11 May 2012

More on Same-Sex Marriage, and Why It Isn't So Revolutionary After All

A couple months ago, I wrote a blog post about how I don't think same-sex marriage is a re-definition of marriage in our culture at all.

Now, Michael Horton (over on the White Horse Inn blog) is lending some credibility to my claim. He says,
"Both sides trade Bible verses, while often sharing an unbiblical—secularized—theological framework at a deeper level. If God exists for our happiness and self-fulfillment, validating our sovereign right to choose our identity, then opposition to same-sex marriage...is just irrational prejudice.

Given the broader worldview that many Americans (including Christians) embrace—or at least assume, same-sex marriage is a right to which anyone is legally entitled. After all, traditional marriages in our society are largely treated as contractual rather than covenantal, means of mutual self-fulfillment more than serving a larger purpose ordained by God. The state of the traditional family is so precarious that one wonders how same-sex marriage can appreciably deprave it.

Same-sex marriage makes sense if you assume that the individual is the center of the universe, that God—if he exists—is there to make us happy, and that our choices are not grounded in a nature created by God but in arbitrary self-construction. To the extent that this sort of “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” prevails in our churches, can we expect the world to think any differently?"
From either perspective, whether you are pro- or anti-same-sex marriage, we are getting what we deserve.


  1. That was a good little series by Horton. It's interesting that our president used the word "evolve," as Horton explains how our society's understanding of marriage has devolved.

  2. Good observation, Aimee. The second law of thermodynamics seems to apply to moral progress as well as physics. 'Devolve'...that might have to turn into a blog post later.


I welcome comments, and will read them, but they are moderated.