Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Another Gallop Survey Shows American's Moving Leftward On Moral Issues...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans are more likely now than in the early 2000s to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable, including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage and sex between an unmarried man and woman. Moral acceptability of many of these issues is now at a record-high level.

Skip

The upward progression in the percentage of Americans seeing these issues as morally acceptable has varied from year to year, but the overall trend clearly points toward a higher level of acceptance of a number of behaviors. In fact, the moral acceptability ratings for 10 of the issues measured since the early 2000s are at record highs.

Americans have become less likely to say that two issues are morally acceptable: the death penalty and medical testing on animals. But Americans' decreased acceptance of these practices actually moves them in a more liberal direction.

These results reflect the same type of shift evident in the public's self-reported ideology on "social issues." More Americans now rate themselves as socially liberal than at any point in Gallup's 16-year trend, and for the first time, as many say they are liberal on social issues as say they are conservative.

Skip

Implications

Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues, as evidenced not only by the uptick in the percentage describing themselves as socially liberal, but also by their increasing willingness to say that a number of previously frowned-upon behaviors are morally acceptable. The biggest leftward shift over the past 14 years has been in attitudes toward gay and lesbian relations, from only a minority of Americans finding it morally acceptable to a clear majority finding it acceptable.

The moral acceptability of issues related to sexual relations has also increased, including having a baby outside of wedlock -- something that in previous eras was a social taboo. Americans are more likely to find divorce morally acceptable, and have also loosened up on their views of polygamy, although this latter behavior is still seen as acceptable by only a small minority.

This liberalization of attitudes toward moral issues is part of a complex set of factors affecting the social and cultural fabric of the U.S. Regardless of the factors causing the shifts, the trend toward a more liberal view on moral behaviors will certainly have implications for such fundamental social institutions as marriage, the environment in which children are raised and the economy. The shifts could also have a significant effect on politics, with candidates whose positioning is based on holding firm views on certain issues having to grapple with a voting population that, as a whole, is significantly less likely to agree with conservative positions than it might have been in the past.




As America moves ever more leftward on moral (social) issues and issues of equality the religious fundamentalists (as shown by Marco Rubio) become ever more fervent in their effort to push their beliefs on secular society. Often fundamentalists advocate forcing their brand of morality on us all by force of law. As evidenced above America is gradually yet surely moving away from the anility of past eras.

For the purpose of clarity and so there can be no false accusations this site does not advocate for or support several of the noted behaviors above. Should anyone have any questions on which ones they are ASK. Do not ASSUME.

For related commentary be sure to read Captain Fogg's article in today's publication of The Swash Zone.

Via: Memeorandum

28 comments:

  1. I'm with you Les, some of these stances I support, others no, but for political purposes, anyone who does not take into account the direction of the electorate, does so at their own peril.

    It should be noted that one of the criticisms of President Obama from people on the right is the belief that he is acting against the "will of the people." To some, if not many, that will needs to be respected and adhered to as long as doing so is not against the law.

    I wonder if we will now see those folks approve of laws supporting these stances so as to follow that will. Or maybe they only believe that when they like the views of the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am surprised that abortion is split, thought it would lean forward toward acceptance. Also surprised the majority approved of the death penalty since it seems to be the trend for states to ban capital punishment. Mixed morals when the poll showed it is OK to have a child out of wedlock but against teen sex. In far to many cases they are the same and the one hurt is the children of the children.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm pondering the trend that shows polygamy twice as acceptable as married people having affairs;
    and why of the probable dozen GOP candidates almost all are bucking the clear trends. Also, kudos
    on the use of the word 'anility' (which I had to look up).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again, I return to a comment I made under an earlier post:

    Problems, I perceive, are in the definitions of “liberal,” “libertarian,” and “conservative.” These are labels that fail to capture more complex attitudes and phenomena. No one person is “pure this” or “pure that.” Self-identification depends on issues de jour as politics swings pendulum-like from year to year. Research reports are snapshots in time that do not account for subtleties or shifting patterns.

    If I were to devise a study on people and their attitudes, I might have framed different categories, such as: The live-and-let-live mindset versus the authoritarian social-controller type. I think you will find examples of “laissez faire” versus “doctrinaire” types on all sides of the partisan divide.

    If you accept this parsing, it explains why some liberals and conservatives get along with each other on friendly terms, why others don’t, and why there are a great many people who are starting to question their former partisan affiliations and identifications.

    Most bloggers, in my opinion, are voyeurs and busy-bodies. Do you accept this analysis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If you accept this parsing, it explains why some liberals and conservatives get along with each other on friendly terms"

      And some, on either side are downright disagreeable ramrod ideologues who can't get along with many on friendly terms at all.

      Delete
  5. If I were to devise a study on people and their attitudes, I might have framed different categories, such as: The live-and-let-live mindset versus the authoritarian social-controller type. I think you will find examples of “laissez faire” versus “doctrinaire” types on all sides of the partisan divide.

    If you accept this parsing, it explains why some liberals and conservatives get along with each other on friendly terms, why others don’t, and why there are a great many people who are starting to question their former partisan affiliations and identifications.


    I do agree with the above (O)CT(O)PUS.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Octo's making a good observation there. In general is see a consistent across-the-board laizzez-faire attitude from much of the young. I think they'll be unpleasantly surprised, however, if they allow too much "liberty" in certain economic sectors. I'd hate to see another Depression as the only way to bring back the impetus for organized, well-distributed, invested growth.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I think they'll be unpleasantly surprised, however, if they allow too much "liberty" in certain economic sectors"

      Well, Jersey, they would at least be without the government intrusions which helped cause the Depression and made it a lot worse when it did happen.

      Delete
    2. dmark, an interesting perspective on the concept of a free market. There are links wih in the article I linked you to, be sure to read them all.

      Delete
  7. The article Les links to says "their desire to make profits regulates their behavior in ways that drive them to serve consumers"... Which is true most of the time, although the desire for profits also drives some (the predators) to commit fraud. And without regulation the instances of fraud would surely increase up to the point where the entire system collapsed. The market cannot exist without regulation.

    Also, it is the lack of government "intrusions" (regulations) that cause depressions and made them a lot worse when they do happen. Because when you remove regulations the predators and con men look for ways to exploit the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm in favor of cloning Courteney Cox and Felicity Huffman and so I am WAY off the charts here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Previously you saidif you could clone just one American it would be Steve Jobs. Now you want to use cloning to create a sex slave for yourself (I'm presuming)? Unless you also feel (or felt) that way about Mr. Jobs?

      Delete
    2. Yes Will, not sure what cloning two women has to do with America drifting leftward.

      Delete
  9. There are those like Dervish who believe for a market to be free it must be regulated. Perhaps to a degree this is true. Completely unregulated free wheeling markets likely lead to monopolies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And regulations and interventions create and strengthen monopolies, too.

      Delete
    2. Are we to presume you mean as as result of corporate welfare and preferential subsidies?

      Delete
    3. That's a big part of it, yes. Along with exclusive government contracts, excessive fees that the big ones can pay but make the small ones perish, etc.

      Delete
    4. Hmmm, so it seems regulations to prevent monopolies as a result of totally unregulated markets are needed that at the same time addresses the issues you mention while ending corporate welfare and preferential subsidies. In other words insuring a level competitive playing field.

      Something to sleep on methinks.

      Delete
    5. Are we to presume you mean as as result of corporate welfare and preferential subsidies?

      Without regulation the predators would take advantage and with regulations they try to take advantage by bribing our legislators and regulators. dmarks "solution" is to give up. Apparently he thinks the first situation is preferable. Preferable to trying to reform the system to keep corruption to a minimum. As opposed to allowing the predators to run wild. To me this view makes no sense at all. dmarks actually argued that, since SS has not resulted in zero elderly people starving or freezing to death in the winter (but it only greatly reduced this), that SS should be abolished!

      Delete
    6. Social Security and dmarks position on the subject is not relative to this discussion. I have allowed it because the balance has merit. Please stay on topic in the future Dervish. We don't want the crunching of old bones now do we?

      Delete
    7. The comment was very recent. It is relevant in that it is another example of dmarks thinking that giving up is what should be done when a government regulation or program isn't 100 percent successful.

      Delete
    8. Your comment is considered irrelevant, unless the allegation is linked to an actual statement made by dmarks that gives your allegation credibility. But really, at this point what difference does it make?

      Delete
    9. "It is relevant in that it is another example of dmarks thinking that giving up is what should be done when a government regulation or program isn't 100 percent successful."

      1) That is a false summary of my views. However, this is not the place to bring up this particular discussion. I have plenty to say to easily disprove this false summary, but I will not do so here. Because the blog host does not want it, it has nothing to do with the topic, and, as the blog host says, "But really, at this point what difference does it make?" I suggest those who really insist on continuing this conversation bring it up on the blog where it happened, instead of attempting to bring an unrelated conversation from another blog to "Rational Nation USA" against the wishes of the host.

      2) This blog is not about Dervish Sanders. Nor it is about dmarks. It's "Rational Nation USA", and I doubt the owner wants it taken over with entirely irrelevant discussion of purely personal grudge points, nor for it to be abused as being taken over to continue discussions from other blogs.

      The subject of this post is in fact "Another Gallop Survey Shows American's Moving Leftward On Moral Issues", and it is not "Yet Another Attempt to Drag Every Single Subject into Someone's Personal Grudge Match".

      Thank you for your consideration in posting this comment, Les. I don't feel a need to "take the bait" other than to simply point this out.

      Delete
    10. I submitted a reply which RN declined to publish, so let me just say that what dmarks claims above is a false summary of what happened and my views and motivations. RN (not Dervish Sanders) decided he wished to change the subject. Follow the thread and you will find this to be true.

      Delete
    11. Your post was published because it is so important to you. Like a dog chewing on a bone you probably wouldn't let it go until I did post a rebuttal giving you the last word. So, there it is, done.

      Now you can feel all warm an fuzzy again Dervish.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.