Spring Into Action Fundraising Drive

Thanks to all our Touchstone and Salvo friends who responded so generously and helped us surpass our goal!
God bless you all.











WWW Mere Comments





« Fiery Minister Goes Up in Smoke | Main | Fishing for a Bottom Line »

July 05, 2005

Ozzie and Harriet: Sexual Revolutionaries

Maybe same-sex marriage didn't start with the Will and Grace generation, but with the Ozzie and Harriet generation.

In an op-ed in today's New York Times, Stephanie Coontz charges that Focus on the Family's James Dobson is too understated when he charges that same-sex "marriage" redefines traditional understandings of family. Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, argues that homosexuals didn't start the revolution. Heterosexuals did, a long time ago. Writes Coontz:

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked and the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

When it comes to the question of marriage as a love relationship, Coontz oversimplifies things a bit. Marriage in the Jewish and Christian traditions has always had a strong  erotic and affectional component. Note Jacob and Rachel, Ruth and Boaz, the Song of Solomon. But Coontz is precisely right that the redefinition of marriage didn't begin with social revolutionaries in Massachusetts and San Francisco. This is why it will never work for Christian churches to stand against same-sex "marriage," while remaining silent about working mothers, daycare, the contraceptive culture, and egalitarian marriage roles.

The reason it is so difficult to convince Christian Harry and Mary that same-sex marriage is wrong is that we rely on Christian radio to inform Mary about the issue while she is rushing from her second job to pick up little Jimmy from the day-care center for church soccer league while Harry's on the golf course with the guys. What we don't stop to ask is whether "same-sex marriage" is all we've ever known for a long, long time.

Coontz diagnosis is on target, while her antidote, surrender to a malleable definition of marriage, is deadly. The answer is for counter-cultural churches and families to model something alien to both Ozzie and Harriet and Will and Grace: marriage that points to the mystery of Christ and his church.

Posted by Russell D. Moore at 09:21 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8345f3e1a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ozzie and Harriet: Sexual Revolutionaries :

» Is The Heterosexual Revolution A Setup? from Worldview Conversations
The NY Times today ran an Op-Ed piece on how the history of heterosexual marriage has led us to where we are today with "same-sex" marriage. The history is fascinating and the implications obvious. The author's solution of capitulating to... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 5, 2005 4:57:01 PM

Comments

Amen, Dr. Moore. Without a clear understanding of Christian marriage as something more than God-approved sex, we cannot possibly explain opposition to gay "marriage" (a term God will never accept) other than through a kind of natural "ick factor," as someone has said recently.

But natural antipathy is easily eroded. As we see in every show and movie the wonderful gay character, as newspaper and magazine articles present as perfectly normal "the gay lifestyle," we shall lose our sense of its inherent rebellious nature. And we shall say with the rest of the world, "well, they love each other, they should have the same 'right' to marry as we do."

But we must have the courage to say that men and women are different in significant ways, because as long as we skirt that truth, no other truth about marriage will make sense.

We are losing the battle because we are not fighting the rot at the root but instead trying to stave off its symptoms.

Posted by: Beth | Jul 5, 2005 10:12:34 AM

This is a great analysis of the same marriage debate. As much as I have thought about and read about this issue I have never thought of it in the way Stephanie Coontz presents it. Thank you for provoking me to think a little more clearly on this issue.

Bruce Gerencser

Posted by: Bruce Gerencser | Jul 5, 2005 10:42:41 AM

Good stuff. I think Will & Grace is fascinating in the sense that many of its fan are likely watching the show hoping that Will and Grace actually end up together. Funny what we naturally desire.

Posted by: Matt | Jul 5, 2005 11:18:44 AM

Two Wrongs: A Right doth not make.
The sinful (Human) nature of man pulls unceasingly and. . .
increasingly . . . in these "Last Days" (actively assisted by the
"Prince of the Power of the Air ") toward moral depravity and
inevitable self destruction. This urge towards self destruction
(nations and empires, too) while all the while thinking "all is well,
things have never been better" has been with us since Adam decided
to trust himself rather than God.

Adam then blamed God for his misbehavior.

Sin has no bottom. . .no nadir, no juncture at which a which the
secular, anti Christian world says, collectively, " it is enough!''
There is no bottom to moral depravity.

Posted by: Michael Rucks | Jul 6, 2005 3:26:25 PM

Post a comment