Just my two cents, but I believe its a result of the gay lobby’s success in turning the issue into a civil rights case rather than a moral case. While most people will quickly stand up against a moral evil, most are afraid to be labeled a bigot.
Because people have started to become more progressive, I guess. Started with the Netherlands in 2000, New England and Canada weren’t far behind. There was an amendment proposed to ban it altogether when Bush was president, but that failed, which led to more same-sex marriage and the contesting of DOMA.
Most people have, for the last several decades if not centuries, bought into basic liberal premises, e.g., the primacy of “freedom, equality, fraternity,” the evilness of oppression, the supreme value of self-expression, etc. For most people, aversion to homosexuality was always an unprincipled exception to these principles. So abandoning them was relatively easy once there was a sense that momentum was shifting the other way.
Hopefully that will be a lesson to Catholics. You cannot make peace with this enemy. Give it an inch…
I don’t believe it just happened out of the blue; I think it happened incrementally, allowing people to become accustomed to it being in the public square; and the longer it was permitted to remain there the stronger it grew.
It also partly happened as a reaction to what was an objectively wrong attitude towards homosexuals from the past. People were ostracized over homosexual tendencies all out of proportion to the social disapproval of other sins, including other sexual sins. It is kind of like that bad treatment that people got after a divorce. Let us hope that there will be a swing back, but this time to a moderate and appropriate attitude towards the situation of those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Ready for the long history…
Started in 1930 at the Lambeth Conference where the Church of England gave the OK for the use on contraception on a limited basis… Prior to that most Christian denominations stood on the grounds that artificial contraception was a sin. >> This opened the door to contraception on an unlimited basis for the majority of Christian denominations >> In the 1960s the “Pill” became the norm for contraception, meaning that woman no longer had to be concerned about becoming pregnant and could engage in intercourse as often and with whomever she desired. … Leading to the downfall of a morality. >> Now to the liberal minded, Godless person, what is fair for one set of individuals is fair for all… Since Men and Women can engage in sexual activity without consequences or concern for conception, so same sex couples feel they have the right to do the same…
Now comes the indoctrination of the next generation. It’s hard to convince one generation that a Sin is not a Sin; So lets teach the young that a Sin is not a Sin… Draw a parallel to how we used to feel about inter-racial marriage and how bigoted we were to say that black and white couldn’t marry… So, what’s the difference now when same sex couples what to marry? … The wise know the difference. The foolish may know the difference, but sin is fun (not wise) so if I allow one sin, then maybe someone will tolerate my sin… Example: Jim & Jane are brother & sister and desire to marry (after all they love each other)… Jane can not conceive, so there are no genetic problems, what’s the problem?
See, when we open one door to condone sin we open many doors without knowing.
Which also means that the support of it isn’t as strong as people might think. The majority of the population in a new pagan society might be complacent and approve of it, but not with strong conviction. The hardcore advocates are a minority and then a much larger group is being led along with them.
It’s also about making oneself feel justified. A person that holds little or no standards in their own heterosexual lifestyle is going to have a hard time looking down on same sex lifestyles without feeling awkward about it. They either need to reassess their own lifestyle and determine that they’re in the wrong, or they just give up and open the doors completely.
Next up on the plate: incestual sex. Justification? If you use contraceptives to ensure you don’t produce offspring, then it’s ethically okay. Countdown: 20-30 years.
My theory is that the internet has been a huge catalyst for the gay rights movement. In the 90’s when the internet became big it quickly became the preferred method of connecting with like-minded strangers, finding support, and starting grassroots political campaigns. Closeted gay people were able to reach out and connect with other gay people and their supporters, and find the courage to come out in large numbers. In the last 20 years almost everyone has had a friend, sibling, child, or parent come out of the closet. People who were previously disgusted and hostile towards homosexuality suddenly realized that someone they loved and cared about was gay. That challenged a lot of their previously held views. And after a couple of decades of realizing that the sky wasn’t falling and wanting their loved one to be happy the hysteria died down and people got on board.
Actually, I think it came out of a movement in the '60s and '70s that was sort of an “anti-witch” hunt…a reaction against ostracizing people for not fitting the mold. That was a good thing that was unfortunately taken beyond removing artificial social boundaries all the way to removing pretty much every social boundary short of physically assaulting strangers.
I do not believe the contention that modern sensibilities include a rejection of “hate speech” as a social boundary. The thing that has changed is which people and attitudes may be openly hated without suffering social rebuke. That is the best evidence I have for why this has essentially been a pendulum swing, rather than the improvement of the human condition that secular humanists sometimes presume it to be.
In Screwtape Letters, the senior devil Screwtape says this:
*…The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere “understanding”. Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritansm; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey.
But the greatest triumph of all is to elevate his horror of the Same Old Thing into a philosophy so that nonsense in the intellect may reinforce corruption in the will. It is here that the general Evolutionary or Historical character of modern European thought (partly our work) comes in so useful. The Enemy loves platitudes. Of a proposed course of action He wants men, so far as I can see, to ask very simple questions; is it righteous? is it prudent? is it possible? Now if we can keep men asking “Is it in accordance with the general movement of our time? Is it progressive or reactionary? Is this the way that History is going?” they will neglect the relevant questions. And the questions they do ask are, of course, unanswerable; for they do not know the future, and what the future will be depends very largely on just those choices which they now invoke the future to help them to make. As a result, while their minds are buzzing in this vacuum, we have the better chance to slip in and bend them to the action we have decided on. And great work has already been done. Once they knew that some changes were for the better, and others for the worse, and others again indifferent. We have largely removed this knowledge. For the descriptive adjective “unchanged” we have substituted the emotional adjective “stagnant”. We have trained them to think of the Future as a promised land which favoured heroes attain—not as something which everyone reaches at the rate of sixty minutes an hour, whatever he does, whoever he is,
Your affectionate uncle
That’s what I think this is…that is, a fashion in what sins are accepted and which are not, imagining that the current fashion in morals represents an advancement in the human condition, instead of a change in what temptations are the most prevalent, what sins may be committed with the most social approval, and what virtues garner the most public contempt and the highest likelihood of persecution. In every age, it has been something, and our age is no exception…
Because media which controls info on an emotional level lies all the time about it. Gay characters and hosts are out in full force. Anti straight stories play all the time to shame the old fashioned thinkers. Satan must be laughing at how much easier it was than he’d expected.