First and foremost, may it be known that this argument is a defense of marriage, not an attack on homosexuals. However, in order to defend marriage properly, homosexuality must be addressed. It is my hope to effectively convey my argument with love and respect. I intend to defend the Design of marriage; the layout of my argument is as follows: definition, biology, anthropology, GOD’s Word, why it is important to defend marriage, conclusion, call to action, and finally an invitation.
For Christians like myself, we have only three options by which to live out our beliefs: (1) Speak the truth out from love, (2) feel intimidated and lie so as not to offend, or (3) remain fearful and cower in silence. For me, the first option is the only option. The reason I collected Truth and compiled this argument is because a 13-year old girl (whom I love with all my heart) asked me what I thought about gay people. This teenage girl has questions regarding sexual orientation because our society has allowed pluralism and relativism to inundate our public education systems (here’s an example); consequently, Truth is under attack (as is evident from TIME Magazine’s April 2017 cover and text within). In February 2014, ABC News released an article which stated that they have found there to be 58 different options for one’s gender to be identified. In many other articles by different sources, the number is much higher. One such example of gender identification is “Pangender.” Dictionary.com defines Pangender as “noting or relating to a person whose gender identity is not limited to one gender and who may feel like a member of all genders at the same time.” Some people even claim it’s normal or right to have sex with nature or “get off” with nature.
This argument is not intended to address such issues as gender identity — that topic has already been addressed exhaustively in others’ works. The purpose of this argument is to defend marriage and humans’ inherent Design. I am merely responding to a demand for us to approve of something we believe to be wrong. That’s why this is a defense and not an attack. Nowadays, even the most fair, gentle, balanced statement can be labeled as hate speech; however, my belief is not born from bigotry and should not be passed off as prejudice. I can accept a person without approving of that person’s actions. Using critical thinking, it is my hope that I can explain the reasoning behind the belief for the Design of marriage and the necessity to defend the definition of marriage. And before you (the reader) allow yourself to accept the intellectually dishonest claim that “homophobia is the problem,” let us honestly examine what that statement means. The “homophobia” argument is misleading for two reasons:
- It implies a phobic condition that the accused person most likely does not truly possess. A phobia, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, is defined as “an irrational dread or fear of object or activity, leading to significant avoidance of the dreaded object.” But I do not fear homosexuals nor feel the necessity to avoid such individuals.
- The argument prematurely assumes that a negative response to homosexuality can be construed as a phobia. Would it be a prejudice or phobia or could the rejective response simply be conviction and comprehension? There is a difference between belief and bigotry.
I know many people on a personal level who proclaim themselves to be homosexuals and not one of them is a bad human being (in my opinion); in fact, all of them possess good qualities and I would consider them to be my friends. This argument is not against homosexuals; rather, it is for the intended Design of marriage. Marriage is important to defend because the disintegration of the definition of marriage will create at least three catastrophic consequences: (1) the denigration of biblical authority, (2) the sexual exploitation of children, and (3) the loss of a coherent definition of family. Again, I intend to defend the Design of marriage; the layout of my argument is as follows: definition, biology, anthropology, GOD’s Word, why it is important to defend marriage, conclusion, call to action, and finally an invitation.
In order to defend marriage and also encourage the growth of better marriages, we must first know the definition of marriage. Can the undefined be defended? How can we defend what we ourselves do not understand? The ability to articulate the basic truths about marriage is every Christian’s responsibility. Love of GOD demands Truth; love of our neighbor demands action; GOD demands that actions of Truth be spoken through love. The definition of marriage can be found by examining (1) GOD’s Word, (2) biology, and (3) anthropology. However, there is simple and decisive evidence that the “conjugal view” is not peculiar to religion, or to any religious tradition. Even if one rejected GOD, Truth about marriage would still be evident. Ancient thinkers such as Xenophanes, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, and Plutarch reached remarkably similar views of marriage. Even in cultures favorable to homoerotic relationships (as in ancient Greece), something akin to the “conjugal view” has prevailed — and nothing like same-sex marriage was even considered.
Marriage should be defined as a covenant between one male and one female, both being of a proper age of maturity that would enable a mutual consent to a lifelong partnership that is designed to unite the two as one in a committed relationship. The union of the two as one should not be detached, divided, disconnected or divorced unless death separates them or the sin of sexual immorality defiles the covenant and creates a chasm between the commitment that would cause division.
What about same-sex marriage? What about marriage equality? Is the definition of marriage discrimination against homosexuals? In short, the definition of marriage does not discriminate against anyone or anything found beyond the boundaries of the definition. A distinction does not mean there’s an unfair discrimination. Exclusion does not equate to discrimination. Truth is absolute and narrowly defined (see the argument on absolute Truth). And what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong (see the argument on moral relativism).
For example, electrical conductivity can provide an analogy to better help us understand the Design. For a copy machine to produce a copy, it must first be connected to power. Its electrical cord has ‘male’ prongs that must be inserted into the ‘female’ outlet holes in order to be connected to the ‘power’ as designed. Without that correct connection, the copy machine will not produce a copy. Likewise, humans are males and females, possess male and female parts, and reproduction will not occur unless the correct connection is established. Of course two males or two females could adopt a child. A same-sex couple could also have medical professionals use the sperm/egg combination from others and legally obtain rights to a child. There are many options that could be used to obtain children; however, those options are only stealing from the Design and therefore concede that the Design is good and necessary. And if you don’t like the cord and outlet analogy, think of magnets. Magnets have two poles: north and south (N & S). Let’s call them male and female (M & F). M attracts F; F attracts M. But M repels M and F repels F. A human can force M & M / F & F together, but it’s not the design and as soon as the human lets go, M will align itself and pair up with F. It’s the Design.
People found outside the defined boundaries of marriage are simply unqualified to exist within the definition. Every definition of marriage excludes someone. For example, many advocates of same-sex marriage think marriage should exclude polygamous and polyamorous couples. Also, almost everyone (thankfully) believes marriage should exclude underage and incestuous couples. If any and every type of relationship should be called marriage, it’s no longer a helpful term. Marriage cannot mean everything or everyone, or else marriage means nothing. Same-sex marriage is not about including those wrongly excluded from an existing institution; it’s about completely recasting and redefining that institution while continuing to use the same name. Redefining marriage would ultimately teach that marriage is about emotional union and cohabitation, without any inherent connections to bodily union or family life. If marriage is centrally an emotional union, rather than one inherently ordered to family life, it becomes much harder to show why the state should concern itself with marriage any more than with friendship.
Same-sex marriage is now legal, but should it be? Same-sex marriage should be legal if marriage is only a way that the government acknowledges feelings of love and affection between people. If that’s all there is to marriage, keeping marriage from same-sex couples would be discrimination. The distinctions made between relationships can either be based on essential qualities or arbitrary qualities. Essential qualities qualify and are essential in order to define. Disqualifications within definitions does not constitute as discrimination. Truth is absolute and never relative. Truth is narrow and exact, but determining right from wrong is necessary and loving, not hateful.
Why should marriage be defined as being one male and one female? Why not two males or two females? Again, the central issue is the definition of marriage itself. Two males together do not qualify and neither do two females together. If love was the only qualifying prerequisite to marriage, that would open pandora’s box and many problems would arise. If marriage were only about companionship, there would be nothing to distinguish it from other very important, human unions. Is marriage something that’s defined or something that’s described? In other words, is marriage a cultural construct we can redefine at will (such as which side of the road we drive on), or a feature of reality we discover and describe (such as gravity)? The definition of marriage can be discovered and described by examining biology, anthropology, and the Bible.
Biology:
Natural (in the subjective sense, as in “natural to me”) does not mean right; the created intent for sexual expression must dictate what forms of sexual expression are acceptable. People possess free will and are able to pursue any path they choose; however, we cannot grant their demand that the Design for marriage and family be revised to suit what is natural to them, yet unnatural in fact.
Purpose determines function. What is the purpose of marriage? Love may be a reason to get married, but it is not a function of marriage. One of the functions of marriage between a male and a female is procreation. Because sexual intercourse is the only biological process that leads to procreation, this implies that marriage requires gender diversity. Male and male cannot accomplish this for sperm and sperm cannot unite and form a baby. Female and female cannot procreate because egg and egg cannot unite and form a baby. Only the combination of male and female (sperm and egg) can produce offspring. Husband/wife marriages begin the families that are the building blocks of civilization. Severing the tie between marriage and children compromises the role marriage plays in securing the future of a culture and furthers the destructive notion that marriage is just about furthering personal happiness. But happiness is merely pleasure without purpose. Plus, it obscures that one function of marriage that clearly demonstrates why marriage requires a male and a female. It is the coordination toward a single end that makes the union; achieving the end would deepen the union but is not necessary for it. It’s not that the relationship of marriage and the comprehensive good of rearing children always go together. It is that, like a ball and socket, they fit together. It is the Design.
Another function of male and female marriage is to regulate sexuality and confine the act of sexual intercourse to the husband and wife. By regulating sexual intercourse within the confines of marriage drastically reduces or nearly eliminates the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Further, by regulating sexual intercourse within the confines of marriage, it enables a happier and healthier committed and relationship between parents; consequently, children have happier and healthier parents.
Another function of marriage between a male and a female is to ensure that a child gets from both parents the attention, care and provision he/she requires until young adulthood is reached. Both father and mother influence their children in different and essential ways that are necessary for healthy child development. If male and female are essential to bring different perspectives, skills, insights and wisdom to your work environment, how much more is that needed for the family and home environment?
It may be argued that homosexuality is inborn and must therefore be considered normal; however, what is inborn may be common but not normal. Again, we must compare existence of something to the intended Design of that something. Consider the following examples: deaf, blind, down syndrome, vitiligo, tetra amelia syndrome, cleft lip, autism, cystic fibrosis, cancer, or conjoined twins. All of the aforementioned could be argued that there’s nothing anyone can do to change who they are; however, who they are has little or nothing to do with what they do. Behavior can change even if people themselves remain relatively the same. Thus, “born this way” cannot justify sinful behavior that needs to be controlled in the majority of all situations. I concede that there exists a number of mentally challenged people who have little or no control over certain behaviors, but those people represent the exception to the original Design and not the rule. The Design is not redefined due to the rare exceptions. Abnormalities are only known to be such due to the awareness of what is normal; one cannot know what an abnormality is without first knowing what is normal. Common does not equate to normal; a defect, disorder or disfunction can be common, but should not be considered normal.
A number of unhealthy tendencies seem to be inborn; however, inborn does not indicate what is healthy or natural. In 2002, Dr. Redford Williams of Duke University said evidence of an “anger gene” had been found. In 2004, the Journal of Neuroscience released findings linking a gene to alcohol addiction. In 2011, an analysis of 54 studies indicated existence of a “depression gene.” And in 2015, Dr. Richard Friedman asserted that there may be an “infidelity gene” and that the tendency of lustful looks are not our fault. It may be true that all these conditions are inborn; however, it is absurd to accept them as healthy or normal. Our desires should never guide us. True direction comes from the compass of Christ-centered conviction. Orientation to homosexuality may be a desire someone possesses, but it is not the intended Design. Orientation to pedophilia is also an inclination that was never intended yet exists. Inborn tendencies should not be considered to be legitimized and healthy behaviors. If everything inborn is good, how do we account for birth defects?
Anthropology:
Start at the beginning and recognize a cluster of facts: humans are social; they live in groups. They strongly seek to reproduce. They are sexually embodied. They carry out sexual (not asexual) reproduction. They devised an institution to link male and female and raise children. It is not just coincidence or tradition that marriage has at all times and in all societies been a relationship between men and women. The concept of same-sex marriage never occurred until recent times because it was a contradiction in terms. In the proper definition of marriage, both spouses are held accountable for any children produced by their sexual relationship. By recognizing and promoting marriage, the community makes it more likely that when a baby is born a mother and father will be around.
Numerous studies over an extended period of time and with multiple researchers demonstrates that children fare better when cared for by their biological mothers and fathers. A 2008 report published by the Witherspoon Institute entitled “Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles” summarizes this data. In addition, an exhaustive study of all research compiled in a 120-page report on same-sex parenting and adoption revealed that children who live with married moms and dads show, on average, advantage in literacy and graduation rates, emotional health, family and sexual development, and behavior as both adults and as children. In the right design of marriage, married adults become practiced at thinking about others. This curbs the urge for immediate gratification relationally, sexually and financially. Children raised in this environment learn that commitment should not be taken lightly.
The Bible:
If the biblical testimony requires us to conclude that marriage belongs to the state to define it in whatever way it pleases, then so be it. But if the biblical testimony identifies marriage as belonging primarily to GOD and not established by the state but recognized by it, that’s another matter altogether. Christians should know what the Bible says about something as important to the human experience as marriage and sexuality. If GOD’s Word is purposefully disregarded in specific areas, thus creating blank spaces where direction was previously provided, an ancient sin is revived in which compromised obedience to GOD in one area cripples respect for GOD’s Word in other — perhaps all — areas of life and conduct. Compromise begets compromise. So what does GOD’s Word say about marriage?
There is a Design and an absolute standard for which everything should be based and judged. Marriage is for one male and one female; the two will become one. The two in marriage must remain faithful to each other. The monogamous male-female union, introduced in Genesis, is the only model of sexual behavior consistently praised in both Old and New Testaments.
(Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18,23-24; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 17:17; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; 7:2; 1Timothy 1:9-10; 3:2,12)
Many people within the apostasy of which we now live– specifically the “Progressive Christianity” movement– publicly proclaim lies about GOD’s Word, such as Leviticus 18:22 saying that pedophilia is wrong, not homosexuality. But that is a blatant boldfaced lie which comes directly from Satan. Leviticus 18:22, in Hebrew, says you shall not lie with זָכָר [zakar] (zaw-kawr’), which means “male,” as you would with אִשָּׁה [ishshah] (ish-shaw’), which means “woman.” This pertains specifically to gender, not age. In Hebrew, a boy or young man is the word יֶלֶד [yeled] (yeh’-led), such as the little boy Naomi nursed in Ruth 4:16. And יַלְדָּה [yaldah] (yal-daw’) means “girl.” (Compare Joel 3:3 and Zechariah 8:5 to see the difference.) The ancient and eternal Word of GOD in this matter is clear: GOD’s design for sexual relation is one male and one female. And both biology and anthropology affirm this to be true.
(Matthew 19:4-6)
“4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning [746] made them male [730] and female [2338], 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man [444] shall leave his father [3962] and mother [3384] and be joined [2853] to his wife [1135], and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together [4801], let no man separate.”
Beginning [746] = arche (ar-khay’), from archomai (ar’-khom-ahee), which means through the implication of precedence, to commence; in order of time, to begin. Thus, arche means from the beginning. When was that? Genesis. The English title “Genesis” comes from the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Pentateuch) and means “origin” or “beginning,” which is an apt title because Genesis is all about origins, or the beginning. In fact, the first phrase in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 means “in the beginning” [7225].
father [3962] = pater (pat-ayr’)
mother [3384] = meter (may’-tare)
Why is father and mother important? Father is male; mother is female. Jesus affirms the original design from the beginning. What is this design? Male and female are to be joined together as one.
joined [2853] = kollao (kol-lah’-o), which means to be joined together, glued, or cemented, becoming one, bonded together, now inseparable.
joined together [4801] = suzeugnumi (sood-zyoog’-noo-mee), which is a compounded word from sun (soon) and zeugos (dzyoo’-gos). The word sun means with or together, denoting union. The word zeugos indicates a couple as oxen would be yoked together. Thus, the word means a union of two who become yoked together. And in proper context, this means that a male and female become yoked together and become a union, working together as one.
Therefore, Jesus Himself affirms the original design for any marriage as being one male and one female — it has been this way since the beginning. And basic biology confirms this to be true.
(Romans 1:26-27)
“26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading [819] passions [3806]; for their women exchanged the natural [5446] function for that which is unnatural [3844; 5449], 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural [5446] function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent [808] acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error [4106].”
degrading [819] = atimia (at-ee-mee’-ah), from atimos (at’-ee-mos), which means without honor; there is no honor present to even lower. The word atimia means to lower down from a place of honor and signifies shame and disgrace because of the move away from honor.
passion [3806] = pathos (path’-os), which means an affection of the mind which stimulates a passionate desire. Used by the Greeks of either good or bad desires; however, it is always used to describe bad desires in the New Testament. In proper context, this passionate desire is one of lust and that’s why it is a dishonorable passion.
natural [5446] = phusikos (foo-see-kos’), which means according to nature, governed by natural instincts, such as in nature itself where nature produces, germinates, pollinates, sprouts, and brings forth new life. In context, this refers to the female naturally needing the male’s seed in order to produce. And this is why male and female is according to nature and is the natural design.
Unnatural [3844; 5449] = para phusis (par-ah’ foo’-sis), which means against nature, contrary to nature, or opposed to nature, which will not bring forth or produce. In other words, it is a blatant rebellion against GOD’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:22,28; 8:17; 9:1,7).
Indecent [808] = aschemosune (as-kay-mos-oo’-nay), which does mean indecent or unseemliness, but also means nakedness and shame as we see the same word used in Revelation 16:15.
Error [4106] = plane (plan’-ay), which is a wandering away from Truth and/or morality. It is akin to planao (plan-ah’-o) in a wandering and forsaking of the right path (see James 5:20), whether in doctrine (2Peter 3:17; 1John 4:6), or in morals (2Peter 2:18; Jude 1:11); though, in Scripture, doctrine and morals link together. In fact, errors in doctrine are not infrequently the effect of relaxed morality, and vice versa.
Altogether in proper context, a male acting on degrading lust-filled passion for another male is unnatural just as a female with female is unnatural. And so again, the original design of a male and female is affirmed.
(1Corinthians 6:9-10)
“9 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 [3120], nor homosexuals [733], 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
effeminate [3120] = malakos (mal-ak-os’), which means soft, effeminate, a male who dresses and/or acts as a female. Voluptuous. It could even refer to a catamite— a boy kept for homosexual practices.
homosexual [733] = arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace), which is a compound of the word arsen (ar’-sane), which means male or man, and the word koite (koy’-tay), which primarily means “a place for lying down.” It also means the marriage bed and is used in reference to cohabitation and sexual intercourse. Thus, arsenokoites does mean a homosexual or a sodomite, which is a male who lies with a male as with a female. And that is the exact condemnation as it is written in Leviticus 18:22.
(1Corinthians 7:2)
“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”
(1Timothy 1:9-10)
“9 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 10 and immoral men and homosexuals [733] and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching”
(1Timothy 3:2)
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach”
(1Timothy 3:12)
“Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.”
What about homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Doesn’t homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom prove it is natural? Well… are you a mere animal or are you a human being created in the image of GOD (Genesis 1:26-27)? Should the actions of animals really be imitated? Animals often murder other animals for nothing more than territorial issues. There have been several documented incidents where an animal murders another animal and doesn’t even eat it. Even for those that protect their own kind, do they love thy neighbor? Do they love their enemies? Some animals eat their young, but that doesn’t mean we should be cannibals. Dogs eat their own vomit. Not a good behavior to emulate (Proverbs 26:11; 1Peter 2:22). Some insects devour their partners after mating — please don’t do that. We simply cannot use animal behavior as a basis for morality or to justify our sinful desires. In fact, in most cases animals are the examples of what not to do (Psalm 49:20; 2Peter 2:12). Animals are unable to sin because they don’t have a mind capable of accountability nor do they have the moral law written on their hearts as humans do (Psalm 40:8; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; Romans 2:15; 2Corinthians 3:3; Hebrews 8:10). Morality is objective. Without the absolute moral standard, everything would be mere preference and nothing could be wrong. Logic proves that moral relativism is absolutely absurd. We are not mere animals and we will be held accountable for our actions (Revelation 20:11-15).
So, can a gay person go to Heaven? I’m going to rephrase the question based on who GOD says we are. So, can human beings created in the image of GOD go to heaven even though they struggle with temptations? Yes! That’s the beauty of the Gospel! This is not homo vs hetero or us vs them ordeal. We all struggle with temptations. We’re all sinners who fall short of the glory of GOD. Is homosexual activity a sin? Yes. Stop trying to justify your sins. But you know what else is a sin? Adultery, divorce, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. The sad truth is that a lot of straight people are heading straight toward Hell. The good news is that our temptations don’t have to determine our direction and ultimate destination. So, how do sinful humans get to heaven? We repent, confess our sins, admit that we are incapable of saving ourselves, confess Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, and place our trust in His finished work, get baptized in the Holy Spirit, and continue our process of sanctification while faithfully living out GOD’s Word in obedience. And through this process of sanctification, the Holy Spirit will produce fruit through us. But to answer your question, yes— a person who struggles with same-sex attraction can go to heaven because we don’t have to act on our temptations. In fact, we’re called to flee our temptations. GOD will give us our escape route. We just need to follow His lead.
In Matthew 19:3-9, Jesus said that in the beginning, they were created male and female. In addition, Jesus said that a man will leave his father and mother and will become one with his wife. Marriage was clearly identified as a union between a male and a female. Furthermore, Jesus specifically mentioned father and mother. Why? Because father is male and mother is female. No living thing, until GOD made woman, was capable of becoming one flesh with the man. In Genesis 2:18, GOD pronounced the absence of woman as being “not good” because it left man alone and incapable of accomplishing GOD’s purposes for humanity in His world. Scripture conveys marriage as being closely tied to procreation (biology confirms this).
Marriage is an institution created by GOD for unique and particular purposes. These purposes are evident even if GOD’s existence is denied. In light of the way GOD originally made the world, we can better see human relationships in the larger context of what GOD intended them to be. Only in recent decades has there been any sort of attempt to argue that the Bible does not expressly condemn sexual relationships of every kind outside the context of marriage. Jesus grounded His ideas about marriage in what we might call “GOD’s created intent.” The world in which we now live is not the way it was supposed to be. Homosexuality is an unnatural condition that GOD never intended, but which exists as one of many manifestations of fallen human nature. Just as a junkyard is not the best place to learn how to build cars, so too our corrupt culture, fallen and sinful society, and personal preferences aren’t the best place to learn how to build marriages. Junkyards usually reveal what comes of a creation when it is not properly cared for; the damage is evident.
Something or someone can exist without being aligned with the Design. What is common is not necessarily what is normal. Tetra-Amelia syndrome, for example, is not the Design; however, it exists. Cancer is common; however, it is not the Design and is not normal. Homosexuality is common; however, that orientation is not the Design and is not normal. Being born deaf or blind is not the Design; however, that happens. But should we despise or hate the abnormality of the person? Absolutely not. If you would not hate a person who has autism, you should not hate a person who is homosexual. They are both human beings. A sane and rational person would not hate someone for being blind; likewise, a sane and rational person would not hate a homosexual. Most people are fortunate enough to be born into the normal Design; however, some people are not.
GOD’s original intended Design was perfect; however, in a fallen world, humans continue to make choices that produce consequences that result in humans existing out of alignment. Rust is the privation of metal. Rot is the privation of wood. Cold is the privation of heat. Darkness is the privation of light. Hatred is the privation of love. Evil is the privation of GOD (objective moral standard). Though a person may be out of alignment, there is never a reason to hate a person who is out of alignment; in fact, a person out of alignment provides the need for love that can serve as an invitation back into alignment. We also do not have the authority to make the final judgement on those who willfully remain out of alignment or those who simply don’t have a means to be in alignment; however, Jesus did give us authority to preach GOD’s Word and only what GOD’s Word declares. We cannot tell others whether or not they are going to Heaven or Hell, but we have been given authority to remind others what is right and to share GOD’s Word. My opinion doesn’t matter, but we must not dismiss GOD’s Word. We are to never alter Truth to accommodate personal preference, desire, or sin. You can accept a person without agreeing with that person’s actions. You can disagree with someone and still love that person.
In John 9, you will find that Jesus healed a man who had been born blind. His disciples asked Jesus why that man had been born blind; they asked if he had sinned or if his parents had sinned. The disciples [wrongly] assumed that the blindness was GOD’s wrath against sin. Jesus responded:
“’It was not because of his sins or his parents’ sins,’ Jesus answered. ‘This happened so the power of God could be seen in him.’ ”
(John 9:3) -NLT
GOD has a plan. GOD’s wisdom is beyond our own comprehension (see Isaiah 55:8-9) and His Plan obviously involves loving others so that others will see the power of GOD. Nick Vujicic is a solid example of GOD’s power presented through those who don’t live within The Design. But then again… GOD is in control. GOD allows certain things to happen so that at the end of it all, the evidence will add up to either our guilty or innocent verdict. Do you not realize that this life is training for the next? Despite the abnormalities that exist here and now, GOD’s power and love will be revealed in Heaven when we are restored to our intended design. As Christians, we have but three duties:
- Love GOD
- Love others
- Preach the Gospel.
(3-a) Continue to love others – even if they refuse the Truth.
Is homosexuality the Design? No. But how are we to treat those who do not live within the Design? Are we not called to love them? Yet it is also our duty to speak the Truth. So how are we to handle situations such as these? GOD’s Word has the answer:
“Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love.”
(Ephesians 4:15-16) -NLT
“Make sure no outsider who now follows God ever has occasion to say, ‘God put me in second-class. I don’t really belong.’ And make sure no physically mutilated person is ever made to think, ‘I’m damaged goods. I don’t really belong.’ ”
(Isaiah 56:3) –MSG
Why Is It Important To Defend Marriage?:
Law tends to shape beliefs; beliefs shape behavior; beliefs and behavior affect human interests and human well-being. As we deprive marriage policy of definite shape, we deprive it of public purpose. The logic of rejecting the conjugal conception of marriage thus leads, by way of formlessness, toward pointlessness. Consider the following example by Maggie Gallagher:
“There is no reason in the world why we — or the law — cannot redefine ‘cat’ to mean ‘furry, domestic animal with four legs and a tail.’ Defining ‘cat’ in this way has certain advantages. It reveals the deep underlying similarities for example between those two formerly opposite classifications: ‘dog’ and ‘cat.’ Not to mention ‘gerbil,’ ‘rabbit,’ and ‘guinea pig.’ What is lost in redefining ‘cat’ in this way? Well, there is one little thing: we now no longer have a word that means ‘cat.’ If we want to speak to each other about cats, we will either have to invent a new term, and hope it will still communicate the full valence of the old word (rich with historic associations and symbolic over-tones), or we will have to do without a word for ‘cat’ at all. One might reasonably foresee, without charting all the particular specific mechanisms, that it might become harder to communicate an idea for which we no longer have any word.”
If we change the definition of a word, multiple other associated words would need to change as well. If you change the meaning of the word, you change the thing itself. Extending marriage to same-sex couples leaves us without a word for that unique relationship that has always been called marriage, whether in the Bible, from biology, or known throughout human history from anthropology. Changing the definition of marriage is an attempt to alter history in addition to the future.
Think about the abortion debate. Are opponents of abortion considered “pro-life” or “anti-choice” (or anti-woman, or anti-reproductive health, or religious fundamentalists)? Are proponents of abortion “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion” (or anti-life, or pro-murder, or godless secularists)? Is abortion a health-care issue, the elimination of tissue, or the taking of an innocent life? Words matter. (See my argument against abortion for my answer on this debate.)
Because words do matter, many people rely upon ‘experts’ to provide definitions of what is or what is not acceptable. The irony is that Truth is never to be considered absolute unless it benefits those who are attempting to alter Truth and change definitions. Why would an ‘expert’ make matters more definitive if Truth is relative? Who is an ‘expert’ anyway? Isn’t an ‘expert’ a mere human being who was simply dedicated to obtaining documentation from what could have been a biased educational institute? Would, then, an ‘expert’ be defined as someone who was committed to a cause for a specified amount of time? But should a commitment to a cause determine the ‘expert’ title? Wasn’t Dr. Josef Mengele committed to a cause? Wasn’t he committed to that cause for a long time? But was that cause right? By whose standards is right to be judged? Was Hitler’s cause based on the foundation of Truth? A true expert is one who knows Truth and lives by Truth in a commitment to the absolute moral standard of righteousness.
Redefining marriage redefines family and parenthood; however, multiple studies have already concluded that children fare better with both mother and father. The answer to family problems is to correct the problems, not redefine the family. What is marriage, then, if not the institution it’s always been? What defines it, if not essential characteristics like permanence, exclusivity and procreation? If marriage is simply defined by affection and companionship, then what would stop pedophiles from claiming discrimination? The truth is that the pedophile movement could not have made significant gains (like it has) if the gay-rights movement hadn’t paved the way by challenging the definition of marriage and restrictions on sexual behavior. In fact, the points that ‘experts’ made about homosexuality 40 years ago are the same points that are now being made regarding pedophilia. These points include the following:
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association asserts that a pedophile has a diagnosable condition only if the person feels bad or anxious about what that person is doing. After all, it is believed by many that pedophilia is not a choice, it is simply the orientation that natural exists.
- William Pomeroy, formerly of the Alfred Kinsey Research Team, told Citizen magazine that adult/child sex can be “wonderful and beautiful,” adding that the only downside is that the consequences society applies against such behavior “can be absolutely horrendous.”
- According to Dr. John Money and many other advocates, pedophilia should be viewed as a sexual orientation, not a disease or a disorder.
- Many advocates of pedophilia believe that adult/child sexual relationships can be healthy, affirming, loving, thoughtful, and responsible way of life.
And if human beings are to be ‘fair’ to each other, how will it be possible to permit marriage to some and exclude others? At what point will tolerance topple Truth and take over? I say that it already has begun. The foundation has already crumbled and we are in the fall. The approval of same-sex marriages has already started the domino effect. Think about it. Why couldn’t a woman marry her dog that she loves? Some say that’s too far, but would it be? Once laws are changed for some, it becomes a violation against those who have not yet been included. Those who are not included cry out terms such as “discrimination,” “intolerance,” “hatred,” “bigotry,” and even “injustice.” But even if marriage remains to be between people only, why couldn’t brother and sister get married? Why can’t a 34-year old male marry a 13-year old female? Many cry out, “How can love be wrong?” But where is the line between right and wrong? The approval of one previously taboo practice paves the way and makes room for approval of the next, more serious taboo. Once Truth becomes relative, right is only in the sight of the beholder and consequences become obsolete. Happiness becomes their god and they sacrifice everyone for the sake of self.
At a practical level, redefining marriage based on the sincerity of a couple’s commitment or the depth of their affection disconnects marriage from procreation and family. And if not tied to procreation, why limit it to a couple? What if three people share a sincere commitment and deep affections? In the same name of fairness, marriage would have to be extended to consenting polygamous and polyamorous couples. Nor could marriage be restricted from incestuous couples, deeply committed friends, or those who believe pedophilia to be right. In this view, it’s difficult to see why any committed group of persons should be left out of marriage. Also, transgenderism has been making headlines in recent years and being forced into public schools. Children (influenced by indoctrination) are being allowed to proclaim their own identity without being of a mature age that would enable them to make such an informed and responsible decision. So if a child is supposedly mature enough to proclaim that he is actually a she (or vice versa), why wouldn’t that same child also be mature enough to proclaim that he/she is in love with a much older person? If that were so, marriage would be forced to also extend to that couple who shares affection with each other, thus granting marriage rights to those who believe pedophilia to be right.
Don’t think it could happen? Think again. It’s like Fair Housing laws. Once we allow for one, we must allow for all. But is that right? My argument is no – it is wrong. It’s wrong because the definition should not be changed; the definition should not be changed because the Design has not changed.
To use hate as an excuse to dismiss the increasingly sophisticated arguments for traditional marriage is intellectually dishonest and cowardly, and it is a textbook example of the logical fallacy known as ad hominem (attacking the character or motivations of those presenting the arguments instead of dealing with their arguments). Claiming discrimination assumes a new definition of marriage as proof for the new definition. It’s circular reasoning.
Marriage “equality,” as this is being called, is illogical when examining the definition of marriage. The equality of all persons does not equal the equality of all lifestyles or all relationships. For example, the mere fact that all persons are created equal does not mean that polygamy, ancestral marriage, or pedophilia ought therefore to be made legal. We cannot move logically from the equality of persons to the equality of actions, choices, lifestyles, or relationships. It simply does not follow.
Conclusion:
Marriage offers the world a picture of the fidelity, commitment and love that GOD has for His people. As created, marriage enabled male and female to reflect GOD’s image together. As redeemed, marriage reflects Christ’s love for the Church. Marriage, when properly practiced, brings security and stability to a society that no other relationship can bring. Redefining marriage is unnecessary, unreasonable, and contrary to the common good. Marriage will always be what marriage was created to be, regardless of what activists, judges, runaway legislatures or majority of voters decide. In a world that continues to disregard GOD and practice unrighteousness, we must not conform, but be transformed by the renewal of our minds (Romans 12:1-2), align ourselves in GOD’s will and rise above. If we have to choose between obedience to GOD and obedience to any human authority, then we must obey GOD (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29).
Because the one male and one female of a proper age of maturity is a created normalcy, it trumps all cultural or personal attempts to alter it. Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. We simply must not meet a legitimate need in an illegitimate way. Humans can cover up Truth; however, Truth can never be erased and will one day be known. All that is concealed will eventually be revealed (Job 12:22; Daniel 2:22; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:3).
Call To Action:
GOD commands us to speak the Truth out from love (Ephesians 4:15). GOD also commands us to humble ourselves (Psalms 22:26; James 4:10; 1Peter 5:5-7) and confess our sins to one another so that we may be saved (James 5:16; 1John 1:9).
In terms of cultural significance, silence either signifies irrelevance or complete victory. To not offer any guidance on same-sex marriage to the next generation is a dereliction of duty. We cannot remain silent on such an important issue such as marriage; however, we must speak the truth out from love.
May it be known that our responsibility is bigger than merely fighting against same-sex marriage; our responsibility is to fight for marriage. Failed marriages burden innocent bystanders, including children and ultimately all society. This means that we need to humble ourselves and confess our sins regarding marriage. Marriage is not what it should be in the present because marriage has been taken for granted in the past. How can we boldly proclaim the importance of marriage when the sins of heterosexual natural design marriage have been swept under the rug? We are guilty! We must confess our own sins and correct the situation! As Christians, the only way to defend marriage is to defend marriage from all that is attacking it.
What has been attacking marriage for years? Unreasonable expectations, promiscuity (see “Sex Matters” article) and attachment to wrong people, adultery, pornography (see my argument against pornography), abuse, and divorce! It is estimated there is one divorce every 13 seconds! That’s over 46,000 divorces a week! It is also estimated that divorce alone costs local, state, and federal government $33 billion each year! For these reasons and much more, GOD hates divorce. We need to stand up and speak out for the truth and good of marriage! But ignorance to GOD’s design for marriage is evident. Those who do not understand and cannot articulate the meaning of marriage will either be unwilling or unable to stand against that which compromises it. Marriage must be both taught and portrayed as an institution that is bigger than our desires, whims, feelings and affections. If we are to defend marriage from same-sex marriage, we must honestly acknowledge and confess our own failings about sex and marriage. Like it or not, same-sex marriage exists because heterosexuals did not live in alignment with GOD’s design for marriage; consequently, the beauty of marriage had been pulled through the mud and made to look unappealing and open to subjection. Yes — it’s our fault. Are you ready to accept responsibility for the damage we have done? I am.
“Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but don’t notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself don’t see the log in your eye? Hypocrite! First take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck in your brother’s eye.”
(Luke 6: 41-42)
The most important question is not “What are we going to do about same-sex marriage?” It is “What are we going to do for marriage?” Marriage of one male and one female of a proper mature age is unquestionably a beautiful union of two who become one. However, we (heterosexuals) have become our own worst enemy because we have been neglecting GOD’s design for marriage for years. Too often, homosexuality is singled out as “what’s wrong with America” while other sexual sins get to slide with a free pass. This is wrong. There is no path forward to building a strong marriage culture that does not begin with a revival of GOD’s people to His design for marriage. We must focus on getting our own houses in order before trying to correct those outside the Church. If our light shines bright, those living in the darkness will notice and will be attracted toward the light. The way out of distress is not, in the first instance, via political change, but by repentance, leading to revival and renewal.
If we are truly aware of how much we have been forgiven, we will have more compassion for homosexual people. This does not mean an approval of homoerotic behavior; rather, it simply means to accept them for who they are and to be empathetic toward them and the battle they struggle against. I have interviewed many people who proclaim themselves to be homosexual and read many more testimonies others have written. I personally do not believe their orientation to be a choice any more than it is my choice to be attracted to anyone I might lust after. But we need to understand that the lust is not a must.
“A thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to torment me so I would not exalt myself. Concerning this, I pleaded with the Lord three times to take it away from me. But He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.’ Therefore, I will most gladly boast all the more about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may reside in me.”
(2Corinthians 12:7-9) -HCSB
Like Paul and many other people, I also suffer from “a thorn in the flesh.” Like Paul, I have prayed fervently, desperately, with frustration, anger, or even tears on multiple occasions for GOD to take away this “thorn” in my flesh. But just as GOD did not take away Paul’s “thorn,” neither has GOD removed mine. People are sometimes wired differently and there ends up being a glitch in what would otherwise be a normal development. Most people are fortunate enough to be born into the normal Design; however, some people are not. Whatever degree of ‘construction’ and ‘nurture’ had conspired with genetic or chemical or hormonal hardwiring to produce my sexual orientation, I have not been able to change my orientation regardless of my spiritual growth. Logic is able to lead us to Truth, but logic cannot fight the battles of emotions we face. We all have our battles we must fight. Some of us have desires that must go unfulfilled that bring us to feel lonely, alienated, isolated, rejected, and fearful of always being alone with brokenness to feel like damaged goods and unloved. I initially believed that by ignoring my “thorn,” it would eventually go away and thereby make my depression go away. That didn’t work. Ignoring is not the path to redeeming. To overcome it, I had to confess it, confront it, and conquer it (with GOD’s help).
As long as we think we are better, or overlook our own sins of pride, gluttony, gossip, greed, lust, sloth, envy, or wrath, we will be unable to truly love homosexual people (and really all people) with the love Jesus wants us to demonstrate. Recognizing the depth of our own sin will help us be more gracious with others. We all struggle and not one of us is without sin (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10). Repentance enables us to speak and act in truth and love. The church is to be the safe place where everyone can share each other’s burdens and collectively conquer while overcoming temptation.
The sins we now face challenge us because we invited them in and allowed them to flourish. How did we get to this point? Why is it necessary to defend marriage? In October 2005, wildlife researchers with the South Florida Natural Resources Center found a dead 13-foot python with a 6-foot alligator inside it, with its tail protruding from a hole in the python. The alligator had been the python’s last meal, but the python’s desire proved to be larger than life and it simply wasn’t able to handle all that it desired. What about us? Are our eyes bigger than our bellies? How did we get here? Charles Darwin (1809-1882), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), Mary Calderone (1904-1998), Hugh Hefner (1926-?), the Mattachine Society (1950) and Daughters of Bilitis organization (1955), the swingers and hippies of the 1960’s, no-fault divorce law of 1969, Stonewall riots (1969), Roe vs Wade (1973), American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its list of disorders (1973), Madonna (1958-?), Lawrence vs Texas (2003), acceptance and growth of pornography (see my argument against pornography), the entertainment industry, the advertisement industry, and the avalanche of advocates for all that is abhorrent have all slowly (see my argument, “Subtle”) added up to the current corruption of culture within a sin-filled society defined by sex and lust rather than love (see my argument, “What Are You Creating?”). There was Proposition 8 of 2010, and then eventually, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court overruled GOD’s Word and redefined the definition of marriage and ruled that homosexual marriage be legal in all states. And this of course, is now leading to acceptance of other taboos such as polygamy, polyandry, incest, and pedophilia.
What has it all amounted to? It has all led to people who are now callous, desensitized, and rebellious. Should we tolerate tolerance? The slow changes never caused concern nor set off any alarms. The changes were slow enough that they were accepted and integrated, bit by bit, piece by piece. With expansion came clout and, more importantly, the power of persuasion. We have become desensitized and overly sexualized. We have let go of love and set aside the absolute moral standard.
In 1899, P. J. Conlon wrote for Monthly Journal of the International Association of Machinists that “[people] believe everything they see in the newspapers. If the newspaper says the sky is painted with green chalk that is what goes. Verily, I say unto you, the public is a hot mess.”
Many people who call themselves progressive don’t realize how archaic they actually are. People still believe what the media tells them to believe and then they paint over Truth with their preferred color arrangement and imagery and believe they have made a substantial change. A “hot mess” isn’t something new either. But unlike its original meaning, people have painted it over with an arrogant and ignorant idea that someone who is a mess can be sexy and that somehow warrants being desired. Altering Truth to accommodate personal preference doesn’t push progress; rather, it holds us back. We must separate feelings from facts. We must not allow emotion to direct our reasoning; rather, we need to find the reason for the emotion. Social change and personal experiences are relevant, but they don’t determine Truth. Archaeologists unearth remarkable relics that testify to Truth. What if the bystanders threw the dirt back in the pit as the archaeologists were attempting to dig the Truth out? That’s not progress. And neither is the painting of personal preferences over GOD’s Word.
People can be sincere, yet sincerely wrong. Their sincerity doesn’t make their wrong to be right, nor does their wrongness prove they are insincere. To be both is not only possible, it’s painfully common. But again, what is common should not always be considered normal. If you examine the big picture, it is evident that we have swallowed too much sin. We need to purge ourselves of the poisonous sin we have consumed before it’s too late. Like the python that died by swallowing a thrashing alligator, we are choking on our own choices of too much sin. We have swallowed the serpent’s sin and accepted the adversary’s advice because it was labeled as “fun.” We are choking on our desires. It’s not too late! We can still turn this around! But we must heed the warnings and repent! We the people are made in the image of GOD; male and female united together is the image of marriage; marriage is the image of the covenant of Christ and Church; and the covenant is the image of love between GOD and His creation. If we defile marriage, we defy GOD. Please remember that an increase of deception and an abandonment of Truth for the sake of personal preferences, desires, and sins is a sign of the end times (2Timothy 3:1-9; 4:3-4).
The origin of hypocrisy is in the inability to see yourself clearly. Before GOD’s Word is used as a telescope or microscope to reveal others’ sins, it must first be a mirror for yourself. Are we to ignore conviction to accommodate convenience and comfort? I spent years confessing my sins and battling and overcoming my shortcomings. I’m not perfect right now, but I currently believe myself to be in alignment with GOD’s will. What do you need to repent of right now? How have you personally defied GOD by denying the covenant Design of marriage? It is true that homosexuality is not in alignment with the Design, but neither is promiscuousness, sex outside of marriage, adultery, or divorce.
“Some Pharisees approached [Jesus] to test Him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ He replied, ‘that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,’ and He also said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.’ ‘Why then,’ they asked Him, ‘did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?’ He told them, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning. And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.’ ”
(Matthew 19:3-9)
“If we say, ‘We have no sin,’ we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say, ‘We don’t have any sin,’ we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”
(1John 1:8-10) -HCSB
Christ frees us from the power of sin (Romans 6:14) as we become new beings in Him (2Corinthians 5:17). By this we are certain that any sin condemned in Scripture can be overcome by GOD’s grace. We can believe something to be wrong and repent, yet still be tempted toward it. But sinful acts can be stopped. Temptations may stop, though usually not completely; however, temptations often decrease in power when righteousness is practiced. Temptations, to whatever extent they remain, can be resisted and do not need to define the individual. If behavior, self-identification, relational patterns, and general spiritual and emotional well-being have increased, then the individual has changed. The Bible never guarantees that renunciation of sin will prevent future temptation; however, the individual is promised the ability to resist temptations the may come:
“So, whoever thinks he stands must be careful not to fall. No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to humanity. God is faithful, and He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape so that you are able to bear it.”
(1Corinthians 10:12-13)
GOD has not taken my “thorn” away, but Jesus took the crown of thorns for us in order for us to be able to escape temptation and conquer bad behaviors by replacing them with righteous practices. What do you need to repent of today? How can you shine your light and show the world the beauty of marriage that GOD intended? We must shine if those in the darkness are to ever find their way.
Invitation:
It’s about battling together for holiness, in repentance and faith, on a daily basis. It’s about the church being the church, as we all struggle toward holiness. I don’t know if you’ve shared your struggle with anyone else, but if you haven’t, you need to do so. We all need each other because we all fight battles. If you want to confess your battle so that you can confront it and conquer it, I will make myself available for you. If you need prayer, I’ll pray for you. If you want someone to help you with accountability, I will be that person for you. I am unable to compromise on Truth, but I am willing to accept you as you are as we both strive to become who GOD intends for us to be.
“As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.”
(Proverbs 27:17) –NIRV
“A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Three are even better, for a triple-braided cord is not easily broken.”
(Ecclesiastes 4:12) –NLT
“Make sure no outsider who now follows God ever has occasion to say, ‘God put me in second-class. I don’t really belong.’ And make sure no physically mutilated person is ever made to think, ‘I’m damaged goods. I don’t really belong.’ ”
(Isaiah 56:3) –MSG
“Where two or three people meet together in my name, I am there with them.”
(Matthew 18:20) –NIRV
“Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.”
(James 5:16) –NLT
Quest For Truth 