Most Americans Disagree With Church Teaching On Homosexuality, Abortion
-
By Adelle M. Banks
c. 2011 Religion News ServiceWASHINGTON (RNS) Significant majorities of Americans say it is possible to disagree with their religion's teachings on abortion and homosexuality and still remain in good standing with their faith.
The findings, released Thursday (June 9) in a detailed survey by Public Religion Research Institute, held true for major religious groups, including Catholics and white evangelical Protestants.
The findings reflect the complicated tasks faced by Catholic bishops to discipline politicians who stray from church teaching, or evangelical groups that try to toe a traditional line as cultural values shift around them.
In fact, the survey found that six in 10 Americans chafe at the idea of religious leaders publicly pressuring politicians on the issue of abortion, as has happened to several high-profile Catholic Democrats in recent years.
Overall, 72 percent of Americans say it's permissible to disagree with church teaching on abortion, and 63 percent say the same for homosexuality.
Catholics closely mirror the general population's position on abortion and church teaching, but are more progressive than the general population on the issue of homosexuality and church teaching.
Two-thirds of evangelicals (67 percent) said they could differ with church teaching on abortion, and slightly less than a majority (47 percent) said the same about homosexuality.
The report focused on the views of millennials (people ages 18-29) and found that they are more supportive than their parents of gay marriage. Their views on abortion closely mirror their parents, however, with six in 10 saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
Also, most millennials – 68 percent -- think at least some health care professionals in their community should provide legal abortions.
"Millennials are actually more likely to say that abortion should be available in their local community than say it should be legal," said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Washington-based research firm, whichannounced its results at the Brookings Institution.
Abortion services by local health care professionals is also supported by majorities of white mainline Protestants (72 percent), the religiously unaffiliated (71 percent), white Catholics (58 percent), and black Protestants (56 percent). Minorities of Latino Catholics (38 percent) and white evangelicals (37 percent) supported such availability.
The report also found a religious divide on the sinfulness of having an abortion, with more than 60 percent of white evangelicals, black Protestants and Latino Catholics seeing it as sinful. White Catholics, meanwhile, were evenly divided (46 percent each), and white mainline Protestants were the sole major religious group where a majority (55 percent) did not believe it is sinful.
Researchers found a link between biblical interpretation and opposition to abortion: almost six in 10 Americans who say the Bible is the literal word of God believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
More than 80 percent of people who don't see the Bible as the word of God but rather a book written by men think abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances.
The overall survey, based on telephone interviews with 3,000 people between April 22 and May 8, had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The sample of 431 millennials had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Among other findings:
Significant majorities of mainline Protestants (85 percent), Catholics (78 percent), black Protestants (74 percent) and evangelicals (62 percent) support public schools teaching comprehensive sex education.
With the exception of white evangelicals, majorities of major religious groups say "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both labels that describe them at least somewhat well.
Majorities of Americans who attend church at least once or twice a week hear clergy talk about abortion and homosexuality, with most hearing those issues are morally wrong and few hearing they are morally acceptable.
-
Overall, 72 percent of Americans say it's permissible to disagree with church teaching on abortion, and 63 percent say the same for homosexuality.
…
Two-thirds of evangelicals (67 percent) said they could differ with church teaching on abortion, and slightly less than a majority (47 percent) said the same about homosexuality.Just goes to show how much Americans really hate us
-
It's not that Americans hate gays, per se. It's that they are heavily into religion, that is the problem.
If you look at black centric nations, they tend to be a lot more "religious" than whites and you will see that they hate gays with a passion.
Sadly, most people (of every religion) are too lazy to read their holy text for themselves. This breed ignorance. All they know is what their preacher tells them.
Nations with a much lower percentage of religion are more more tolerant of gays than religious nations.
-
This just goes to show another reason why the term "separation of church and state" is more or less a requirement in order to fulfill any society reasonably. Moreover, the more interesting part is that in reality, the bible never does actually say anything about not tolerating homosexuality.
The more interesting part when it comes to religion is that one could argue that Jesus was a flaming homo himself. When you think about it, he's always portrayed as dressing in long dress like robes, had the long hair going, and well… hung out with the same 12 MEN. I think all of you know where I'm going with this one. :lolp:
-
I don't know why abortion and homosexuality are always paired in these kind of "reports." While being Gay is not a choice, engaging in sexual activities is - usually- whereas the child involved in the abortion is not consulted.
I'm very Gay and yet I'm very much against abortion. As time goes on, I've mellowed in the sense that I'm not so strongly into it being illegal, since people will always find a way to do something whether legal or not.
But as in vitro surgeries are performed on younger and younger 'fetuses' or whatever your term of choice is, it would seem to be increasingly difficult to say that organism is not a life. Unfortunately, even our existing laws often hinge on whatever the parents wishes are - if a pregnant woman is injured and loses the baby some jurisdictions call it murder and some don't. There are many more examples (of laws) which obviously are not taking an objective view - is it a baby or not? If it is not, then it could never be murder to cause a miscarriage in a pregnant woman, to phrase it another way.
At its simplest, left alone, a pregnancy becomes a child - so a the very least, a potential life is destroyed in an abortion. The heart starts to beat after just a few weeks and measurable brain activity also starts very early - indicators in other circumstances of whether or not life exists. I guess the Hippocrattic oath of "first, do no harm" no longer applies in medicine!
Feet and tiny toes appear at 10 weeks. I have read much about the abortion industry, and some of it no doubt is exaggerated by pro-life writers - but one thing seems to be clear - it is not so much about the "choice" of the woman or what is best for her as it is about making money for the abortion industry. Every woman I have discussed abortion with who has had one, adamantly insists she did the right thing. Sure, not a scientific poll, but no regrets? No one wonders what their child would be like 12 or 15 years later had they not had an abortion?
Surely a country that can spend a billion dollars a day on wars to kill people can figure out a way that no pregnancy need end in abortion. Laws could be passed that no pregnant woman would lose seniority at work, firing someone for maternity leave could be illegal, adoption could be a breeze etc.
-
Your church hates you because you are gay or at the very least because you have gay sex. Having sex is a choice, just like abortion.
As for abortion, how dare you tell a rape victim that she must carry the offspring of her rapist. What about the product of incest?
Even Papa Bush, while President, said he wanted ALL abortions to be illegal (including for rape, incest and health of the mother), but admitted that he would send a family member to another country to have an abortion to side step his ideal anti abortion laws for the US.
The UK allows abortions up to 24 weeks, because a baby born before that is not viable on it's own. Abortions can be done after 24 weeks if 2 doctors agree it's for the mother's health.
The catholic church only allows sex that creates more catholics. That is why it hates gay sex and abortions, because neither fills it's coffers and power base.
-
one thing seems to be clear - it is not so much about the "choice" of the woman or what is best for her
as it is about making money for the abortion industry.Why would any doctor whose primary motivation is "making money" choose a field which makes them
the target of religious fanatics who would like to shoot them dead?Every woman I have discussed abortion with who has had one, adamantly insists she did the right thing.
Sure, not a scientific poll, but no regrets?That is one strange comment from someone with your beliefs.
You do know about Norma McCorvey, right?Norma Leah McCorvey … better known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe",
was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973 ...
she married Woody McCorvey, but claimed he was abusive towards her.
Subsequently, McCorvey left him during the pregnancy with her first child,
Melissa (born 1965). The following year, McCorvey again became pregnant,
eventually giving birth to a baby that was placed for adoption.
She then returned to live with her mother, but when Norma intimated
that she was sexually attracted to women, her mother disowned her
and took custody of Norma's daughter, Melissa.
In 1969, at the age of 21, while working low-paying jobs and
living with her father, McCorvey became pregnant a third time ...
She attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but the
respective clinics had been closed down by authorities.
Eventually, McCorvey was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.
The case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court.In her first book, the 1994 autobiography, I Am Roe, McCorvey wrote of her sexuality.
For many years, she had lived quietly in Dallas with her long-time partner, Connie Gonzales.
"We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she explained in a New York Times interview.
"We're lesbians together. We're homers."
That same year, she converted to Christianity and expressed remorse
for her part in the Supreme Court decision.
McCorvey has worked as part of the pro-life movement, such as Operation Rescue.At a signing of I Am Roe, McCorvey was befriended by evangelical minister Flip Benham.
She was baptized on August 8, 1995, by Benham in a Dallas, Texas, backyard swimming pool,
an event that was filmed for national television.
Two days later she announced that she had become an advocate
of Operation Rescue's campaign to make abortion illegal.McCorvey's second book, Won by Love, was published in 1998 ...
Shortly thereafter, McCorvey released a statement that affirmed her entrance
into the Roman Catholic Church, and she has been confirmed
into the church as a full member.
She has also stated that she is no longer a lesbian.from hXXp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey
-
The catholic church only allows sex that creates more catholics.
That is why it hates gay sex and abortions, because neither fills it's coffers and power base.That is also why it hates contraception
-
"We're not like other lesbians, going to bars," she explained in a New York Times interview.
"We're lesbians together. We're homers."That's a bigoted stereotype of the GLBT community, as most of our gay/lesbian friends don't go to bars.
A few weeks ago, we went to the bar for the first time in nearly 2 years.
-
My first thought was to not comment because I knew what would happen. But this is a forum to discuss ideas.
I never said a woman should carry a rapist's baby. That is why I said I'm not so adamant about it not being illegal. The fact is abortions due to rape are a tiny tiny percentage of all abortions. And it still murders a child. Or do two wrongs make a right? PS - I love how you completely ignore the overarching, carefully written concern for the unborn child and just JUMP down on my neck about rape….....
Twinkle - I have no idea what you're getting at with Norma McCorvey, yes I'm aware she was Jane Doe. I wasn't aware that she was and then later 'wasn't' a lesbian.
Re: 'no regrets' - I was very clear in my statement that I was relaying MY EXPERIENCES.
Re: making money - I have no idea why someone would choose to be an abortion doctor. It seems antithetical to the reasons most people go into the field of medicine. But we do know that many drugs, many procedures harm people and that money is the motivating factor there as well as in many areas of life. For example, before the advent of HMO's, or should I say before HMO's became as widespread, some hospitals put doctors on salary and AMAZINGLY surgeries were reduced by 50%. Did people all of sudden become healthier or was it because the surgeons couldn't send out big bills?
There have been many reports about HMO's restricting access to medical care and then giving bonuses to those who save the company the most money. Seems like that would be illegal.
Again, why is abortion paired with homosexuality?
-
Yes, this is a forum to discuss ideas.
Maybe you should have clarified when you might find it acceptable for abortions to take place.
I didn't ignore your concern for the unborn. I mentioned the UK law about abortion and the reasoning behind it; ie under 24 weeks a fetus can't survive on it's own and in virtually every case won't survive even with the best medical care.
As to your question about why is homosexuality and abortion always linked? Maybe you should ask your church why that is. After all, this thread (see thread title) is about church teachings and whether or not people agree with it.
-
abortions due to rape are a tiny tiny percentage of all abortions.
And it still murders a child.Those of us who support a woman's right to choose, do NOT accept that a fetus is identical to a child.
Do you also accept your Church's teaching that a fertilized egg is identical to a child?The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae stated that:
"Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive,
that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act,
there are other technical means which act after fertilization,
when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall …
Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within
the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral" -
I don't agree with the ban on contraception, because the term itself means that you are preventing inception. That means, the sperm doesn't reach the egg. No fetus, no fertilized egg. This is because the sperm and egg are simply the potential for life. Which is, in my opinion, a definitive statement, because the sperm and egg will not "multiply" and generate more of itself just by being there. But a fertilized egg will undergo cellular fission and become more cells, eventually becoming a child. So for me, the turning point of morality is precisely at the point of egg fertilization.
Abortion, in my opinion, means that the egg was fertilized then killed. and yes, i think abortion shouldn't be allowed, except for extreme cases:
- the life of the mother is in danger
- the mother is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and possibly depressed (as the case in rape). If the mother hates the unborn child, I'm no longer sure about what would be the correct thing to do.
My feelings about the matter aren't all that strong, but these are my opinions.
Going back to the original topic:
I don't understand why abortion and homosexuality are always lumped together. i mean, if we were really homosexuals, we will never worry about abortion, right? -
Abortion, in my opinion, means that the egg was fertilized then killed. and yes, i think abortion shouldn't be allowed, except for extreme cases:
- the life of the mother is in danger
- the mother is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, and possibly depressed (as the case in rape). If the mother hates the unborn child, I'm no longer sure about what would be the correct thing to do.
I more or less share your opinion there. I have only ever taken a pregnant female to an abortion clinic on one particular occasion. Despite the fact that I do not believe it is the right thing to do because there are other options, in this particular case, I stood behind her as her doctor had told her that if she tried to carry to term, it would kill her. In cases like those, it's a much different story, especially when the person I took was already a mother of 2, both of which depend on her.
-
#10 "ask your church"…. I don't think the church issues statements joining abortion and homosexuality, the media does, for sensationalism. Adelle Banks, the writer, as far as could be inferred from the original post, is not a spokesman for any church.
#10 & 11 - The question is not "is a fertilized egg the equivalent of a child" but rather, when does life begin? How about at the beginning? It is very true that fetuses cannot survive at 24 weeks or less, but neither can a lot of other people, without drugs, machinery, or care. So the societal definition of when life begins is apparently determinate on which side of the womb you are on! And I will emphasize again, what about brain waves and heart beats? Feet and toes at 10 weeks? What is that? How about in vitro surgeries ever earlier?
As to rape - I contacted Right to Life in Michigan to get another point of view and they feel that every human being, at whatever stage of development, has dignity and worth. To kill the fetus does nothing to take away the awful pain and trauma of rape.
Another thought - when (and if it still does) China had its one-child policy, couples were aborting female fetuses and of course various women's groups decried this as sexist or whatever. So I find it interesting, that if you look enough, everyone is against abortion for some reason.
-
It's not sensationalism as you claim. Every catholic source bangs (excuse the pun) on and on about procreation/sex and that is the link between the 4 things {gay sex, abortion, contraception and masturbation). So there is your direct link by your church. The official church stance is that all sex is only for procreation, thus banning gay sex, abortion, contraception and masturbation. As a catholic, you should be able to see that link, so I'm confused why you don't get it.
Do you have any concept of how many premature babies survive if they are born before the 24 week mark in a country with good medical care? Extremely few survive and of those that do, extremely few make it into adulthood and of those, extremely few make it into adulthood semi-functional (meaning they don't have to be fully cared for).
A study that started in 2005 and ended last year said it cost the US $50 Billion (YES, that's with a B) to raise all the 2005 premies to the age of 5, well of those that survived that long. That's just over $142 for every man, woman and child in the US just for the 2005 premies for those 5 years. Of course the costs keep building up because many of them have life long health issues that go along with being a premy. That doesn't even count the cost to businesses due to lost work, etc, etc. For some reason, I haven't found out what yet, the number of premature babies are increasing by 20% a decade since the 1950s.
In ancient times, kids weren't counted as human until they reached 1yo and not fully human until they reached 7yo. This was due to the high death rates. In fact, these people wrote most of your holy text.
So you (you support their stance, despite saying you don't always) and "Right to Life" want to continue to force the woman to suffer the trauma of the rape for another 9 months. WOW, you people are truly heartless. Ironically enough, extremely high percentages of "right to life" people also support the death penalty.
Who are the sexists in China?! It's not the government, but the individual people that decided they didn't want girls. Even with this personal choice of the people involved, women still make up, on average year to year, 52.8% of the world's population. Imagine what the number would be like if the Chinese didn't want only boys.
Like MrMazda, I also took a friend to have an abortion and I would do it again for anyone that asked. Though the circumstances were very different. She was already disowned by her family for wanting to continue to go to school, her boyfriend dumped her when she told him she was pregnant, etc, etc, etc. She could barely make ends meet as it was and a baby would have destroyed everything she had struggled for.
-
I have half a thought now that if a woman hates the baby in her womb, and she won't be allowed abortion, will she not eventually commit suicide or another rash act just to "do" it? This is what post traumatic stress does to people.
I will say that there should be some kind of therapy the government will give IF they will insist that rape victims carry their children to term. And then, if the girl isn't ready to be a mother, take care of both of them, as well. Don't ban something if you can't provide a better alternative.
-
I can't say that I disagree with abortion in every case, since there are some cases where it is necessary (such as trying to carry to term will kill the mother). That being said, I do agree with notquiteme in that there are other alternatives to killing an unborn child if your reasoning isn't "valid" so to speak. In such cases as not being able to afford the upkeep of a child, or cases where it was an accident such as a condom break that neither parent was planning on, there are options such as adoption that would be more humane in the end.
At least with adoption as an alternative, rather than murder an unborn child, you can still give them the option of having a loving family that can take care of them, and provide for them the things they need to have the life that a child deserves. This is just one such alternative that I can think of that in many cases would be a more humane thing to do, rather than kill an unborn child.
-
Who is going to pay the medical bills and the maternity leave to bring the child to full term?
-
I don't know about in other countries, but here in Canada, the adopting parents are the ones who pay such bills in the process of agreeing to adopt the unborn child. As for the maternity leave, some of that here in Canada there are laws to regulate so that the mother doesn't get totally screwed in the process.
On that topic, it would be interesting to know the way that such things work in other countries.
