The Right on the Verge of Another Defeat in the Culture War
NYT columnist Charles Blow points us to an eye-popping new survey by the Gallup organization, a survey that shows new and convincing majorities of Americans who no longer hold moral objections to gay and lesbian people. This is what a specific piece of bigotry losing its power looks like:
No wonder they are fighting so hard and making up lots of scary stuff along the way to try to sway the public to hold fast to those bigotries. From the article:
1. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who perceive “gay and lesbian relations” as morally acceptable has crossed the 50 percent mark. (You have to love the fact that they still use the word “relations.” So quaint.)
2. Also for the first time, the percentage of men who hold that view is greater than the percentage of women who do.
3. This new alignment is being led by a dramatic change in attitudes among younger men, but older men’s perceptions also have eclipsed older women’s. While women’s views have stayed about the same over the past four years, the percentage of men ages 18 to 49 who perceived these “relations” as morally acceptable rose by 48 percent, and among men over 50, it rose by 26 percent.
Blow’s article goes on to speculate on why this change is happening, but it is just important to mark that it is. So when you see the GOP double down on anti-gay and lesbian rhetoric this election season (hidden behind opposition to the repeal of DADT), you will know why. They are losing one more group of people to demonize — which is ground zero of their perpetual campaign of resentments. And that is something to be applauded.
ps. Anybody know of any good Culture War images? Could find one to tag this post with….
Tags: Culture War, GLBT, Republican Bamboozlement
I didn’t realize that so many people have moral objections to gay and lesbian relations. I figured the percentages for approval would be higher.Go figure.
I want to thank republican members of congress for making normal gay sex as boring as whole milk.
It’s amazing to see the sharp rise in approval by men. I wonder what happened there.
“ps. Anybody know of any good Culture War images? Could find one to tag this post with….”
Im terrible with photo shop, but i see Bill O’s head on Xena’s body with a white flag.
oops, that was me haha.
Answer to UI’s question: Internet porn.
I think that the rise in younger men’s support is simple–they have more and more friends who are open about their committed relationship, due to the progress (albeit irregular and occasionally backward progress) in dismantling society’s barriers for such people/couples/families, and more and more people see that friends’ relationships in no way ‘threaten’ their own (same- or opposite-sex) relationship–they recognize this as a non-issue in their first-hand experience. Homophobia is becoming more of a generational thing.
This would be a defeat only for the far right. Most moderate conservatives like myself have NO problems with gay marriage or civil unions.
The results of the survey are not surprising at all(at least, to me). Although the low approval numbers are a bit of a surprise, and are still disappointing.
The only surprise is that someone would relate this to a culture ‘war’, and relegate it to a win/loss column like some kind of a trivial sporting event.
This would be a defeat only for the far right. Most moderate conservatives like myself have NO problems with gay marriage or civil unions.
LOL… Now that social conservatism is no longer working for them, Republicans are tripping all over themselves to to erase the past and distance themselves from social conservatives. But wait until they figure out that without the Reagan Coalition bigots, they are a permanent minority. And moderates sure as hell aren’t going to be winning any Republican primaries for a while.
The Republican “family values” platform died in an airport men’s room.
In a way, the teabaggers represent an effort by conservatives to grow a new working-class leg for their base that (ostensibly) focuses on fiscal responsibility, without the social conservative baggage.
The only surprise is that someone would relate this to a culture ‘war’, and relegate it to a win/loss column like some kind of a trivial sporting event.
This is particularly clueless. Especially since one party has been working overtime to demonize gay people and place them well outside of their so-called “family values” political stance. Said demonization extends to making sure that these gay and lesbian people are denied the simple civil rights that the rest of us enjoy — and they do that because they have convinced themselves that they have this privilege due to their certain knowledge of how people should live. It is particularly unAmerican, but that doesn’t deter the culture warriors. The real and fundamental weakening of people who would try to make second class citizens out of gay and lesbian people is a thing to be celebrated.
anon (I wish I knew which ‘anon’ I was addressing, but hey, whatever):
LOL… Now that social conservatism is no longer working for them, Republicans are tripping all over themselves to to erase the past and distance themselves from social conservatives.
Oh my oh my. Nice try, but neither Dave B or myself have ever been much into the social conservative scene. I particularly take personal objection from your anonymous swipe, because I have put out positions on my social-non-conservatism in the past (this one from 2007) and I was also a part of FSP. Over the years, I have very much it clear that I am pro-equality on race, gender, and sexual identity/preference (the two are separate while both are important). So, anon, wrong again (whichever one you are, that is…I’m sure there are other anon’s out there who aren’t wrong and I don’t want to mix them with you).
“Blah, blah….. The real and fundamental weakening of people who would try to make second class citizens out of gay and lesbian people is a thing to be celebrated.”
I’d rather applaud the progress made, and encourage more, than continue to drive a wedge between the two mindsets. As stated earlier, it’s mostly a generational thing and, like racism, will fade naturally rather than being forced. Unfortunately, that appears to be your only solution, to denigrate and pretend to be in a contrived war with those with whom you disagree. It’s rather sad, but if that’s the limit of your intellect, I guess we’ll have to stand back and watch it kick your ass until you evolve.
I wish I knew which ‘anon’ I was addressing
Good. My plan for anonymity is working.
neither Dave B or myself have ever been much into the social conservative scene.
Agreed. The issue is who you had to get into bed with to win majorities. I mean, isn’t Dave B. the one who invited David A. into the blog? Or do I have it wrong.
Anyway, my anon code prevents me from going any further in discussing people to this level of detail, since they can’t shoot back.
I was mostly using you guys as a handy symbol for national Republicans having to rely on SoCons.
It would take an apologist for the bigots to think that there is a wedge between two mindsets. Prejudice against people not like you just because of those differences is certainly wrong, but no where illegal. What is wrong is the insistence that your prejudices are a good basis to make civic policy from. The only wedge is between those who think that their discomfort ought to deprive others of their civil rights and those who do not think that bigotry should dictate your civil rights. Coddling or whatever shucking and jiving you think should be done to protect the bigoted is not the work that gets a long term result. But then, of course, you are too busy apologizing for these fools to know that Culture Warrior is *their* term of choice.
“It would take an apologist for the bigots to think that there is a wedge between two mindsets. ”
It would take a disillusioned idiot to think there isn’t. And you apparently think there will be more progress if the chasm becomes wider? Please show me where I made an apology for anyone.
Talk about “clueless”
“…shucking…jiving.”
I haven’t heard those terms used since I attended Delaware State College back in the early 70’s. The first time was by my guidance counselor. I didn’t know you were black.
Cool.
And nowhere did I advocate “coddling” anyone. Albeit somewhat jaundiced, you seem to have quite an active imagination, but don’t pretend to know what I should think. It would probably permanently injure your small mind.
Apparently your pinhead can’t wrap itself around the idea that civil rights are supposed to be an absolute thing. Deciding to deny them because you don’t like who one group of people sleeps with isn’t a *wedge*. The apologist comes from thinking that waiting for the bigots to die off is the solution. For the people waiting for their full measure of civil rights, it certainly is not. If African Americans had to wait for the racists to dies off before being able to exercise the full measure of civil rights, they’d still be waiting.
At http://paulprogressive.blogspot.com/ I call on DE Reps to pass HB10 to bring access to health/retirement benefits to state workers w/unmarried partners.
“At http://paulprogressive.blogspot.com/ I call on DE Reps to pass HB10 to bring access to health/retirement benefits to state workers w/unmarried partners.”
Or, it can be legislated (and it’s about fucking time), because it’s the will of the people. Or, we can continue to be pretend warriors in a contrived “culture war”, and shove it down their throats. We all know how well that works in the long run. (At least, some of the more enlightened of us do).
“If African Americans had to wait for the racists to dies off before being able to exercise the full measure of civil rights, they’d still be waiting.”
Sadly, for every racist that dies off, another is born to continue the cycle… like Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan …, and the rest of the heroes of the far left.
And yet here you are advocating people wait for it all to die out. And also applauding Paul’s call for the benefits law. Which counts as shoving it down their throats. The wingnuts losing another nexus of their resentments is a good thing — whether it is shoved down their throats (haven’t seen a Coloreds Only sign for awhile, right?) or if they just die off. Other people’s bigotries should not stand in the way of anyone’s civil rights. The argument I’ve been making all along which you don’t want to argue in favor of your braindead bullshit about shoving something down people’s throats. Do follow the argument or just step off.
I’m not sure that those who are opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds will “die off” anytime soon; it’s more likely that homosexuals will die off. It is commonly taught and believed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, rather than a personal choice; if so, as very few homosexuals reproduce, natural selection will eventually eliminate that trait from the gene pool. Evolution at work.
Chris Slavens is an idiot. Guess you’ve never heard of artificial insemination? Hmmm? And since it’s a genetic trait, as you put it, then the gene would be in one’s siblings, too. Guess you failed basic Mendelsohn in 9th grade.
“And also applauding Paul’s call for the benefits law. Which counts as shoving it down their throats.”
WTF is wrong with you? Since when is using the legislative process “shoving it down their throats” in anyone’s world but yours?
“… (haven’t seen a Coloreds Only sign for awhile, right?)”
No, I believe it’s against the LAW.
BTW, you used the term “die off”. I used terms such as evolve, progress,… If you’re having a hard time keeping up, I’ll try smaller words, and simpler concepts.
And I meant Mendel (as in Gregor Mendel) not Mendelsohn. Guess that’s what happens when you’re listening to classical music and commenting on DL at the same time. 😉
WTF is wrong with you? You are here apologizing for these bigots without even understanding their basic resentments. Which include laws that make it difficult for them to exercise their bigotry in public. This would be the entire source and the power of the Southern Strategy — that the government is forcing *these people* on them. Rand Paul and his issues with the Civil Rights Act would be emblematic.
But it isn’t much of a surprise that you’ve chosen to substitute your basic dumbass contrarianism for actually knowing what you are talking about.
No, Cassandra, only in your small, yet remarkably dense, mind did I apologize for anyone.
“… for actually knowing what you are talking about.”
I actually do know what I’m talking about. I believe it’s you who has no valid argument, and are defensively (and very inarticulately) misrepresenting my points, but please feel free to continue to prove them.
The only way to make this any more articulate for you is apparently to speak slower and that I don’t have time for. But I’ll note that while you are whinging about no valid arguments you still haven’t addressed — at any point — the basis of mine. But arguments is not what you do — it is just some silly bit of asshattery that is supposed to stand in for an argument.
Sorry I’m not speaking slowly enough for you.