Conventional wisdom is that people form opinions and make decisions based on their worldview. Their worldview, in turn, is comprised of their basic values and beliefs, and every decision bears a consequence, immediate or delayed. In that way, worldviews actively shape society and culture. Similarly, changes in people’s core values and beliefs, however seemingly minor the shifts seem at the time, change culture. No wonder there is such a concerted effort to mold public opinions through the entertainment and information medias and the courts.
Dr. Janice Crouse, an expert in classical rhetoric and communication theory, states, “Classical persuasion theory acknowledges that human beings dislike “dissonance” and that they will do whatever is necessary in their thinking to reconcile internal points of view that are contradictory. Current attitudes toward homosexuality illustrate the truth of the theories people see homosexual behavior as morally wrong, but they approve of making it legal because the gay lobby is convincing them that judging others is even more wrong and that consensual sex between adults is a private matter that should not be judged by others.”
A recent Gallup Poll bears out the theory. Six out of ten Americans agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. Yet a May 2003 Gallup Poll on values found that 53% of people see homosexual behavior as morally wrong regardless of legality. So, by making the value, “equality,” more important than “morality,” people end up agreeing with sexual egalitarianism: that is, no sexual practice – heterosexuality, homosexuality, bigamy, prostitution, adult incest, etc. – is more or less good than any other as long as both people consent. Sadly, there is even a campaign to legitimize and normalize pedophilia.
Thus, a worldview develops from personal subjective relativism there is no objective good. If no true “good” exists and all institutions represent current social constructions, the state or community cannot in the name of “equality” and “fairness” privilege one idea of what is good over another. By the standards of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Texas sodomy statute, the state functions only to ensure that one person’s choice of “good” does not hinder nor harm others.
One major factor cannot be overlooked, however. Homosexuals do not want simply privacy and tolerance because they already have that right as part of democracy, freedom and basic human rights. What they are seeking now is approval and social acceptance of their sexual values.
In 1996 on the political talk show Think Tank, Georgetown University law professor William Eskridge, asserted what has since become the standard argument for same-sex marriage: “[Same-sex marriage is good] primarily for reasons of equality. Legal marriage entails dozens of rights, benefits and obligations which are routinely available to different-sex couples. Those same benefits, rights and obligations should be available on the same terms to lesbian and same-sex couples as a guarantee of their equal rights in our polity.”
But, same-sex unions do differ from heterosexual marriages. Traditional marriage, the very foundation of society, represents more than a man and woman. It brings together two families with rich heritages and through procreation continues building society. One basis for legal marriage between a man and woman is its intrinsic good; domestic partner benefits were created due to the important role marriages and families play in society.
Dr. Francis Beckwith, Professor of Philosophy, Culture, and Law at Trinity International University, makes the point that “if marriage is like ‘justice,’ something that is intrinsically valuable (good-in-itself), then the state cannot morally define marriage in any way it sees fit and call it ‘marriage,’ just as the state cannot engage in atrocities and by legislative fiat call it ‘justice.'”
Even those who have no moral or religious stance on the issue must acknowledge the research and statistics supporting the stabilizing effect that marriage weaves into society and the devastating consequences of its breakdown. The research is also overwhelming in showing the positive benefits of traditional marriage on individuals’ well being especially children.
Time has allowed the consequences of the sexual revolution’s attack on marriage to become painfully obvious. The children of the sexual revolution continue to suffer the consequences from the sexual “freedom” era and what was considered “good” by their parents.
BLI’s analyses of official data indicate: The unwed teen birthrate more than doubled between 1960 and 1994. The two STDs prevalent before the sixties has now expanded to over twenty with 15 million new victims a year. The current divorce rate STILL hovers at 50 percent of all marriages. Unmarried mothers are six times more likely to be on welfare. Unmarried women have a 50 percent higher mortality rate and unmarried men a 250 percent higher rate.
Dare we imagine the consequences the next generation will bear if the homosexual attack on marriage succeeds?
Both legalized homosexual sex and legally recognized same-sex marriage attack traditional marriage and family. Through either or both, society opens the door for another type of sexual revolution.
If people agree with the courts on sexual egalitarianism in any situation despite its detrimental effects, the direction of society based on a worldview of relative values will lead to immediate and more frightening, long term consequences for future generations.