Comments on: Boy in the bubble

By: pathos

pathos — Sun, 28 Sep 2003 19:22:29 +0000

Don’t doubt you. Just noticed while following up that the numbers didn’t match up. I trust that your data sets are accurate, or else I wouldn’t bother reading!

By: Lynn Gazis-Sax

Lynn Gazis-Sax — Sun, 28 Sep 2003 16:11:26 +0000

“Sorry, I really don’t follow. Gay sex outside of marriage is OK, but if two men get married, they should stop having sex?” I read this as, sex between people of the same sex is OK if they show the same commitment to each other as married people would, and sex between opposite sex people is OK under the same circumstances (which would be a same-sex marriage friendly position, and also one in which sex between people of the same sex, like sex between people of the opposite sex, is sometimes wrong). Makes perfect sense to me.

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 19:54:39 +0000

Note that the poll numbers on the “civil union” question turn around when the question specifies that the union is not a marriage. So there’s less pure bigotry at work than one might guess.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:50:12 +0000

(I have got to remember that CT handles asterisk-marked empahsis in a way that I don’t understand. Sorry.)

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:49:04 +0000

This doesn’t really surpise me because I, too, live in Texas; but, unlike Ted (I’m guessing), I’ve got some contacts with some true social conservatives. Well, kinda. Hmm. How to explain my sister? She’s an evangelical minister. There’s absolutely no doubt in her mind that homosexual acts are morally wrong. However, she tells me that she gets in arguments all the time with fellow Christians about just how sinful homosexual acts really are. She doesn’t think that homosexual acts are socially intolerable; or, to put it another way, she does think they’re intolerable….intolerable just like fornication and, worse, adultry, are. To her mind, our society pretty much accepts fornication, and, to her, homosexual acts are roughly equivalent. Perhaps a little bit worse. But, also, in regards to homosexuality, she also tends to follow through on the whole “hate the sin, love the sinner” thing. This may be influenced by the fact that my best friend, of whom she’s very fond, is gay. I should say that my sister is a strange sort of a litmus test because she’s—as my ex used to say—really a liberal-Christian-of-the-South-American-activist-kumbaya-singing-nun-tradition in a conservative, evangelical Christian’s body. She’s kinda paradoxical. (I’ve noticed that she’s contructing a really interesting—get this—conservative evangelical feminist theology that is in opposition to all the Christian theology that has villified women. Watch for this to eventually transform the American evangelical Church someday.) What I’ve noticed is that even the more conservative folks are more tolerant of homosexuals these days. However, that doesn’t mean that they believe that their “lifestyle” is morally acceptable. They just think that it’s not so unacceptable that they villify gays as much. I’m ambivalent about this. I’m pretty outspoken against the gay rights appropriation of naturist arguments since, to me, the real issue here is the moral issue of homosexual acts, and I prefer to stand against the conservatives head-on and assert that there’s nothing morally wrong with homosexual acts. I think that’s the real battleground, ultimately. And I think that tolerance of gays but intolerance of homosexual acts creates a sort of tolerance that is a mile wide but an inch deep and could disapear in a heartbeat. On the other hand, perhaps any degree of tolerance in any form is preferable to none. I’m not sure. But it doesn’t surprise me in the least that far more people think homosexual acts are morally wrong than do not—regardles of the increased acceptance of homosexuals. I don’t doubt that there are people I know, liberal-minded people, even—that seem to be accepting of homosexuality but who, internally still have a fairly strong belief that homosxual acts are morally wrong. They just don’t say so for a variety of reasons.

By: Yusifu

Yusifu — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:32:24 +0000

I have a different suspicion about the “Is gay sex wrong” question, which is that many relatively non-homophobic straights nonetheless have a strong aversion to the thought of two men having sex. Gay sex implies gay male sex, and some people get uncomfortable with that. Worse, they begin imagining specific activities. It’s one of the reasons Ellen could get laid but not Will. I’d be interested to see the answer to the question “Is being gay wrong.”

By: Barbar

Barbar — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:30:16 +0000

Is gay sex wrong? I bet a lot of people see that question and first think about whether or not gay sex is wrong for them. If you’re straight, you actually need to think a little to reach the conclusion that there’s nothing wrong about two guys going at it. Well, maybe I shouldn’t speak for everyone. But that’s what it seems like to me. That’s just the culture, I think. Which is why phrasing the question differently leads to more encouraging results. No matter how little gay sex might appeal to the poll respondent, the simple fact that there are people out there who are gay affects your answers to questions. Ignorance is the real enemy. If you acknowledge the existence of gay people, the answers to questions of gay marriage and civil unions are pretty clear.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:58:08 +0000

“Huh? Delegates pick candidates. They don’t get to tell the candidate what positions to adopt.” No, just what positions they can adopt, and still get picked. LOL

By: nameless

nameless — Sat, 27 Sep 2003 01:42:14 +0000

“I have a bit of trouble believing there are about as many Democrats as there are Republicans and Independents combined. Maybe it is true but I think it seems unlikely given the about even division between Republicans and Democrats.” Huh? If you have evidence that there are about equal number Repubs and Dems, just say so. “Which could mean that the delegates agree to swap certain issues (“I’ll support steel tariffs for the unions if you’ll agree to affirmative action programs”)” Huh? Delegates pick candidates. They don’t get to tell the candidate what positions to adopt.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 22:03:19 +0000

Pathos, I did two things differently and one thing wrong in the previous post from 2002. What I did differently (makes little diffference): In my previous post, I ran a cross-tab based on another variable, SRCBELT, which introduces a small filtering effect. In today’s post, I realized that there was another point on the questionnaire that asked the same question, so by combining the answers I could get fewer blanks. What I did wrong (big difference): In my previous post from 2002, I failed to realize that the automated cross-tab feature on the GSS interface does not filter for the most recent year, but sums up responses from all years. The percentage of people who say gay sex is always wrong has shrunk quite a bit over the years. In order to get the results of a crosstab from any given year, you have to download the data a run it yourself, which is what I did yesterday. I’m not trying to fool you, P. I’ll email you the data if you like, and you can double-check me.

By: PG

PG — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:44:38 +0000

I’ve heard that once two gay men have kids, they stop having sex. Much like two straight folks. Stop sodomy—encourage gay adoption!

By: Andrew Edwards

Andrew Edwards — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:16:32 +0000

I don’t have a hard time believing that there are that many people who just do not have any opinion about the issue. I guess what I meant is that I take ‘no opinion’ as a win for the good guys too. If you told me 100% of Americans had ‘no opinion’ on whether homosexual relations were right or wrong, I’d be pretty happy, and consider it a real step forward. Just as there are people who believe that sex within a marriage (or a committed monogamous relationship) is right but sex outside of marriage is wrong, no doubt that there are people who would apply the same or a similar standard to sexual relations between adults of the same sex. Sorry, I really don’t follow. Gay sex outside of marriage is OK, but if two men get married, they should stop having sex? I thought I was just teasing about a peripheral point, but now I’m all confused.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:10:52 +0000

Andrew Edwards wrote:

Who are these ‘liberals’ who think homosexuality is ‘always wrong’?

Probably just people who think that just because something is wrong it does not necessarily follow that it should be illegal.

Additionally, I’d be interested to hear an explanation of why homosexuality might be wrong sometimes, but not other times.

The question was actually about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex not about whether or not homosexuality is wrong. Just as there are people who believe that sex within a marriage (or a committed monogamous relationship) is right but sex outside of marriage is wrong, no doubt that there are people who would apply the same or a similar standard to sexual relations between adults of the same sex.

Last, I bet ‘no answer’ is closer to ‘not at all wrong’ than to ‘always wrong’.

I disagree. Since “not at all wrong” was an option on the survey, I think it is more likely that the “no answer” (which is about one-forth to a one-third of respondents) are simply people with no opinions one way or other about sexual relations between adults of the same sex. I don’t have a hard time believing that there are that many people who just do not have any opinion about the issue.

By: pathos

pathos — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:04:12 +0000

Apparently things are getting better in 2002, but they’ve gotten retroactively better for 1998! How else to explain this post from early 2002? http://tedbarlow.blogspot.com/2002_02_24_tedbarlow_archive.html HOMOSEX: “219. What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex—do you think it is always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes, or not wrong at all?” SRCBELT: “51. SRC (SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN) NEW BELT CODE” (a tag of urban/suburban/rural areas) “In 1998, out of adults who answered the question nationwide: 62% said that same-sex sexual relations were always wrong 6% said that they were almost always wrong 7% said that they were wrong only sometimes 25% said they were not wrong at all So overall, we had almost seven in ten Americans saying gay sex was “always wrong” or “almost always wrong” in 1998.” Maybe it’s all those Will & Grace re-runs.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Fri, 26 Sep 2003 20:48:20 +0000

Ted,

So I suspect that the numbers represent a floor for support of gay marriage.

If we both agree that it is more likely that are fewer people who would support redefining marriage to include homosexual unions then who think that gay sex is okay, would not the findings of this survey then represent a ceiling rather than a floor? Or do you think that the attitudes have changed in the last few years that these numbers would understate support?

What’s striking to me is (a) in 1998, a huge number of Americans think gay sex was always wrong, and (b) the proportion who think that isn’t as different as I would have thought between Democrats and Republicans.

Neither of the two seemed to deviate that much from the results from Independents. Perhaps it is because Americans (including those who identify themselves as Democrats) tend to be more socially conservative then those who are activists within the Democratic Party. I’ve heard a number of Democrats complain that if they were pro-life or failed some other litmus test, they were ostracized from the party when it came to the BPOUs and becoming delegates. Something else which occurred to me from what I’ve heard from some of my Democratic friends is that despite its name, the Democratic Party is somewhat undemocratic when it comes to its party structure and seems to reserve so many delegate spots for members of groups and operates in many ways like the old-style political machines with how it picks delegates for the conventions. Which could mean that the delegates agree to swap certain issues (“I’ll support steel tariffs for the unions if you’ll agree to affirmative action programs”) which could account for some of the disconnect between what the views are of people who identify themselves as Democrats versus that of the party though its institutions and activists. Just a thought.