Defense of Gay Marriage From a Christian Worldview

[sleepthroughthestatic]

I wrote this paper for school, figured it wouldn't hurt to get outside perspective/discussion on it. Irrelevant note: I am writing this from the perspective of a staunch Christian, I personally don't know what I am.

In Defense of Homosexual Marriage from a Christian Worldview

Legal gay marriage is quickly shot down by Christians, not necessarily due to homophobia, bigotry, or any of the inflammatory words sometimes slung around by staunch gay-rights supporters. But rather, the Bible is clear that gay marriage is wrong. Most Christians believe the necessary extension of this is to be strongly against the legalization of it. However, the purpose of this essay is to demonstrate a Christian may be in favor of the legality of gay marriage while remaining wholly consistent with a fundamental Christian worldview.

For many people, it is very difficult to separate things they wouldn’t do themselves from whether or not something should be legal. Many religious people quickly jump from “my religious text says this is wrong� to “this should be illegal� and fail to see the distinction. The reality of the matter is that there is a huge distinction that many religious people recognize and accept on an intuitive level, but do not rigorously apply the logic on a conscious level and to controversial political matters. For example, a Christian will readily admit the necessary legality of religious freedom for religions other than their own--very few would deny a Hindu the legal right to practice Hinduism. Yet practicing religions other than Christianity is in stark contrast to the Bible. The reality of a fallen world is that not everyone will agree with each other, not everyone is a Christian, and laws must strive to reflect this reality in an unbiased way in order to maintain a civil, free society. When determining if something should be legal, the question is “should others have the right to do this?� and not “would I do this myself?�. Any other way of looking at the law leads to places like the Middle East, where it is illegal and punishable by law to have beliefs that do not line up with the Muslim faith.

So the question is, “should gay people have the right to get married?�. Answering yes or no need not be a religious or moral statement, it is primarily a governmental issue. One can still believe homosexuality is a sin, yet recognize that in a free society, people should be able to do things you don’t agree with. The United States is a free society. So, right away, it appears gay marriage should be legal. However, as most Americans understand, there are limits to freedoms. One cannot simply murder whom they please because America is a free society. If murder was not illegal, there would be societal chaos and absolutely no protection from harm for citizens. Restrictions are in place in order to protect the rights of others. So the next question would be “would legalizing gay marriage infringe upon the rights of others?�. The answer to this question is a simple one, gay marriage is between two consenting adults. It does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Around the time this realization begins to sink in, people begin screaming about the “sanctity of marriage�, polygamy, or even pedophilia. Any straw that can be grasped at is firmly waived in front of the face of Christians, and they are told that if they disagree they are somehow endangering society and violating their faith.

The sanctity of marriage is indeed a very important matter. For Christians, marriage should be about the unification of two people into one flesh, serving and honoring God together. This is a fantastic approach to marriage and one that should be dearly held. However, it again boils down to a fallen world needing to function in a civil manner. Not everybody who marries sees it as a matter that God is involved in. People should have the right to dedicate their lives to each other, and have it recognized by the government, even if they are not Christians. Christians do not claim that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to marry, or Jews, or Muslims, or any other faith or lack thereof. Yet, any non-Christian marriage would strictly violate the Christian interpretation of what marriage should be. However, most Christians recognize marriage as a right that people should have--even if their view of it doesn’t directly correlate to those who are marrying. At a governmental level marriage is simply the legal recognition of two individuals dedicating their lives to each other. That’s all it needs to be, and all it should be. Gay people should have all the legal ramification that marriage has for anyone else. The “sanctity of marriage� as an argument against homosexual marriage is abusing a valuable Christian concept and making it a veiled political weapon, taking it places it needn’t go. The absurdity runs deeper, as those same people beating the drum about the sanctity of marriage have no problem with the legality of divorce for non-biblical reasons, which would violate the sanctity of marriage as well. If Christians decide that the Bible is the authority on what should be legal regarding marriage, any non-Christian should be in a “civil union� and any Christian seeking divorce should only be legally allowed it in very extreme circumstances. This line of thinking is, quite obviously, not conducive to a free society and would not work in a fallen world.

The other arguments, that involve issues such as polygamy and pedophilia, are perhaps even weaker. Polygamy is an issue that can apply to heterosexual relationships, and there is no reason to bring it up as an exclusively homosexual-related matter. Polygamy is an entirely different issue with it’s own set of consequences and matters to deal with. Gay marriage is only about the marriage of two gay individuals, and the only people bringing up polygamy are the opponents of gay marriage. Pedophilia marriage as an argument against gay marriage is completely faulty--the obvious fault being that it is not between two consenting adults.

The duty of Christians is not to legislate their beliefs. The Christian Kingdom lies in Heaven, and not this world. This world is fallen, and it is necessary for Christians to recognize that fact and understand that in a fallen world, people will not always agree with Christian ideals. It is their right to deviate from Christian rules and thinking, because without that right--there would be no free will. Legal issues are matters of society at large, and the government--not an issue of which religion it happens to line up with. It is time for Christians to realize that though they may not agree with homosexual relationships, the right should be there--and with that right comes the right to marry, as it does with any other people who wish to. The Christian focus is to glorify God through the Body of Christ, and to bring others to Christ. The Christian duty is not to make anything that does not line up with the Bible illegal.

[East of Eden]

The goal of your so-called "radical homosexual act" is not to "promote sexual promiscuity" or "indoctrinate children," it is simply to promote equality and appreciation for all people -- including those who happen to have LGBTQ identities -- in public schools. That's all. It's about equal rights, not indoctrination.

Here is the full text of HR 998.

Here is the full text of S 555.

I disagree, the goal of the gay agenda is to normalize perversity. I'd be happy to give them civil unions and have them stop brainwashing the kids.

Actually, that seems to be the will of radical Christian extremists.

No doubt to you, Jesus was one of those.

[Autodidact]

Their behavior is evil. Rather than rewrite the Bible why don't these pro-gay 'Christians' just be honest and quit the faith? Jesus said His disciples were not those who called him Lord, but those who do His will.

And what did Jesus say His will is regarding love and gay people?

Why do you care, you've already said you don't care what the Bible says. I don't think sodomy was a burning issue in His times, but I believe if he came across an active homosexual, He would have said the same thing He said to the repentant woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more."

What did Jesus actually say?

[Autodidact]

The goal of your so-called "radical homosexual act" is not to "promote sexual promiscuity" or "indoctrinate children," it is simply to promote equality and appreciation for all people -- including those who happen to have LGBTQ identities -- in public schools. That's all. It's about equal rights, not indoctrination.

Here is the full text of HR 998.

Here is the full text of S 555.

I disagree, the goal of the gay agenda is to normalize perversity. I'd be happy to give them civil unions and have them stop brainwashing the kids.

Actually, that seems to be the will of radical Christian extremists.

No doubt to you, Jesus was one of those.

No, Jesus didn't call for a religious takeover of the government, and had nothing to say at all about gay people. His radical extremist followers don't seem to share His views on anything.

[dusk]

Why do you care, you've already said you don't care what the Bible says. I don't think sodomy was a burning issue in His times, but I believe if he came across an active homosexual, He would have said the same thing He said to the repentant woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more."

Obviously you believe that. Is that because Jesus would have or because you have some problem with homosexuality.

Do you even know some homosexuals personally? I know some and if Jesus knew them too I don't think in a million years Jesus would have said what you think.
Adultery is a different thing. It goes against the husband and in the end against the children if it breaks up a marriage.
Gay people are not any more forgiving if their partner commits adultery than heterosexuals.

[East of Eden]

Why do you care, you've already said you don't care what the Bible says. I don't think sodomy was a burning issue in His times, but I believe if he came across an active homosexual, He would have said the same thing He said to the repentant woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more."

Obviously you believe that. Is that because Jesus would have or because you have some problem with homosexuality.

The first one. Do you have your attitude because you have a problem with Christianity?

Do you even know some homosexuals personally?

Yes, my first cousin. He left his wife and just got dumped by the guy he left for.

I know some and if Jesus knew them too I don't think in a million years Jesus would have said what you think.

That is really simplistic. Jesus, being God, made us, so knows us better than any human, yet he died on the cross to save us from our sins. He says in the Bible homosexual activity is one of them.

Adultery is a different thing. It goes against the husband and in the end against the children if it breaks up a marriage.
Gay people are not any more forgiving if their partner commits adultery than heterosexuals.

Faithfulness is far more rare in the gay community.

[East of Eden]

Their behavior is evil. Rather than rewrite the Bible why don't these pro-gay 'Christians' just be honest and quit the faith? Jesus said His disciples were not those who called him Lord, but those who do His will.

And what did Jesus say His will is regarding love and gay people?

Why do you care, you've already said you don't care what the Bible says. I don't think sodomy was a burning issue in His times, but I believe if he came across an active homosexual, He would have said the same thing He said to the repentant woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more."

What did Jesus actually say?

7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 ¶ Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[East of Eden]

The goal of your so-called "radical homosexual act" is not to "promote sexual promiscuity" or "indoctrinate children," it is simply to promote equality and appreciation for all people -- including those who happen to have LGBTQ identities -- in public schools. That's all. It's about equal rights, not indoctrination.

Here is the full text of HR 998.

Here is the full text of S 555.

I disagree, the goal of the gay agenda is to normalize perversity. I'd be happy to give them civil unions and have them stop brainwashing the kids.

Actually, that seems to be the will of radical Christian extremists.

No doubt to you, Jesus was one of those.

No, Jesus didn't call for a religious takeover of the government,

Which to you means, Christians voting?

and had nothing to say at all about gay people.

Being the author of Scripture, He certainly did. That's like saying bestiality is OK because He never addressed it.

His radical extremist followers don't seem to share His views on anything.

Proud to be a radical extremist for Christ.

[dusk]

Faithfulness is far more rare in the gay community.

Probably if you compare them to the general public but what if you compare them to the usually like minded heterosexuals. The liberal, non religious kind. The ones that usually say "No marriage before sex". I think the difference would shrink greatly.

[East of Eden]

Faithfulness is far more rare in the gay community.

Probably if you compare them to the general public but what if you compare them to the usually like minded heterosexuals. The liberal, non religious kind. The ones that usually say "No marriage before sex". I think the difference would shrink greatly.

From Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., MD:

"Monogamy for heterosexual couples means at a minimum sexual fidelity. The most extensive survey of sex in America found that "a vast majority [of heterosexual married couples] are faithful while the marriage is intact."99 The survey further found that 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year.100 In contrast, long-term sexual fidelity is rare among GLB couples, particularly among gay males. Even during the coupling period, many gay men do not expect monogamy. A lesbian critic of gay males notes that:

"After a period of optimism about the longrange potential of gay men's one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing 'monogamy without fidelity'-the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too."101
Gay men's sexual practices appear to be consistent with the concept of "monogamy without fidelity." Astudy of gay men attending circuit parties showed that 46 percent were coupled, that is, they claimed to have a "primary partner." Twenty-seven percent of the men with primary partners "had multiple sex partners (oral or anal) during their most recent circuit party weekend . . . ."102 For gay men, sex outside the primary relationship is ubiquitous even during the first year. Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years.103 And the average gay or lesbian relationship is short lived. In one study, only 15 percent of gay men and 17.3 percent of lesbians had relationships that lasted more than three years.104 Thus, the studies reflect very little long-term monogamy in GLB relationships."


This research doesn't differentiate between religious and non-religious.

[Haven]

I disagree, the goal of the gay agenda . . .

I know of no "gay agenda." I do, however, know of a militant anti-gay agenda hellbent on denying innocent people their human and civil rights.

. . . is to normalize perversity.

What exactly is perverse about two men or two women in a stable, committed relationship deciding to marry each other? What is perverse about that couple deciding to start a family through adoption or some other means?

Bigotry is perverse, living a moral, normal life as a gay individual is not.

I'd be happy to give them civil unions . . .

You do know that there is absolutely zero legal difference between marriage and civil union, right? Both are contracts of joining and cooperation between two consenting adults. The only difference is the word used to describe them. If you're for civil unions, then why not support gay marriage?

. . . and have them stop brainwashing the kids.

LGBTQ people and pro-LGBTQ people don't "brainwash" kids; if anything they simply teach kids to treat all people with respect and acceptance. If anyone is brainwashing kids, it's the far-right anti-gay agenda. They are the ones teaching children to despise those with LGBTQ identities.