Gay Patriot Header Image

Majority of Americans find gay relationships morally acceptable,
but overwhelming majority find marital infidelity morally wrong

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:33 am - June 1, 2011.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

Via Ann Althouse, I just learned of Gallup’s 2011 Values and Beliefs poll:

U.S. Perceived Moral Acceptability of Behaviors and Social Policies, May 2011

That blogress asks her readers, “What surprises you the most here?” Well, I’m no longer surprised that nearly 3 in 5 Americans find gay relationships morally acceptable. It corresponds with the numbers we’ve seen in Pew and Gallup surveys on state recognition of same-sex civil unions. The changes is social attitudes I blogged about here are very real.

What surprised me was the moral issue on which there is there greatest concord in America, marital fidelity. It seems my “gut feeling” about monogamy is more than just a visceral reaction, but something with which more than 90% of my fellow Americans can relate. And it’s something to bear in mind when we’re talking about state recognition of same-sex marriage.



  1. To your knowledge, has Kreisel ever supported pedophilia, incest, bestiality, or marrying plants or rocks?

    Yes. He states that:

    Life is hard. We’re in a really tough time in our history. Happiness is so, so hard to find for people. So they find it, they find someone that makes them happy, and we want to take that person away. We want to say, ‘Oh no, you can be together, you can love that person, but you can’t marry them.’ You can’t marry them. That’s wrong.”

    Kriesel clearly says it’s wrong for the government to say that people can’t marry whomever makes them happy.

    And as has already been stated, children make pedophiles happy, blood relatives make incest practitioners happy, animals make bestialists happy, and multiple partners make plural marriage practitioners happy.

    So Kriesel has clearly stated that he supports pedophilia, incest, bestiality, plural marriage, etc. because those things make people “happy”, and he puts the “happiness” of people ahead of everything else.

    Furthermore, Kriesel, as he makes clear, is in complete opposition to the government imposing ANY type of rule that would prevent people from marrying whomever makes them “happy”. Therefore, he opposes laws banning sex and marriage to underage children, animals, multiple partners, etc., since all of those prevent people from marrying whomever makes them “happy”.

    You insisted that being allowed to marry whomever makes you happy is a “civil right”, Pat, and you have stated that this is fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment. Since there are no restrictions based on age, gender, species, previous marriage, or the like in the Fourteenth Amendment, you must then allow those people to marry as well or be in unconstitutional violation of “equal protection”.

    In short, Pat, both you and Kriesel are making lazy arguments.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 4:33 pm - June 5, 2011

  2. Also, Pat, before you start complaining about “obvious” things in quotes and whatnot, let me remind you: gay-sex liberals like yourself regularly quote Supreme Court marriage cases, such as Loving, to “prove” that gay-sex marriage is a “civil right” — without ever once having a concern about whether or not those justices were actually even thinking about gay-sex marriage.

    Since you pull words without context or allowing for the “obvious”, the same can be done to you. Unless Kriesel specifically repudiates his stances and states that it is OK for the government to prevent people from marrying who makes them “happy” based on societal morals and values, his words are being taken at face value.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 4:44 pm - June 5, 2011


    I think Kreisel was only addresses SSM but it’s up to your analysis of the video.

    Hope you have ‘happy’ PRIDE month Miss BEADS.

    Comment by rusty — June 5, 2011 @ 9:59 pm - June 5, 2011

  4. Rusty, I found no evidence that Kreisel supports pedophilia, incest, etc. The only change that SSM made in Iowa was to change “one man and one woman” to “two adults.” None of the other restrictions (close relatives, age, must both be human) has changed, and that’s what Kreisel voted on. It’s a stretch to believe otherwise, unless one needs to shriek a partisan and/or ideological agenda.

    Comment by Pat — June 6, 2011 @ 7:01 am - June 6, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.