Survey: Millennials echo parents on abortion, much more supportive of gay marriage
June 9th, 2011
01:46 PM ET

Survey: Millennials echo parents on abortion, much more supportive of gay marriage

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN

(CNN) - Ask Sarah Mattingly for the first word that comes to mind when she hears the word "abortion," and she heaves a huge sigh.

Then there's a long pause before she answers: "Sadness."

Mattingly works at Northland Church, an evangelical megachurch in Orlando, Florida, and she regularly passes an abortion clinic on her way to work.

"There are always picketers. The parking lot is always full. I see these women sitting in their cars and just feel full of sadness," she says.

There's no doubt in her mind that abortion is wrong: "not what God has ordained."

And yet, she says, she's not entirely convinced abortion should be against the law.

"I know a lot of people my age who struggle with that - who say we will never agree with it, but at what point is it the government's responsibility?" she asks. "I would tend to say I think it should be illegal, but I can see both sides of the story. It's a tough one."

Mattingly is part of what's being called the millennial generation, born in the 1980s and coming of age around the year 2000.

A huge new survey finds that she is not alone among her peers in feeling conflicted about abortion.

Just under half of 18- to 29-year-olds say that abortion is morally acceptable, but six out of 10 say it should be legal in most or all cases, and nearly seven out of 10 say it should be available locally.

The survey, by the Public Religion Research Institute, contains a number of startling findings.

One is that millennials are not significantly more supportive of abortion rights than their parents are, even though they tend to be better educated and less churchgoing - factors which tend to predict people are pro-choice.

There's no noticeable difference in the number of 20-year-olds and 50-year-olds who say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, for example, according to the PRRI.

But young people do break ranks with their elders on the other major "value voters" issue, gay marriage.

Only four out of 10 millennials say sex between adults of the same gender is morally wrong, about 60% of 50- to 64-year-olds say that, and seven out of 10 people 65 and older think it is.

The millennials are driving a massive shift in American views on gay marriage.

In 1999, just over one-third of Americans said gay marriage should be legal. Today, just over half do, according to the PRRI survey, which is consistent with other recent findings.

Views on abortion, by contrast, haven't budged in the last dozen years, with 57% of Americans saying in 1999 that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 56% saying so in the PRRI survey.

"The decoupling of attitudes on abortion and same-sex marriage suggest that these topics, which served in the past as the heart of the 'values' agenda, are no longer necessarily linked in the minds of Americans," says the survey, which was released Thursday.

It's called "Committed to Availability, Conflicted About Morality: What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate and the Culture Wars," and is based on 3,000 English and Spanish telephone interviews conducted in April and May.

One of America's most prominent cultural conservatives admits that when it comes to gay marriage, the movement is not as influential on young people as it would like to be.

"There's a lot of ground to make up there," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based organization that promotes "marriage and family" and opposes abortion.

He disputes the PRRI findings on abortion, asserting that "young people are stronger in their pro-life views than their parents."

But he concedes that conservatives haven't had a similar impact on young people's views on homosexuality.

"Cultural influencers have weighed in heavily" in favor of gay marriage, he said.

But the millennial generation could well change its mind as it grows up and starts families, he said.

"There is certainly this live-and-let-live attitude, but once the younger generation gets married and has children it falls by the wayside out of a necessity to protect their children," Perkins predicted. "They begin to re-evaluate the value construct."

Back at Northland Church, Sarah Mattingly is torn about gay marriage the same way she is about abortion. Married to a musician who works in musical theater, she and her husband have gay friends.

"Again, I don't agree with it, I really don't," she says of gay marriage. "God specifically in his word has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman. But at what point is it the government's responsibility to step in?"

She thinks gay marriage is "misguided," and feels the "church and believers" need to be involved.

"We would never say that this is a good thing in the sense that we don't like it, we wish it didn't exist. But the reality is, it does," she says.

And she as she wrestles with whether the government should let gay people marry, she can't come up with a definite answer: "I can answer yes and I can answer no to that."

- Newsdesk editor, The CNN Wire

Filed under: Abortion • Gay marriage • Politics • Polls

soundoff (584 Responses)
  1. Aleksandr

    The bible also says to stone to death peopel who eat shell fish, you hypocrite self-righteous biggots. Read it !

    June 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Free

      I see you've noticed how the famous 'abomination' reference to supposedly gay acts is lumped in with the other abominations like eating shellfish. The really Orthodox Jews still aren't all the comfortable with having relations with their own wives because of issues involving ritual cleanliness, so imagine how hung up they must have been about coming into contact with another man's fluids?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  2. Poppy

    I used to perform abortions on pregnant sows and cows with Lutalyse. It really didnt make me feel bad at all. The reason I did this was to have all the babies born at the same time. it was always such a pain when the babies dont fit into the schedule. It seriously doesnt effect me at all I dont even think of it as killing babies.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • mb2010a

      Please don't call women sows and cows...tsk,tsk,tsk.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
    • Poppy

      That stuff works on humans too. I also had some PG600 that forces the females into heat...also can work on humans...lol

      June 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Artist

      No offense but I just got a visual of a serial killer who lives on a farm.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:32 pm |
  3. Free Thinker Seeking Reason

    Perhaps it would have been more helpful if CNN had interviewed someone who wasn't still suffering from the mass psychosis of religious addiction. This person was obviously conflicted, which is better than purely hateful fundamentalist babble, but it's a stretch to say that they had an open mind like many other people of their age.

    The culture wars are shifting dramatically because young people are finally dumping the insanity of religious indoctrination and relying on evolved secular values. Deal with it, accept it, but please don't bother trying to roll the clock back on progress.

    The day the church dumps the literalistic woo in favor of a rational approach to living the one life we have the best we can is the day the insti-tution saves itself from the dustbin of history. Good luck on that, BTW...

    June 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Davren

      Oh yea, she's conflicted as killing unborn babies because she's brainwashed by religion..lol..Abortion is murder dummy. Your "Aborting" the process which produces life..Its in the name

      June 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • Free

      "Abortion is murder dummy."
      How many people believe this for reasons that aren't religious?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  4. Fidei Coticula Crux

    The Sancti-ty of Life: Created in His Image God places value on human life (Gen. 1:26, 27; Ps. 8:4-6). Human life is sacred because the man and woman alone were created in the image of God, and that life deserves protection. God commands His people to protect and defend innocent human life (Ezek. 16:20, 21, 36, 38). Under the Mosaic Law, the murder of another person deserved punishment by death because of the value of the life that was destroyed (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 20:13).

    Scripture extends this special status and protection to human life in every stage of development and need (Is. 46:3, 4). The unborn child shares in God’s image (Ps. 139:13-16) and is protected under Old Testament law (Ex. 21:22-25). Believers are exhorted to defend and care for the sick, the elderly, and the poor (Lev. 19:32; Deut. 15:7, 8). No one is excluded from protection and care.

    Throughout history this biblical view of the sancti-ty of all human life has faced opposition—most notably from those who advocate a “quality of life” viewpoint, suggesting that human life must possess certain qualities and abilities before it can be considered truly valuable and worthy of life sustenance. According to this distorted humanistic view, if the unborn child, the handicapped infant, or the elderly person does not possess these qualities, that individual is not enti-tled to the protection which Scripture or the Law would give.

    The Bible rejects this “quality of life” view. The value of human life does not depend upon the person’s functional abilities or independent viability but is assured because of the image of God which is found in every human life. God does not measure the quality of a human being before He bestows His image. God calls upon us to extend our care and compassion to every life He has created, in every stage of development and in every need.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      If you are a Christian relying on the Old Testament for your morals, you're opening up a can of worms.
      If you live by all of the rules in Leviticus, I'd be very surprised.
      Wear any poly-cotton blended shirts lately?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • mb2010a

      Typical selective reading and interpretation. Please go back and read the parts where "God" supposedly tells the "believers" to kill thousands of innocents because they don't happen to believe or were conquered by these same believers. Your whole post is silly...

      June 9, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      "Created in His Image"
      Ummm, so he has a di'ck and bo'obs ?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Fidei Coticula Crux

      RE: If you live by all of the rules in Leviticus, I'd be very surprised.

      @Doc Vestibule,

      If I'm required to live by all of the rules in Leviticus, then Christians would still have priest performing sin offerings. I wonder why that is no long done?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • Artist

      Bucky Ball

      "Created in His Image"
      Ummm, so he has a di'ck and bo'obs ?

      I am thinking tranny most likely.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Think a little more in the spiritual gentlemen. Our soul is in the image of God.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      "then Christians would still have priest performing sin offerings. I wonder why that is no long(ER) done?"

      You must not have been to church lately.

      Not only do they do that, but they do HUMAN sacrifice, and on top of that perform cannibalism.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
  5. Simon

    As a non-Christian, I refuse to allow mindless religious dogma govern my country. I consider human life to begin at birth, not conception. If you assign personhood, citizenship and rights to a fetus, then you must assign those same rights to every fertilized egg in fertility clinics, every sperm cell and every egg. Otherwise you are being illogical and arbitrary.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • Lycidas

      Here is the problem with this subject: Does a baby born 1 month premature have more individual rights than a baby still in the womb that is going full term?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
    • Davren

      Absolutely wrong. Life doesn't begin at birth, that's scientifically wrong. I'm religious and I don't even have to use the Bible to show that as early as 4 weeks thiers brain function. That child is alive, whether you want to admit it or not.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • Poppy

      I guess I fall into the "life begins at 40" camp...abortions should be legal up to that point

      June 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • tffl

      Davren – you pluck that 4-week old "child" out of its host and plop it on the table and I guarantee that within a couple of minutes it won't be alive by any standards. At 4 weeks, it isn't a _child_, it is a growth that at some point _may_ become a child. Regardless of its potential to someday possibly become an independent life form, at 4 weeks it is essentially a parasite and deserves no particular legal rights just because some people interpret a two thousand year old book that is holy _to them_ to say so.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
    • Artist


      Absolutely wrong. Life doesn't begin at birth, that's scientifically wrong. I'm religious and I don't even have to use the Bible to show that as early as 4 weeks thiers brain function. That child is alive, whether you want to admit it or not.

      Great let the (host) emove the fetus. If it is a life, it will survive on its own without the (host)

      June 9, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
    • JohnR

      So, can a full term baby survive "on its own" after birth?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • Free

      Hey buddy, once the fetus is born it becomes a person in it's own right. Consider Genesis 2:7

      "The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

      Adam wasn't considered 'living' until he could breath. Then there's Exodus 21:22-24

      "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,"

      Clearly this states that losing a pregnancy is not equal to actual murder, just as our modern laws do, correct?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      Good point. But that's exactly the problem here. A new "human life" DOES begin at conception, obviously it's not a "chicken life", but, "If you assign personhood, citizenship and rights to a fetus, then you must assign those same rights to every fertilized egg in fertility clinics". Agree, that assignment of legal person-hood IS an arbitrary choice, and seems to have gone way "off the rails" in the various forms of "it could survive outside the womb", (as I guarantee that no 20 week old could survive outside the womb without ventilator/oxygen/IV support). The search for simplistic answers in this complex set of problems is not productive.

      "every sperm cell and every egg"
      Don't agree with that part. I do think they will eventually have to more specific about what the term "conception" means. Is it when the egg is first penetrated by the sperm cell, or later in the complex process where the DNA begins or completes it's first replication ? An egg cell or a sperm cell with no possibility of combination, (either potentially, or actually), being granted person-hood seems to be "reductio ad absurdum".

      Thank (your) god that we don't use that book of yours to formulate US law. The examples of crazy laws in it are far too numerous to even begin to list.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • JohnR

      @Bucky It's refreshing to see someone acknowledge that the issues are complex, hence the search for simplistic answers unproductive. I would say counterproductive. And it's also refreshing to see someone acknowledge that there is an inescapable amount of arbitrariness in whatever answer is given. It's ridiculous to consider an hours old batch of cells a child. But it's also ridiculous to consider a near full term baby just not out of the womb a "growth". So both "objective" moments people appeal to are useless. And unfortunately, there is no similarly objective moment in the development from fertilized egg to baby to appeal to, hence some amount of unavoidable arbitrariness in any non-simplistic position.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
    • Free

      Bucky Ball
      I'm an atheist, but I do consider the Bible as much my book as any believer's precisely because it affects my life as much as theirs, sadly. That passage above about compensation over a lost pregnancy is just a case where common sense prevailed, that's all.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @Free- You got one thing a bit wrong: In Gen 2:7 where you have "being" it is better translated with "soul". This word in hebrew is nephesh which goes beyond the simple concept of respiration.

      "Adam wasn't considered 'living' until he could breath."

      Better to say he was living till he had a soul.

      I think you have some problems with your Mitzvot. First, the action of fighting was not directed toward the mother or the baby within her. Accidents are different than willfully killing an unborn. Second, if the elders would say that a life for a life is required...then the elders must have seen the life within her as equal. Usually something had to be given for the loss of the child within her. It wasn't look upon as a growth, it had potential worth as a child.

      You might also want to avoid citations from the Jewish angle too. Under the Talmud, an unborn baby is a life at 40 days after conception. I doubt many abortion advocates would like that idea.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Free

      Tell me, did you have to dig around to find a favorable rendering, or are you actually a fan of the Darby translation? Not many people are. Most find his insistence upon calling God 'Jehovah' just a little too antiquated.

      I'm pretty confident with my understanding of the Jewish position. Under the Talmud, an unborn baby is actually 'only water' until 40 days after conception, and then it is considered a part of the woman's body, 'ubar yerech imo -the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' until the greater part (51%) of it is born. There are even provisions for cutting up a fetus if the mother's life is in danger.

      Some modern conservative and orthodox Jews have adopted the conservative Christian stance, but they can't really base this on Talmud. Politics, maybe? Besides, I think you would be on slippery ground trying to argue that Jesus would have favored any rigid, conservative Jewish understanding of the Law in this, or any matter, right?

      June 10, 2011 at 10:26 am |
    • Bucky Ball

      More questions :
      Is an anencephalic human a "child", a "baby", or a "growth" ?
      Does it possess a "soul" ?
      If the answer is "no", then is it abortable ? At any point ? If "yes", where does the soul reside ?
      When and if technology advances to the point where human brains can live independently of most or all of a functioning body and spinal connections, is that a human, and/or possess a soul ? Maybe some brains already can live independently of most of the rest of a body ? (quadriplegic with a ventricular assist device on a ventilator and dialysis).
      As someone who was briefly exposed in training to in-vitro fertilization methods, I wondered if the entire paradigm, (the "infusion of a soul" thing), was outdated. If the soul was infused at conception, then there would have to be some objective point where it "came into" the (as JR said), ball of cells, and prior to that "moment" (?), "second"(?), or "fraction thereof"(?) would not have been there. Since we are all aware that the PROCESS of conception, (despite the word used to describe it as a single event), is really a series of events, (and the first division of the DNA itself is a series of events), maybe it would be better to spend more time defining the terms we use ?

      June 10, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • Free

      Bucky Ball
      The debate over having a soul without a functioning brain would go back to when it is permissible to pull the plug on someone who has their brain damaged beyond repair and function to sustain life. If someone is categorized as being 'brain dead' how is that really different than being categorized as not yet 'brain alive'?

      June 10, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      So abortion IS permissible here ?

      June 10, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  6. Dave

    The youth of America have moved left a reasonable distance in response to the Republican Party's marathon move to the right.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  7. lavender

    I don't think that the woman interviewed has gay friends. I think that they are just polite to her and she thinks that they are her friends. Who is friends with someone who believes that any marriage you might ever enter into "misguided" and says "we don't like it, we wish it didn't exist"?

    June 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
  8. Sy2502

    Funny how these people have no argument to support their position other than god.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm |
    • jimsim

      That may seem weak to a nonbeliever, but, to a Christian, God is a pretty strong reason.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • mb2010a

      Especially since their God never said that He/She was against gay marriage. Man wrote the Bible, not God...

      June 9, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
  9. ISITME?

    People listen up. I hope this will clear up any thoughts that you ever had about being gay. First of all, people should not fornicate. That is in the bible. Second, they should not be gay, that is in the bible. Third – the bible clearly, without any suggestion or hint, states what should happen to gays – period. Who are YOU to sit and judge Gods words all in the name of not judging gays. You all are so confused and you say you are Christians. Christians appear to be the most fence-straddling people I have ever met when it comes to this subject. Mostly because it is speaking about their friends, neighbors, family members, bosses, etc. It is a personal issue. With that being said, there is something in the bible for that problem also. God says do not be a respector of persons! That means, you put no ones status above that which He has already judged. Wake up and read the bible for yourselves...it is all there! Get understanding and wisdom, before you consider cultural acceptance of abominal and detestable people!

    June 9, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Walter

      So how are you doing on that whole never trim you hair thing? How about the never wear clothing of two different fabrics? Should we allow rapists to go free if the victim's father agrees to a marriage between the victim and rapist and pay 50 shekels of silver (about $925 U.S.D.) to their father?

      The bible says a lot of things that we tend to ignore.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • tb63

      So Christian of you to call people you don't even know detestable.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
    • Poppy

      hey its cool dude, Its your religion but not everyone follows your religion so why dont you chill out and drink a beer. If God doesnt like it let him deal with it.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
    • mb2010a

      The day that God personally tells Gays that they are not supposed to marry or be Gay, I'm sure we will all change. Until that happens, we will continue to be ordinary people. And don't tell me how God speaks through man because that is baloney. Nothing more than men making up what they think God wants...

      June 9, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • tffl

      _I_ don't say I'm a Christian, and I have no idea why you think that fact that you are should have any impact at all on my life...

      June 9, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
    • apeman1

      tear the pages out of your bible and use it for toilet paper....you would be better served. So sick of ancient doctrine trying to dictate modern life..... If all you thumpers would just use what should be common sense and think for yourselves you would be much more focused on your life and let others figure out what is right for them....WAKE UP!!!!

      June 9, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Poppy

      The Bible says a lot of things which we dont do anymore. If your brother dies are you going to force his wife to marry you? Do you eat pork? Do you ever look at a hot chick and think dammn shes fine. Any time you sin its a sin against God and you will be judged for that sin. Some people sin this way and some people sin other ways. Like I said before..Gods a big God, he can handle it why dont you let him decide who gets cast into the firey lake. Be excellent to others.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:27 pm |
    • Sean

      You're actually gay, aren't you?

      June 12, 2011 at 4:05 am |
  10. derp

    What a stupid article. You interview a christian about gay rights and abortion. Are you surprised that they are not in favor of gay either?

    I bet if you interviewed attendees at a gay pride parade you would get a slightly different response.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  11. Brandon

    What did Jesus say about these issues? NOTHING. The irony of most Christianity is that Jesus fought his whole life against the Pharisees. Pharisees were people that went around condemning people for not following the written word of God. So what happens? The so called Christians start going around condemning people for not following the written word of God.

    For some Christian is descriptive, for others ironic.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Jennifer

      What does the Bible say about these issues?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
    • ThaGerm

      What difference does it make? The bible wasn't written by Jesus or God so it's irrelevent

      June 9, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
  12. rolor

    "God specifically in his word has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman."
    I must have missed that memo.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
    • ThaGerm

      I know right! PEOPLE, God and religion are not mutually inclusive. They. Just. Aren't

      June 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  13. MS

    Why would having children change your mind on gay marriage?

    You fail logic Mr. Perkins.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  14. Youth... theDebateHasBeenSettledAlready

    🙂 😉 😀


    June 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
    • Charge Nurse Betty

      Anyone happen to notice that almost every single one of these idiots is an OLD MAN ? Hmmm.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
    • Jennifer

      Change Nurse Betty, maybe that's because older people have more morals on these issues. There are a very few things that are better, but overall morality has't gone up in society.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • Free

      And seniors are very prone to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people, right? Some say Flew was being manipulated by people when he wrote "There IS a God". Interesting how this Brit only started writing with American spelling after he converted, isn't it?

      June 9, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  15. Youth... theDebateHasBeenSettledAlready


    June 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  16. zazu

    I am an evangelical leader. While I don't personally chose abortion, I am not prepared to condemn others. I don't think it should be illegal either since I am not sure it prevents abortion but just makes it more dangerous. To be consistent, unless I am prepared to say as a Texan that both the mother and the doctor deserve the death penalty for murder–I can't condemn people for choosing abortion. We people of faith will do better by taking care of people, and understand them with compassion and not judge them. after all, didn't Jesus say "don't judge"! It is not my business to judge but love!

    June 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • Aaron

      zazu, from an agnostic to an evangelical leader I want to say thank you. what you just said is shows you really understand the bible and its teachings. the word compassion is not used enough in our society today which is a pitty since it is what we need the most of now.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  17. MM

    This younger generation has differing views from their parents because when they go to church, they do not belive what they hear in a literal sense. Kids are vastly more sophisticated at an early age than their parents (age of technology) were and so they ask questions, they BELEIVE what read in sceince class more than what their preacher tells them. All of this boils down to "understanding" that the world is a big place with lots of diferent people. They are tolerant of opposing views when past generations have been hateful towards those that have different beliefs. They look at gays and see a person rather than someone who is destined for hell. As we prgress as people and society there is less need and therefor less reliance on religion. All of this is very encouraging!

    June 9, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • Jennifer

      First, the important thing is whether GOD believes these things in a literal sense. Second, people going to Hell ARE people, which is why it's important to help them be saved instead of not telling them the truth (although I believe that God is forgiving of those who genuinely don't know right from wrong).

      June 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Poppy

      Jennifer...but why do we have to discriminate against others in the process. If they dont want to listen at least let their years on earth be happy ones if they are going to spend eternity in a lake of fire..its not really any of your business. Let God take care of the judging, hes a big God, he doesnt need your help at all. Be excellent to others

      June 9, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Free

      I thought that mere humans were incapable of knowing the mind of God? Our wisdom being His foolishness, and all that. So, how do you, or anybody else, know what sense God believes in these things?

      June 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  18. Free

    If the pro-life movement is all about saving lives why aren't they also campaigning to make organ and blood donation mandatory?

    June 9, 2011 at 3:56 pm |
    • shootmyownfood

      Gotta agree with that!

      June 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • Kenny

      Because blood and organ donations SAVE LIVES. You just answered your own question. My late brother had all of his organs donated and saved over 6 lives with one body of donations.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
    • shootmyownfood

      I would like to see statistics on how many pro-lifers have adopted unwanted children, and how many of them have adopted more than one.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm |
    • TN

      Because – there is a difference between prohibiting the taking of a life and mandating the giving of one.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
    • Robert

      There was a bill up before the legislature of Colorado to have people opt out of organ donations on their license instead of opting in. Republicans opposed it because it took away a person's 'freedom of choice'.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm |
  19. YourLoveChocolate

    🙂 😀


    June 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
    • Intelligence

      unfortunatley this is the biggest bunch of double speak and quasi rationale I have ever heard.

      June 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  20. sheetiron

    Honesty I don't believe that the Churches response to gay marriage is to quote 1st Corinthians 6:9. Everyone knows that we think the gay lifestyle is sinful so its rather redundant to annoy people by reminding them over and over. Instead, we should quote 1st Corinthians 6:11. Paul was addressing Christians who were once gay but has left that lifestyle and put their faith in Christ and who found freedom and liberty in Him. The entire point of that passage is not to say that being gay is bad, but that with Christ, change is possible

    June 9, 2011 at 3:49 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Which is fine, if you're a Christian or want to convert to Christianity.

      It does not in any way pertain to the laws of the United States, which is not now, nor has it ever been, a Christian nation.

      June 9, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
    • QS

      Thank you Dr. Rekers!

      June 9, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • Free

      In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the words "men who have se.x with men" translate two Greek words that refer to there being pas.sive and active participants in a ho.mose.xual act. So, as long as both partners are 'active' during the act, like most straight couples are nowadays, this injunction really does not apply. See how sharing makes everything better?

      June 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.