Confused over What the Bible Says about Gay Marriages


There is a news article on the Huffington Post asking the question “What does the Bible say about gay marriage?”.

Even though the writer teaches religion course and has studied religion, I am surprised when he claims that the Bible does not clearly endorse one form of marriage over another. All of the references of marriage are between a man and a woman or a man and his bride. When Jesus references the spiritual union between God and man, the church is referenced in the feminine form of his bride. I am at a bit of a loss as to why he can not find clear references, but perhaps he is referring to one form of marriage when polygamy was allowed.

Now when looking at the few verses that address same sex relations, the writer says one has to hunt to find anything that speaks against it. When you hunt for these six verses though, the Bible doesn’t deal with the issue with kid gloves. You would think if you had to hunt for something that it might just gloss over the issue, but the Bible is stern and direct when dealing with the issue. I do enjoy when people point out that Jesus never spoke against same sex relations so it must not have been that bad. Jesus also never spoke against incest or bestiality, so those must be ok as well. It is interesting that Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law and we know the law spoke against same sex relations, so we should be safe to assume that his stance was against it.
The writer goes back to the same argument that people in that time frame could have no real understanding of what a committed same sex relation is. The biblical writers must be writing about male prostitutes or pedestry rather than a loving and committed relationship. The problem with that argument is that Nero was conducting gay marriage ceremonies around the time when the Paul was writing his letters. Gay marriages have existed in multiple forms through out time. We know that Egypt was practicing before the Exodus. What gets me is that either we are saying that people can not have understood that two men could love each other or that same sex relations were not as loving as they are now. Does that really make any sense? What has happened in the last thirty years that has not happened in another culture previously?
What I like about this article is it that really puts the issue of gay marriage as a secular union and not a religious mandated union. I think Christians truly forget this. There is no Christian country in the world. No matter what laws are passed, no nation will ever be a Christian nation. We are not called to make heaven on earth or to set up the Kingdom of God. We are called to be obedient to God and to spread the Gospel of Jesus. Now I will continue to speak out against homosexuality, but it will never be my focus. There is so much more in this world and within the church that needs to be addressed than the ability for less that 5% of the nation to be able to get married.

When Paul addressed homosexuality in Romans, he was showing that it was a result of a falling away from God. Let’s address the falling away from God and the symptoms of the problem will be addressed by the great healer.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Bible, Christianity, Politics, Relationships, Religion

7 responses to “Confused over What the Bible Says about Gay Marriages

  1. Perfectly stated… I agree with every point made. Great insight – “falling away is the problem” thanks.

  2. Hold on there, now.

    There are two very good reasons why homosexual couples should not be lawfully termed ‘marriage’ and why they should have ‘civil unions’ instead.

    1) While marriage is considered to be a religious rite, to me, there are other, more pressing concerns. Marriage is the base unit of civilization as we know it. Every society on earth relies on it to make all the important decisions concerning the raising of new individuals for that society. The government simply cannot do it. The heterosexual ‘baby raising machine’ usually spends its entire income in the process of raising said ‘new’ individuals. For this reason, the government gives tax breaks and other advantages to help these ‘units’ do their critical job. After all, without new citizens, the society fails to BE. Two gay people in a loving relationship do not add anything to society as a UNIT other than what they contribute as two individuals. Why should it be given tax breaks & other benefits? It will be my children who will be paying for the old age of these homosexual couples. Will they be providing MY old age with any support?

    2) Gay Marriage removes the last protection of children against the inherent child abuse that a same sex house hold will provide. Why do I say that? Because the vast majority of the population is heterosexual- 97% or so. That being the case, this new ‘family unit’ will be unable to provide one of the most important aspects to developing children’s sense of identity: The Sexual Identity. How will two women teach a young boy how to be a boy? His role in society? How to ask out a girl? How to get along with the opposite sex? How will teach a young girl about MEN? How will they provide crucial information about how women attract men? How they should treat their husbands? Ditto for dual male households.

    The heterosexual parent relationship is absolutely CRITICAL to this knowledge. In same sex households, the child must go outside the family unit for this critical information- an indication of the failure of the unit.

    The usual argument against this is that due to the divorce rate in this country, most households do not have a permanent father or mother figure in the house. But there IS the other parent in existence. In the vast number of cases, this other parent is fully accessible to the child. Further, the law of the land represents the ‘ideal’ of human behavior. Example: People still murder. Do we then get rid of the laws that forbid it? The lawful union between a woman & a man is the most healthful for a child’s development. Every study shows this. For that reason, almost no adoption agency will allow adoption to a single parent home. They require marriage. Should we now legalize adoption for just anyone? Two sisters? A commune? Of course not. We adopt to the highest standard of living & growing conditions for the youngest citizens of our country. Why should our law now allow for the legalization of a new unit that is ‘an experiment’ for the raising of babies? These babies have no choice who they are adopted to. Their rights are absolutely equal to an adult’s rights and must be taken into consideration. Especially since they cannot speak for themselves.

    Proponents of Evolution are usually the same proponents of gay marriage. And yet, evolution is based on the idea of excruciatingly slow and infinitesimally small changes to a species to ensure its survival. And YET, this radical change to the ‘baby raising machine’ that is marriage, has been undertaken in a mere 30 years. Millions of years in the making, 30 years in the breaking. This is a great gamble, a great experiment. And our youngest citizens are the bet. If they were not involved, I would agree with you.

    Jesus exhorts us to care for the weak, the vulnerable. How can you abdicate this responsibility?

    • John Robertson

      Any loving couple same sex or otherwise contribute a stable environment to children . More abuse of any kind is often found in so called normal relationships between a man and a woman . Sexual identity is not altered or compromised by same sex couples . On the contrary they will make more of an effort to dispell any negative dysfunctional behaviour . Your views are also bias due to your beliefs . People of all walks of life can be caring and loving to a family . Your personal beliefs do not give you the sole rights on kindness and care . If anything it can breed bigotry and its resulting cruelty to others who are different .

  3. Some good points in the response, but I still agree with the original post’s conclusion. While as a believer, it is my responsibility to disciple those who are responding to the gospel, it is not my responsibility to attempt to enforce my beliefs upon the world. According to Paul (Rom 1), just as the post suggests, sins such as homosexuality are only evidences of a much greater problem, “The knowledge of God is being suppressed.” This leads to God turning the people over to their own lusts (a form of His wrath). What follows is all types of degradation. Still, believers are called to one task, “carry the gospel.” It is the power of the gospel that changes lives, not the enforcement of moral values.

  4. @shortlittlerebel

    I disagree a bit with you in that I think all unions recognized by government should be considered civil unions as it protects religious freedoms in providing the ability to deny relationships that are contrary to the Bible.

    Your first point I am mixed on. Atheist countries allow for marriages, so the union between two people does not always have to include a religious rite. This is what I am referring to as the difference between a secular marriage and a religious or spiritual marriage. Not all heterosexual couples have children or are able to have children so to give them extra tax benefits that you deny to a same sex couple is discrimination. These same sex couples are working and paying into social security, so all should be paying. I have an issue with those who only pay on the first $128,000 of their income into social security, so maybe they should be paying more to help society.

    I do agree that there are things missing from children who are raised under a same sex union. Playing devils advocate though, we have similar issues from children raised by single mothers with and without exposure to unstable make role models. Heterosexual couples that condone sinful behavior also adversely affect the development of children. When you compare the small number of same sex couples who are raising children compared to single mothers who have no help, studies side with the same sex couples. I understand your position that both parents tend to participate after divorces, but it is not two full time parents and their will always be a disadvantage to a committed heterosexual relationship. I speak from personal experience on this. When you look at the studies, the children are actually more socially adjusted with two committed lesbian partners than kids raised in a similar heterosexual household. Now I understand that the test results do not convey the full impact on the child or any long term issues, but it is hard to argue with gay activist when they are producing the scientist to support their position. I do not agree with it, so I choose to fight it from another front.

    I really do agree with your position that it is wrong but you can see the power that less than %5 percent of the population have when the majority have either been offended by the church or have rejected God completely. It is easy to sway public opinion through rational arguments such as what is the harm or why can’t two people love each other when we have decades of history of the damage caused by heterosexuals who moved away from God.

    Ultimately we have to hold on to the truth of God. We are not advocating a lifestyle, but changing the approach. We need to reach out to all people, regardless of sexual orientation and allow God to make the changes that we are not able to force on to them. I hate to see the children grow up hurting and not knowing the truth and that goes for children raised by all sorts of parents. The parents will have to answer to God for their actions. We are responsible to reach out and show them love and to teach the truth. Jesus never tried to abolish slavery as he knew that it would end for a person when the heart was changed. I hate the natural circumstances that these children face, but I refuse to give up and tell them about the freedom and healing they can have with Jesus.

    I truly appreciate your comments and position.

  5. Time to take off the kids gloves.

    Show me biblically where lesbianism is actually forbidden? If you actually look at those passages, except for Romans, every one of them is written by men about men…and the Tanakh says nothing about gay women whatsoever. Strange?

    As for the topic of gay marriage, is it actually never covered once in the bible. Find me the words homosexuality and marriage beside each other and you win.

    Your discounting cultural history and time-frame…which is the norm in Evangelical interpretation. We hate to believe these people actually did live in a different time period and cultural situation than what we have now…but they actually did and to discount it is, well, lying.

    Fact is, most NT interpretation of scripture is biased, one-sided, dishonest, in-genuine, self-serving, and sometimes outright lies. Reasons: They hate the Jews (founders of their texts), they hate historical comparison and archaeology, they think everything written is ‘literal’, and most of all they hate reasonability & being wrong – so they find what they need to be right. Its self-fulfilling prophecy more than anything else.

    I say lets discuss each scripture one by one, which are like 0.00001% of the biblical passages – meaning they’re so small someone could actually miss them altogether. I am game for that…lets see what this hub-bub about gay people really is about?

  6. As for literalism, shouldn’t slavery be okay too? Paul actually did advocate for slaves to be treated fairly, but still insisted they stay slaves. Xander, since you know your bible so well, will you admit slavery is ‘A-ok’ for the 2000’s?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s