Homosexual activists have achieved what Americans fifty years ago would have thought impossible and unthinkable. In addition to systematically securing legal sanction with the help of liberal judges who act as legislators, they are gradually convincing more and more Americans that same-sex relations should be accepted as legitimate behavior. In 1965, 82% of men and 58% of women said that homosexuality represented a “clear threat” to the American way of life. By 1993, only 66.3% of the American population believed that sexual relations between two consenting adults of the same sex were always wrong (Singer and Deschamps, 1994). A 2001 Gallup poll showed a continuation of a slow, but steady, liberalization of American public opinion toward homosexuality (Newport, 2001). A poll in the same year by the Barna Research Group found that nearly half of all adults (48%) believe that sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender should be legal. Two years later, Gallup found that six out of ten Americans feel that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal. This is the highest level of acceptance of the legality of homosexuality that has been measured over the 26 years that Gallup has been asking such a question. A slightly smaller percentage (54%) says that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle (Newport, 2003).
Observe the obvious erosion of American moral sensibility—from 82% to 46% in just 40 years. This alarming desensitization process is typical of human civilizations throughout history (cf. the Old Testament nation of Israel). Those who are ignorant of the past are indeed doomed to repeat it. The extent to which America has digressed from its original moral moorings becomes shockingly apparent when one examines the stance taken by American society for the first 150 years of its national existence. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling in 1885:
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement (Murphy v. Ramsey, emp. added).
And yet the current U.S. Supreme Court eliminated all state sodomy laws in 2003, opening the floodgates to the legalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriages state by state. Justice Scalia, who penned the dissenting opinion for his fellow dissenters, Justices Rehnquist and Thomas, correctly concluded that if homosexual marriages are to be legalized, no legal/rational basis exists upon which to forbid all other sexual relationships, regardless of the perversity involved.
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution...adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision (Lawrence et al..., 2003, italics in orig., emp. added).
Scalia added: “This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.... [N]one of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review” (Lawrence et al. vs. Texas, emp. added).
How far are Americans willing to go? To be consistent, they cannot logically oppose any other form of sexual promiscuity. If a woman were to want multiple husbands, on what basis could anyone object? The same may be said for those who wish to marry their child, their sister—or their pet. Once the objective moral framework provided by God in the Bible is abandoned or brushed aside, the slippery slope to complete moral breakdown is inevitable. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12). “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).
Lawrence et al. v. Texas (2003), [On-line], URL: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/get case.pl?court=US & navby=c ase & vol= 000 & invol=02-102.
Murphy v. Ramsey (1885), 114 U.S. 15; 5 S. Ct. 747; 29 L. Ed. 47; 1885.
Newport, Frank (2001), “American Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Continue to Become More Tolerant,” The Gallup Organization, June 4, [On- line], URL: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=4432.
Newport, Frank (2003), “Six out of 10 Americans Say Homosexual Relations Should be Recognized as Legal,” The Gallup Organization, May 15, [On-line], URL: http://www.gallup.com/ poll/content/login.aspx?ci=8413.
Singer, Benett and David Deschamps (1994), “Gay and Lesbian Stats,” The New Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.pflagupstatesc.org/statistics.htm.
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
Phone (334) 272-8558