home
RSS
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. Snoozie

    A big problem has always been the argument "God said. . . " That is why separation of church and state must be preserved. We have a government that makes laws for all the people to follow. And there are churches that have their own rules for people who believe in God to follow if they so choose. And to argue, "God said. . . ", you have to ask, which God? Whose God? Do you have to make everyone follow your particular God's wishes, even if they don't believe in your God?

    June 9, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  2. Sao

    abortion is not wrong until you are placed in a communist regime and put in forced labor 12 hours a day with little or no food. fingernails peeled with a plyer. Then we will know that abortion is murder.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Lenny

      The rule in Kansas is;

      Abortion is wrong until your unmarried fifteen year old daughter gets knocked up by a seventeen year old non-White person.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  3. Jeff

    None of this is surprising.. I think everyone agrees that abortion is a bad thing.. but the question is, who gets to "play god" in terms of what is or isn't illegal. Legislating choices people have over their own bodies is unacceptable. As for gay marriage, I have to laugh at Perkins, who is clearly a self-indulgent moron.. The notion that enlightened Millennials will eventually become anti-gay to "protect their children" is patently offensive and I believe ultimately unrealized.. Instead, I expect that Millennials will eventually learn that they need to protect their children from the real evil: Religion and self-righteous religious zealots like Perkins..

    June 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  4. bob

    I can't believe either one of these is still an issue. If you don't believe in abortion or gay marriage than it's your problem. Get over it. All the people against abortion and gay marriage are the same ones who say to poor people "Too bad, it's your choice that you are poor. Just get over it." Well guess what? We have freedom of and from religion in the U.S. You have no say over abortion because it is a religious issue. My religion has no problem with abortion. My religion has no problem with gay marriage. If you don't like freedom then please, please, please move to Uganda.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  5. GuestWhat

    IF it doesn't make sense, then God didn't say it and for all out there saying God ordained this and God ordained that, when was the last time they sat down for an interveiw with God?

    June 9, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  6. Jeff

    Why is faith synonymous with a lack of intelligence?

    I consider myself to be well educated and articulate as it relates to my point of view. While I don't personally agree with certain things, I don't presume that people that don't believe what I do need to follow suit.

    What bothers me is that just because I see intelligence (God) in the design of this planet and our unique ability to know right from wrong, I am constantly labeled as irrational. Makes no sense to me.

    The truth of it is that I don't see why science and God need to be separated. Because we draw different conclusions as to the origin of life, I'm an idiot?

    I get that religion has tainted the views of so many people in the world. Justifiably so...but remember, religion is NOT faith. Just my two cents...

    June 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Henry

      Your assumption is that faith is synonymous with lack of intelligence. That is not actually the assumption. It really is that blind belief in the faith of contradictory evidence is synonymous with lack of intelligence.

      Faith is only one form of belief that is subject to this flaw.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Henry...couldn't agree more. I should have conveyed my point better than I did. Blind faith IS a lack of intelligence.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Andrew

      Well, you're seen as irrational because you put faith in something you cannot substantiate as true. Just because you "see" intelligence (god) in the design of this planet doesn't mean that it's true. You could "see" design in the structure of a snowflake, but you don't need intelligence or god to create that design. There is no test, no robust proof, no real evidence that you can present to confirm your god hypothesis. "I see design" is a weak argument, and it is fairly irrational to accept that on faith alone. To a non-believer, such an argument just sounds like an appeal to ignorance, 'I don't know how this could form without god, thus god'.

      You can be intelligent and irrational, by the way. I consider Ken Miller's views on religion to be irrational as well, and he says some very silly things about quantum uncertainty, but that doesn't mean he isn't an intelligent person.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Chris D

      The points you make are valid. But the unfortunate thing is that most people of faith are not like you...they are the religious type who take an a la carte approach to the bible and come across as unintentionally hypocritical

      June 9, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • JamesBenson

      The problem that educated people have with "intelligent design" is that there is concrete proof to the contrary. If we can hold in our hands the evolutionary proof and you dismiss it, how can you consider yourself scientific? I once asked someone of faith how she could dismiss evolution when there are fossils that prove it happened – she replied to me that she didn't know enough about it, so it couldn't be true. That is the reason the education and science look down on faith.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Andrew...true, very true. However, as science has continued to break things down further and further, the more complex the results become. While someone without faith could rationally make the statement:

      "Science will continue to uncover these complexities and answer them accordingly."

      ...I believe I can rationally answer the question by saying:

      "God's design has provided such an amazing platform for life to exist."

      My statement does not eliminate science. Again, I believe the two (God and science) can coexist.

      @Chris D...yep. I heard once before that the reason for so many non-Christians in the world is due to current Christians in the world. We're not all like that. I don't feel like God has me here to judge. I'm simply suppose to know God, love people, and serve the world as I best I can. Nowhere in there am I told to judge anyone for anything. I do have my beliefs (as you can imagine), but those beliefs are based on MY relationship with God. I don't presume that everyone would follow that belief system. My hope is certainly to share my faith with as many people as I can, but in the end it comes down to you and your relationship with God (of lack there of).

      June 9, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • tommas

      A very strong correlation

      June 9, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • JamesBenson

      By the way, if you believe that God (the one in which you have faith) created evolution and that is "intelligent design" I cannot fight you. There is no way to prove that that is not the case – my issue is with the Adam and Eve version.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
    • Jim

      It does seem that many religious people can believe in an all powerful deity but can't conceive of that all powerful deity working in any way other than what they can imagine.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Jeff

      @James...yep, people like that kill me. Uneducated, blind faith is the demise of most Christians on boards like this. I know full well the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record. Denying evolution took place is flat out ignorant. Again, I do believe there are gaps, but gaps don't eliminate the things we do know. To see those of faith turn a blind eye to scientific proof embarrasses me as a Christian...

      June 9, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Andrew

      Jeff, that's a fine statement to say, but it is irrational none the less as you cannot support it. You can't rationalise your faith because you cannot support it with evidence (if you could, it wouldn't be faith). You may believe god created a wonderful platform, but unless you can show it to be true, that is believing something in lieu of evidence, which is irrational.

      That doesn't make you any less intelligent, but faith is always going to be inherently irrational, it will always be 'I believe something I cannot demonstrate to be true'. Now, you could take William James's approach (brother of Henry James) and say 'I don't care, we all believe some irrational ideas and I am content having god being one of them' (he phrased it a bit more eloquently than this, but not all that much more), or you could take the approach of an atheist like me and just say 'I don't need that irrational belief, it's superfluous'. Which path you want to take is entirely up to you, and neither makes you seem less intelligent. It would only be if you were passionately screaming the truth of your beliefs as though you are privy to some epistemological truth you cannot be privy to when we start to question your intelligence. You have not done so, nor do you seem the type of person who would be willing to do so.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Charlie D

      Belief in something that cannot be supported by evidence is by definition irrational, because you are not using rational thinking. It has no bearing on whether god(s) exist; it just means it can't be proved or disproved.

      Science and religion are completely compatible, but you run into issues when people claim things that are obviously disproved by other evidence. For instance, people who claim that the world is 6.8k years old or that science has the answer to everything which it doesn't have yet (and may never have).

      June 9, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
    • Jason

      @Jeff – You are not an idiot, you just dont understand what science is or how it has developed. You somehow have confused fact/belief/hypothesis/faith/intuition/knowledge/intellect as a singular concept. Belief has no place in the establishment of fact. Intelligent Design is not a theory nor does it follow any methodolgy used by any branch of science. This is not a criticism of the belief, it is simply a fact. Asserting ID as a theory implies that it will meet established scientific testing and it does not. I am not required to believe in your fantasy and I reject your magic sky-daddy theory based on evidence and tested theory.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • Jeff

      @Andrew...defining irrational as you have, I would be guilty of that train of thought. I suppose any faith statement is irrational. I hadn't really considered it like that to be quite honest with you...

      ...I do still believe that faced with DNA, we all find ourselves marveling at it's complexity. I don't believe that science has adequately proven how the blueprints for every single organism on the planet carries that data at inception. I do think that by your definition of irrational, we could say that science is irrational as well as we have no proof of how these complexities exist.

      Which is why these conversations will continue to take place. In a sense, the scientific community has faith in itself to provide the explanation at some point in the future. For myself, I am content in my understanding that we may never fully grasp the depth of the complexity in which life exists.

      @Charlie D...there it is again. Those with blind faith that scoff at scientific proof only prove their ignorance. We certainly agree here!

      @Jason...I agree that belief or faith do not belong in the scientific process at all. That said, my faith doesn't stop me from doing research and attributing those results to God (as I have said regarding evolution). I fully accept your rejection of God, though you cannot "prove" He does or does not exist.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
    • Jeff

      Thanks for the conversation today fellas...have a great evening!

      June 9, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Andrew

      Welcome Jeff, and I should mention, as far as my epistemological foundations go, I have two irrational a-sumptions, that the universe behaves in a consistent manner, orderly, etc, and that my senses partially accurately reflect the nature of the universe. Neither I can truly support, and as-uming either is a bit irrational, I fully admit that, but the alternative is some form of Pyrrhonian Scepticism which to me seems even more irrational.

      In truth my sorta dogged adherence to rather strict empirical methodology is based out of this. Science is essentially trying to figure out what is consistent in the universe, trying to find rules and order behind the universe. If the universe then is orderly, then some empirical methodology will isolate any of those rules, by testing to see if the universe behaves consistent to a rule set. If the universe isn't consistent, then no methodology could isolate consistencies, because if it could, the universe would inherently be consistent in some way. So I am aware I take on an impossible to justify belief in the ability of science to determine the nature of the universe, but if anything is going to determine how the universe behaves, science is a decent bet.

      Now, assuming the universe isn't suddenly going to stop being consistent, so things like gravity won't reverse direction tomorrow, I have to question my senses. I assume my senses carry some accurate information regarding the nature of the universe. This is a big assumption, but the alternative is something akin to a trickster god making all of my senses wrong, or a 'brain in a vat' like the Matrix, which I could not show to be true in any case, so I don't care. I assume that if I can test something with my senses, I can build extensions and isolate the rules in a consistent universe. My senses can be deceived, but only in limited circ-mstances and generally not all of them at once.

      That is, at best, all I can provide to justify why I assume what I do, but I without to show they are correct, and so hold them irrationally. But I cannot, to myself, justify a belief in god as it seems another irrational concept but is superfluous and unnecessary among my other as-umptions. I more or less need to assume the first two or else I have no epistemological foundation, I don't need to a-sume a god.

      June 9, 2011 at 7:40 pm |
  7. Lincoln Place

    IMHO – Millenials do not ardently support the right to choose do so because they do not have friends who suffered at the hands of back-alley abortionists before it was legal. Abortion is always sad and a loss, but as with much of life, it is also about choosing what is best for oneself.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  8. Chris in CA

    Why is CNN quoting Tony Perkins, the head of an SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group, and not noting that specifically? I'm all for balanced politics, but there is no balance with quoting Perkins. There are many respectable people who disagree with the marriage equality, of course people who don't run hate groups may not give the same "great" quotes. I really expect better of CNN than to give acknowledged bigots an unchallenged platform to spew their hate.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • bob

      That is the group co-founded by child torturer George Rekers. The group is evil.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Tyler

      my thoughts exactly, next they'll be quoting fred phelps.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Jim Keller

      Scary as it sounds, Westboro Baptist Church doesn't rise to the level of an SPLC-recognized hate group, so Fred Phelps would've been a better choice.

      June 9, 2011 at 11:39 pm |
  9. Henry Miller

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

    What has the opinion of your god have to do with me?

    June 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm |
    • Don't think so

      It doesn't have a thing to do with you. It has to do with how she believes she should vote on the issue. Or would you take her right to vote her conscience away from her?

      June 9, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
    • C

      Lots of the general public would vote ignorantly on more important and dangerous issues if given the chance. We live among astounding ignorance in the US, and until individuals like her realize her vote should assist in the protection of the rights of other human beings and not just her selfish ignorant viewpoints (not to mention, claims to Truth), this country will continue towards chaos.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  10. alanseed

    the age of aquarius is upon us.

    everything is at it should be.

    i die for azure!

    wink

    😉

    semantic engine 2#31

    June 9, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
  11. Jeff M

    I'm still at a loss as to how you can consider abortion as anything but murder? Let's take a quick look at the black and white facts:
    1) A fetus is alive (definition: alive – not dead)
    2) A fetus is a human being (definition: human being – any individual of the genus Ho-mo, especially a member of the species Ho-mo sapiens.)
    3) To make something that is alive into something that is dead is to kill it.
    4) If you intentionally kill another human being, it is called murder (definition: murder – the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought". Malice aforethought – "premeditation" or "predetermination")
    Murder is already illegal. As such, abortion should merely be a case of precedence.

    June 9, 2011 at 5:05 pm |
    • SMS in Texas

      The problem with your argument are the gray areas you do not address. What about couples who utilize in vitro fertilization to conceive? Any unused or discarded embryos created during the process essentially are "killed" as well, but most would agree this does not qualify as murder. The debate, then, is when does life begin? That argument is the root of the abortion debate and is not as black and white as you claim.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Brandon

      Roe v Wade

      June 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Jeff Carlson

      The problem is that everyone loves logic until it cuts across something they believe to be true. That is all...:)

      June 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Mark

      Thumbs up, Jeff M

      June 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Snoozie

      Well, the issue of when a potential human being (fetus) becomes an actual human being is the debatable point.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • tommas

      1) Many things are alive that we kill all the time (including humans, death sentence/war these are things that the government legally does)
      2) An early fetus does not have a functioning nervous system = no consciousness = mass of dividing cells not a human
      3/4) see above

      June 9, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • dsavio

      You may not like it, but I assure it is NOT a black and white fact that a fetus is alive or is a human being. Those are matters of opinion, with evidence to support both views.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • Unreligious

      A fetus is not alive. To be alive it needs to be self sustaining. If the mother dies, the fetus dies. The rest of your argument is also based on making statements and claiming they are true when that is far from the case.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
    • I Can Read

      I can read Jeff M, can you? Read your own definition of murder. It includes the word "unlawful." Abortion is not unlawful in this country buddy, so even if your version of "life" is accepted, your argument about abortion being murder breaks down. Maybe you should stick to hobbies that don't require reading comprehension skills or logic.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
    • Tyumbra

      Yes, Jeff, let's take a look at the "black and white", shall we?

      1) Technically sperm is alive, though with a limited lifespan. By your definition, if a fetus is a living human being, then sperm is a potential future human being. Ma stur bation (space for the work-filters) would then be considered "Gene-ocide" (clever joke, yes?), or in other terms, you've committed mass murder of potential human beings.

      A human fetus has no cognitive thinking, essentially a non-working brain until later stages of development. It does not experience pain until the third trimester. It is only just a potential human and nothing more – therefore, it's not murder.

      2) A human fetus is not a human being, only a potential human being.

      3) Indeed it is. I'm glad your See-N-Say has been working.

      4) Negative. Again, a human fetus is a potential human. You do not call a human fetus a "human". You call it a human fetus. It's interesting you bring up how you believe it's called murder – did you know that abortion had been a widely acceptable practice in ancient times? The concept of murder in ancient times was no different than it is today, only that the laws and regulations regarding captured criminals has changed.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
    • Mike

      Here's why...

      If I don't eat (my choice) I'm the only one who dies. If I choose to cut off my finger, nobody can gainsay me. It's my body, and what I choose to do with my body is my choice – nobody elses. The cells in my finger are alive – but killing them is not against the law.

      Can a fetus survive if it's mother dies? NO. Because it's life (or lack thereof) is completely dependent on it's mother.

      An unwanted child could be looked at as a parasite from certain perspectives. It's living – and drawing strength – off the host organism.

      Pretty avant guarde post, I know, but if it's on my body or in my body, what to do with it is entirely my choice.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Then you're just ignorant. Get an education. "Murder" is a LEGAL term for unlawful killing. Abortion has NEVER been considered murder, even when it was illegal. A fetus does not and never has had a "right to live" that trumps the rights of the woman carrying it.

      The fact that you think your opinion on the matter, when it doesn't affect your rights or anyone else's, is important is laughable.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
  12. andy

    ugh, religion is just so silly. God is santa claus for adults.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Whutevah

      I've never understood the atheist's infatuation with Santa Claus. There must have been a lot of atheists who were severely traumatized when they found out Santa Claus was made up by their parents. The rest of us were able to distinguish between a fun tradition made up for children and the belief in the reality of God, which has been with humans since before the dawn of history.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • I Can Read

      No Whatevah, that's where you are wrong. The rest of you aren't able to distinguish between a fun story made up for children and a not so fun story made up for adults. That's the whole point. Both are ridiculous fantasies. Some of us are able to grow up and realize that the magical stories aren't actually true. Some of us apparently aren't.

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

      The vast majority of humans have a specific faith because of childhood indoctrination by their parents. The santa analogy is perfect: young children fear not getting presents for sins, adults fear a fire filled hole in the ground. Both lies have the same purpose... control.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Sean

      Santa Claus is made up???
      "I'd rather believe in Santa and let the cookies go stale than not believe in him and risk getting trampled by reindeer."
      This is known as Rudolph's Wager.

      June 12, 2011 at 3:55 am |
  13. Paolo

    The Bible was written by a human, not by God, God is just am idea, a powerful one, but still just an idea .. idea cannot hold a pen in their hands.
    Morality is personal, trying to impose one's personal moral to others is plain stupid, will never work.
    Don't do what you wouldn't want other people to know that you are doing it.I
    f you want to do it anyway, own it.
    Live and let live. Mind your own business. Care for others. Drop the Bible (and the Koran or other book claiming to be religious). Be your own God

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

      God did not write the Bible, correct. But God did inspire men to write the books of theBible.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Heywood J

      Awesome! Well said.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • BADGUY

      Prove it! Just saying it was is NOT proof.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm |
    • Paul / Canada

      @ Mike....proof please!

      June 9, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • bob

      Morality should be guided by science. Science is the only thing that we have that, if all parties work at in good faith, has a chance of coming close to a consensus. Religion should never be used as a moral guide because whatever the religion is a majority of people disagree with – except perhaps Islam.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • tommas

      Mike, many different gods have "inspired" many different people to write many different books. Thankfully, today we have medication for hearing voices.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  14. Paul

    For such "freedom" loving folk, it's amazing how many Americans want to tell others how to live. 4 out of 10 against gay marriage is still unacceptably high.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • Jeff Carlson

      I agree that gay marriage should be legal...and Im a conservative Christian pastor. I do not agree with you assessment that the fact they want to "tell other how to live " is wrong. Every law that is enacted by a culture is in fact "telling others how to live." You simply believe that all the laws you agree with are completely logical and "right" and that any you dont agree with are regressive and illogical. You can argue that your worldview is purely "right" and that no part of it should be infringed on...however, others have the same right as well. And until you can say to someone, "I can see why you would believe that" you will never be able to influence them in any meaningful way.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • Stephan

      Very well said Paul!!!

      June 9, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  15. Robert

    It actually occured to me a few months ago that litterally there won't be an republicans in 30 years. Unless the party changes their position on a lot of these issues they won't win a race in even in a red dump like Texas.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • SMS in Texas

      There are plenty of democrats in Texas.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • BADGUY

      I thought so 50 years ago. But they're still here! I guess greed and hatred will never leave the human race. It's got to be a probability thing with the way people inherit genes.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • Mike

      Every human being goes through a growth in conciousness as they develop into an adult; from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric. Some get stuck at egocentric – these are called Democrats. Some get stuck at ethnocentric – these are called Republicans. Some make it all the way to worldcentric – these are also called Democrats.

      There's a very different worldview between someone who dodges a draft because "nobody can tell me what to do!" and someone who can't, in good concious, kill another human being – but both of these would be "draft dodgers" and democrat.

      Read Boomeritis.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
  16. Norman

    Thank God the bigoted, hateful religiously brainwashed Sarah doesnt get to decide who gets righst and hwo doesnt. Can you imagine if religion got to decide who gets rights? Would Jews be denied righst because the christian haters think theyre goign to burn in hell for not believing Jesus was divine? Religion must stay out of govt. Sarah is a good example of uneducated bigotry. Marriage, in this country, is a secualr event-it is only religious if you want it to be. She never learend in school that very simple fact. Who cares what her invisible fairy thinks? millions in this country dont beolieve what she believes and billiosn in teh world believe somethign entirely differently
    The REAL God-the inclusive one who loves all of his children equally, guides the US toward full equality adn there isnt anything misguided bigoted Sarah or her false god can do about it!!

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

      You senario above has been more of the "rule" than the "exception" over the last 2000 years. It's happened be

      June 9, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
  17. TribeCalledQuest

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k&w=640&h=390]

    June 9, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
    • Naturalist Response

      The flaw in this argument is the assumption that truth is not a survival trait.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • Free

      Can Christians trust their minds?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0

      June 9, 2011 at 5:53 pm |
  18. atypical

    it amazes me that people still use the bible as the gold standard for truth. amazing. and I have read the bible. .over and over and over again during my childhood years. still makes me tired to think about it

    and from my perspective, which I value as much as I might the bible. . .well, okay, I value mine more, a fetus is a human instrument that is developing for a soul to inhabit while living on this plane. the fetus is not a soul! the fetus is the vehicle–not the occupant; it's the horse, not the driver. it is merely an instrument for a soul to live in. .

    that said, i also agree with the person who said to "stay out of my doctor's office and out of my bedroom." please manage your own life.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Mark

      "i also agree with the person who said to "stay out of my doctor's office and out of my bedroom." Hmmmm...I wonder what the fetus says. Oh yeah, maybe something like, "hey, don't kill me!"

      June 9, 2011 at 5:15 pm |
  19. Liz

    Isn't in interesting that the supposed survey this article was based on only quotes so called "christian conservatives". These zealots need to keep their view to themselves and stay out of everyone elses bedrooms and lives. And for the record the quote from the Book of Numbers is horrifying. All should keep reminding themselves that men wrote this book not God.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Artist

      zealots ...there is a better way to describe them:
      .
      Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, to think logically, to have normal emotional responses, and to behave normally in social situations.
      As the illness continues, psychotic symptoms develop:
      • False beliefs or thoughts that are not based in reality (delusions)
      • Hearing, seeing, or feeling things that are not there (hallucinations)

      June 9, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
    • NYCimport

      The article is mostly about how eventhough this person has an opinion about abortion (she thinks its wrong) and gay marriage (she thinks its wrong) she still isn't 100% sold on if the government should be dictating people's lives.

      THAT'S the point, not that Christians are schizoid or otherwise crazy zealots.

      I agree with the article, I am a "millennial" Christian woman, who doesn't LIKE abortion (really, who does?), but agrees we need to make them available and safe for all women.

      I am completely NEUTRAL on gay marriage, if it came to a vote, I'd vote yes to it. It doesn't apply to me at all, not being gay, It doesn't bother me.

      Anyway, please quit with the name calling and do some reading of the story, ok? Christians are NOT all right-wing-conservative-teaparty-nutjobs looking for a kill to sacrifice for Jesus like some atheists truly want to believe.

      MANY of us have open minds and hearts and believe in evangelizing by example of living our lives and not preaching to people outside the faith.

      June 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
  20. John

    Please take care of yourselves and leave others alone.

    June 9, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      BRAVO. Well said. Why are the thumpers unable to do just that? Why are they so intent on controlling others, yet so averse to actually doing anything to help those who so desperately need assistance?

      Answer: Because they're stupid gits who don't really give a cr)p about anyone else. Oh, unless it's a fetus.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
    • Lycidas

      @Tom- I think it can go both ways. Some might see the non-religious as trying to get there way on issues and don't give a cr*ap about others.

      June 9, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Advertisement
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.