/ / Articles

Marital Chaos

How will homosexual marriages affect Christian marriage?
| Oct 14, 2014 | 21 comments |

Gay wedding cake topperOn October 6, the Supreme Court refused to hear the cases of five states on denying “marriage equality” for homosexual couples. While the decision did set back homosexuals’ plans for establishing it nation-wide, it did leave in place lower court rulings permitting homosexual legal marriages.

One possibly fake report tells of a pastor deciding to not do marriages for fear his state will now force him to marry homosexuals. Even if fake, it does play upon the fears of people that this decision will bring chaos to Christian marriages.

Most seem to believe this ruling will accelerate the adoption of more ‘marriage equality” laws. The likelihood is homosexual marriages will become more common in the years to come. They have successfully framed the issue as a civil rights fight. Enough that the general public is accepting the idea.

What’s the beef? Will it do damage to the understanding of marriage?

Yes and no.

No for one simple reason. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to be married.

As I described earlier this year, the Biblical basis for marriage is based on the concept of “the two becoming one flesh.” Paul makes it clear this is accomplished through sexual union. Through that, God joins a couple into one flesh, a marriage.

While some didn’t agree, no one could establish an alternate biblical argument for another model, instead tending to rely upon culturally conditioned ideas overlaid upon Scripture.

Biologically this follows as well. The basis of marriage flows from the reality of family. Without the potential to produce offspring, sexual union would only be a form of pleasure. Sharing a pleasure together is not a basis for marriage. Otherwise eating ice cream together would form a marital union.

Husband and wife unite as one for the purpose of creating a stable environment for raising a family. Without that potential, there is no marriage in the Biblical sense. There is no two becoming one flesh.

Since there is no way homosexual sex can ever produce a child, there is no way it can unite two people into one flesh.

Yes, for two primary reasons.

One, it will affect the legal repercussions for those who believe it is a sin and not allowed. While the state may not step in and force pastors to marry homosexual couples, you can bet any business or other public venue that fails to recognize them will suffer the state’s wrath.

Freedom of religion will take a back seat to freedom of sex.

Two, it will further the lie that the state defines marriage and bestows it upon a couple. It does not. It only recognizes a marriage. This is clear in many state’s common law marriage laws. In Texas, for instance, all a couple has to do to be legally married is to present themselves as husband and wife before witnesses. No license required.

In a homosexual marriage, the marriage is purely a legal status, not a biological reality. Without the reality, it gives the appearance that it is the state that makes one married, not God and biology.

Unfortunately too many Christians have bought into this secular view of marriage. The prevalence and acceptance of homosexual marriages will propagate this unbiblical view of marriage not only among Christians, but society as a whole.

The state can no more create a marriage than the absence of clouds create sunlight.

To believe it can does more damage to Christian marriage than legalizing homosexual marriages.

Speaking of edgy Christian fiction, know of any good Christian speculative (or otherwise) books that have homosexuality as a theme or sub-plot?

As a young teen, R. L. Copple played in his own make-believe world, writing the stories and drawing the art for his own comics while experiencing the worlds of other authors like Tolkien, Lewis, Asimov, and Lester Del Ray. As an adult, after years of writing devotionally, he returned to the passion of his youth in order to combine his fantasy worlds and faith into the reality of the printed page. Since then, his imagination has given birth to The Reality Chronicles trilogy from Splashdown Books, and The Virtual Chronicles series, Ethereal Worlds Anthology, and How to Make an Ebook: Using Free Software from Ethereal Press, along with numerous short stories in various magazines.Learn more about R. L and his work at any of the following:Author Website, Author Blog, or Author Store.

21
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
John Weaver
Guest
John Weaver

Stephen, I come from the other side of this issue, and I don’t think this is going to affect the church at all. As regards to Christian fiction about homosexuality, you could always check out Spenser Hughes’s The Lambda Conspiracy about a cabal of gay new ager pedophiles who plot to kill supposedly harmless homophobic senators in order to promote the evil values of tolerance and multiculturalism. And that wasn’t some small press publishing it either. It was Moody Press.

D. M. Dutcher
Member

I’ve found the opposite, honestly. Usually Christians who accept gay marriage as normative tend to throw out the rest of it too.  I don’t really see any conservative, orthodox Christians in the basic tenets of the faith hold it as doctrine. I mean that they never seem to say “gay marriage is okay” and yet retain the rest of the orthodox teachings of the faith. Lot of them don’t even retain the idea of monogamy after marriage.

This is why it’s such an issue, because it seems to be a bellweather for compromise with the world to a degree where it really destroys faith. I don’t see it not affecting the church when embraced; you just have to look to the churches that affirm it to see.

Leah Burchfiel
Member

I’d actually say that complementarianism/gender essentialism vs egalitarianism is more important of a bellwether. Because if people don’t have set roles according to their genitals, why insist on only the pairing of opposite genitals?

And then there’s the question about whether orthodoxy is worth keeping.

D. M. Dutcher
Member

No, because you can be one or the other and still believe in the core tenets of the faith. If every egalitarian I met or talked to didn’t really believe the rest of the faith, yeah.

If orthodoxy isn’t worth keeping nothing is. Might as well be an atheist or hedonist rather than a play Christian who isn’t honest about what he believes in.

Leah Burchfiel
Member

*Facepalm* I probably shouldn’t even touch this with a ten-foot stick, but no, just no. Marriage is not only about procreation. Have we turned Catholic all of a sudden, or why else are people here making noise about non-specifically-procreative sex? Protestants made fun of Catholics for that before it became a stake in the pro-life stuff. The freakin’ Puritans thought it was a divorceable offense if the wives said they weren’t getting enough of it. Sex for fun (within the bounds of marriageblahblah) is only a sin in the minds of pseudo-ascetics who think sex is icky, and they should stop projecting their hangups on the rest of us. Hey, let’s take this to the ridiculous logical extreme and proclaim that anyone who eats anything but rice and beans are gross, disgusting gluttons.

And same-sex marriage isn’t just about the sex, just like hetero marriage isn’t just about the sex. Try meeting some queer people sometime.

John Weaver
Guest
John Weaver

I agree with you notleia. I just think this whole evangelical obsession with the LGBT community is bizarre and I think the hermeneutical basis on which they condemn LGBT people is questionable even from within their own interpretive system, let along if you go outside that system.

Adam Graham
Member

I have plans for a book about a future America where society has become so obsessed with sex that people are required to wear a holographic bracelet identifying their sexual orientation which is established by a test taken in high school. Anyone whose score is 15-85 on the test is labeled “Bi-Sexual.” My hero is the Captain of a space freighter who stays in space just to avoid the craziness.

Jill
Guest

I would not have framed this in the material way you did. People are spiritual beings; I grant that. Producing offspring has a spiritual aspect to it. But the focus on procreation gives your argument a material and physical bent that doesn’t quite get to the heart of the matter. If we assume that God is infinite and omniscient and that there are physical realities that we aren’t aware of in our own bodies, then we must also assume that an infertile male and female couple who join together in marriage NEVER had the potential to produce offspring. They had the intention, perhaps, but the potential was absent even as they consummated their marriage. And God, being omniscient, was aware of this lack of potential. Yet, we–and presumably God–still consider them married.  This is because male and female union is spiritual as much as it is physical. Marriage is about the mysterious union of male and female energies, regardless of the potential to procreate. Yeah, I know “energies” sounds new-agey, but I don’t have a better word for it. Male and female can procreate if all their physical parts are functioning properly, but that is secondary rather than primary function. Primary=companionship of seeming opposites that actually fit together. Secondary=producing offspring. This concept can be found in the second creation story, where we see God interacting with Adam and demonstrating that there is no companion for him in the animal kingdom–nobody to keep him from loneliness. And then God creates Eve to prevent Adam from being alone. God doesn’t say, “I’m going to create Eve so you can produce offspring.” No, it’s so that Adam won’t be alone. And then everything is ruptured by sin and they’re kicked out of the garden….and to this day we find ourselves at a loss, not understanding this mystery of male and female, forever trying to get back to the garden where we were complete as men and women. State laws are paltry; they can’t offer this completeness. It’s not their job. Their job is to maintain order and justice in society. So be it.

Steve C.
Guest

The fact that a couple cannot have a child IN NO WAY changes the highest function and purpose of marriage, that is, to have children.

The union of male and female is the ONLY union of all possible human unions that produces the next generation. Marriage is an acknowledgment of this purpose, and to protect and promote  traditional marriage is to protect and promote the future.

By their very nature gay marriage produce nothing, and in fact, ONLY through heterosexual unions can the next generation of homosexuals continue.

Yes, in essence the nature of homosexuality is parasitic. I’ll go that far. It may sound harsh, but it is the case. It can ONLY exist through heterosexuality, and offers nothing in terms of procreation in return.

The two are not the same.

But back to my original thought, even if a heterosexual couple is incapable of producing children, that in no way changes the nature, function, and purpose of marriage.

Steve C.
Guest

Yes… the God of the Bible ordained that marriage be between one man and one woman. If we hold to the belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God, then that argument ends there. God said it, and He knows better, right?

But on a purely secular note, both society and the state has a vested interest in protecting traditional marriage. …The idea of the union of a man and a woman is an acknowledging of the wholeness of human kind. It is the uniting of both sides of the human race, and that union is unique above all other unions in that it is the ONLY way we continue as a species.

ONLY the union of male and female- the two halves of what we are- creates the next generation. With this purpose in mind, any and all other unions are useless. Without the next generation, we die as a whole. There is no state to govern.

The traditional family is the LITERAL building blocks of human civilization. It is the ONLY raw material necessary, and in fact, the idea of gay marriage is IMPOSSIBLE without heterosexual unions.

Gay marriage produces nothing by it’s nature. It is useless, and arguably perhaps even a hindrance to the state in that it drains resources without the possibility of a return. (The next generation of citizens.)

The state has a VESTED interest in supporting heterosexual marriage, and even giving benefits to those unions, making it easier to raise families. Even large families.

By legalizing gay marriage the purpose of marriage is now muddled. Future generations will see it more as a lifestyle than a necessity and intrinsic part of human civilization. It’s purpose will be replaced by the pleasure it offers, and only as long as it offers pleasure will it be of any value to some.

We are looking at the deconstruction of one of the central pillars of all human civilization.

God help us.