How Did this Happen? Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense to So Many

Christian Post ^ | 03/05./2011 | R. Albert Mohler Jr.

[SeekAndFind]

Why does same-sex marriage make sense to so many people? The momentum toward the full legalization of same-sex marriage seems to intensify with every passing month - or even faster. The moral divide in this nation is now seen most clearly in the distance between those for whom marriage is exclusively heterosexual and thus a settled issue and, on the other hand, those who honestly see the legalization of same-sex marriage as a moral mandate required by justice.

Given the venerable status of marriage and its universally established heterosexual character - at least until very recently - the burden of argument falls on the need to explain how such a movement for a moral revolution gained credibility, cultural mass, and momentum. How did this happen?

A culture does not consist only of ideas and ideologies, but no culture exists without them. Given the complexity of any culture, a comprehensive map of these ideas, moral intuitions, and philosophies is impossible to create. Nevertheless, some patterns are clear enough. We can trace the acceptance of same-sex marriage to at least three major ideas that have been shaping the modern mind for some time - and are held to some extent by both social liberals and conservatives.

A Progressivist Understanding of History

One of the ideological engines of our social revolution is the idea that history reveals a progressive liberation of peoples who have suffered oppression. In this view of history, one prejudice after another has fallen as we have come to terms with the demands of justice. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In other words, history reveals an inevitable, though tortuously long, arc toward justice and fairness. Over the course of history, innumerable superstitions and prejudices have been discarded. Slavery, once considered a social and economic necessity on both sides of the Atlantic, was overcome in Western democracies. Women demanded and were granted the right to vote. The world of Jim Crow gave way to the world of racial integration and civil rights. The mentally disabled are no longer put away in asylums. The Irish and Italians, once oppressed as the unwashed and unwanted immigrants of the Gilded Age, have risen to prominence in every arena of American life. America has elected its first African-American President. History marches on.

For obvious reasons, the movement to normalize homosexuality attached itself to this idea of historical progress. This was a natural and inevitable development, and those who formed the strategy for this movement used the most powerful tools at their disposal. The progressivist vision of history was there for the taking, and the gay rights movement took it up with enthusiasm.

Americans are naturally drawn to this understanding of history. It plays to our belief that our generation is in some way morally superior to the generations who preceded us. Liberals feast on this understanding of history and make it their main argument in any number of debates. But conservatives are shaped by this narrative, as well. Conservatives accept the undeniable fact that history, both long and short, tells a story that we should celebrate at countless turns.

But the problem with the progressivist understanding of history is that it cannot stand alone. It cannot be the only narrative. There has to become means of identifying what is truly a manifestation of oppression and what is a structure necessary for human flourishing. If the only story we have is the narrative of liberation from oppression, then, as Karl Marx understood, all that remains is an unstoppable revolution that dissolves all bonds of relationship, kinship, tradition, and moral order. Should children be liberated from the authority of their parents? Should all prisoners be liberated from their cells? Should human beings be liberated from the obligations of family and kinship?

The progressivist understanding of history must be checked by a recognition that liberation from oppression is not the only true and compelling narrative. The affirmation and preservation of moral obligations and commitments must be the companion narrative. But, in order to understand why so many among us see something as morally revolutionary and socially subversive as same-sex marriage to be something to demand and champion, consider the fact that many of our friends and neighbors see same-sex marriage as only the next logical step in overcoming prejudice and discrimination. It is the only story they know, and it is powerful.

A Radical Individualism

Paired with the progressivist understanding of history is a vision of individualism that is virtually unprecedented in human experience. An affirmation of the importance of the individual is written into the fabric of modern thought. Our understanding of human rights, of individual liberty, and of personal responsibility are central to the American self-consciousness. Add to this the fact that the rise of the therapeutic worldview has recast human experience as a continuous project of individual self-discovery and self-definition.

But, if individualism was central to the American experience from the beginning, the current form of this idea is far more radical than previous generations could imagine. The current form of individualism includes the claim that we can define ourselves even in terms of gender and sex. This individualism is titanic in its reach, producing what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton once described as the “Protean Man.” We demand the total right to define ourselves.

Once again, we must recognize that the opponents of same-sex marriage have also been drinking heavily at the springs that feed this powerful idea. Many conservatives have bought into their own form of expressive individualism, taking refuge in the structures of social order only when convenient, bending moral codes to our own individualistic demands, forfeiting moral obligations when they conflict with our favorite project - ourselves.

The control on the destructive force of expressive individualism is the reality of moral obligation and the goodness of true self-knowledge. As Christians know - and must always remember - we are known before we ever emerge to know. Our Creator knew us before we even came to be, and he established our identity before we came to know ourselves. True happiness can come only by embracing with gratitude the identity we are given by the Creator. This idea - now reaching even to sex and gender - is anathema to the modern mind.

The Claim of Moral Autonomy

Throughout most of human history, moral principles were considered to be objectively true and inviolate. The universe was understood to be ruled by a moral law established by a divine Lawgiver and Judge. That understanding has given way to the belief that most, if not all, moral principles are the products of social construction - we make them up as we go along.

While most criticisms of moral relativism are directed at individual conduct, on the larger scale, the entire society is increasingly convinced that moral principles must give way to new understandings, findings, and insights. When this idea is added to the progressivist understanding of history and the radical form of modern individualism, we have a recipe for moral revolution.

And, as with the other ideological factors we have considered, this one is also affirmed, to some degree, by both liberals and conservatives. There can be no doubt that some understandings of moral principle were indeed shaped by prejudice and ignorance, leading to great human suffering. Laws against interracial marriage were prime examples of this prejudice, and there are many others. Fear of minorities, including homosexuals, has led to scapegoating and hatred, cloaked in the language of moral rectitude. These things must give way to moral progress and be denounced with moral fervor.

But, once again, not all moral principles are examples of oppression. To the contrary, human life is only possible within the context of enduring moral laws and principles that liberate all human beings to their true humanity. This is where those who support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it face each other across a huge gulf of understanding. One side sees a moral mandate to liberate marriage from its heterosexual limitation. The other side sees natural marriage as a liberating, God-given institution for human flourishing. There is precious little shared ground in this debate.

Same-sex marriage is not an idea that emerged from a vacuum. The project of normalizing homosexuality has deep roots and ideological momentum. The elites, the entertainment culture, the news media, and the educational establishment celebrate all three of these ideas as central to the modern experience and as ideological propulsion into a better future.

So, when we wonder how it came to be that so many among us now favor same-sex marriage, we must remember that, to some extent or another, virtually all of us have embraced the ideas that make such a moral revolution thinkable. And ideas, as Richard Weaver famously reminded us, have consequences.

--- R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky

[icwhatudo]

MTV’s The Real World helped remove the “ick” factor. Reeducate the young, society gets changed.

[macquire]

You can always make the same argument for any sin that this article makes that then gets thrown in Christian’s faces every time:

“JUDGE NOT”.....

Based on the liberal interpretation of those words, nothing anyone does should be judged by anyone, lest they be judged. But you know what; I FULLY EXPECT TO BE JUDGED BY MY CREATOR!

[Richard Kimball]

Yeah, and you’re going to be judged by the same liberals that say “judge not.”

[Richard Kimball]

If you do not believe in a real God that directly intervenes in the affairs of men, you do anything you can get away with.

[y6162]

“So, when we wonder how it came to be that so many among us now favor same-sex marriage”

How?

50 years of liberal social engineering...attack on marriage and religion ...marginalization of traditional male values...feminism...no fault divorce ...single female headed families becoming the largest Democrat voting demographic...unrelenting 7 x 24 left wing propaganda...

Easy.

I can’t wait until polygamy becomes legal.

[CrazyIvan]

Even if you take religion/morality out of the equation it
just doesn’t make sense. It’s like wanting an airworthiness
certificate for a boat.

[wku man]

Judgment is a survival mechanism. We have to make dozens of judgments each and every day, many of them about people. If we didn't make judgments about people, we'd all end up dead or our pictures on milk cartons. Judge away, I say. I, too, expect to be judged, and I hope and pray I can answer for what I've done.

I judge homos to be vile, disgusting, immoral, wasters of oxygen.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[StonyBurk]

The national outcry for same sex marriage received a big boost when the US supreme Court in 1987 decided to define “marriage “ as a relationship that could receive benefits even property. That same year Steve Warren of ACT UP was published in the Advocate calling for Same Sex Marriage. and “surrender” of Orthodox Jews and Christians.And that same year the Congressional Record published another homosexual manifesto in celebration of the gay revolution ( by Jonathan Swift).
Problem is in 1969 I took as my own a Code that declares “I will Never surrender of my own free will...” Nowhere in Scripture is same sex behavior spoken of as anything other than —sinning before the Lord; fornication; abomination;
associated with prostitution; and with idol worship; it is unnatural; against God ; and I could continue but nowhere in Scripture is same sex marriage or the fraud of Civil Unions spoken of as a thing acceptable to God. In modern Science there is no Science that refutes or disproves Scripture. Sexual Orientation remains a chosen behavior-one that can and does change. There is No scientific basis for being turned from the Truth to accept the Lie. SO I can only conclude the roots of this present darkness may run deep
but this nation was established a Christian nation and the
roots of our founding religion and morality run as deep if not deeper.I can name Christians who are named among the Founders-or the First Congress— The modern myth that there were homosexuals among them is to be blunt a LIE-a beguiling LIE -nothing more.But for this cause they have suffered a great deception and have been turned from the truth to believe the LIE.

[dila813]

I think it is just because people know it is wrong but they are just trying to go with the flow. This herd mentality in American Society takes place when people’s moral values are diluted with a liberal moral value/idea that nothing is wrong and everything is relative.

[Yaelle]

This makes a lot of sense. Also, gay people have been talking, writing, and studying their origins, and all evidence, scientific and experiential, shows that a very high percentage of gays did not choose their orientation. They just were that way.

I think all open minded people in 2012 feel that anyone with a condition not their fault deserves our compassion. Minorities, disabled, sick, etc. That plays a part.

The difference, especially with the prejudiced, is that someone with a speech impediment or Down Syndrome is not thought of as disgusting by the judgmental. Sure, they might be mocked. But the anti-homosexuals, including some on this thread, are disgusted by what a gay person would do if he acted on his sexual interests. And this disgust propels them to say that homosexuals are “wasting oxygen” as someone has said here.

However, remember a few facts to show how wrong this condemnation is from a moral perspective. A) homosexuality does not mean the person is engaged in any kind of sex at all. Plenty of straight people are not having sex. B) G-d does not find some sins more disgusting than others. He may have one biggie, murder, but after that, the people condemning gays are no purer or “less disgusting” than anyone else. C) probably every person condemning gays, if he remembered back in his own sexual experience, would recall a time when he too followed his sexual appetites into some kind of behavior he would not be proud of. And that behavior may well appear disgusting to some.

The approach toward homosexuality that good people should consider is to realize they are here, queer (they have the orientation), and to Help them turn away from the pop culture’s encouragement toward a liberal, libertine lifestyle. Stop pulling away into gaytowns where everything goes. Help them become logical, decent conservatives.

[Vaduz]

Those who fear to speak out about problems become PC and we see how it turned out.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Same-sex marriage is not an idea that emerged from a vacuum. The project of normalizing homosexuality has deep roots and ideological momentum. The elites, the entertainment culture, the news media, and the educational establishment celebrate all three of these ideas as central to the modern experience and as ideological propulsion into a better future.

I'm thinking that same-sex marriage is here to stay because movies and tv have made it a regular topic.

The bad thing is that eventually kids will think that being gay is a choice that they should try out.

[MasterGunner01]

Why the push for gay marriage? Follow the money. Heath benefits for gay couples with HIV/AIDS. It comes down to that after all is said and done.

[Sans-Culotte]

However, remember a few facts to show how wrong this condemnation is from a moral perspective. A) homosexuality does not mean the person is engaged in any kind of sex at all. Plenty of straight people are not having sex. B) G-d does not find some sins more disgusting than others. He may have one biggie, murder, but after that, the people condemning gays are no purer or “less disgusting” than anyone else. C) probably every person condemning gays, if he remembered back in his own sexual experience, would recall a time when he too followed his sexual appetites into some kind of behavior he would not be proud of. And that behavior may well appear disgusting to some.

Oh, God, how I tire of people who put words in people's mouths! Christians do not claim that "homosexuality is worse than other sins"; nor do they believe that they (Christians) "are more righteous than homosexuals".

You have gotten it backwards. Homosexuals are the one class of sinners who do not believe that their sin is a sin. Homosexuals want to be accepted as normal and do not want to be regarded as sinners. If a homosexual is "normal", and no worse than anyone else; then murderers, thieves rapists and adulterers are "normal". I have never heard a Christian say that other sins are OK, while ONLY homosexuality is wrong. It is people like you who make that assertion.

What we are saying is that homosexuality was, is and always will be a sin and an abomination before God. It is not normal even in a non-religious sense. Anyone can see that male and male (or female and female) were not meant to mate. Does this make a homosexual a "worse sinner" than anyone else? No. But it does mean that they are slaves to their "lifestyle", and no matter how un-PC it is to say so, they are openly slaves to sin while not acknowledging their sin. And it does not matter if they were born that way. Some people are born with addictive and selfish natures; and for them, life is more of a struggle than for others. I have yet to see Christians celebrate any other sin. A man does not bring his wife and his mistress to church with him. Thieves are not considered to be "created that way" (and even if they are, they are still thieves).

The problem with the sin of homosexuality is that its practitioners and defenders want it to no longer be considered a sin. No one considers them "more disgusting than other sinners". This has been gone over here at FR repeatedly. If you been registered since '99 you should know this.

[LottieDah]

“... Follow the money...

It is ALL about the money....health benefits and tax deductions....a gay male friend of mine said that gay marriage was ridiculous and that if a guy wanted to leave his partner his possesions that should be reflected in a will.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Based on the liberal interpretation of those words, nothing anyone does should be judged by anyone, lest they be judged. But you know what; I FULLY EXPECT TO BE JUDGED BY MY CREATOR.

They are partially correct. Christians should not judge unbelievers. That authority is God's alone. We are, however, absolutely supposed to judge other Christians.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 NIV
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked person from among you."

[blueunicorn6]

Here we go again. When homosexuals want something, they start bleating about being born homosexual. If you ask them if they want help, then it’s “You stinking homophobe! How dare you condemn the lifestyle I’ve chosen!” They’re still looking for that homosexual gene. It must be really recessive, like that gene for living without a brain.

[flowerplough]

Homos are endowed by their creator with the same rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in the Declaration or Constitution about only those attempting Godliness enjoying America. I want as little connection as possible between the Koran, the Torah, the Gitas, and the law. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, no more. No federal Christmas holiday, no El Al Iftar feast/fasts in the White House, and no religious restrictions on state-approved cohabitation, divorce, and marriage, thank you very much.

[McBuff]

This article frames the conflict pretty well. . .I was hoping that he would identify the crux of the problem and he did not.

The crux, as I see it, is that the so-call homosexual rights movement is a deeply flawed but very clever ruse. Those who engage in homosexual acts are using the civil rights lever in order to force society to condone a behavior.

As far as all civil rights movements of the past are concerned, they were efforts to declare one's group as a full member of the human family deserving of the universal rights and endowed blessings of being human. We all enjoy these rights and we all share in the universal basis of these rights, i.e. our common humanity.

This shared basis of our rights is vital, because a cohesive society, a moral and ethical society, is one in which its citizens agree on what constitutes right and wrong.

In this essential regard, the so-called Homosexual movement is a radical departure. Rather than demanding rights owing to our common humanity, they insist that it is a specific behavior that defines their quest for "rights." In that every person, regardless of sexual behavior, enjoys the full endowment of rights and privileges owing to their humanity, the call for additional rights based upon exclusive behavior is nothing but a ruse.

The danger for society, if this ruse is embraced, is that it will mean that any individual can be barred from assessing any behavior as right or wrong. We will have forever lost the actual foundation of all our freedoms and rights.

Homosexual behavior is, at best, a dysfunctional behavior. It is in conflict with natural law and self evident truths. Society must maintain its right to frown upon behavior not in the interest of society as well as to extol behavior that strengthens society. That a society would move to protect marriage as defined is in the interest of society and does not violate the rights of anyone!