Millenials for Gay Marriage, But Not Necessarily Pro-Choice

The Public Religion Research Institute has a new study out on abortion opinions in America.  In some ways, the results are not surprising: a solid majority of Americans think that abortions should be legal and available; evangelical Protestants are the least likely to think so.

But other conclusions are more surprising:

Unlike all other age groups, Millennials register different levels of support for the availability and legality of abortion. On the one hand, Millennials are strongly committed to the availability of abortion and are significantly more likely than the general public to say that at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions (68% vs. 58% respectively). But they are no more likely than the general public to say that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. These findings suggest general measures of legality may not fully capture support for legal abortion among Millennials.

In general, and interestingly, in all other demographics, opposition to same sex marriage correlates with opposition to legal and available abortion, but millenials tend to be pro-gay marriage and have mixed feelings about abortion.

  • http://www.travismamone.net Travis Mamone

    That’s about where I am.

    Interestingly enough, in the Didache (which I know you’ve written about, Tony, so you probably already know this), abortion is mentioned as part of the “way of death,” yet says nothing about homosexuality.

  • John Edmond

    I think you have to read Paul for the gay stuff, which I know,Tony, you have a problem with Pauline writing.

  • Alberto Medrano

    I’m on the more conservative side of these stats, but I find the trend to be very true. I think we agree that certain things should be legal, to an extent, though we may theologically disagree on the subject.

  • http://randomarrow.blogspot.com/ Random Arrow

    Tony, your post feels a little weird.

    Are you serious about your blanket rules? Really?

    I don’t know Ken Silva. Or his gig. And don’t care. You have your reasons. I’m not interest in micro-managing them. But, something feels weird.

    If you have/had Ken Siliva’s phone number, and if you felt he was an okay guy, then why not ask Ken Silva directly? Why not ask him straight-out about his status as a church? As a minister? Why not ask why these mysterious gaps in his personal identity? Why not just ask the guy?

    Many of my favorite blogs are closed to comment (e.g., Greg Mankiw). Same too with some clergy who I love, even if I disagree with them (Terry Virgo – a really ‘graceful’ Calvinist). Are you really making a blanket rule? Why does this feel off?

    There are very good reasons for closed blogs and closed webs. Open up a little.

    I have acquaintances and friends in professions – counseling, legal, clergy – who absolutely refuse to blog at all because of concerns about legal liabilities (people asking for advice or misconstruing exploratory blog comments as advice). Blogs are suicidal for professionals who want to test new ideas and color outside the lines (clergy especially on this one), and blogs are suicidal especially for professionals dependent on local good will, dependent on local economic patronage of their communities or churches. These voices are lost to the blogosphere. You have to catch these voices in coffee shops, church parking lots, private conversations.

    Finally, think about why judges overwhelmingly do not blog – why? How could you blog to a community in which half the people you face – that half which you have judged against in court – who hate your guts for the rest of your life? – a percentage of which who would flame your blog to hell?

    Something about what Justice Brennan said about the difference between the leisure of academics who live for public commentary versus judges (he included Supreme Court Justices here) who have to judge cases which totally piss of half of their audience – vocationally.

    Blogging is not the norm. For good reasons.

    Why not think a little more carefully about the worthwhile voices who never show up the blogosphere at all?

    Inversely, are you able to identify academics, judges, and professionals who blog only under anonymous or pseudonymous monikers? Would you want to loose these bloggers from the blogosphere? How did Mark Twain have it so good?

    I published my full name and phone number on a website once. Because I do pro-bono work in indigent cases, the phone calls asking for free help added up over time to blow out my phone line. I could not even pre-screen all these calls. They buried my work. I’m already two to four days, and 20-40 calls behind. I want the contact with bloggers because I can’t get this kind of contact – with my clients.

    Only an idiot in a profession would be unaware of the need for professional equilibrium on the question of blogging at all (in the first place) versus blogging with a guarded identity or a blog closed to comment. I give mine out in full to people who I don’t know, after trust is earned. As in a recent email from an academic who I know only through public media.

    I really think you need to re-think your blanket rule – if that’s what you’re making.

    So what?

    So if I can think of these good reasons for not blogging at all, or for closed blogs (economist Mankiw, pastor Virgo), or for guarded identities, then it seems to me that the presumption about Ken Silva should be a presumption of no-opinion (“I don’t know”) instead of a negative presumption about scurrilous motives – more especially so if his public speech is provocative. It’s way too easy to bleed from animus over public provocative speech into full blown ad hom laced with smouldering negative ad hom presumptions about everything else.

    Look at all the opinions here sharing negative presumptions – would you trust your own followers here to handle questions about your sexual ethics if you were Strauss-Kahn?

    Think about it.

    Do you know how hard it is to prove a negative? – has anyone accused you of something which would require that you prove a negative (say like accusing you of borderline racism?), an accusation which places you in the near impossible position of proving a negative? – why can’t the presumption about these matters be less strong than a full presumption of innocence, but weaker than negative presumptions smouldering in an ad homs? – a presumption sort of like, “gee, I don’t know what’s up with Silva’s identity. So, I’ll ask.”

    The thing is – that just because we’re ignorant of the cluster of particular reasons why Ken Silva would have his unique overall feel for suffering such guarded access, or even whether this is a conscious and deliberate tactic in the first place (should he have his name and phone number plastered across freeway billboards?) – our ignorance of Ken Silva’s reasons for such difficult access is not an excuse for asking him directly, “hey man, what’s up with ….?” – why not just ask? – if you have access?

    What’s not making sense here?

    Cheers,

    Jim

  • http://randomarrow.blogspot.com/ Random Arrow

    … whoa, Tony, sorry, wrong thread …


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X