Trends

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Opinion has nothing to do with the law. Sorry, sugar.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Then there must have been some miscommunication between raichu100 and fizzyland because raichu didn't say anything about law. Re-read their conversation:

raichu: That isn't a universal view. Some people assign the rights of personhood to a person at any stage of development, whether it's sentient or not.
fizzyland: If you can name a single jurisdiction that assigns legal and civil rights to the pre-born, I'd be interested in knowing that.
raichu: So that means 100% of people believe it?

And don't ever call me "sugar". Keep your condescension to yourself.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nah, that's one wealth I prefer to be spreading around.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is the woman who tells people who can't be pregnant but want to have sex to just not have sex. Don't expect anything different.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I have a question. What, exactly, is so crazy about that particular stance?

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The idea that sex is about procreation. Augustine of Hippo's been dead for millennia now, his ideas can die with him. But then in conservativeland freedom is slavery.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Who here has said that sex is only about procreation? Again, don't pin someone's attitudes or beliefs on another person. Try asking instead of making assumptions.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You did in that previous thread. If someone can't get pregnant, your own advice was for them not to have sex. Or was that someone else using your account?

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I certainly believe sex is about more than just procreation.

But it's also a hard fact that when you have [heterosexual] sex, someone might get pregnant. That's how it works. Actions have consequences.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Do they?

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Who are you referring to? If you're talking about me, don't EVER attempt to speak for me, because you're failing miserably.

If people want my opinion on abortion, they can ask me or read my blog (http://mividaloca99.livejournal.com/221203.html) for themselves.

Don't ever try to convey my beliefs again or I'll do the same to you.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That discussion you had with Blue_Mangos in one of her threads about abortion. If someone hijacked your account in this thread, then people should know about it. If, however, this is akin to Jeff's denial about what he said when he said exactly what he meant and meant exactly what he said....

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/954767.html?thread=73827727#t73827727

If this is not you here, who is it that said this?

Track This
If you get sick a lot and are sick now, you probably shouldn't be having sex. Just a thought. If you use birth control of SOME form and use it properly, then the risk of becoming pregnant is greatly reduced. Condoms when used properly reduce your risk of pregnancy by 99%. If you don't have sex at all, you're chances of getting pregnant are 0%.
As far as costs, I don't know many people who are pro-"choice" who would shy away from applying for Medicaid, food stamps, some kind of welfare assistance, etc. If that helps you while you're pregnant and you don't have issue with applying for government assistance, then do it.
If you give your child up for adoption, some if not all of your medical costs may be covered or reimbursed.
Other than that, the easiest way to not have a child is also the easiest way to not have a heart attack - preventative action and taking responsibility for yourself.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Factual correction: it was with Amazements in a post that you made. I apologize for missing whose post and with whom you discussed, the rest of it stands.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

And? The context of that was that the person who posted it said they get ill a lot. If they're ill, concerned about becoming pregnant, and don't have easy access to birth control, then the most obvious way to avoid getting pregnant is to not have sex. That's not an insult, that's a fact.

Again, if people want my view of abortion, they can ask ME. You are not my mouthpiece and you never will be.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

OK, given your conduct for the last 24 hours, I'm going to venture with a last warning. Beware. You've been stepping on a very thin ice.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

No problem. I'll just let everyone talk for me from now on.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Except the above was directed to underlankers, not you. Did you perhaps confuse the threads?

But since you mentioned it, no, I don't think the way you handled this was the best possible. Not even close.

Re: 1792 B.C., making you only off by about 3400 years or so

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Whoops, sorry about that! Yeah, I did get the threads confused. My bad.

OFFICIAL WARNING

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Now that I've reviewed the whole thing, it started here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1144626.html?thread=91116850#t91116850).

I haven't done this before, but there's always the first time.

Here.



Here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/237010.html)'s how this works. Your next offense of rule #1 will instantaneously result in a 3-day suspension from this community.

Consider yourself officially warned.

Re: OFFICIAL WARNING

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Just so I'm clear, who is this addressed to? I'm assuming the person whose posts are screened, but I just wanna be sure.

Re: OFFICIAL WARNING

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Awdrey_gore is the one who this is addressed to. However, having seen how you went through this situation, I'd say you have half a card too (if that's even possible, duh). Which is to say, well, be careful. This is not the first time you've lashed back at someone and I doubt it'll be the last, but I'm open to being proven wrong, at least once.

Re: OFFICIAL WARNING

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

I understand you may not agree with what I said, but I'm not going to lay down and let people walk all over me. I'm not the slightest bit dumb (though I may be ignorant on some things, admittedly) and I don't need to be treated as such.