Each new generation rejects a chunk of their predecessors' attitudes as being out of date for modern society.
When will people finally realize that the generational drift extends all the way back to the ancestors who wrote the Bible?
Can you see the transition of it? From the jealous, repentant, and murderous god of the Old Testament emerges the compassionate and loving god of Christianity in the New Testament. Take note of how the violence and coercive prohibition mellows down as the Bible progresses from one era of writers to another. It actually all depends on who's writing the particular book and what the culture is during the time it is written. Everyone should at least use their brains and consider that fact.
Look, don't get me wrong here. I'm not out to debunk faith and belief in the Bible. I'm here to to point out usage of the brain in addressing modern society. Let the Bible be the Bible. If you live by its teachings, by all means do what you will. Just don't impose on others. And you aren't seriously going to do everything it says, are you? You can't kill people for working on your holy day. You can't smite people who eat crustaceans. You can't subjugate women. No way!
Some actually see what I see and people like us don't enjoy stuff being forcibly and repeatedly hammered on our heads simply because some book says so. The same goes with concepts regarding race, sexuality, and caste systems.
Generational attitude differences don't only apply to Biblical things; they apply to most everything. For example:
About RACE and SEXUALITY in relation to marriage
I'm not saying we should all just sit back and watch culture get annihilated before our very eyes. What I'm saying is that we should be open-minded and allow ourselves (outlook and all) to progress with time despite what our traditions have set for us in the last millennium.
It is vital to keep in mind that morality is always subjective. However, at the core, it is how we address others -- whether beneficial or detrimental to the well-being -- that truly matters. As for everything else, we should let them be - whether personal judgment is present or absent - unless the particular activity causes harm to the well-being of the greater majority.
It is not for us to intervene on same-sex couples getting married. It is not for us to dictate what kind of music people must listen to, what books to read, or what things to buy. Sure, we might not bear appreciation for some things and that's our right. It is another's right, as well, to hold to his/her own principles.
Of course, for activities that cause global warming and obviously damaging things like collective bigotry and death, it's a different story. For counter-harmonious mentalities that are injurious to the well-being of peaceful and loving movements and the people involved, we should put up a fight if, upon intelligent scrutiny, we feel that we need to.
Then again, keep your cool. Let others be if no real harm is done - even if they do things contrary to the faith you profess or the principles that you hold. Be intelligent about life. Communicate and move to inform, but never coerce and never employ violence of any kind. Like Alex Noriega said, "Stay open to new things."