Though the momentum in America is clearly toward allowing same-sex marriage, conservative Christians aren’t going gently. They imagine that the Bible is on their side. Let’s see if that claim holds up.

Jesus said, “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” (Mark 10:8). If the Bible said only that, the conservative Christian might indeed hold the winning hand, but it says much more. Things get messier the more we poke through the Bible.

Interracial Marriage. Deut. 7:3 says, “Do not intermarry with [those in the Canaanite tribes]. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” King Solomon got into trouble for violating this rule and marrying foreign wives (1 Kings 11).

So the Bible says that marriage is with someone of your own tribe.

Concubine Sex. King Solomon famously had 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Four of Jacobs 12 sons were from servants of his two wives, and Abraham’s first child was from his wife’s slave.

So the Bible legitimates sex with and children from slaves and concubines.

Rape. What single person hasn’t seen an attractive person across the bar or dance floor and struggled to find a way to break the ice? Here’s a fun approach: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her” (Deut. 22:28–9).

So the Bible says that if you see a woman and don’t want to go through that whole getting-permission thing, you can rape and then marry her.

Captured Women. “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Num. 31:17–18; see also Deut. 21:11) I don’t know what we’re talking about here—whether it’s wife, concubine, or sex slave.

So the Bible says that capturing women (virgins only, please) is a reasonable way to get a bedmate. It doesn’t much matter whether the woman is on board with the project or not.

Slave Marriage. Exodus 21:4 says that a male Jewish slave can be released, but any wife given to him by his master (and her children) remain the master’s property.

So the Bible says that ownership trumps marriage.

Levirate Marriage. Say a man is married but dies before he has any children. Who inherits his stuff? To solve this problem, the Bible demands that another brother must marry this sister-in-law, with the firstborn child considered the dead brother’s heir. The Bible does more than simply document a curious local custom; God enforces it with the death penalty (Gen. 38:8–10).

So the Bible says that getting children as heirs for a deceased brother is more important than having your own children.

Polygamy. Abraham had two wives. Jacob also had two (or four, depending on how you count them). Solomon had 700.

God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Sam. 12:8). God has his complaints about David, but polygamy isn’t one of them.

So the Bible says that marriage is between a man and one or more women.

Apologists like to excuse the Bible’s craziness with its many variations on marriage by saying that it simply reflects the culture of the time. It applied then, but it doesn’t apply now. I can accept that—just do the same when the Bible says, “A man shall not lie down with a man.” Put that into the same bin as levirate marriage, polygamy, or killing everyone in a tribe except the hot women that are kept for your pleasure.

The Bible also argues against marriage

Today’s Christian enthusiasm for marriage certainly wasn’t mirrored by the early church. Here’s what Paul says: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1). So much for the celebrated role of procreation (which I reject here).

Paul also said, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). In other words, marriage is the second best option.

Paul also rejected divorce (7:10–11). Those Christians concerned about the purity of marriage might want to look at their own house to see if they’re following the rules. (You could say that Paul rejected marriage only because he thought the end was near. This might help reinterpret his curious views on marriage, but of course his being dramatically wrong raises a whole new set of problems.)

Marriage wasn’t even a Christian sacrament until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. This wasn’t a popular move among civil authorities of the time, because it granted the church the power to decide which marriages were legal and which not—and therefore decide which contracts (often based on marriages) were valid and which not. When the Pope didn’t like an alliance, he could just annul the relevant marriage.

The argument that the Bible and the Church make a clear and unambiguous declaration that marriage is between a man and a woman is in tatters. Sure, let’s celebrate marriage, but let’s not delude ourselves about how recent our view of marriage is.

For more on this subject: “Homosexuality v. Christianity”

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—
and you are the easiest person to fool.
— Richard Feynman

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/5/12.)

Photo credit: patries71

Over a year ago, I wrote a response to the poorly formed anti-homosexuality argument in an article subtitled “Christian defense against Homosexuality.” This was written by Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM).
The article is still there, unchanged, ridiculous arguments and all. It’s harmful enough to deserve another thrashing. Here are the claims that most need a response.

Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?).

Is this the fabled Gay Agenda® where homosexuals will make all Americans homosexual to weaken the country for an eventual Communist takeover? Or something?
“If you have to ask, you are probably already under its pernicious influence and blithely hop-scotching your way straight to Hell.” We can always count on Betty Bowers to set us straight.

They want others to accept them.

Well, yeah. Is that a problem?

What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?

I’m pretty sure that’s what they said about African Americans during the Jim Crow period.

Saying that homosexuality is natural because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not mean it is morally correct. Animals also eat each other alive, devour offspring, etc. Should we imitate those things as well because the animals do it?

So then do we at least agree that homosexuality occurs in nature and then is, by definition, natural?
As for morality, let’s not get cocky. For barbarism, no one beats humans. Only humans have invented war.
But to address your point: eating someone causes harm. Homosexuality doesn’t cause harm. Simple, right?

From an evolutionary perspective how does homosexuality further the development and distribution of the human species? It cannot. Homosexuality would obviously work for self extermination. … How is it natural if what it leads to is self destruction?

Homosexuality has been well documented in 500 animal species. Your concern about evolution is laudable, and yet it has stumbled along for three billion years just fine without your help. But thanks for asking.
If we were all homosexual, that would be a problem. If we were all female, that would also be a problem. Neither possibility is on the table, so we needn’t worry about extinction from homosexuality.

It would seem that natural selection would have removed the “gene for homosexuality” since it would not lead to reproduction. It would seem then, that homosexuality is not natural but is a learned behavior.

Instead of speculating, why not see what the experts think?
As we’ve seen, homosexuality is natural and widespread. Why speculate that it’s a learned behavior just in humans?

If a behavior is said to be natural to a person and this is why homosexuality should be accepted, is it not also natural that people lie and so they too should be accepted?

Let me propose a simple rule: if it causes harm, we should minimize it. Lying causes harm; homosexuality doesn’t. Simple, right?

They are already free to marry a person of the opposite sex, the same as anyone else.

Seriously? You’re really going to make this argument?
The Colored folks had their water fountains and schools, just like the White folks did. No problem, right? Golly, Jim Crow laws aren’t so bad when you reframe them like that!

For homosexuals to advocate redefining marriage so it can include union between a man and man, and a woman and a woman, and to have it protected legally, is to want special rights for them.

Quiz time: when was marriage last defined (or redefined)? If you said, “When God invented it in the Garden of Eden, and it’s been a constant ever since,” you need to read more history and less Bible.
In fact, it was redefined in 1967. Before that point, laws in many states prohibited mixed-race marriages. African Americans could marry someone of their race, the same as anyone else. That’s fair—who could complain about that, right? The Supreme Court disagreed, and anti-miscegeny laws in 17 U.S. states were overturned.
The apostle Paul made clear that marriage was second best and that chastity was preferable (1 Cor. 7:8–9). Marriage wasn’t even a Christian sacrament until the twelfth century. Throw in polygamy from the Old Testament, and it’s clear that the church’s attitude toward marriage is a moving target.
Once again, the church is late to the party.

If freedom to marry whomever you want to is the litmus test for marriage, then marriage will become meaningless as people redefine it to include those already married, siblings, children, animals, etc., as long as “love” is the defining characteristic.

Things that cause harm are bad, and things that don’t aren’t worth a lot of concern. We’ve already figured that one out.
As for “Next, people will want to marry their sex toys,” let’s wait until that happens before we worry about it. Rights and privileges almost always have exceptions—you can own a gun, but with exceptions; you can drive a vehicle, but with exceptions; you have free speech, but with exceptions; and so on.
The same-sex marriage proposal is to adjust the exceptions, not discard them all.

Homosexuals are using the civil rights movement to force their moral agenda on the rest of society … a moral agenda based on sexual behavior.

The issue isn’t behavior; it’s who people are. People can’t change their racial appearance, and they can’t change their sexual orientation.

Unalienable rights are given by God, according to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S.A.

Whoa—you really don’t want to go there. Marriage isn’t being decided by a celestial court but a human one.
The topic is laws (how marriage is legally defined). Here’s another quiz: The Declaration of Independence says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from …

• Jehovah”
• the God of the Universe”
• the consent of the governed”

Of course, the last one is the correct answer. The government doesn’t turn to God for its authority but to the people (which is actually pretty empowering).
Anyway, the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant since it’s not the supreme law of the United States—the Constitution is. Bringing up the Declaration instead of the Constitution is an admission that our laws are in no way built on God.

What about necrophiliacs, and those who practice bestiality? They also are defined by their sexual behavior. Should they also be protected legally? If not, why not?

We have laws against behavior that hurts people. Wow. Why is this hard?
Anyway, who cares? What’s the downside to same-sex marriage? I’m married, and it wouldn’t affect me at all. If it bugs you, tell straight people to stop having gay babies.

Men will always be mad,
and those who think they can cure them
are the maddest of all.
—Voltaire

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 10/3/11)

Photo credit: Church Sign Maker