified, or attempted to clarify, wasn't intended.

The fact that you remember that "issue" from eighteen months ago and I don't says way more about your attitude towards me than I could.

I haven't been "reading up in" a socialist Catholic theological "persona"; I've developed it myself and I'll have you know that in my actual relationships with other people it's made me more forgiving and allowed me to develop more sympathy for people who aren't like me. I'm sorry that doesn't come across in discussions on a political forum almost completely abstracted from what admittedly little ~adult life experience~ I do have, but I'm going to go ahead and say here and now that I'm not "better than this", I don't wish to be "better than this", and you're not going to make me "better than this" with your constant armchair criticisms of my personality or beliefs, which I "retreat" from because there is no point to engaging, BECAUSE WE HAVE ORTHOGONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. So stop, please.

No. If you can't engage with what makes you uncomfortable, even where it pisses you the world off, then there's no point in you being here.

Welcome to ignore, jackass.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The values camps and culture wars are a big defining trait of the baby boomer generation. Ever since they began to exert more and more influence in public and political life from the 90's til now they gave birth to the powerful red state blue state divide. Wealthy college educated white states like Massachusetts are staunchly Democratic while poorer less college educated states in Dixie are staunchly Republican because of social issues and values; not because of economic reasons.

Millennials aren't as individualistic, confrontational, or divided as baby boomers are. Most millennials have a general consensus on most social issues and aren't as deeply religious and spiritual as their baby boomer parents. They're a much more team oriented group with a stronger inclination on improving the outer world rather than focused on the inner world. Depolarization will be the norm going from roughly 2030 onwards as millennials began to exert more and more influence in public and political life.

[afleitch]

You're still reading an intimation into what I said that I clarified, or attempted to clarify, wasn't intended.

The fact that you remember that "issue" from eighteen months ago and I don't says way more about your attitude towards me than I could.

I haven't been "reading up in" a socialist Catholic theological "persona"; I've developed it myself and I'll have you know that in my actual relationships with other people it's made me more forgiving and allowed me to develop more sympathy for people who aren't like me. I'm sorry that doesn't come across in discussions on a political forum almost completely abstracted from what admittedly little ~adult life experience~ I do have, but I'm going to go ahead and say here and now that I'm not "better than this", I don't wish to be "better than this", and you're not going to make me "better than this" with your constant armchair criticisms of my personality or beliefs, which I "retreat" from because there is no point to engaging, BECAUSE WE HAVE ORTHOGONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. So stop, please.

No. If you can't engage with what makes you uncomfortable, even where it pisses you the world off, then there's no point in you being here.

Welcome to ignore, jackass.

Just proving my point sadly

[Antonio the Sixth]

Afleitch, I'm not going to pretend that I'm exactly a neutral and dispassionate observer to this whole exchange - for full disclosure, yeah, Nathan is a close friend and that's probably why it pisses me off so much to see you pursuing this obsessive vendetta against him. Having said that, what in the world is wrong with you? Everybody knows about which issues you disagree with Nathan and why, including himself. If your posts had managed to persuade him of the errors of his ways, I think we'd be able to see it by now, don't you think? Clearly it can't be what motivates you, since otherwise you'd have understood a while ago that it's not working.

I know you're very smart and cultured, so I'm pretty sure you know at least the basics of how persuasion works and what the best ways to convince your interlocutor are. Suffice to say those don't include theatrically playing up your outrage at every viewpoint they express, accusing them of holding those viewpoints for shallow or unprincipled reasons, deliberately misrepresenting or ignoring their arguments, and berating someone you know is suffering from depression for failing to "engage with what makes [him] uncomfortable". People who are sincerely interested in changing someone's mind try to see things from their perspective and acknowledge that they have good reasons for believing what they do, even if they happen to be wrong. If you'd tried to do that with Nathan, it would have been a pretty damn fascinating exchange, and as someone who's somewhere in the middle of your respective worldviews (probably still closer to yours, actually) I'd be the first to sign up for that.

But that's clearly not what you're going for - so, tell me, what are you actually trying to accomplish? It's not like Nathan is the only one holding these kinds of views on the forum, but somehow I don't see you accusing DC of being "desperate to confirm to whatever 1950's Tory Calvinist theological persona he's been reading up in". It's hard to escape the conclusion that you just enjoy getting a rise out of him - which becomes downright sinister when you consider, again, that he has been upfront about struggling with depression. I would certainly say that you are "better than that". I don't think you're deliberately trying to be cruel, but that's how you're coming off, at least to me and to the person you're purporting to help. So I'd encourage you to take a deep look at your yourself before you make one of these posts again.

[DC Al Fine]

I know you're very smart and cultured, so I'm pretty sure you know at least the basics of how persuasion works and what the best ways to convince your interlocutor are. Suffice to say those don't include theatrically playing up your outrage at every viewpoint they express, accusing them of holding those viewpoints for shallow or unprincipled reasons, deliberately misrepresenting or ignoring their arguments, and berating someone you know is suffering from depression for failing to "engage with what makes [him] uncomfortable". People who are sincerely interested in changing someone's mind try to see things from their perspective and acknowledge that they have good reasons for believing what they do, even if they happen to be wrong. If you'd tried to do that with Nathan, it would have been a pretty damn fascinating exchange, and as someone who's somewhere in the middle of your respective worldviews (probably still closer to yours, actually) I'd be the first to sign up for that.

I think you got to the root of the issue above. Everything seems to be done in the worst possible way. Statements that would get ignored as harmless rhetoric get parsed like a pedantic debate coach when Nathan says something socially conservative. Arguments are made in an inflammatory manner and rebuttals often contain strawmen. When you put it all together, it gives the impression of Afleitch singling Nathan out, however pure his intentions might be.

And accusing someone of acting out a persona?! Come on man, there's no way you can say something like that without coming off as a jerk.