Gallup: 54% say gay relations are morally acceptable

posted at 5:25 pm on May 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

The obligatory follow-up to last week’s post on gay-marriage polling. Interestingly, 54 percent marks a two-point decline from 2011, although it’s still fully 10 points higher than the number who said gay relations were morally acceptable as recently as 2006. Fluctuations in public attitudes are nothing new, though, especially on the question of whether SSM should be legal. Follow the last link and watch public support fall off a cliff in 2004 after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in late 2003. Support rebounded within three years but there’s a cautionary tale for David Boies and Ted Olson in that. If your ultimate goal is public acceptance of legal equality for gay relationships, the court strategy may be counterproductive.

The demographic breakdown from Gallup of where things stand in 2012:

Interesting data points: There’s a huge gender gap, even on the issue of morality; nonwhites actually approve slightly more than whites do of gay marriage; the south is nearly 20 points behind any other region on whether gay relations should be legal (not even 50 percent say yes); and Catholics, while only slightly in favor of gay marriage, say decidedly that gay relations are morally acceptable. And of course, younger Americans are nearly 20 points more likely than any other age demographic to say gay marriage should be legal. They answer all three questions here to the tune of 65-percent support or greater. How come? Television, possibly:

Glee is just one of many popular shows on television right now that feature gay characters. Those characters aren’t just entertaining us, they’re changing Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuality.

In five separate studies, professor Edward Schiappa and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota have found that the presence of gay characters on television programs decreases prejudices among viewers.

“These attitude changes are not huge,” he says. “They don’t change bigots into saints. But they can snowball.”…

More and more gay married couples are showing up on TV these days — like Grey’s Anatomy, for example — making something of a trend. NBC plans to roll out more programs with gay married couples next season. Whether these shows continue to build a positive image of gay people depends on how they’ll be portrayed, Schiappa says.

Yeah, this was one of Breitbart’s core insights, of course: In Byron York’s words, he knew that “culture is upstream from politics.” The more visible gays became over the last 20 years or so, the more the needle on this issue started to move. This is why I’m skeptical that the trend towards support for legalizing gay marriage will reverse, although no doubt it’ll eventually level off. I suspect that the more culturally familiar gays become, the less fencesitters who are otherwise leery of SSM will perceive the practice as a threat to society. They’ll reach a certain comfort level with openly gay celebrities and gay characters that’ll bring them around to the soft-support position (“I don’t care what gays do”) that I described last week. If I had to guess, I’d bet that support settles somewhere around 60/40 in the next few years — unless there’s a Supreme Court ruling, which could set it back hugely — and then stays there for awhile before ticking upward slowly over time.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM

What part of:

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Don’t you understand?

You told people to look up the subject on the CCC, then when they do, you twist yourself into a verbal pretzel to avoid dealing with the above direct quote from it.

Some might get the idea you’re being less than honest on the subject.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM

No, sorry, fella. It’s not a straw man, nor is it irrelevant. That is the goal of the activists. Your denial of reality doesn’t make it so.

JannyMae on May 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Let’s see here…”It’s not a strawman”

Yes, it is. By what precedent are you basing that on? Certainly this kind of thing has proven somewhere…where and when would that be?

“That is the goal of the activists”.

I am no gay “activist”, nor are the majority of gays. I may has well say all heteros are OWS’ers. As we both know, the loudest among us aren’t necessarily the majority. So your blanket damnation of all gays based on the loud few is patently ridiculous and is only you forming reality to fit your own suppositions, rather than the other way around.

“Your denial of reality doesn’t make it so.”

Again, how is the notion that gays are really plotting the collapse and demise of Christianity in any way a “reality”? Where in the world has that ever happened? And don’t forget, I eagerly await the destruction of the US military because of DADT repeal. Go tell a gay vet “Thanks for protecting America’s rights and freedoms, and putting your life on the line for all of us, but see, you’re not “normal” when you “chose” homosexuality and all you want anyway is to tear down Christianity. But hey, thanks for everything.”

Sickening.

JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM

JannyMae on May 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Just to add to my 1:09 comment above, you’ve surely seen the HA front page about the Obama HHS mandate being forced on the Catholic Church, whic responded by dropping health insurance altogether rather than be forced to provide contraception, which is against the Church beliefs…right?

Seems the liberal socialists are the one’s who are truly out to destroy Christianity…hmmm…and not teh gheys…so go focus your outrage on them for a while, huh?

JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 1:16 PM

That’s all well and good…in the context of Christianity. But it’s irrelevant to the state, and gay marriage being recognized by that secular state. Some can try to strawman that into “the next step is to bring down Christianity” if gay marriage is recognized by law…but it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I was addressing the notion being discussed as to whether or not the NT said anything against homosexual relations. I did not mention the state or secular law in my post.

Rather I wrote a response to this:

*facepalm* Here we go with the “We have a New Testament” excuse to cherry pick the gay sex abomination out of the Old Testament’s Leviticus by saying it’s out-dated except for that one part.

If gays were such an enormous group of sinners, I figure Jesus might have had something to say about it…but not one word did He utter.

Not to mention, the New Testament does not negate the Old Testament…it “fulfills” it.

JetBoy on May 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM

You are correct in stating that the Bible’s regulations are hardly concerned with secular rule (save that it states that secular rulers are wise if they follow God’s teachings). However, I cannot let a characterization of scripture stand…especially one a subject as black and white as this. Thus, I posted proof of the Biblical stance on homosexuality.

As for secular law and consequences, I suggest looking at eHarmony.

Pattosensei on May 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Pattosensei on May 15, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Too bad you didn’t go back on the related HA thread on the eHarmony website and pull out my comments on that whole issue. I thought that whole lawsuit was ridiculous. Blame that on a liberal judge, not a gay couple who desires to be married.

In other words, you cannot put blame on gay marriage or homosexuals for the actions of some shmuck, and not all gays, with nothing better to do than make a stink about an online dating service.

And you haven’t answer my previous question…Why do you take the homosexual abomination as valid and God’s law, but the rest of the abominations in Leviticus are nullified by the New Testament? Not to mention, the proper translation of what Protestant bibles say as “homosexuals” and/or “effeminate” has nothing to do with gays per se.

Sodom wasn’t destroyed by God because of gay sex specifically either…but about promiscuous sex by much of the city’s residents.

JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Who cares what aleft leaning polls?? What is really important is the 30 states that voted to keep marriage as one man one woman!! And now CO just voted to ban civil unions . We the people speak for traditional values.

Bullhead on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

JetBoy on May 15, 2012 at 1:42 PM

How did it get in a court? Whether or not YOU would try to use force/law suits to violate the religious views of others is inconsequential. The point is that the gay rights activists DO. The judge allowed it to happen, but it was a homosexual activist that sued.

As for Leviticus and nullification…you are referring to the laws of the nation of Israel. The law was not nullified, it was fulfilled (the final sacrifice for sin was made). The definition of sin did not change, rather, the legalistic approach was. Adherence to the OT law is no longer required for salvation (Hebrews). Jesus is all that is required.

However, that does not mean that there is a license to keep sinning (Romans). Your discussion of translation is also false seeing as how Romans 1:24-> makes it clear that men lusting after men (a correct translation) is a sin. There doesn’t need to be a direct translation of the word “homosexual.” This falls in line with my line of questioning about murder earlier.

I never mentioned Sodom, but since you did…in saying that homosexual relations wasn’t the only sin. However, by your own words you have acknowledged that it was ONE of the sins. Thus, it is and was and forever will be a sin. It is something that Christians should never condone, much less encourage.

Here’s the crux. You cannot be both homosexual and Christian. In Biblical language, “you cannot serve two masters.” You can, however, be a Christian who is tempted by lust for those of the same sex. Just as you could be a Christian afflicted with kleptomania or (if you prefer) lust for fornication outside of marriage. The temptation is not something to be proud of, but rather something to fight against. We are all born sinners, we don’t have to stay that way.

Pattosensei on May 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

So I am not going through all 3 pages of comments to say: It amazes me no end that 30 out of 30 states that brought it to the people shut down gay marriage.

Personally Marriage is a religious institution to me but civil unions are the legal element. So let it be written.

landowner on May 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Jesus does indeed speak about this topic, in Matthew 19:4-6, confirming Genesis 1:26, 2:24 and 5:2 — “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cling to his wife; and they two shall be one flesh.” Jesus confirmed that His Father’s requirement is one man, one woman.

Concerning Levitical laws, we must keep in mind that many of those laws pertained to Jews living in ancient Israel, when blood sacrifices were required. Jews and gentiles who believe that Jesus fulfilled the temple sacrificial system, through His atoning sacrifice on behalf of all who put their faith (obedient trust) in Him, should examine the New Testament to see if the requirements in question are still valid after His resurrection.

The Holy Spirit, through the New Testament writers, tell us that Jesus fulfilled the law. However, since we love Him (God), we will not want to do what is still mentioned in the New Testament as offensive to Him. The New Testament clearly says that homosexual lifestyles are against His will. They are not the only sins, by any means, but they are sins nevertheless.

With the Holy Spirit’s help, we fight against our sins. We don’t revel in them and proclaim that they are not sins.

At its core, the same-sex marriage debate is an attack on the belief that the Bible is God’s word and authoritative.

He will have the last word on that, as well as on everything else.

KyMouse on May 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM

What that means is that 54% of the American public have been absolutely corrupted by progressives and the J@ck@ss Party!?! That 54%, themselves, are MORALLY CORRUPT!?! Clear-thinking Americans KNOW that homosexuality, like abortion, is an abject and absolute VIOLATION of Natural Order!?! The progs have DRAGGED America so far to the left, that anything “centrist” now looks like “extremism!?!”

Colatteral Damage on May 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

My question:
If a man and a woman (for the sake of keeping this on track, they are born male and female respecitvly, both of consenting age) are married through a non-religious “ceremony” and purposely do not produce any children, should this type of marriage be banned?
I ask because those points seem to be the main arguements against same-sex marriage.
1. Marriage is a religious institution, tradition, etc.
In ancient Greece, there were no formal ceremonies, religious or civic, for marriage. Only mutal agreement. Egyt, incestuous marriage was not uncommon or frowned upon. In China, marriage through maternal family lines was similarly not frowned upon. In Rome, there were various types of marriage, but most kept the female under the authority of the male, either her new husband or her father. Ancient Israelites practiced polygamy.
Marriage has been used as a political tool for centuries.
Whose “definition” or “tradition” are we going by here?
2. Marriage is for the production and raising of offspring.
Variations of this can include “homosexuals cannot produce children through the nature of their relations” and so forth.
Great. So childless couples, either by choice or by nature, should not be allowed to marry?

Bottom line: Until goverment as a whole gets out of the marriage buisiness in all its forms, it should provide equal footing to all consenting persons of legal age. Yes, all. I don’t care what happens in your bedroom and you shouldn’t care about mine or anyone else’s.

Grindstone on May 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I don’t care what happens in your bedroom and you shouldn’t care about mine or anyone else’s.

Grindstone on May 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Great.

But marriage, by definition, is a public act.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Great.

But marriage, by definition, is a public act.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Only because we have marriage contracts through the state. Everyone would be better off if the state wasn’t even involved in our private lives.

Grindstone on May 15, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Everyone would be better off if the state wasn’t even involved in our private lives.

Grindstone on May 15, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Once again, marriage is not private, marriage is a public act. Every town hall keeps public records – birth, death, marriage, and divorce records. Public records.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Once again, marriage is not private, marriage is a public act. Every town hall keeps public records – birth, death, marriage, and divorce records. Public records.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Once again, marriage licensing from the state is an uncessary intrusion into the private relationships between consenting adults. Declaration of domestic partnership would suffice for legal purposes (next of kin, powers of attorney, etc) and marriage, in all its forms, can be performed as the individuals require.

Grindstone on May 15, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Once again, marriage licensing from the state is an uncessary intrusion into the private relationships between consenting adults.

Grindstone on May 15, 2012 at 9:58 PM

It’s been that way since the founding of the republic, with no issues. All of a sudden, homosexuals want to get “marriage”, now it’s an “unnecessary intrusion”?

Here’s an idea – how about we keep marriage, and just say no to the homosexuals.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

It’s been that way since the founding of the republic, with no issues. All of a sudden, homosexuals want to get “marriage”, now it’s an “unnecessary intrusion”?

By golly, you’re right. Since it’s been that way since the founding, there must be nothing wrong with it. Everything should be just the way it was in 1776. Homosexuals didn’t exist. Slavery was fine. Only white male land owners could vote. Ah, the glory days. Our society certainly has slipped down in standards.

Here’s an idea – how about we keep marriage, and just say no to the homosexuals.

Rebar on May 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

“say no to the homosexuals”? What, are we going to pretend they don’t exist? Marginialize anyone who doesn’t have the “correct” sexual preferences to the edges of society even though they’ve done nothing criminal?

Grindstone on May 16, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3