Understand what the Bible says about Gay (Same-Gender) Marriage

Understand What The Bible Really Says About "Gay" Marriage...

ideas have consequences / every intellectual problem to christianity has a solution / truth matters

Most Requested

Changing Societal Attitudes?

This argument is used selectively by the Gay and Lesbian Lobby. It has to be! If ten years ago 99% of the population were opposed to Gay and Lesbians having equal rights to marriage, adoption, and Family law, and today that figure is around 95%, it is certainly true to say that societal attitudes have changed. But what is truly staggering is how little they have changed!

Considering an average week of TV viewing now consists of regular doses of subtle scenes of homosexual activity (kissing, caressing, cuddling) in such mainstream programs as The Bill, Felicity, Friends, and Missing Persons, what is truly surprising is how little headway the Gay and Lesbian agenda is making. Added to this all the neo-politically-correct statements and innuendoes on “Dr. Phil”, “Oprah”, and the various soap operas being aired, it’s truly amazing that marriage and family carries the currency which it does!

This argument of changing societal values is a misnomer. On the one hand a negligible increase is cited as growing trend for their agenda, even though the increase in support is so remarkably small. What might surprise many in the Gay Lobby who assume they are winning the public relations war and seeking to make their issue one of political correctness is just how silent the majority truly is. And perhaps with good reason in the face of so much growing intolerance on the part of the Gay Lobby toward any who dare question the merit of their agenda. Having written and spoken on this topic in the public arena over the last year or so, I and others have personally been attacked in the media by members of the Gay Lobby as promoting hatred and homophobia.

There have been attempts to portray myself and others as redneck vilifiers for simply articulating a very reasonable argument against the Gay Rights agenda (but not against any fellow human beings). Thus even under the threat of such vicious attacks the public opinion on the exclusiveness of marriage to a man and a woman and the basis of a family being a mum and dad, remains largely unmoved by the Gay Rights agenda. When the Gay lobby acknowledge that public sentiment is against their agenda, we are then told that this is not about numbers but about correcting discrimination - which we are ironically told by the Gay lobby - is immoral!

That’s why we claim that these statistics are used selectively by the Gay lobby!

On the Increase?

Are there really “thousands” of such arrangements already in place as was stated by Tasmania’s Attorney General, Mrs Judy Jackson on ABC talkback Radio in May 2003? Even if we make allowance for shyness, the Australian Bureau of Statistics still only reported around 250 domiciled same-sex couples.9 Of this number it is reported that there are only about 6 same-sex couples serving as full-time co-guardians of a child! Even those advocating this push argue that the current numbers are not likely to increase. Ironically, we agree with them and thus dispense with this argument.

Not a lifestyle choice?

Homosexual orientation is not inborn. I don’t have to prove this statement since it is the position of anthropological orthodoxy. The onus is actually on those proponents who refute this. One former homosexual, Sy Rogers, states that at the time he felt like he had no choice about his homosexuality.10 A long time Gay activist, Sy Rogers came to see that there was a greater need in his life than his sexuality. By working through the immense feelings associated with rejection and sexual abuse he was able to come to a different way of defining who he was.11 Today he his happily married with a teenage daughter!

Curiously through the 1970s the motto from the Gay community was “Gay Pride!” They openly admitted to choosing their orientation and were “proud” of their choice. Through the early 1990s however the Gay movement realised how politically disadvantageous this position was.

Thus when surveyed, most people practising homosexuality (90%) claimed that for them homosexuality was a choice. This percentage was the same several decades earlier when Dr Kinsey conducted his infamous study into American sexuality during the late 1940s. It seems that only when the Gay Rights activists realised that this was politically ineffective did the theory begin that homosexuality was inborn. Naturally, if a person chose to live a certain way then logically they were responsible for the consequences of that lifestyle choice and could not reasonably claim unfairness. Subsequently in the 1990s, 35% of Gays claimed their homosexuality was inborn.12

But, if it could be argued that homosexuality was inborn, then this would precipitate what the Gay movement has long published as their agenda -

“...each step in the process seems to pave the way for a next step. The standard sequence of steps seems to be underpinned by an internal logic. Once people engaging in homosexual activity are no longer seen as criminals, but instead as citizens, they can hardly be denied their civil rights, including their right not to be treated differently because of their (criminally irrelevant) sexual orientation. In this way, the step of anti-discrimination not only follows but builds on the step of decriminalisation. Similarly, the very idea of non-discrimination with regard to sexual orientation, simply demands that no one shall be disadvantaged by law because of the gender of the person he or she happens to love. In this way, the links between the steps of decriminalisation, anti-discrimination, and partnership legislation are not only sequential (in the European countries that have gone that far) but also morally and politically compelling."¹³

We might summarize the above strategy as -

Decriminalisation of State sodomy laws
Enactment of general Anti-discrimination laws
Equal access to all the privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples (presumably: adoption privileges -which grants de- facto surrogacy legitimisation)
Equal recognition before the law of registered homosexual relationships to that of marriage.

This entire agenda is built upon the presumption that homosexuality is inborn due to genetic predisposition. This is a crucial point.

“People tend to view homosexuality more favourably when they think it is inborn. No wonder gay leaders (not all, but most) push the born gay theory; it furthers the cause.”
Joe Dallas, former homosexual 14

Joe Dallas has also critiqued some of the supposed evidence in his booklet Is Homosexuality Inborn? He has reviewed several supposed evidences for inborn homosexuality-

In 1991 Dr LeVay, a neuroscientist at the Salk Institute of La Jolla, California, examined the brains of 41 cadavers- 19 allegedly homosexual men, 16 allegedly heterosexual men, and 6 allegedly heterosexual women.15

Joe Dallas notes that this research is completely discredited now.

First, LeVay did not prove homosexuality to be inborn; his results were not uniformly consistent. On the surface it appears that all of LeVay’s homosexual subjects had smaller INAH3s than his heterosexual ones; in fact, three of the homosexual subjects had smaller INAH3s than the average homosexual subject. Thus, as Dr. John Ankerberg of the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute notes, six of LeVay’s 35 male subjects- 17% of his total study group- contradicted his own theory.16

Surprisingly, this is the sole medical research appealed to as "evidence"! It has subsequently been refuted by other studies but has spurred the myth that such evidence exists.

Put simply, there is no medical or genetic evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is pre-determined from birth.

Churches backing down?

Traditionally the Church has upheld the teachings of Scripture, despite its own shortcomings, and maintained that homosexual activity is immoral. In recent times the more theologically liberal elements of the Church have softened their resistance to homosexuality. This has also coincided with the rise of clergy paedophilia (curiously, it is generally more common in the same theologically liberal branches of the Church!).

It is with a certain amount of trepidation that any professional churchman (such as myself) dares to articulate what the Bible actually says about homosexuality in an age of political correctness and in light of the Church’s own moral failures and other hypocritical actions. But it is both a duty and an obligation for any minister of the Church to teach with integrity what the Bible reveals.

The arguments from Liberal Theologians fall into three main categories: (i) Old Testament laws against homosexuality are now obsolete as are food and dress laws; (ii) Jesus Christ showed tolerance toward everyone and never condemned anyone especially those engaging in homosexual sex; (iii) St. Paul was a typical Jewish homophobe and his teaching against homosexuality is to be discounted as opinion and not authoritative.

In response to these arguments we note that the Old Testament is indeed clear that sex is reserved for those who have entered into a marriage covenant with each other and that this is only between a man and a woman.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
Genesis 2:24 (NKJV)

The New Testament, and in particular- Christ, reinforces this teaching by calling sex without marriage “fornication” and sex outside of an existing marriage as “adultery” (the distinction is important).

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders...All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
(Jesus Christ, Mark 7:21, 23)

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 homosexuals, nor sodomites…
1Corinthians 6:9 (NKJV)

The specific Old Testament book often cited is Leviticus. Since the particular passage also appears to prohibit tattoos and the wearing of blended fabric, the entire passage is dismissed as now outdated. But this is illogical.

Firstly, it ignores that the Old Testament contains four basic forms of Law:

(i) Moral laws
(ii) Religious laws
(iii) Food laws
(iv) Civil laws.

Leviticus 18 contains moral laws which encompasses laws against - incest, adultery, paedophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, and polygamy.

There is no doubt that the Old Testament teaches that homosexuality is immoral. The next chapter of Leviticus contains religious and civil laws which include a prohibition against tattoos (Lev. 19:28), and blended clothes (Lev. 19:19). These religious laws were designed to reinforce to Israel that they were not to be like the pagan nations which surrounded them, but they were to be different in what they ate, wore, and worshiped. The New Testament teaches that the Old Testament’s religious, civil, and food laws were a foretaste (type) of what Christ would ultimately fulfil by His death on the cross.

But the moral laws of Leviticus, especially those governing sex, were not done away with by Christ or His death. The simple proof of this is that they are all repeated within the teachings of the New Testament. To claim that all the Old Testament laws have been done away with is an ignorant and illogical view. The moral laws, summed in the 10 Commandments, and unpacked through Leviticus, are still valid. If not, then which ones- do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, or do not lie, could we categorically conclude are no longer valid? In fact, if a law can be made obsolete then it fails to be a moral law, because morality (what’s right and wrong) are not rules but laws which stand the test of time and culture.

Consider the above mentioned aspects of the 10 Commandments and it is readily seen that they are different to modern rules.

“Do not murder” will endure as a moral law long after the rule “Do not talk on your handheld mobile phone while driving”.

Jesus Christ Showed Tolerance?

The claim is made that Christians should show tolerance towards homosexually orientated people because Jesus Christ did. Again this is an ignorant statement. Did Jesus Christ really overturn all the established moral laws and preach a Gospel of tolerance for any kind of behaviour? Hardly. In fact, a cursory understanding of the Gospel makes it clear that His voluntary death on the Cross was because He could not tolerate any sin!

Jesus made it very clear that He was not abolishing the Moral Law-

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. Matthew 5:17 (NIV)

He also made it clear that sexual sin would defile a person from entering into an eternal relationship with God-

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
Matthew 15:19-20 (NKJV)

This hardly sounds like the tolerance which Liberal Theologians and Gay activists claim.

Was St. Paul Homophobic?

The claim that Paul the Apostle was a typical Jewish male who had a cultural dislike for homosexuality and that it is therefore predictable that he would reveal this bias in his writings is extremely weak. Firstly, his writings indeed do condemn homosexual activity-

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)

But Paul is merely being consistent with the rest of Scripture which also regards homosexuality as sin. Secondly, and more importantly, the real issue is how Christians should regard the Bible and its authority. Liberal Theologians claim that the Bible may contain the Word of God but is not the Word of God. It is merely a collection of myths, legends and poetry. In fact, so clear is the New Testament about homosexuality being wicked, this position regarding the Bible is really the only logical retreat a Liberal can appeal to. Therefore the issue shifts significantly from what the Bible teaches about homosexuality to whether the Bible has the right to teach it. Thus it is an entirely false claim to make that the New Testament does not teach that homosexuality is wrong.

The Bible has clear statements about sexual activity because it regards sexual activity as fundamentally spiritual.

There’s more to sex than mere skin on skin. Sex is as much spiritual mystery as physical fact.
1Corinthians 6:16 THE MESSAGE

In theological terms, the image of God in mankind is expressed in the two genders of male and female.

When a man and a woman come together in a loving covenant relationship and experience sexual union and intimacy they express the nature of God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit- diverse but united - different but complimentary - uniquely able to (pro-) create. The act of sex is far more than the fulfilment of some urge to reproduce, or even an attempt to find some pleasure- it is an expression of the image of God.

Thus when sin entered the world, it was the desire of Satan to mar that image and this very shortly became evident within a few generations of the original creation that some men were committing homosexual acts which then incurred the wrath of God-

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Jude 1:7 NIV, Jude, the half-brother of Jesus Christ

Sexual activity is spiritual activity. It is not just about procreation or pleasure, it is about union and the image of God. When two people of the same gender interact sexually with each other it is a corruption of what the Creator has intended. For those who feel condemned but trapped in their lifestyle, there is hope and healing in Jesus Christ.

NEVERTHELESS THE JUGGERNAUT CONTINUES

But who will dare oppose the Gay and lesbian movement? In the USA, a prominent TV personality, Dr Laura Schlessinger, also the second highest rated radio talkback host in the USA, publicly stated that homosexuality was deviant and immoral. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, angered by Schlessinger, declared war on the TV show's producer, Paramount.

Another group StopDrLaura.com took its protests in front of Paramount Studios in Los Angeles. They pressured a list of companies from advertising on both her radio and television show, including Procter & Gamble Co., Kraft Foods, Xerox Corp., American Express Corp., AT&T, and Sears. Dr Laura remarked that she was merely upholding the teachings of her Jewish faith. This seems to be a typical reaction from the Gay and Lesbian lobby to anyone who dares challenges them or their agenda. It is also ironic that the Gay lobby claims that those holding to Judeo-Christian values are intolerant, and should not be tolerated(!).

REDEFINING THE FAMILY?

The attempt to redefine the family is typified by the words of National President of Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)-

"It is not the configuration of the family that matters so much as the quality of the relationships between its members. 'Love Makes a Family' reminds us all that the fundamentals of love and support are to be found in all types of families, including gay and lesbian families."
www.columbia.edu/cu/1996/0924/c.html

In response to this we state the configuration of a family is important and actually unalterable. Even in an era of questionable reproductive “technology” life still requires a man and a woman. Families always begin with a man and a woman. Social research has long borne out what the average person already knows to be true: children do best with a mum and dad. It is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated. Professor David Popenoe of Rutgers University puts it:

“Social science research is almost never conclusive. There are always methodological difficulties and stones left unturned. Yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent [father and mother, not same sex coupling] families are preferable...If our prevailing views on family structure hinged solely on scholarly evidence, the current debate would never have arisen in the first place.”
(David Popenoe, “The Controversial Truth,” New York Times, 26 December 1992, p. A21)

In Australia, Professor Sotirios Sarantakos, of Charles Sturt University, undertook research to evaluate the affects of different parenting models on children. He was careful to select both children and parents from similar ethnic, economic, and social backgrounds. He quantified his evaluations using criteria for measuring various aspects of a child’s wellbeing. Prof. Sarantakos wanted to investigate whether there were any differences between children raised by same-sex couples, de facto couples and married couples.

In 1996 he published his research, Children In Three Contexts in the Journal: Australian Children (Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 23–31). The children of same-sex couples had all been born in a previous heterosexual relationships.

The case study involved 174 children (58 in each category). The children were rated according to an evaluation criteria. The academic results were –

Children of married parents…	8.16
Children of co-habiting (de facto parents)…	7.36
Children raised by same sex parents…	5.63

Dr Sarantakos also evaluated their ‘sociability’ (their ability to mix and relate with their peers). The results were as follows –.

Children of married parents…	7.5
Children of co-habiting (de facto parents)…	6.5
Children raised by same sex parents…	5.0

Prof. Sarantakos noted that the children raised same sex couples were “more effeminate (irrespective of their gender) and more confused about their gender” than the children of heterosexual couples. He concluded with the obvious -

…married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child’s social and educational development…

Some would have us believe that there is no longer any basis for claiming that marriage should only be between a man and a woman; or that there is any difference between a married couple parenting, or a same-sex couple raising, children. But these two claims cut right to the heart of what a family is. If we dare tamper with these two most sacred institutions of marriage and family we desecrate the very social fabric of our communities.

We now know that marriage and family breakdown exacts an incalculable cost on society. Those who have endured a violent, abusive, unloving, or broken family know all too well how deeply these aberrations of family life can hurt. Some very hurt people have been deeply wounded by the rejection they have suffered from their family relationships. For these people the concept of the “perfect heterosexual married family” was never their experience.

A basic family unit begins with a man and a woman who form a genealogical link and expand this link to incorporate children. Where this expansion can not take place naturally it can be morally and legally replicated such as through adoption. This definition is supported by the best social, philosophical, theological, and legal research.

5. Family World News, Volume 10, Number 8, August 2003, page 6 . [BACK TO TEXT]

6. “Can Man Live Without God?”, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, Word, Dallas, 1994:23 [BACK TO TEXT]

7. “The Abolition of Man”, C.S. Lewis, Harper Collins, London, 1999 (3rd Edition) 762 [BACK TO TEXT]

9. The last ABS Census revealed that there were 547 people living in a domiciled same sex relationship. [BACK TO TEXT]

10. “One Of The Boys”, Sy Rogers, Black Coffee, Florida, 2001 [BACK TO TEXT]

11. Sy Rogers now helps other homosexuals. He states that homosexual abuse does not make the victim a homosexual but curiously from his professional experience at least 80% of homosexual cliental were victims of sexual abuse. (Ibid) [BACK TO TEXT]

12. “Is Homosexuality Inborn?”, Joe Dallas, Exodus, 1996:1 [BACK TO TEXT]

13. (2000) 'Civil Developments: Patterns of Reform in the Legal Position of Same-Sex Partners in Europe' Vol. 17 No. 1 Canadian Journal of Family Law at 62, cited by Mr Danny Sandor, the Senior Legal Associate to the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, The Honourable Alastair Nicholson AO RFD. http://www.familycourt.gov.au/papers/html/sandor.htm [BACK TO TEXT]

14. “A Strong Delusion”, Joe Dallas, Harvest House Publishers, 1996 [BACK TO TEXT]

15. “Is Homosexuality Inborn?”, Exodus, USA, 1996:2 [BACK TO TEXT]

16. Cited from, “The Myth that Homosexuality Is Due to Biological or Genetic Causes”, John Ankerberg, Chattanooga, TN. [BACK TO TEXT]

Dr. Andrew Corbett, Legana, Tasmania

Download Dr Corbett's eBook on the Book of Revelation

Understand What The Bible Really Says About "Gay" Marriage...

Most Requested

Recommended Links

Changing Societal Attitudes?

On the Increase?

Not a lifestyle choice?

Jesus Christ Showed Tolerance?