Ancient morality vs. pragmatic approach

In contrast to lots of the anti-gay crusaders, Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville at least tries to be honest. He doesn't lie to explain why he is opposed to gay marriage and Calif.'s amendment. This post starts out by describing many of those lies, especially with the episode of the first-graders attending their teacher's lesbian wedding (it turns out they went during lunch and they didn't watch the actual ceremony, they only saw the couple appear afterward). I don't agree with Mohler, but I do admire his civility.

He says that society is framed by constants and one of those constants is marriage. Changing one of those constants is confusing. Not only are we changing who can marry but we are separating the breeding and parenting functions from marriage, increasing the confusion. Yes, he is right, the whole thing is about the cultural acceptance of gay marriage. One could argue whether marriage has been that much of a constant, whether allowing gays to marry is all that confusing, or whether we should blame gays for separating breeding and parenting from marriage.

But the heart of his complaint is that society has rejected his moral argument. His side has preached long and loud about it, yet society has found the "good news" neither good nor news. They preach an ancient morality while society waits for pragmatic approaches to pregnancy, physical and emotional ill health, and a host of other problem. In short, a message that is useful. Instead society sees a combination of religion and politics, appeals to ignorance and dogma, and efforts to control those around them. Thus Christians are viewed with hostility and distrust. They may alienate an entire generation.