TPMDC

Poll Suggests America Has Turned A Corner On Homophobia

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

For the first time, the CNN/Time poll shows more Americans don't think homosexuality is morally repugnant than do. For more than 30 years, since 1978, a majority of respondents to the poll have said "homosexual relationships between consenting adults is morally wrong," while a minority have said homosexuality "not a moral issue."

That is, until this Presidents Day Weekend, when 50% of respondents said homosexuality is not a moral issue, while 48% said that it was morally wrong. Two percent said they had no opinion.

The number of respondents calling homosexuality morally wrong has fluctuated since the 1978 poll. Back then, 53% of respondents said it was immoral to be in a gay or lesbian relationship. In 2001, that number was 55%.

At the same time, the number of Americans who say homosexuality is not a moral issue has risen to hover around 45%. The poll released today was the first time the number rose to 50%.

Other results from the poll also suggest changing attitudes towards homosexuals in America. Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said they favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, the highest number of supporters ever recorded for that question by a long shot. Just 27% said they're opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. Resuls from polls in 1994 and 1998 showed about 50% of Americans favored allowing homosexuals to serve openly while about 40% opposed it.

Comments (36) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

February 22, 2010 2:01 PM   

In other news, Pat Robertson was seen running down Pennsylvania Avenue with his hair on fire, screaming at the top of his lungs, "The sky is fallin', Jeebus, the sky is fallin'!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 3:30 PM    in reply to Schmed

followed closely by Dobson and Phelps and others probably too numerous to mention. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the public has gotten way out in front of the politicians on an issue.Except that most politicians are way too eager to listen to those groups- Focus on the Family and the like- who are most willing and able to stir up electoral troubles they'd be paying attention to this and getting some of the lesser things that revolve around the gay issue out of the way and getting on to the more pressing things like health care, jobs, and banking reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 2:21 PM   

God must be pissed. I can't wait for leading GOP politicians (except Dick Cheney, of course), to inform the country of The Almighty's displeasure. My advice: Buy Gold!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 2:53 PM   

This is only because the GOP is busy trying to kill Grandma, increase tax breaks for the chosen upper 1% percentile, kill job creation and increase future tax obligations for the other 99%, and make sure no one has affordable health care.

They'll get back to this dinner plate spinning on a stick sooner or later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:20 PM    in reply to FreemanW

I don't know... There seems to actually be a potential rift among Republicans/conservatives on homosexuality. Some high-profile names (e.g., Cheneys & McCains) have embraced gay rights.

I think this "dinner plate on a stick" is getting harder & harder to spin...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 3:10 PM   

Some corner. The results are still pretty repugnant. Half the country is passing moral judgement on other people's private lives, that have no effect on their own life whatsoever. There are a lot of things that are morally wrong. Being true to your biological nature isn't one of them.

This is somewhat like saying in 1962, "We've turned a corner. Only 48% of Americans think blacks should still drink from their own water fountains."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:52 PM    in reply to KdNicewanger

This is somewhat like saying in 1962, "We've turned a corner. Only 48% of Americans think blacks should still drink from their own water fountains."

Interesting analogy, given that in 1962 we were on the cusp of a federal civil rights revolution that would sweep away all forms of institutionalized segregation within five years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 3:22 PM   

Well, no one was ever in 'fear'(phobia) of homosexual type sex in the first place. What our society rejects is people that try to create an 'identity/lifestyle' based on the type of sex they choose to have. The problem never was about who a person loves, just the fact that people were trying to BE their type of sexual activity, ie: homosexual 'type' of sexual activity.

As far as the military is concerned, the only way this can work, would be if the committed 'homosexuals/Gay' members of the military had their own barracks/showers, just like females are separated from males. Since the 'conflict' issue is based on sex and sexuality, and not the ability or capacity to do their job.

But what will the government officially call the members of the now gay group. Since first they were Homosexuals, then Gay, so who knows what group identifier they will use next. Maybe just use Intersex, since biologically this is where the issue begins for the vast majority. Males, Females, Intersex.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 3:42 PM    in reply to Bloggin

Whay "our" society rejects? Speak for yourself, dude! I'm all about it!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:02 PM    in reply to Bloggin

Huh? What does "trying to be their type of sexual activity" even mean? 'Sexual activity' may be a component of the relationship I have with my partner, but it certain isn't the main or only part. I feel sorry for you if you feel sexual activity defines your relationship with your partner.

"As far as the military is concerned, the only way this can work, would be if the committed 'homosexuals/Gay' members of the military had their own barracks/showers, just like females are separated from males." -- Why would this be any more necessary than it is now? Gays are already serving in the military.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:15 PM    in reply to Bloggin

NO ONE was ever in fear of homosexual type sex? And you know this because you've polled the entire world?

And I'm going to need the rest of the afternoon off to try and figure out what to make of "people were trying to BE their type of sexual activity..." Is that what I try to do with my wife when the kids are asleep, or is that something I do in public?

Any help appreciated.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:24 PM    in reply to TalkTalk

This is a standard refrain you hear from opponents of gay rights. What it ignores is that the question of rights is not related to sexual acts, but involves the right to enter into a legal relationship with a partner of one's choosing and the right to be free from discrimination.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:29 PM    in reply to mentsmin

Bloggin is going to need to learn to write that a little more clearly the next time. That's some tortured shit in the initial post. Thanks mentsmin!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:18 PM    in reply to Bloggin

Wow, you have some serious issues, don't you Bloggin?

So what you're saying is that right wing religious nut jobs don't actually have a problem with two guys getting naked, they just don't want to know it exists? And they want the people who do it to remain hidden away, like they were in a, oh I don't know, closet? Perhaps? Odd, but straight people are allowed to hold hands, make out and show affection in public, isn't that BEING their sexuality?

And the raging homophobia/sexual confusion behind the idea of "separate but equal" is hilarious, and so revealing. So you imagine that if you had to share a bathroom with a member of your own gender, any gay people in there might want to start an orgy, or do you, or maybe what's really bothering you is that the idea turns you on just a teeny bit.

May I suggest working through your insecurity/homosexual issues?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:36 PM    in reply to Bloggin

It continues to amaze me that people - typically people who don't know any gay people and tend to be pretty psychosexually infantile about how orientation takes shape - take to these nebulous and assinine mouthings about "lifestyle" as something they object to. What the fuck does that even mean? Of course gay people are going to associate with gay people (among others), and it will result in a community with certain characteristics. Gay identity is about infinitely more than "what kind of sex they choose to have," but why try and explain it to you?

Is the Italian "lifestyle" about "what type of sauce they choose to eat?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:53 PM    in reply to Bloggin

The most widely used term to describe the group is LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered).

The problem lies rooted in the context of social control. If they can effectively pass laws prohibiting someone to "BE" themselves, that sets precedent for dangerous levels of social control for other groups. Perhaps the next target would be a group that you identify with and consider yourself to "BE".

To your point about bathrooms, this was already dealt with in DADT. You've got gays showering with straights already, what's going to change? Certainly the military code of conduct wrt interpersonal relationships will not change one iota and that should about cover it. I lived in a shared space with several gay men; going to the bathroom was never an issue (unless you're Larry Craig I guess).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 3:28 PM    in reply to Bloggin

This reminds me of when I was a music student at a major Minnesota
church college. There were so many music majors that the going joke was... three different sexes on campus: Men, women, and music majors! We were quite proud of ourselves, heh heh heh.
Dakotahgeo.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:20 PM   

Sick bunch of weirdos in that main photo caption...what say? Real screamers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:00 PM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

ppffttt .... pppbfft .....pbbfffft.....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 6:47 PM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

Your kind of people, eh?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:22 PM   

HAHAHAHA! I guess it's still about race and not sexuality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 4:29 PM   

That's because most white GOP males have had relations with one another and now they want to stop being hypocritical about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:02 PM    in reply to Mike J

I think that's the answer. Most white GOP males have had relations with another guy and are disgusted by it. They figure if they can stamp out that "lifestyle" they can squelch "those" feelings in themselves. Since most of these repressed assholes are married and cheating in men's rooms, I guess they know what they're talking about when they call homosexuality a "lifestyle choice." Because for them, it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:03 PM   

Atheism is the new gay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:42 PM    in reply to Karl the Marxist

You won't leave, you don't believe, get used to it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:10 PM   

Allow me to inject some rational analysis into this discussion: First, I am amazed that the split on the "morally wrong" question was as close as it was, given that for 30 years, the liberal media has been promoting the gay agenda at every turn.
Secondly, as far as the military issue is concerned, the only people who should be polled on this are those who have served or are serving (just as feminists say that only women should have any say on abortion laws.) Trust me, if only military personnel were polled, the results would be the reverse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 5:22 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

A large defeat for rational analysis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 6:11 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

If I may dissect your "rational analysis" for a moment: Let's assume your statement about "feminists" and the question of abortion is true. Are you in agreement--"only women should have any say on abortion laws?" You must agree, because it wouldn't be terribly "rational" for you to defend your position by drawing a comparison to a position you consider invalid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:19 PM   

Not really. I was just sticking it to the feminists.
But the military is too important to be used as a petri dish for liberal social experimentation.
And no, I don't accept the comparison of gays in the military to the integration of the armed forces in the 1940s. (Polls find that blacks are opposed to homosexuality in greater percentages than whites.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 8:36 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

Maybe I'm reading this wrong because I'm not good with crazy- are you suggesting that we shouldn't allow homosexuals in the military because some blacks are also homophobes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 9:07 PM    in reply to Thelonious Funk

I reject the pejorative "homophobe." I don't fear them ("phobia"); I reject their lifestyle as aberrant. If the military ain't broke, don't break it, that's what I am saying. Don't ask, don't tell works just fine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 22, 2010 10:45 PM    in reply to Joseph Calling

Ah, so the military actually was broke when they integrated the armed services. And that's why it's different?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 4:26 AM    in reply to Joseph Calling

Actually, DADT doesn't work just fine. The military is in trouble. I reject your foolish notion that being gay is a "lifestyle." Being a homophobe like yourself is a lifestyle choice. Being an idiot is a lifestyle choice. Even being educated is a lifestyle choice. Something you're born with is not a lifestyle choice.

See how lovely it is to argue from assertion? Except, I actually made a basic point with referents, you did not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 8:54 AM    in reply to Joseph Calling

It's hardly an 'experiment,' considering they're already serving now. Further, it isn't as if other military forces don't already allow gays to serve openly.

..and yeah, it's "broke" when you're loosening your standards to accept felons while still booting people out simply for being gay.

Perhaps my "lifestyle" (whatever that means) is 'aberrant' to you, but perhaps you'd feel differently if someone close to you had been discriminated in such a manner simply for being gay. Most certainly wouldn't 'choose' to put themselves in a position where they have to listen to individuals such as yourself prattle on and on about how offensive you find their sexual orientation to be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 8:56 AM   

Oh, this is not to mention that the above poll is not in reference to DADT. The number of Americans opposed to DADT are higher than 50%.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 23, 2010 3:43 PM   

Actually, if all polls were laid together, the end results would be that DADT is losing support from ALL aspects of society. The public poll is a funny thing; most conservative pollsters will poll only those people they know will agree with the question(s) being asked. The truly reliable pollsters will use broad sections of the country with no qualifiers. The military Staff AND troops, at this point, are moving generally in the direction of the repeal of DADT, as is the general public. I believe some of you posters on this site might want to catch up on the news for the last 6-12 months. You might be surprised!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on