"Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband."
(1 Corinthians 7: 2, KJV)
It is interesting to note that
today's Scripture text above does not speak or hint in any way or form of same
sex marriage. It does not say, "Let every man have his own husband,
and let every woman have her own wife." No, not at all! The Text
above specifically says, "Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman
have her own husband." Why
is that? Because same sex marriage is an affront to God. First, it is "that which is against nature" (Rom.
1: 26). Second, it perverts the natural purpose and order of a man and woman
coming together in the bonds of marriage. Thirdly, it mocks what marriage
represents in relation to Christ and the Church.
Same sex marriage is unnatural in
respect to God's order in the marriage relationship. For in the beginning God
created them male and female, not male and male or female and female. God
originally created the man and woman for each other (see Gen 1 : 26-271
Cor. 7 : 2
The Problems with Same-Sex Marriage.
However, today many homosexual
advocates of same-sex marriage are trying to redefine God's natural and
historical order for the marital relationship between a man and a woman. Let us consider three arguments from the pro-gay advocates. The first one is as follows: (1.) Such people will argue that there is
nothing wrong with two men or two women who love and care for each other to get
married. Since two people love each other the natural result for them should be
marriage. They say this as if they know better than God in what should be
the order and role for a healthy marital relationship. This of course is the
pinnacle of arrogance as well as ignorance. For some problems that same-sex
marriage unions pose is as follows:
(1.) They cannot
biologically produce children like a marriage relationship between a man and
woman can (Gen. 1: 28; 9: 1, 7).
(2.) In such a
same-sex marriage union who will fulfill the role as the husband and who will
fulfill the role as the wife?
(3.) If a same-sex
couple chooses the option of adoption, whether the children be boys or girls,
who will they refer to as the father and the mother, when both parents are of
the same gender? This would cause confusion. In an interview I had watched a
little while ago on the Internet, a brave little 11 year old girl named Grace
Evans in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage, asked this
pertinent question near the end of her speech: "Which one of my parents do I not need, my mom or my dad?"
She asked the question twice to her audience. No one gave an answer. The
obvious answer to Grace's question is both parents are needed. For only a man
and a woman can properly fulfill the role of marriage (see Gen. 1: 26-27; 2:
18-25).
(4.) Also, if everyone
in the entire world were gay, no progeny would be produced, and all of humanity
would be wiped out with that generation.
(5.) As mentioned
earlier, same-sex marriage mocks what marriage stands for in relation to Christ
as the groom and the Church as the bride (see Matt. 9: 15; 25: 1-10; John 3: 29 ; Eph. 5: 24-32; Rev. 19: 7; 21: 9).
Often, homosexual advocates will
argue back and point out the failures of heterosexual marriages, as if somehow
that justifies a "loving and caring" homosexual marriage as a better
alternative. Of course, they ignore the rampant problems that exist within a
homosexual relationship. Anyway that's a topic for another time.
Another argument posed by
homosexuals is that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality nor does the New
Testament specifically condemn homosexual relationships. Is this true? Well,
let us consider the second point. (2.) Since
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in the Gospels, therefore He did not
condemn a loving and caring homosexual relationship. Former homosexual, Joe
Dallas addresses this argument superbly in his comment below.
"First, the argument assumes that the Gospels are
more authoritative than the rest of the books in the Bible. The idea of a
subject being unimportant just because it was not mentioned by Jesus is foreign
to the Gospel writers themselves. At no point did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John
say their books should be elevated above the Torah or, for that matter, any
writings yet to come. In other words, the Gospels--and the teachings they
contain--are not more important than the rest of the Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God (2 Timothy 3:16). The same Spirit that inspired the authors of the Gospels
also inspired the men who wrote the rest of the Bible.
Second, the argument assumes that the Gospels are
more comprehensive than they really are. Not only are the Gospels no more
authoritative than the rest of Scripture, they're not comprehensive either.
That is, they do not provide all we need to know by way of doctrine and
practical instruction.
Some of the Bible's
most important teaching, in fact, does not appear in the Gospels: the doctrine
of man's old and new nature, outlined by Paul in Romans
6 ; the future of Israel and the mystery of the Gentiles,
hinted at by Christ but explained more fully in Romans
9 through 11; the explanation and management of spiritual
gifts, detailed in 1 Corinthians 12
and 14; the priesthood of Christ as illustrated in Hebrews
- - all of these appear after the Gospel accounts of
Christ's life, death, and resurrection. (And we're not even mentioning the
entire Old Testament!) Would anyone say these doctrines are unimportant simply
because they weren't mentioned by Jesus?
Or, put another way,
are we really to believe that Jesus didn't care about wife-beating or incest
just because He said nothing about them? Aren't the prohibitions against incest
in Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, as well as Paul's admonition to husbands to
love their wives, enough to instruct us in these matters, without their being
mentioned in the Gospels? There are any number of evil behaviors Jesus did not
mention by name; surely we don't condone them for that reason alone!
Likewise, Christ's
silence on homosexuality in no way negates the very specific prohibitions
against it which appear elsewhere in both the Old and New Testaments."[1]
Now as for the third argument:
(3.) The New Testament does not
specifically condemn homosexuality. Really? That's news to me. For we read
in Romans 1 :
26Genesis 1 : 28Romans 1:26 :
"Paul is not
speaking nearly so subjectively in Romans 1
as this argument would suggest. There is nothing in his wording to imply he
even recognized such a thing as a "true" homosexual verses a
"false" one. He simply describes homosexual behavior as unnatural, no matter who it is committed by.
In fact, his wording
is unusually specific. When he refers to "men" and "women"
in these verses, he chooses the Greek words that most emphasize physiology: arsenes and theleias. Both words are rarely used in the New Testament; when
they do appear, they appear in contexts meant to emphasize the gender of the
subject, as in male child (arsenes). Here, Paul is very pointedly
saying that the homosexual behavior committed by these people was unnatural to
them as males and females (arsenes
and theleias); he is not considering
any such thing as sexual orientation. He is saying, in other words, that
homosexuality is biologically unnatural--not just unnatural to heterosexuals,
but unnatural to anyone.
Additionally, the
fact that these men "burned in their lust" for each other makes it
highly unlikely that they were heterosexuals experimenting with homosexuality.
Their behavior was born of an intense inner desire. Suggesting, as Boswell and
Mollenkott do, that these men were heterosexuals indulging in homosexual
behavior requires mental gymnastics.
Besides, if verses
26 and 27 condemn homosexual actions committed by people to whom they did not
come naturally, but don't apply to people to whom those actions do come
naturally, then doesn't consistency compel us to apply the same logic to all the practices mentioned in this
chapter? We would have to say that it's not only homosexuality that is not
condemned in these verses--if practiced by someone to whom it comes naturally
and in the context of a loving relationship. We would have to say that all of these behaviors--if practiced by
someone to whom they come naturally and in the context of a loving
relationship--are not condemned in these verses."[2]
Next we have the sin of
homosexuality mentioned in two more lists of sin in 1
Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1
Timothy 1:9-11 . The words "effeminate" (Greek: malakos)
and "abusers of themselves with
mankind" (1 Corinthians; Greek: arsenokoite)
and "them that defile themselves
with mankind" (1 Timothy; Greek:
arsenokoite). The word is further translated "sodomites" in the NKJV; "homosexual offenders" in the NIV. This of course tells
us there is no way in denying what the Scripture texts before us are saying
without doing violence to what is implied.
The Parental Role in Marriage.
It is important to recognize the
crucial role each parent fulfills in the marital relationship. Though both
parents play their part in raising their children. Let's say for example, a boy
and a girl. The mother is best equipped to teach her daughter how to become a
respectable young woman; while the father is best suited to teach his son how
to become a honorable young man in society. Now having said that, a mother's
role to her son is to model for him how a lady behaves in a marital
relationship; while the father demonstrates to the daughter how a man protects,
provides, and leads the family.
Same-sex marriage undermines and
attacks that very order in the marital union. Two fathers or two mothers in a
marriage relationship cannot properly teach and model for a son or daughter
what it means to be a proper man and woman. For a man can never in a deep sense
fulfill the role of the mother in teaching his daughter what it means to be a
woman, just as a woman can never fulfill the father's role in teaching her son
what it means to be a man. A marital relationship works best when it consists
of a man and a woman fulfilling their God ordained roles as husband and wife,
and father and mother to their children.
No comments:
Post a Comment