Trends

1/9/11 16:59
[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
An interesting finding in recent polling on social issues. I'll let this piece give the details:

Americans are now evenly split on same-sex marriage: 47 percent support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and 47 percent oppose them. That stalemate won't last long—critics of gay unions are dying off. According to a new report from the Public Religion Research Institute, only 31 percent of Americans over age 65 support gays getting hitched, compared to 62 percent of Americans under 30.

But strong millennial support for gay marriage has not translated into an uptick in acceptance of other sexual freedoms, like the right to an abortion. The Public Religion Research Institute notes that popular support for keeping abortion legal has dipped a percentage point since 1999, and young Americans are not swelling the ranks of abortion rights supporters. Today, while 57 percent of people under 30 see gay sex as "morally acceptable," only 46 percent of them would say the same thing about having an abortion.

The institute calls this a "decoupling of attitudes." Support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, and that's changing. Though young people today are "more educated, more liberal, and more likely to be religiously unaffiliated" than their parents—all factors traditionally correlated with support of abortion rights—they are not actually more likely to support abortion.


The article goes on to give some reasons as to why this decoupling is occurring, but I believe the issue is much more simple than that - gay marriage, as it is, has been a reality for millennials (folks ages 19-29) for most of their politically/socially aware lives now, and they see quite clearly how the issue really doesn't matter - gay people getting married doesn't impact their straight marriages, or their lives at all, really. There's no harm involved. The difference with abortion is that the harm involved remains self-evident - at the end of the day, we know how many abortions occur, and such "decoupling," as it were, likely reflects that difference. I also speculate that many do not see the abortion issue as one of "rights," but rather one of life. That those who self-identify as pro-life remains competitive ideologically with those who self-identify as pro-choice for the first time in a while may be a sign of that.

Why do you think these issues are separating? Should they truly be falling under the same social umbrella? What am I missing here?

(no subject)

Date: 2/9/11 11:55 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] curseangel.livejournal.com
Except, see, when you're talking about people being anti-abortion and shit, you are talking about offensive opinions, because being anti-abortion is offensive towards women, it is offensive because it is sexist. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. Being anti-abortion = being sexist. Ergo, being anti-abortion = FUCKING OFFENSIVE.

General political debate communities like this aren't what I'm talking about here, though. We were, very specifically, discussing feminist communities. Feminist communities are absolutely within their rights to ridicule, yell at / insult, and even, yes, ban misogynists (which, yeah, again, anti-abortion..). Many also ban for racist, homophobic, or other -ist behavior/opinions/etc. Those groups may be about debate, but many are not allowing of any and all opinions no matter how offensive they may be. They shouldn't have to be.

Anyway, um, in no other community I'm part of is "play nice" an actual rule that I'm aware of. People get mad sometimes when people bring up bullshit, offensive opinions, and react accordingly. Just because a lot of people do so doesn't mean the community is a "hivemind" or some such shit -- it means someone said something offensive and, gaspshock, a lot of people were offended/angered.

Sorry if this is yet more circular arguing, but you don't seem to grasp that what you're trying to pose as a simple "difference of opinion" actually IS something that is OFFENSIVE, and I don't know how to explain that any more clearly. Also it's 8am, and I haven't slept, so that might be hurting things. I'm going to go get some sleep now, I'm trying to get up and see if I can catch them filming The Avengers later today. Squee an' all. Cheers.

(no subject)

Date: 2/9/11 12:11 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luvdovz.livejournal.com
I'm not talking about abortion any more.

Fair enough, obviously those sort of communities have set some frames within which debate can occur, and they deem anything outside those frames inappropriate. Good. That's why I'm not interested in them in the first place. It's really that simple.

Get some sleep. Cheers.

(no subject)

Date: 2/9/11 19:05 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] curseangel.livejournal.com
Fair enough, obviously those sort of communities have set some frames within which debate can occur, and they deem anything outside those frames inappropriate.

That's basically what I was trying to say the whole time, jfc.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."

July 2025

M T W T F S S
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031