Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage
A couple of months ago, I answered a knock at the door and found a young woman and a young man standing there. The woman began to speak to me and asked if I would be willing to sign a petition supporting gay marriage. I responded by saying that I could not and would not sign such a petition. I said that I didn’t have any interest in what she did in her bedroom, or with whom she did it, but I was not willing to bless such an unholy union by signing the petition. Her companion, who was black, was standing behind her and so, when she told me that she believed this to be a matter of civil rights, I pointed to him and said, “There is a man who has suffered as a result of a condition he cannot change. His skin will be black no matter what he does and, sad to say, there are people in this world who will judge him on that basis alone. You, however, as a white woman, can get a different haircut, change your clothes and no longer suffer any discrimination for your sexual choice.”
The conversation went on for awhile—I guess it lasted until we both came to the conclusion that the other was not going to change! Then the couple left. I felt a little bad for the exchange, wishing that I had spoken more compellingly and, perhaps, with more compassion; however, they came to my door uninvited and I was unprepared for the discussion.
I pondered this meeting at my door for some time and considered that I had never really thought through the issues surrounding the current push for gay marriage. Living in South Florida, I have known many homosexuals over the years and have counted several as dear friends. That has not meant, however, that I agreed with their sexual orientation. No, it just meant that we found it possible to agree to disagree and care about each other and our mutual interests without “going there.” (No doubt this has been easier for me, as the one with the majority view, than it has been for my homosexual friends.) So, I have now set about the task of considering the subject.
As far as I can tell, there are two basic objections to gay marriage (and homosexuality in general). The first is religious. Both Christianity and Judaism have scriptures that specifically prohibit sexual activities between two members of the same sex. The second is constitutional. Advocates for gay marriage claim that their desire is to have what is “fair.” That is, to enjoy the same rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples. My reading of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights finds no indication of a right to “fairness,” as they appear to define it, in any of those documents. However, let’s take these one at a time.
A couple of months ago, I answered a knock at the door and found a young woman and a young man standing there. The woman began to speak to me and asked if I would be willing to sign a petition supporting gay marriage. I responded by saying that I could not and would not sign such a petition. I said that I didn’t have any interest in what she did in her bedroom, or with whom she did it, but I was not willing to bless such an unholy union by signing the petition. Her companion, who was black, was standing behind her and so, when she told me that she believed this to be a matter of civil rights, I pointed to him and said, “There is a man who has suffered as a result of a condition he cannot change. His skin will be black no matter what he does and, sad to say, there are people in this world who will judge him on that basis alone. You, however, as a white woman, can get a different haircut, change your clothes and no longer suffer any discrimination for your sexual choice.”
The conversation went on for awhile—I guess it lasted until we both came to the conclusion that the other was not going to change! Then the couple left. I felt a little bad for the exchange, wishing that I had spoken more compellingly and, perhaps, with more compassion; however, they came to my door uninvited and I was unprepared for the discussion.
I pondered this meeting at my door for some time and considered that I had never really thought through the issues surrounding the current push for gay marriage. Living in South Florida, I have known many homosexuals over the years and have counted several as dear friends. That has not meant, however, that I agreed with their sexual orientation. No, it just meant that we found it possible to agree to disagree and care about each other and our mutual interests without “going there.” (No doubt this has been easier for me, as the one with the majority view, than it has been for my homosexual friends.) So, I have now set about the task of considering the subject.
As far as I can tell, there are two basic objections to gay marriage (and homosexuality in general). The first is religious. Both Christianity and Judaism have scriptures that specifically prohibit sexual activities between two members of the same sex. The second is constitutional. Advocates for gay marriage claim that their desire is to have what is “fair.” That is, to enjoy the same rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples. My reading of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights finds no indication of a right to “fairness,” as they appear to define it, in any of those documents. However, let’s take these one at a time.
1. Religious objections to homosexuality and gay marriage:
The Bible, which contains the Old Testament of the Jewish people and the New Testament of Christians, is replete with prohibitions against homosexual behavior and condemnations of such behavior. Here are a few well worn passages used by many to demonstrate the position of God towards homosexual activity:
Genesis 2:21-24 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had take from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 19:1-11 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet, then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring then out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman; both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Judges 19:16-24 Then behold, an old man was coming out of the field from his work at evening. Now the man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was staying in Gibeah, but the men of the place were Benjamites. And he lifted up his eyes and saw the traveler in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going, and where do you come from?” He said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, for I am from there, and I went to Bethlehem in Judah. But I am now going to my house, and no man will take me into his house. Yet there is both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and also bread and wine for me, your maidservant, and the young man who is with your servants; there is no lack for anything.” The old man said, “Peace to you. Only let me take care of all your needs; however, do not spend the night in the open square.” So he took him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder, and they washed their feet and ate and drank. While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.” Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.”
I Kings 14:24 There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord dispossessed before the sons of Israel.
I Kings 15:12 He also put away the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made.
II Kings 23:7 He also broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the Lord, where the women were weaving hangings for the Asherah.
Mark 10:2-12 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
I Timothy 1:8-10 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
It may be that people who are more enlightened, or simply better read, know of other Bible verses that are also considered to pertain to the subject of homosexuality. However, this collection is representative of the “classic” Jewish and Christian Bible references.
Before we go too far, however, I believe it is important to clarify one point. “Homosexuality” is a word of relatively recent origin. While it is true that it means, according to my Funk and Wagnall’s Dictionary, “1. Sexual attraction toward a person of the same sex. 2. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex.” it is also true that this term is considered to contain the idea of identity. A homosexual is a person who identifies as such, with characteristics and attitudes that are homosexual in addition to a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. This idea did not exist in the time of the Bible. Homoerotic sexual acts were just that, sexual acts, and did not necessarily imply an overall orientation of the person engaged in such acts. Because of the widespread use of prostitutes in pagan worship services, particularly including male eunuchs, religious ceremonies commonly featured sex between members of the same sex. These sex acts were quite separate from the rest of the participant’s lives. For this reason, it would seem more appropriate to discuss the prohibitions in the Bible as prohibitions against homoerotic acts rather than homosexuality. In fact, an even better definition might be prohibitions against idolatrous homoerotic acts.
Let us quickly dispense with two of these passages. Both of the Levitical references, while reasonably indicative of a prohibition against male-on-male sexual acts, can be removed from further consideration by simply observing that Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law. The power of the Law, as is noted by Paul in Romans 1 and in Galatians 3, is directed at those who don’t know the saving grace of God through Christ Jesus. If we choose to hang onto these legalisms from the Mosaic Law, then we are also going to have to keep the rest of that same Law and I don’t know a Christian anywhere that is prepared to do this. It flies directly in the face of Paul’s statements in Galatians 3 that, if you insist on keeping one part of the Law (such as circumcision), you are responsible for keeping all of it.
It should be noted, however, that the Levitical prohibition doesn’t mention women at all, thus it could be said that homoerotic sexual acts between women is not outlawed in the Old Testament! What is more likely is that women were of such little standing in society that engaging in such actions would have no effect on their status and were, thus, not even worthy of mention.
Returning to the remaining Biblical references, let us look at Genesis 2:21-24. To my mind, this is one of the most compelling arguments against homosexual behavior in that this passage emphasizes God’s intention that men and women be joined together. Many people jokingly note that, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” This strikes some as funny, but it is hardly an argument for or against homosexuality as it doesn’t explain the existence of homosexual desire in later generations of mankind. It does, however, speak powerfully to the God-intended nature of marriage. That is, God ordained marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. Whether you are a conservative fundamentalist who believes Adam and Eve were actual historical figures or are a liberal Christian who believes Adam and Eve are merely metaphors for all of mankind, the notion of what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes is explicitly laid out in this passage.
Genesis 19:1-11 This story is pretty terrible on a multitude of levels; however, the story is actually focused on the cruelty of the people of Sodom and their apostasy and inhospitable nature—not homosexuality. As Ezekiel 16:48-50 makes clear; it was their rebellion and pride that condemned them because they failed to help the poor and needy. As it says in verse 49, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.”
Reading through the ancient Talmudic accounts of this story, we find that there is no significant mention of homosexuality until Philo of Alexandria inserts it as an issue around the time of Christ Jesus (20 B.C. to 50 A.D.). There is, however, a great deal of evidence that, throughout the preceding nearly 2,000 years, the common understanding of this story was that the people of Sodom were remarkably cruel to visitors and, in fact, vile in their attitude towards the poor and needy.
An interesting contrast can be and, in my opinion, should be made between Genesis 18 and Genesis 19. In Genesis 18, we have the story of Abraham’s welcoming of the pre-incarnate Christ and His angels as they appeared before him during the “heat of the day.” Abraham’s response was to do all that was in his power to welcome these distinguished guests. A single chapter later, these same angelic beings appear in Sodom only to be first ignored by the people and later, after Lot extends the hospitality of his home to them, assaulted by those same people. This diptych, contrasting chapters 18 and 19, is a common device in Jewish literature and demonstrates the true nature of the two people—God’s chosen, Abraham, and the truly evil residents of Sodom.
The Bible, which contains the Old Testament of the Jewish people and the New Testament of Christians, is replete with prohibitions against homosexual behavior and condemnations of such behavior. Here are a few well worn passages used by many to demonstrate the position of God towards homosexual activity:
Genesis 2:21-24 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had take from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 19:1-11 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet, then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring then out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman; both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Judges 19:16-24 Then behold, an old man was coming out of the field from his work at evening. Now the man was from the hill country of Ephraim, and he was staying in Gibeah, but the men of the place were Benjamites. And he lifted up his eyes and saw the traveler in the open square of the city; and the old man said, “Where are you going, and where do you come from?” He said to him, “We are passing from Bethlehem in Judah to the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, for I am from there, and I went to Bethlehem in Judah. But I am now going to my house, and no man will take me into his house. Yet there is both straw and fodder for our donkeys, and also bread and wine for me, your maidservant, and the young man who is with your servants; there is no lack for anything.” The old man said, “Peace to you. Only let me take care of all your needs; however, do not spend the night in the open square.” So he took him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder, and they washed their feet and ate and drank. While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, “Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him.” Then the man, the owner of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my fellows, please do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this act of folly. Here is my virgin daughter and his concubine. Please let me bring them out that you may ravish them and do to them whatever you wish. But do not commit such an act of folly against this man.”
I Kings 14:24 There were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord dispossessed before the sons of Israel.
I Kings 15:12 He also put away the male cult prostitutes from the land and removed all the idols which his fathers had made.
II Kings 23:7 He also broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the Lord, where the women were weaving hangings for the Asherah.
Mark 10:2-12 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”
Romans 1:18-32 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
I Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
I Timothy 1:8-10 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
It may be that people who are more enlightened, or simply better read, know of other Bible verses that are also considered to pertain to the subject of homosexuality. However, this collection is representative of the “classic” Jewish and Christian Bible references.
Before we go too far, however, I believe it is important to clarify one point. “Homosexuality” is a word of relatively recent origin. While it is true that it means, according to my Funk and Wagnall’s Dictionary, “1. Sexual attraction toward a person of the same sex. 2. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex.” it is also true that this term is considered to contain the idea of identity. A homosexual is a person who identifies as such, with characteristics and attitudes that are homosexual in addition to a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex. This idea did not exist in the time of the Bible. Homoerotic sexual acts were just that, sexual acts, and did not necessarily imply an overall orientation of the person engaged in such acts. Because of the widespread use of prostitutes in pagan worship services, particularly including male eunuchs, religious ceremonies commonly featured sex between members of the same sex. These sex acts were quite separate from the rest of the participant’s lives. For this reason, it would seem more appropriate to discuss the prohibitions in the Bible as prohibitions against homoerotic acts rather than homosexuality. In fact, an even better definition might be prohibitions against idolatrous homoerotic acts.
Let us quickly dispense with two of these passages. Both of the Levitical references, while reasonably indicative of a prohibition against male-on-male sexual acts, can be removed from further consideration by simply observing that Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law. The power of the Law, as is noted by Paul in Romans 1 and in Galatians 3, is directed at those who don’t know the saving grace of God through Christ Jesus. If we choose to hang onto these legalisms from the Mosaic Law, then we are also going to have to keep the rest of that same Law and I don’t know a Christian anywhere that is prepared to do this. It flies directly in the face of Paul’s statements in Galatians 3 that, if you insist on keeping one part of the Law (such as circumcision), you are responsible for keeping all of it.
It should be noted, however, that the Levitical prohibition doesn’t mention women at all, thus it could be said that homoerotic sexual acts between women is not outlawed in the Old Testament! What is more likely is that women were of such little standing in society that engaging in such actions would have no effect on their status and were, thus, not even worthy of mention.
Returning to the remaining Biblical references, let us look at Genesis 2:21-24. To my mind, this is one of the most compelling arguments against homosexual behavior in that this passage emphasizes God’s intention that men and women be joined together. Many people jokingly note that, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” This strikes some as funny, but it is hardly an argument for or against homosexuality as it doesn’t explain the existence of homosexual desire in later generations of mankind. It does, however, speak powerfully to the God-intended nature of marriage. That is, God ordained marriage to be the union of a man and a woman. Whether you are a conservative fundamentalist who believes Adam and Eve were actual historical figures or are a liberal Christian who believes Adam and Eve are merely metaphors for all of mankind, the notion of what constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes is explicitly laid out in this passage.
Genesis 19:1-11 This story is pretty terrible on a multitude of levels; however, the story is actually focused on the cruelty of the people of Sodom and their apostasy and inhospitable nature—not homosexuality. As Ezekiel 16:48-50 makes clear; it was their rebellion and pride that condemned them because they failed to help the poor and needy. As it says in verse 49, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.”
Reading through the ancient Talmudic accounts of this story, we find that there is no significant mention of homosexuality until Philo of Alexandria inserts it as an issue around the time of Christ Jesus (20 B.C. to 50 A.D.). There is, however, a great deal of evidence that, throughout the preceding nearly 2,000 years, the common understanding of this story was that the people of Sodom were remarkably cruel to visitors and, in fact, vile in their attitude towards the poor and needy.
An interesting contrast can be and, in my opinion, should be made between Genesis 18 and Genesis 19. In Genesis 18, we have the story of Abraham’s welcoming of the pre-incarnate Christ and His angels as they appeared before him during the “heat of the day.” Abraham’s response was to do all that was in his power to welcome these distinguished guests. A single chapter later, these same angelic beings appear in Sodom only to be first ignored by the people and later, after Lot extends the hospitality of his home to them, assaulted by those same people. This diptych, contrasting chapters 18 and 19, is a common device in Jewish literature and demonstrates the true nature of the two people—God’s chosen, Abraham, and the truly evil residents of Sodom.
Note, however, that none of this has anything to do with homosexuality. In fact, another interpretation can be made that is, if anything, more disturbing. Even now, at this late date in history, Americans find themselves bogged down in wars in the Middle East, combating people who, for all practical purposes, are still living in the time of Abraham. One of the things that is seldom talked about, but is tragically true, is that the Iraqi and Afghan forces arrayed against us practice rape of prisoners. This is not a homosexual practice, but is, rather, an act of subjugation and utter debasement of the captive. The prisoner is violated as a demonstration of their complete powerlessness and as a show of the captor’s power. It is this demonic practice that was, I believe, being advocated by the men of Sodom.
Before concluding the story of Sodom, it is important to also look at Jude 7. In this verse, Jude, the half brother of Jesus, notes that the people of Sodom “…indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,…” Despite all that was said before, this is a clear condemnation of the men of Sodom’s sexual sin. However, it seems reasonable that the sexual sin that is condemned is that of rape, not homosexuality, and the “strange flesh” would not refer to homosexuality but would reference the angels who were threatened (Angelic beings would, presumably, be the very definition of “strange flesh” to us!). This would be in keeping with the earlier condemnation of these men for their inhospitable nature towards the stranger, the poor, and the needy.
Judges 19:16-24 is remarkably similar, in many ways, to the story in Genesis 19. Again, a stranger is invited into the house of a resident alien in a town. Again, the men of the town seek to violate the stranger. However, two things stand out as different from the story in Genesis. First, the people in Sodom were not God’s people while the people in Gibea were of the tribe of Benjamin and, as such, were members of God’s chosen people. Second, whereas the angels in Genesis struck the men of Sodom with blindness and, thus, hindered their violence, the visitor in Judges throws his concubine to the crowd. There is very little that is righteous in this story. In fact, the only one who seems to even remotely resemble a Godly person is the old man who welcomes the stranger into his home. Because the crowd abuses the poor concubine all night, the sexual sin is, I believe, clearly shown not to be homosexuality but, rather, rape and the violation of a stranger, which is about as terrible an example of inhospitality as one can find. This is a serious sin, so serious that Jesus speaks of it in Matthew 25:31-46 and notes that those who failed to show kindness to one in need were failing to show kindness to Him and would be condemned to eternal punishment!
Turning to the three passages cited above in I and II Kings, we see three different references to male temple prostitutes. These prostitutes were violating several commands of God. They were, first of all, worshipping false gods and practicing ritual adultery. Worse yet, they were leading others into the same idolatry and adultery. From historical records, we learn that these temple prostitutes were primarily eunuchs and the sexual acts conducted by them were generally anal sex. Early church fathers, such as Clement, condemned the acts of these pathetic, deceived individuals not on the basis of their homoeroticism, but on the basis of their idolatry and the fact that, by having sex that cannot result in procreation, they are violating God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”
This is a significant point. Many of the early fathers of the church, particularly Augustine, but also including Clement and others, emphasized that sexual intercourse was not just to be restricted to a married, heterosexual couple, but also was to be restricted to the goal of producing offspring. Sex for sex‘s sake was viewed, at least by these men, as a selfish, licentious, fleshly act.
If we follow this thought, we find what may be viewed as one of the stronger condemnations of homosexuality, that is, homosexuality is, by definition, sexual intercourse that does not result in procreation. However, if this is the “correct” view, doesn’t this also mean that a heterosexual couple having intercourse while using birth control is also violating God’s commands? In that case, we are left to consider that the vast majority of heterosexual couples have sinned in equal measure to homosexuals!
Contrast this idea with Paul’s support, given in I Corinthians 7, for celibacy. Celibacy definitely precludes procreation, and yet, Paul esteems it because it also precludes marriage and the divided loyalties that marriage imposes on a Christian. A married Christian is always going to be pulled between the desire to serve God and the need to serve their spouse and family.
If the goal of scripture is procreation, if we are to “be fruitful and multiply,” then celibacy would seem to be a violation of that goal just as much as sexual intercourse by any means that prevents pregnancy. Yet, Christians the world over are respectful of celibate priests, monks and nuns who live lives certain to not result in procreation. Similarly, Christians the world over enjoy sexual intercourse while employing birth control measures. In both instances, God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” has been voided. Of course, the heterosexual couple who wishes to have children can, even after using birth control many times, opt to forego that same birth control and become pregnant. In this way, the circumstances are different from those of homosexuals who can never procreate as long as they continue in same sex relations.
Moving on, in Romans 1:18-32, we finally come upon a passage that, it seems, is unequivocally denouncing homoerotic sexual activity. In fact, it even includes women! Finally! However, there are those who challenge the English translation from the Greek that denounces homosexuality and instead see this passage as a denunciation of idolatry, which it most certainly is, but do not believe the sexual sin is homosexuality but, rather, adultery associated with temple prostitutes. That said, I believe the case is pretty strong for this passage to be referring to both heterosexual adultery and homosexual adultery and is clearly referring to these acts in association with idolatrous worship.
The passage makes clear that these people have willfully ignored the truth and have actively sought to substitute their fleshly passions for allegiance to God. As such, God has acquiesced to their desire and allowed them to reap the consequences of their actions. The sexual sin is a result of a descent from the natural behavior ordained by God and, absent the fear of God, demonstrates the utter depravity mankind will achieve on its own.
I Corinthians 6:9-11, at first reading, would seem to confirm the condemnation given in Romans 1; however, modern scholars have questioned the interpretation of the Greek word arsenokoitai, which appears to have been coined by Paul, and has been translated as homoerotic or homosexual by most scholars over the ages. Recently, this assault on the traditional interpretation has, itself, been the subject of much disagreement. J. Boswell and J. J. McNeil, both of whom are scholars and homosexuals, raised objections to the traditional interpretation of this word, but David F. Wright demonstrated the weaknesses in their scholarship and posted a strong defense of the traditional interpretation.
I am no Greek scholar, so the best I can do is read the arguments posited by those who are. Based on what I’ve read, it appears that J. Boswell and J. J. McNeil sought to justify a position and, so, deleted reference to any historical data that didn’t support their claims. That being the case, I believe the traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai to be correct and, thus, the passage does, in fact, condemn homosexual activity. Note that I say “activity” because yet another scholar, W. L. Petersen, took David F. Wright to task for not making clear that concepts such as “homosexual” didn’t exist at the time Paul wrote I Corinthians. Petersen suggested that a better description might be “homoerotic practice.” In other words, it is an action, not an identity that Paul was addressing. This seems reasonable given the fact that the word “homosexual” was invented in the 19th Century and implied a sexual identity as well as a sexual preference and action. As noted previously, there is no evidence that people in Corinth made any such distinction and, instead, pursued homoerotic activity as a part of idol worship in the Temple of Aphrodite where legend has it there were 1,000 temple prostitutes, many of whom were male eunuchs.
While discussing I Corinthians 6, it also behooves us to note that Paul indicated that some of the Christians in the church at Corinth had, at one time, been such as these sinners whom he is describing. This would imply that those who practiced homoerotic sexual acts, but who repented and became Christians, were no longer engaging in such acts and that, just like adulterers, slanderers, etc. they had been delivered of these old ways of being. This gives support to the belief of many Christians that God will deliver His faithful from the temptations of sin and give them the ability to live a sanctified, holy life. This belief, of course, is mocked and rejected by the homosexual community seeking acceptance of their “lifestyle” choice and denying that it is, in fact, a choice.
I Timothy 1:8-10 places homosexuals in the company of the lawless and rebellious and notes that the Law was made for such as these and not for righteous people. The term “homosexual” is again best described as misapplied in this instance as it is really speaking of homoerotic sexual activity. However, that activity is clearly rejected by Paul and, by describing it as an act of rebellion, again makes the case that it is a choice and not a destiny. If one repents and turns to Jesus, the temptation to this kind of behavior can be defeated and the person can walk in holiness by the power of the Holy Spirit.
A telling point, perhaps, is this: Jesus never mentions homosexual behavior. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the subject is unimportant or that there is no standard of acceptable behavior, but it just didn’t come up in His teachings. Neither did many other issues of interest to today’s society. Jesus, did, however, take up the subject of marriage and, in Mark 10:2-12, specifically refers to heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. In fact, in addition to implying approval for the definition of marriage given in Genesis, this passage makes the point that to have a second wife or husband after a divorce is to engage in adultery. If this is the case, many, many Christians are actively engaged in adultery now! That said, the real import of this teaching in Mark has to do with the hardness of so-called “righteous” people’s hearts. It is their lack of love that is the core issue, not divorce.
Jesus’ endorsement of the Genesis definition of marriage doesn’t, of course, automatically preclude His acceptance of gay marriage, but it does make it seem very unlikely. God has, throughout scripture, shown a remarkable tolerance for bad behavior. For example, He tolerated Abraham, and many others of His faithful followers, having multiple wives and concubines. This seems clearly to be God accepting the individual in spite of their poor choices and does not serve as a God-given endorsement of polygamy. No, He makes it abundantly clear concerning marriage that, “…the two shall become one.” not “many shall become one.”
So, having reviewed all of these passages in some depth, it seems that we can come to the following conclusions from the Bible:
Given these conclusions, it would seem that the traditional Christian view that homoerotic sexual activity is in violation of scripture is accurate. However, as with all sin, we must exercise caution in the manner in which we deal with it. Paul makes the point, in I Corinthians 5:9-13, that Christians are not to associate with another Christian who is committing immoral acts. On the other hand, he has no problem with Christians associating with non-Christians who are busy committing immoral acts. After all, how are we to reach the lost, if we don’t associate with them? Even in the case of an immoral Christian, Paul distances himself from them not out of anger, pride or a judgmental attitude. No, he ceases fellowshipping with such a one so that they may be corrected (See I Corinthians 5:1-8).
How then are Christians to respond to demands from other Christians that we recognize and/or accept homosexual unions? I believe the correct response is to lovingly point such brothers and sisters back to the Bible. If they repent, and if they change their actions, we may enjoy fellowship with them. If, however, they refuse to accept such correction, then we must, however regretfully, cease fellowshipping with them, while continuing to pray for them. This "ceasing fellowship" can be, I suppose, not hanging with them anymore or (as I prefer), it could be as simple as stating our beliefs and establishing that, while we love them, we're not going to offer acceptance of their sexual choice. I don't think we have to turn such folks away, they may choose to depart from us if we stand our ground, which is, from my point of view, unfortunate but their choice.
In contrast to this, how are Christians to respond to demands from non-Christians that we recognize and/or accept homosexual unions? Personally, I believe the correct response is to declare such unions a violation of God’s intentions for mankind. We are, after all, witnesses for the Lord and, as such, must stand up for the truth. However, we do not need to disassociate ourselves from those worldly people who practice homoerotic acts or who advocate for “gay marriage.” No, we should love them, witness to them, and be prepared to accept the inevitable scorn that some rebellious, deceived souls may heap upon us for our stand. What we cannot do is condone their behavior or their demands for acceptance.
2. Political Objections to Homosexuality and Gay Marriage
As noted above, I believe Christians must object to homosexuality and gay marriage as a violation of God’s intended order. However, that objection only really has relevance in the church. In the larger civil society, there are any number of sinful acts (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lying, cheating, thievery, slander and gossip come to mind) that are casually practiced by the non-Christian, or nominal Christian, majority. While as a citizen of this great country I want to express my revulsion at some heinous activities, I have no expectation of success in the secular courts or legislative bodies. The things of God are as foolishness to the unsaved (I Corinthians 2:14) and neither I nor other Christians are likely to prevail when arguing from the authority of the Bible in a secular court.
On the other hand, many people who are not Christians, or members of any other kind of religion, may appreciate the thinking contained in the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since these documents take the position that our rights, as defined therein, are not given to us by government but, instead, are bestowed upon all mankind by God, the government merely serves to protect and preserve those rights, not to convey them. If this were not true, then evolving governments over the centuries could, and probably would, alter our rights in accordance with the latest fads of the majority population.
Given this “conservative” position contained within our nation’s founding documents, and given the desire of some to demand acceptance of homosexuality and so-called “gay marriage” (I detest the term and resent the appropriation of a perfectly fine word, “gay,” by the homosexual community.) by the larger society, is it any wonder that advocates of such marriages resort to attempting to define the issue in terms of civil rights? After all, the civil rights movement of the 19th and 20th Centuries stands as the great liberal moral victory in our nation’s history. A grievous sin, slavery, was overthrown and, over the course of years, the exclusion of black people from the mainstream of society was undone. I thank God for bringing this to pass via the efforts of many well-meaning people, including a very great many Christians.
If homosexuality and the marital aspirations of “gay” people can be viewed from this angle, it provides a great deal of moral authority to their cause. The problem, however, is that, as I pointed out to the young couple at my door, a black person cannot generally change their physical identity, but a homosexual man or woman can easily cease their homosexual activity and, if necessary, change their appearance or mode of dress and no longer require any special civil rights action on the part of government. Nonetheless, that homosexual couple demanding that the larger population recognize their right to marry are, in fact, demanding that the larger population accept and, in a de facto manner, approve their sexual preference. For many non-religious people, this seems fair, after all, who are they to judge another’s choices? And, since it also seems to have no real or immediate consequence for them, it is a low-cost means of appearing tolerant.
For religious people, this is a situation fraught with difficulty. Since our highest allegiance is to the God who gave us our “unalienable rights,” we cannot approve of gay marriage if He condemns it.
To the extent that gay marriage is implemented without requiring the acceptance or approval of religiously faithful citizens, it is a secular, non-religious matter. However, the moment that, for example, a homosexual couple wishes to hire a photographer for their wedding, a photographer who, for religious reasons, refuses to take the assignment and is then sued by the couple for discrimination, the guarantees of religious freedom that lie at the core of our country’s founding come into direct conflict with our laws against discrimination. I don’t see a way for these two opposing issues to be resolved in the courts without one side or the other losing a cherished right.
While pondering this dilemma, and with my sympathy for laws that are "fair" running strong, I happened upon an interview on the radio where a young conservative made the point that, if the question was simply, "Do we want homosexuals to be happy?" then the answer of most people would be "Yes." However, that isn't really the question at hand. What is being considered is the upending of a longstanding societal norm for a purpose that has not been fully vetted. In other words, the young conservative was saying, be careful in determining what to do with gay marriage as every decision has both intended and unintended consequences. I think that is good advice for all of us when considering this subject or, for that matter, any other.
So, the best I can come up with as a summary of this issue is this: Non-Christians will do what non-Christians do. Homosexual activity is only one expression of sin, there are many others, and we, as Christians, are responsible for loving all of those non-Christians and praying for them. The secular society in which we live is only nominally, now or ever, supportive of Christian moral standards and, frankly, the church’s stand on morality has not always had a positive outcome. One need only look at the results of Prohibition or our current drug war to see how so-called “Christian Values” have resulted in unintended, and negative, consequences for the larger society.
No, a little humility on the part of Christians towards the effectiveness of our prescriptions for society could go a long way towards bridging the cultural divide. It is for this reason that I find it difficult to be too concerned about the secular society’s political and legal shifts on such topics as gay marriage. Their standards are different than ours and, as long as we fail to reach them with the Gospel, they will remain different. It is the message of the Gospel that will bring us together and it is the failure to effectively live and convey that Gospel that keeps us apart.
A cultural consensus is possible, but it demands hard, consistent work on the part of the faithful. Not to condemn others, but to love them. As we invest our love in other’s lives, we earn the right to speak to them of truth, honor and commitment to relationship with our Heavenly Father. Without such investment, we are, as Paul said, “tinkling gongs and clanging cymbals” and our message is lost in the clamor of a secular debate which gives no creedence to Christian values.
So, let us put aside the moral judgments and love our neighbors as ourselves. It is this love that will, in the end, produce the moral society that we desire.
Before concluding the story of Sodom, it is important to also look at Jude 7. In this verse, Jude, the half brother of Jesus, notes that the people of Sodom “…indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh,…” Despite all that was said before, this is a clear condemnation of the men of Sodom’s sexual sin. However, it seems reasonable that the sexual sin that is condemned is that of rape, not homosexuality, and the “strange flesh” would not refer to homosexuality but would reference the angels who were threatened (Angelic beings would, presumably, be the very definition of “strange flesh” to us!). This would be in keeping with the earlier condemnation of these men for their inhospitable nature towards the stranger, the poor, and the needy.
Judges 19:16-24 is remarkably similar, in many ways, to the story in Genesis 19. Again, a stranger is invited into the house of a resident alien in a town. Again, the men of the town seek to violate the stranger. However, two things stand out as different from the story in Genesis. First, the people in Sodom were not God’s people while the people in Gibea were of the tribe of Benjamin and, as such, were members of God’s chosen people. Second, whereas the angels in Genesis struck the men of Sodom with blindness and, thus, hindered their violence, the visitor in Judges throws his concubine to the crowd. There is very little that is righteous in this story. In fact, the only one who seems to even remotely resemble a Godly person is the old man who welcomes the stranger into his home. Because the crowd abuses the poor concubine all night, the sexual sin is, I believe, clearly shown not to be homosexuality but, rather, rape and the violation of a stranger, which is about as terrible an example of inhospitality as one can find. This is a serious sin, so serious that Jesus speaks of it in Matthew 25:31-46 and notes that those who failed to show kindness to one in need were failing to show kindness to Him and would be condemned to eternal punishment!
Turning to the three passages cited above in I and II Kings, we see three different references to male temple prostitutes. These prostitutes were violating several commands of God. They were, first of all, worshipping false gods and practicing ritual adultery. Worse yet, they were leading others into the same idolatry and adultery. From historical records, we learn that these temple prostitutes were primarily eunuchs and the sexual acts conducted by them were generally anal sex. Early church fathers, such as Clement, condemned the acts of these pathetic, deceived individuals not on the basis of their homoeroticism, but on the basis of their idolatry and the fact that, by having sex that cannot result in procreation, they are violating God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.”
This is a significant point. Many of the early fathers of the church, particularly Augustine, but also including Clement and others, emphasized that sexual intercourse was not just to be restricted to a married, heterosexual couple, but also was to be restricted to the goal of producing offspring. Sex for sex‘s sake was viewed, at least by these men, as a selfish, licentious, fleshly act.
If we follow this thought, we find what may be viewed as one of the stronger condemnations of homosexuality, that is, homosexuality is, by definition, sexual intercourse that does not result in procreation. However, if this is the “correct” view, doesn’t this also mean that a heterosexual couple having intercourse while using birth control is also violating God’s commands? In that case, we are left to consider that the vast majority of heterosexual couples have sinned in equal measure to homosexuals!
Contrast this idea with Paul’s support, given in I Corinthians 7, for celibacy. Celibacy definitely precludes procreation, and yet, Paul esteems it because it also precludes marriage and the divided loyalties that marriage imposes on a Christian. A married Christian is always going to be pulled between the desire to serve God and the need to serve their spouse and family.
If the goal of scripture is procreation, if we are to “be fruitful and multiply,” then celibacy would seem to be a violation of that goal just as much as sexual intercourse by any means that prevents pregnancy. Yet, Christians the world over are respectful of celibate priests, monks and nuns who live lives certain to not result in procreation. Similarly, Christians the world over enjoy sexual intercourse while employing birth control measures. In both instances, God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” has been voided. Of course, the heterosexual couple who wishes to have children can, even after using birth control many times, opt to forego that same birth control and become pregnant. In this way, the circumstances are different from those of homosexuals who can never procreate as long as they continue in same sex relations.
Moving on, in Romans 1:18-32, we finally come upon a passage that, it seems, is unequivocally denouncing homoerotic sexual activity. In fact, it even includes women! Finally! However, there are those who challenge the English translation from the Greek that denounces homosexuality and instead see this passage as a denunciation of idolatry, which it most certainly is, but do not believe the sexual sin is homosexuality but, rather, adultery associated with temple prostitutes. That said, I believe the case is pretty strong for this passage to be referring to both heterosexual adultery and homosexual adultery and is clearly referring to these acts in association with idolatrous worship.
The passage makes clear that these people have willfully ignored the truth and have actively sought to substitute their fleshly passions for allegiance to God. As such, God has acquiesced to their desire and allowed them to reap the consequences of their actions. The sexual sin is a result of a descent from the natural behavior ordained by God and, absent the fear of God, demonstrates the utter depravity mankind will achieve on its own.
I Corinthians 6:9-11, at first reading, would seem to confirm the condemnation given in Romans 1; however, modern scholars have questioned the interpretation of the Greek word arsenokoitai, which appears to have been coined by Paul, and has been translated as homoerotic or homosexual by most scholars over the ages. Recently, this assault on the traditional interpretation has, itself, been the subject of much disagreement. J. Boswell and J. J. McNeil, both of whom are scholars and homosexuals, raised objections to the traditional interpretation of this word, but David F. Wright demonstrated the weaknesses in their scholarship and posted a strong defense of the traditional interpretation.
I am no Greek scholar, so the best I can do is read the arguments posited by those who are. Based on what I’ve read, it appears that J. Boswell and J. J. McNeil sought to justify a position and, so, deleted reference to any historical data that didn’t support their claims. That being the case, I believe the traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai to be correct and, thus, the passage does, in fact, condemn homosexual activity. Note that I say “activity” because yet another scholar, W. L. Petersen, took David F. Wright to task for not making clear that concepts such as “homosexual” didn’t exist at the time Paul wrote I Corinthians. Petersen suggested that a better description might be “homoerotic practice.” In other words, it is an action, not an identity that Paul was addressing. This seems reasonable given the fact that the word “homosexual” was invented in the 19th Century and implied a sexual identity as well as a sexual preference and action. As noted previously, there is no evidence that people in Corinth made any such distinction and, instead, pursued homoerotic activity as a part of idol worship in the Temple of Aphrodite where legend has it there were 1,000 temple prostitutes, many of whom were male eunuchs.
While discussing I Corinthians 6, it also behooves us to note that Paul indicated that some of the Christians in the church at Corinth had, at one time, been such as these sinners whom he is describing. This would imply that those who practiced homoerotic sexual acts, but who repented and became Christians, were no longer engaging in such acts and that, just like adulterers, slanderers, etc. they had been delivered of these old ways of being. This gives support to the belief of many Christians that God will deliver His faithful from the temptations of sin and give them the ability to live a sanctified, holy life. This belief, of course, is mocked and rejected by the homosexual community seeking acceptance of their “lifestyle” choice and denying that it is, in fact, a choice.
I Timothy 1:8-10 places homosexuals in the company of the lawless and rebellious and notes that the Law was made for such as these and not for righteous people. The term “homosexual” is again best described as misapplied in this instance as it is really speaking of homoerotic sexual activity. However, that activity is clearly rejected by Paul and, by describing it as an act of rebellion, again makes the case that it is a choice and not a destiny. If one repents and turns to Jesus, the temptation to this kind of behavior can be defeated and the person can walk in holiness by the power of the Holy Spirit.
A telling point, perhaps, is this: Jesus never mentions homosexual behavior. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the subject is unimportant or that there is no standard of acceptable behavior, but it just didn’t come up in His teachings. Neither did many other issues of interest to today’s society. Jesus, did, however, take up the subject of marriage and, in Mark 10:2-12, specifically refers to heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. In fact, in addition to implying approval for the definition of marriage given in Genesis, this passage makes the point that to have a second wife or husband after a divorce is to engage in adultery. If this is the case, many, many Christians are actively engaged in adultery now! That said, the real import of this teaching in Mark has to do with the hardness of so-called “righteous” people’s hearts. It is their lack of love that is the core issue, not divorce.
Jesus’ endorsement of the Genesis definition of marriage doesn’t, of course, automatically preclude His acceptance of gay marriage, but it does make it seem very unlikely. God has, throughout scripture, shown a remarkable tolerance for bad behavior. For example, He tolerated Abraham, and many others of His faithful followers, having multiple wives and concubines. This seems clearly to be God accepting the individual in spite of their poor choices and does not serve as a God-given endorsement of polygamy. No, He makes it abundantly clear concerning marriage that, “…the two shall become one.” not “many shall become one.”
So, having reviewed all of these passages in some depth, it seems that we can come to the following conclusions from the Bible:
- God ordained marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
- God desired that mankind be fruitful and multiply.
- Mosaic Law appears to prohibit male-on-male sex, but Christians are not under the Law.
- The destruction of Sodom was not due to homosexuality, but rather, selfishness, pride and inhospitality.
- Despite modern efforts to say otherwise, there are explicit condemnations of homoerotic activity in both the Old and New Testaments.
- The modern notion of homosexuality, as not simply a physical activity but an identity, did not exist at the time the Bible was written.
- The primary objections to homoerotic sex found in the Bible are a) that it is non-procreative sex and b) it was commonly associated with idolatrous worship practices.
- The same objection as 7a, non-procreative sex, should also apply to heterosexual couples who indulge in sexual relations while using birth control in that they, too, are engaged in non-procreative sex.
Given these conclusions, it would seem that the traditional Christian view that homoerotic sexual activity is in violation of scripture is accurate. However, as with all sin, we must exercise caution in the manner in which we deal with it. Paul makes the point, in I Corinthians 5:9-13, that Christians are not to associate with another Christian who is committing immoral acts. On the other hand, he has no problem with Christians associating with non-Christians who are busy committing immoral acts. After all, how are we to reach the lost, if we don’t associate with them? Even in the case of an immoral Christian, Paul distances himself from them not out of anger, pride or a judgmental attitude. No, he ceases fellowshipping with such a one so that they may be corrected (See I Corinthians 5:1-8).
How then are Christians to respond to demands from other Christians that we recognize and/or accept homosexual unions? I believe the correct response is to lovingly point such brothers and sisters back to the Bible. If they repent, and if they change their actions, we may enjoy fellowship with them. If, however, they refuse to accept such correction, then we must, however regretfully, cease fellowshipping with them, while continuing to pray for them. This "ceasing fellowship" can be, I suppose, not hanging with them anymore or (as I prefer), it could be as simple as stating our beliefs and establishing that, while we love them, we're not going to offer acceptance of their sexual choice. I don't think we have to turn such folks away, they may choose to depart from us if we stand our ground, which is, from my point of view, unfortunate but their choice.
In contrast to this, how are Christians to respond to demands from non-Christians that we recognize and/or accept homosexual unions? Personally, I believe the correct response is to declare such unions a violation of God’s intentions for mankind. We are, after all, witnesses for the Lord and, as such, must stand up for the truth. However, we do not need to disassociate ourselves from those worldly people who practice homoerotic acts or who advocate for “gay marriage.” No, we should love them, witness to them, and be prepared to accept the inevitable scorn that some rebellious, deceived souls may heap upon us for our stand. What we cannot do is condone their behavior or their demands for acceptance.
2. Political Objections to Homosexuality and Gay Marriage
As noted above, I believe Christians must object to homosexuality and gay marriage as a violation of God’s intended order. However, that objection only really has relevance in the church. In the larger civil society, there are any number of sinful acts (adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lying, cheating, thievery, slander and gossip come to mind) that are casually practiced by the non-Christian, or nominal Christian, majority. While as a citizen of this great country I want to express my revulsion at some heinous activities, I have no expectation of success in the secular courts or legislative bodies. The things of God are as foolishness to the unsaved (I Corinthians 2:14) and neither I nor other Christians are likely to prevail when arguing from the authority of the Bible in a secular court.
On the other hand, many people who are not Christians, or members of any other kind of religion, may appreciate the thinking contained in the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since these documents take the position that our rights, as defined therein, are not given to us by government but, instead, are bestowed upon all mankind by God, the government merely serves to protect and preserve those rights, not to convey them. If this were not true, then evolving governments over the centuries could, and probably would, alter our rights in accordance with the latest fads of the majority population.
Given this “conservative” position contained within our nation’s founding documents, and given the desire of some to demand acceptance of homosexuality and so-called “gay marriage” (I detest the term and resent the appropriation of a perfectly fine word, “gay,” by the homosexual community.) by the larger society, is it any wonder that advocates of such marriages resort to attempting to define the issue in terms of civil rights? After all, the civil rights movement of the 19th and 20th Centuries stands as the great liberal moral victory in our nation’s history. A grievous sin, slavery, was overthrown and, over the course of years, the exclusion of black people from the mainstream of society was undone. I thank God for bringing this to pass via the efforts of many well-meaning people, including a very great many Christians.
If homosexuality and the marital aspirations of “gay” people can be viewed from this angle, it provides a great deal of moral authority to their cause. The problem, however, is that, as I pointed out to the young couple at my door, a black person cannot generally change their physical identity, but a homosexual man or woman can easily cease their homosexual activity and, if necessary, change their appearance or mode of dress and no longer require any special civil rights action on the part of government. Nonetheless, that homosexual couple demanding that the larger population recognize their right to marry are, in fact, demanding that the larger population accept and, in a de facto manner, approve their sexual preference. For many non-religious people, this seems fair, after all, who are they to judge another’s choices? And, since it also seems to have no real or immediate consequence for them, it is a low-cost means of appearing tolerant.
For religious people, this is a situation fraught with difficulty. Since our highest allegiance is to the God who gave us our “unalienable rights,” we cannot approve of gay marriage if He condemns it.
To the extent that gay marriage is implemented without requiring the acceptance or approval of religiously faithful citizens, it is a secular, non-religious matter. However, the moment that, for example, a homosexual couple wishes to hire a photographer for their wedding, a photographer who, for religious reasons, refuses to take the assignment and is then sued by the couple for discrimination, the guarantees of religious freedom that lie at the core of our country’s founding come into direct conflict with our laws against discrimination. I don’t see a way for these two opposing issues to be resolved in the courts without one side or the other losing a cherished right.
While pondering this dilemma, and with my sympathy for laws that are "fair" running strong, I happened upon an interview on the radio where a young conservative made the point that, if the question was simply, "Do we want homosexuals to be happy?" then the answer of most people would be "Yes." However, that isn't really the question at hand. What is being considered is the upending of a longstanding societal norm for a purpose that has not been fully vetted. In other words, the young conservative was saying, be careful in determining what to do with gay marriage as every decision has both intended and unintended consequences. I think that is good advice for all of us when considering this subject or, for that matter, any other.
So, the best I can come up with as a summary of this issue is this: Non-Christians will do what non-Christians do. Homosexual activity is only one expression of sin, there are many others, and we, as Christians, are responsible for loving all of those non-Christians and praying for them. The secular society in which we live is only nominally, now or ever, supportive of Christian moral standards and, frankly, the church’s stand on morality has not always had a positive outcome. One need only look at the results of Prohibition or our current drug war to see how so-called “Christian Values” have resulted in unintended, and negative, consequences for the larger society.
No, a little humility on the part of Christians towards the effectiveness of our prescriptions for society could go a long way towards bridging the cultural divide. It is for this reason that I find it difficult to be too concerned about the secular society’s political and legal shifts on such topics as gay marriage. Their standards are different than ours and, as long as we fail to reach them with the Gospel, they will remain different. It is the message of the Gospel that will bring us together and it is the failure to effectively live and convey that Gospel that keeps us apart.
A cultural consensus is possible, but it demands hard, consistent work on the part of the faithful. Not to condemn others, but to love them. As we invest our love in other’s lives, we earn the right to speak to them of truth, honor and commitment to relationship with our Heavenly Father. Without such investment, we are, as Paul said, “tinkling gongs and clanging cymbals” and our message is lost in the clamor of a secular debate which gives no creedence to Christian values.
So, let us put aside the moral judgments and love our neighbors as ourselves. It is this love that will, in the end, produce the moral society that we desire.
|
|
|