In their efforts to give moral respectability to the homosexual lifestyle, some argue that Jesus never said anything to condemn it and that therefore it must not be incompatible with Christianity. Some argue that Jesus accepted all people regardless of their lifestyle.

Such thinking fails to consider that there are numerous moral evils which Jesus never specifically addressed. He said nothing specific against incest, polygamy, bestiality, rape, or pedophilia. None should imagine that as such things were not specified in his personal teaching must imply their acceptability. As Bible believers, we know that what is taught in other parts of Scripture are as certainly the Lord’s truth as are the words recorded from his personal ministry. He upheld all the moral principles of the Law and the Law is plain in its condemnation of all such things (Matt. 5:19). (All scripture references are from the King James Version unless otherwise noted.) Further, Christ’s commission to his apostles and the Spirit’s guidance in what they wrote certify that all New Testament teaching on any subject, including its condemnation of homosexuality, is equally as binding as would be anything we might find quoted from him in the gospel narratives.

It happens, however, that what Jesus taught about marriage has clear implications regarding the same sex issue. Matthew 19:3-12 is the benchmark passage regarding divorce and remarriage, but it is also a text that allows no room for same sex marriages. The Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, not about same sex marriage. But Jesus’ reply covers far more than just the answer to their single question. He defined and set the boundaries of marriage, and by definition Jesus made any pretensions of same sex marriages unreasonable and unholy. By telling us what marriage is, he precludes all that it is not. For Bible believers, the debate over same sex marriage can be settled by the points in this single text.

What is Regulated?

The first thing the text demonstrates is that there are God-given regulations regarding marriage. Jesus spoke with unequivocal authority about faithfulness in marriage (“shall cleave to his wife”), prohibitions as to the breaking of a marriage (“let not man put asunder”), the Law’s procedures in divorce actions (“writing of divorcement”), and restrictions as to the remarriage of a divorced person. The point to be made is that all of these regulations (in this text and every other text) pertain to heterosexuals. If the Lord intended that same sex unions should have the legitimacy of marriage, why are there no gay marriage regulations?  The teaching of Jesus holds marriage to a high standard, a holy standard, which make no allowance for perversions, either by heterosexuals or homosexuals.

How Made in the Beginning

Next, the text shows that, according to Jesus, marriage cannot be understood or respected without reference to how it was instituted “at the beginning.” Same sex unions cannot be justified if “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:4, 8). Emphasis should be given to the word “made.” God “made” them and he “made them male and female.” Homosexuals justify their practices by saying, “This is the way God made me.” Jesus would reply, “No, that is not the way that God made you; he made male and female.”  There is no support in either science or scripture to support the claim that homosexuals are “born that way.” Whatever the influences and forces that make them what they are, it certainly was not the intention of the Creator.

There is emphasis, therefore, on it being for “male and female.” “In the beginning,” when Adam was given “an help meet [suitable] for him” (Gen. 2:18), the point was not merely that he would have someone to help him with the chores. Male and female partners have both the physiological and psychological make up to provide for the needs and desires of the other. Without detracting from the importance of the companionship, caring, and other aspects, we realize that sexual activity is ordinarily a primary component in marriage. Thus when Jesus spoke of their becoming “one flesh” he was including a factor in marriage that can apply only to heterosexuals (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16). It is not possible for male and male, or female and female, to become “one flesh” in the way intended by creation. Any sexual participation that occurs between same sex partners is contrary to both nature and law. Heaven’s blessing is given to lawful marriage (Heb. 13:4). Homosexual unions are not the “one flesh” that God joins together, but rather unnatural and unholy participation in “strange flesh” (Jude 7). This is the “uncleanness” named by Paul in Romans 1:24.  “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.”

Heterosexual Monogamy

When the Lord cited “the beginning,” it was to show us that heaven’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman as long as both are alive (Rom. 7:1ff; Matt. 19:6, 9). Divorce (as well as polygamy and other unlawful relationships) came later because of the hardness of men’s hearts (Matt. 19:7f; cf. Mal. 2:14-16). The institution of marriage has suffered much by society’s loose attitudes regarding divorce. As bad as that is, however, it can hardly be compared to the confusion that will follow giving legal and cultural sanction to same sex marriage. The point is that once the definition of marriage has been opened that wide, it will no longer have a definition. There could be no logically consistent objection to any arrangement that anyone might decide is his marriage privilege.

This iniquity is already at work. On June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court, ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, struck down state laws by inserting into the constitution the right to practice sodomy. Less than five months later the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court used that very decision to demand legal recognition of homosexual marriage, and by May of the next year some officials in that state were giving marriage licenses to same sex couples. By January 2004 the ACLU was citing Lawrence in defense of polygamy in Utah. The purpose is immoral and the precedent is ungodly, but when such a door is opened there is no limit to the kind of depravity that might be invited in–a man with six wives, group marriages, a parent marrying a child, siblings marrying each other, even bestiality.

In spite of all the liberal media hype, we doubt that many gays are really interested in marriage as a binding lifetime contract. It would only involve them in legal complications because homosexuals are rarely monogamous and, according to studies, may be involved in as many as three hundred sex partners in their lifetime (Dobson 54f). Their goal is not marriage, but the destruction of marriage. Dr. James Dobson quotes Judith Levine, writing in Village Voice

In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits of all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers” (52).

Procreation

Though Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees was not about procreation, his reference to a man leaving “father and mother” is a reminder that the propagation of the race must come from heterosexuals. When “male and female created he them . . . God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:27f). This does not mean that sex in marriage is intended for procreation only. The pleasure aspect is expected and commended (I Cor. 7:1ff). Neither should we assume that a childless marriage is an incomplete marriage. What is certain, however, is that only heterosexual marriages can produce children and provide for them in a complete family unit. When it is alleged that homosexuals have a “gay gene” that determines their orientation, it should be realized if such a gene really existed, the homosexual population would eventually disappear altogether, for the simple reason that they cannot reproduce themselves (Harrub, Thompson, Miller, 16).

It is argued that homosexual couples adopt children and are successful and loving parents. We cannot address any particular case, but the evidence is that families headed by same sex couples are far from ideal. Children need a father and mother, not two mothers. Regardless of protestations otherwise, the agenda promoting homosexual adoptions is the propagation of their own race (culturally speaking). Their goal is that children which they are allowed to rear will at least be sympathetic with their lifestyle and perhaps embrace it.

Celibacy is the Answer

The text even deals with the spiritual resolve which will keep one from involvement in any kind of sexual sin. Various factors may cause an individual to be sexually attracted to his or her own sex. The apparent progression of the gay agenda can be explained by the fact that sin is never satisfied with itself. The more the world moves away from God, the more perverted will be their inventions (Prov. 7:29; Psa. 106:29; Rom. 1:26ff). Still, we realize that there are persons who (because of influences which they may not themselves understand) are tempted toward homosexuality. How should such a person deal with such lusts? The answer is the same as for all other temptations. Sin is always with consent (Prov. 1:10) and every person must determine to resist the devil’s enticements (Jas. 4:7). We can be sure that Jesus would give them the same guidance as he gave for heterosexuals who cannot enter into a legitimate marriage. Regardless of sexual orientation, the Lord expects them to practice celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matt. 19:12). It is better to live a lifetime with unsatisfied urges than to suffer eternally in the devil’s hell.

The Real Issue

The essential issue in the debate over same sex marriage is not companionship, or shared financial responsibility, or sharing a home, or committed relationships. It is not whether two people might care for one another through the successes and hardships of day-to-day living, nor is it simply whether legal rights should be granted to people who choose to establish some kind of domestic partnership. Such matters may be involved, but the essential issue is whether vile and perverted sexual practices can be made legitimate.

Marriage as God intended it sanctifies heterosexual love, “but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4) “Fornicators”comprehends all forms of illicit sexual conduct, including homosexual acts. In striking contrast to the numerous biblical references favoring married love between male and female (Gen. 26:18; Prov. 5:18f; 1 Cor. 7:3f; Song Sol.), every text alluding to any practice of homosexuality treats it as a most heinous crime. Among the varied and hateful sins that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, homosexuality is singled out as their “filthy conversation [lifestyle]” (2 Pet. 2:7; Jude 7; Gen. 19). The law of Moses treated homosexual practices as a capital crime (Lev. 20:13; 18:22). The New Testament condemnation is just as certain (Rom. 1:24, 26f; 1 Cor. 6:9).

WORKS CITED:

Dobson, Dr. James, Marriage Under Fire (Sister, OR: Multnomah Pub., 2004).