Jul

03

2013

Matt Smethurst|12:01 AM CT

How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong if It Doesn't Harm Anyone?

Whether coming from a spirit of honest curiosity or agitated defensiveness, it's a common question: How can homosexuality—and same-sex "marriage" in particular—be wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?

In a new video, Russell Moore, J. D. Greear, and Voddie Baucham tackle this complex and critical topic. Our starting point, Moore observes, must be determining what sexuality is for. "If God designed it," he says, "then there's a purpose to it." And, contrary to popular belief, Moore insists, we aren't trying to disappoint our gay and lesbian neighbors, nor to "restrict" or "keep" marriage from them. We're simply observing that, based on what sexuality and marriage are, same-sex marriage is impossible.

Reducing immorality to harm is a principle that must be challenged, Greear contends. What about the man who cheats on his wife, but she never finds out due to deft deceit? Are we really willing to deny that's wrong? Or that the harm will eventually become apparent in many cases?

Moreover, Baucham points out, the pressingly public nature of today's marriage debate "explodes the myth" that the issue is really just about "what I do in my bedroom." This debate especially confuses evangelical teenagers, Moore explains, because we in the church have for so long talked as if marriage is a merely individual matter. "We have to back up and root our vision of marriage in Ephesians 5," he says, for a wedding is far more than just celebrating "a relationship between two people."

But why not let those outside the church redefine marriage so long as we maintain a Christian view inside? We tried that with the divorce culture, Moore recalls, and it was disastrous—not to mention unloving to our neighbors. Watch the full 10-minute video to see how they respond to the argument that the state should get out of the marriage business.

How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong if It Doesn't Harm Anyone? from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

For more on this topic, watch Tim Keller, Albert Mohler, and Collin Hansen discuss "What Is Morality Other than Harm?" Or read Baucham's article, "Gay Is Not the New Black."

Matt Smethurst serves as associate editor for The Gospel Coalition and lives in Louisville, Kentucky. You can follow him on Twitter.

Categories: Current Events, Video
  • Phil

    And, contrary to popular belief, Moore insists, we aren't trying to disappoint our gay and lesbian neighbors, nor to "restrict" or "keep" marriage from them. We're simply observing that, based on what sexuality and marriage are, same-sex marriage is impossible.

    I think this argument ultimately doesn't resonate with people because you are asking people to apply an abstract philosophical concept (the inherent "nature" of marriage), to people's actual, lived experiences (that is, same-sex relationships that walk, talk and quack like the "duck" of a marriage). Actual, lived experiences trump philosophical concepts. (As they should here, IMHO.)

    • John Hanna

      Phil, this argument is neither abstract nor merely philosophical. Male and female are not constructs but the embodied, biological lived realities and identities we all experience. Furthermore, there is nothing more real and tangible than a living, breathing human being, which is what the union of male and female uniquely brings about. That not every union will produce life either by intention or inability doesn't change this most basic truth categorically. At the heart of the movement promoting same-sex marriage is the argument that opposition to same-sex marriage is the same as bans on interracial marriage and racism overall. This argument advanced by activists and their allies in affluent, privileged Western societies is overtly untrue, in addition to being typically parochial and ethnocentric. Interracial marriage was forbidden by law due to racism. The understanding of marriage as the union of man and woman in every society throughout human history is in no way rooted in animus or bigotry. The insistence that it is "hateful" is rooted in neither love nor truth. A population that can so easily accept such an unjustified comparison based on falsehood can become convinced of anything. It is an overt demonstration of the ease with which we can be manipulated.

      • Phil

        Male and female are not constructs but the embodied, biological lived realities and identities we all experience.

        I think it is undeniable that the way we (as human beings) experience our "maleness" or "femaleness" can vary widely among people. That is the "actual, lived experiences" that I am referring to.

        • matt

          Phil,

          Your statement, "Actual, lived experiences trump philosophical concepts", is meaningless. First, philosophy is itself an attempt to understand and order reality. "A search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means." Merriam-Webster. Second, "actual, lived experiences" could be used to justify all manner of evil: slavery, legal discrimination, abortion, or pedophilia to name just a few. That men corrupt God's design by "experienc[ing] our 'maleness' and 'femaleness'" in various ways is not reason for rejecting God's design in favor of man's perversion of it.

          God designed marriage as a dim reflection of Christ's relationship to the Church - a selfless love for the Church culminating in the laying down of His life for it. Man has corrupted marriage to reflect his selfish desire to get what he wants.

          • Phil

            Your statement, "Actual, lived experiences trump philosophical concepts", is meaningless.

            Maybe it was an overstatement. My point is that, if you have to choose between your understanding of the "inherent nature" of marriage, and your lesbian daughter who wants to get married to another woman, most people will choose their daughter. As they should.

            First, philosophy is itself an attempt to understand and order reality. "A search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means." Merriam-Webster.

            Can't disagree with that.

            Second, "actual, lived experiences" could be used to justify all manner of evil: slavery, legal discrimination, abortion, or pedophilia to name just a few.

            If your "philosophy" is doing harm to other people (their "actual, lived experiences"), then it is your philosophy that is the problem, not the people.

            That men corrupt God's design by "experienc[ing] our 'maleness' and 'femaleness'" in various ways is not reason for rejecting God's design in favor of man's perversion of it.

            I think we disagree over what the "corruption" is.

    • Terry

      You have it so entirely backwards. It is the ontological that should illuminate, interpret, and direct the subjective.

      • Phil

        Obviously, I disagree.

        Indeed, forcing people into "ontological" categories does great harm, IMHO.

    • http://www.covenantcaswell.org John Carpenter

      Actual "lived experience" proves that there are very few, if any, faithful, long-term homosexual relationships. You may not know that if you've accepted the ideology being propagandized today. People see what they believe, not the other way around. They are told to believe that homosexual relationships are "equal" and so they believe that. The truth is that they are not.

  • Eric

    Once again, a gentle reminder to stop calling "homosexuality" a sin. We MUST for the sake of believers and non-believers alike who are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex stop saying that. The behavior is a sin, but the attraction is no more sinful than the fact that I'm "attracted" to the cute girl across the street. The sin would be lustful thoughts or adultery the "...ity" of it is not in itself a sin.

    • Tony

      Eric, homosexual desire is a sin just as much as desiring anything that God has forbidden is sin. Sin begins in the heart and is manifested in actions. Jesus says that whoever lusts in their heart is guilty of the same kind of guilt as if they had acted it out. It's sinful that I wake up in the morning without the right affections in my heart towards God, regardless of whether the competing affection is a desire for a man or a woman to whom God has forbidden me.

    • Nate

      Eric, I think you're confused on the language here. "Homosexuality" is the act of identifying one's sexuality with sinful same-sex attraction. That is a sinful attitude towards God. We should not let any Christian call themselves a "homosexual". That is identifying a person made in the image of God with sinful behavior. A person who has same-sex temptation is not a homosexual and does not struggle with homosexuality unless they give in to how the world says they should identify their sexuality. Anyway, I think you're giving away far too much here in what is likely an attempt to be seen as "loving" to the world.

    • http://www.covenantcaswell.org John Carpenter

      "Homosexuality" is the practice. Without it, it's only a temptation. Some people are inclined toward violence but we don't call them "violent" unless they give into the temptation.

    • http://www.sometimesalight.com Hannah Anderson

      Agree with you Eric--we must get a better handle on our terminology. "Homosexuality" is very broad and fairly out of use except among conservatives. It doesn't help the conversation to lump a whole host of ideas into one term. We need to differentiate between SSA, lust, lifestyle, etc.

      Truthfully, I'm concerned that this is not mere semantics but is symptomatic of a wide-spread ignorance among conservatives about the nature of sexuality. For a very long time, we've stuck our head in the sand and our sexual ethic has been reduced to "Just don't do it." We need to recover a full, multi-dimensional theology of our bodies and sexuality.

    • http://www.ironworkspikechurch.org Jack Brooks

      Desire is as much a sin as behavior. Jesus said that a man sexually desiring a woman to whom he was not married was a sin.

      • http://www.sometimesalight.com Hannah Anderson

        Desire vs. attraction. Two different things in this conversation. Desire as Jesus defined it is lust; attraction is who you find attractive. A heterosexual finds opposite attractive; those with SSA find same attractive.

        The result of brokenness of creation? yes. Inherently sinful? no more than blindness or deafness.

  • http://thetrumpet.com Ben

    People need to understand where marriage came from. It was created and ordained by God. He set the bounds of marriage. Men have no right to tamper witch what God puts in place. God calls homosexuality an abomination (Lev 18:22). As far as whether it harms anyone, it harms everyone. Look at society. Immorality is rampant and so are the problems facing this nation. As immorality grows so do the problems. The Bible records how other societies that ran after immorality, especially homosexuality, ended. It affects every single American.

    • http://www.covenantcaswell.org John Carpenter

      True, but to win the moral argument in a world that doesn't believe the Bible, we have to make a natural law argument. The good news is that the Bible tells us that we can do that very thing on exactly this topic: in Romans 1:25, Paul's point isn't only that homosexuality is wrong but that it is so plainly wrong, "unnatural", that even people without special revelation could see that it is wrong if only they would not suppress the truth.

      • matt

        John,

        On the one hand, I agree with you. It is impossible to convince someone who rejects the authority of the Bible that homosexuality is wrong on the grounds that the Bible says it is. On the other hand, your post, likely unintentionally, gets this issue backwards. As followers of Christ, the argument we should be trying win is that of the Gospel. People need the truth of the Gospel, not the truth of marriage. The latter will follow from the former, and only the Gospel will save.

  • Frank63

    What about the harm done to children by the deconstruction of the nuclear family? Homosexuality renders gender as a meaningless construct. It assumes males and females are harmlessly interchangeable as sexual partners. From their it flows that males and females are interchangeable as parents, so two mommies or two daddies are supposedly just as good as a mommy and a daddy. People will assert this with a straight face, despite the fact that from a biological (ie. Creation) standpoint, a child can not have two fathers or two mothers. God intended every child to have a mother and a father. Numerous studies have shown the affects of children who have grown up without fathers. Yet because of our society's acceptance of homosexuality and hence same sex marriage, we are now witnessing the intentional creation of motherless and fatherless families. And this is all done as our culture gleefully pats itself on the back for how open minded and tolerant it is. The good of children has been sacrificed on the altars of our cultural idols: sexual autonomy and radical egalitarianism. Even a thoroughly secular nation such as France understands this, where there is a huge (largely secular) anti-same sex marriage movement underway in a nation where the percentage of churchgoers is in the single digits. And the big reason has to do with their concern about the rights of children to have both a mother and a father.

    • MW

      But honestly, I am absolutely certain that it is possible that 2 males can do an extraordinarily better job at raising a child than at least a few hundreds of dead beat, "nuclear family," biological parents that are raising children in my school district. This cannot be denied. A biological mother and father do NOT simply make the best parents for a child. It is not for "the good of a child" to be with an abusive biological parent, an indifferent biological parent, or a hurtful, harmful, or unloving biological parent. The rights of children to live with their biological parents is not a valid argument against same-sex marriage.

  • Pingback: Must Watch: How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong if it Doesn’t Harm Anyone? |

  • Ana

    Thank you very much for your views and encouragement, it really does nurture the debate. However, it would also be great if you could address common counterarguments that people give such as not imposing "our religion" to them because we are a minority, the "myth" of procreation (i.e. why can heterosexuals who can't have children marry?), the fact that so many straight couples have horrible marriages, children do not get affected and it has been proven by studies, gay couples can provide loving households for children who need adoption, etc. Again, thank you!

  • LMK

    Here is another perspective. Marriage is defined as the "union" of two "persons". Most people consider their "person" to include their body, therefore even though same sex couples may have an emotional connection, a physical one is impossible. A relationship exists but no Marriage.

    • Phil

      Why does only one type of "physical connection" equal marriage?

      BTW, under your definition, two paraplegics could never get married.

      • LMK

        How else can two people unite together physically? BTW..you just compared same sex attraction to a person with a broken body. That is not apples to apples.

        • Phil

          How else can two people unite together physically?

          If you believe that conjugal union is the only way two people can "unite together" physically, then I am pretty sure this isn't the appropriate place to explain otherwise. They do make books that might be helpful to you, though.

          BTW..you just compared same sex attraction to a person with a broken body. That is not apples to apples.</i

          • LMK

            Thanks Paul. Thank you for clarifying. Please consider any other physical union you are eluding to is not natural and would be considered a "disordered union". Each species has a male/female counterpart for the purpose of continuing on the species and the protection of the offspring. These other means of "uniting together" physically cannot produce life naturally. Any obstruction to the order of nature (disease,bodily injury infertility, bodily injury, etc) have occurred naturally. Choosing one's own will instead of the natural order either by taking an incompatible mate (same sex) or by contracepting/IVF (hetero/homo) is to choose the unnatural.

            • Phil

              Homosexuality happens "naturally."

        • Phil

          (continued)

          No, i didn't. I said that if you require conjugal union for there to be a marriage, the paraplegics cannot get married.

          • John Hanna

            No Phil, it doesn't mean that at all. The exceptions do not disprove the rule that only men and women can do so. Furthermore, we recognize and accept that our bodies, like the rest of us, are broken. The fact of the matter is that a man and woman ought to be able to join together physically, and their inability to do so simply indicates our need and cry for redemption bodily and in every other way. Such need for redemption and healing doesn't make them less man and woman. Also, your snark notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is the joining of male and female is the uniquely consummative act of marriage which same-sex unions cannot bring about, even if they engage in acts of a sexual nature. This uniquely one flesh union of male and female is demonstrated in the fact that it is this act alone that so unites bodies that new life emerges from it that brings together the man and woman in one human being derived from their bodies.

            • LMK

              Well written John, thank you for explaining.

            • Phil

              The exceptions do not disprove the rule that only men and women can do so.

              If the rule is "marriage is between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can engage in conjugal union.". Then the question is why can a man and a woman <who cannot engage in conjugal union get married? You actually haven't answered that question.

            • Phil

              your snark notwithstanding

              My snark was in response to LMK's question about "How else can two people unite together physically?", which I considered to be a "snarky" question--and not an honest one. If I am mistaken, then I apologize.

          • LMK

            Phil, I obviously don't agree with your comment "Homosexuality happens "naturally."".

            I think we can both agree that without a female egg and a male sperm neither of us would be here. There is nothing natural about a man laying with a man, nor a woman laying with a women. My belief. I hope the best for you. Take care.
            Thank you for the conversation.

    • http://www.covenantcaswell.org John Carpenter

      Good point. In the Christian world-view the material facts of nature matter. (Which is why we have to be a bit careful about too ham-fistedly denouncing "materialism".) In the post-modern world-view there is a radical disjunction between the facts of nature and the facts of ethics.

  • Paul M.

    I agree with Moore, Greear, and Baucham in regards to our responsibility as the church to prophetically proclaim the truth regarding a Biblical view of marriage. But the portion of the video dealing with the necessity of the state defining and closely regulating marriage was underwhelming.

    Moore and Greear pose a false dilemma, that either we need the state to define marriage in a Biblical way or that children will be abandoned on the side of the road and spousal abuse will go unpunished. There are options other than those two.

    It'd be like saying, in regards to the NSA domestic spying controversy, that either we allow the federal government unlimited access to our phone calls and emails or the terrorists will blow us all up.

    • Nate

      Paul, I don't think their point was to say that we *need* the state to be involved in marriage, but rather that the state did have legitimate reasons for being involved in marriage in the first place. Some may disagree that the state should have done this and that is fine, but I think it is important as a matter of honor to our forefathers to acknowledge that the real desire to protect children and stabilize families was a good one. Admittedly things did not work out well in the long run, but they could not foresee that.

      I'm frustrated with Christians who think they can end the argument by saying that the state should not be involved in marriages. I might agree in theory, but that does not end the debate. The state IS and WILL BE involved, so how do we best love our neighbors with the state law? Heterosexual marriage only is the most loving thing for society - that is orthodox. No Christian should be OK with homosexual marriage, even if they desire the state to be uninvolved altogether.

  • Phil

    On another note, it is disappointing to see that neither Russel Moore nor J.D. Greear challenge Voddie Bacham's nonsense at around the 2:45 mark. Voddie talks about the principle being established that "all you need is love" leads to nothing being wrong with a 50 year old man and a 12 year old boy getting married. However, our society does not view a 12 year old as having the capacity to consent to such a relationship. For the same reason, a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl cannot get married now, either.

    Voddie's assertion that the "principle" that allows for same sex marriage also allows for 50 year olds to marry 12 year olds simply isn't true.

    • Brad

      Phil, the principle is true. If you can't deny two men from marrying each other than how can you deny a 12 year old and a 50 year old's love for each other? The "principle" keeps anybody from denying two peoples' love for each other.

      • Phil

        Why can a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl not get married now?

        • Scott

          Phil, the principle is still true. The problem is that society is inconsistent.

          • Phil

            Scott/Brad,

            I am not sure what else to say. Society is entirely consistent. A 12-year old does not have the capacity to consent. It doesn't matter if it is a 12-year old boy or a 12-year old girl, marrying a 50-year old man or a 50 year-old woman. Nothing about this changes, despite Voddie's statement that it does. This is nonsense.

            • http://www.christianvagabond.com Christian Vagabond

              Has anyone considered that Mary was believed to be 12-14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus? And Joseph's age has been suggested to be anywhere between 19 and 90?

  • Pingback: Selected News Stories from Around the World* — Thursday, July 4 | The BibleMesh Blog

  • Matt

    In the end none of this matters one little bit.

    Why?

    Because all it says is that homosexuality is wrong - OK, I'm gay and yet I believe God created sex to be used between a man and a woman in a lifelong monogamous marriage - period - no loopholes.

    So, I have remained a virgin my whole life.

    But when I was 12 and my dad began to suspect I was gay, he began to criticize the way I walked, the way I talked, who I hung out with. I don't recall him hugging me even once for 2 decades after that, nor saying he was proud of me, nor saying he loved me.

    The Church had taught him how to be ashamed of me. It never taught him how to forgive me or how to respect the fact that I chose celibacy in spite of how hard and lonely that decision was.

    I believe in God. I believe Christ has forgiven sin. But I don't like the Church very much because, in the end, the Church saying nothing but how bad and evil and harmful homosexuality is stole my father from me when I needed him the most.

    Whether homosexuality harms anyone, whether gay marriage harms anyone - I don't know.

    But I know it hurts a lot when the Church teaches your parents to be ashamed of you.

    So I just can't make myself be too upset at those gays and lesbians who try to form their own families to make up for the ones they have lost.

    • http://www.sometimesalight.com Hannah Anderson

      Thank you so much for this. It highlights what's at stake when we don't differentiate between SSA and lifestyle. I praise God for the clarity and strength He has given you. He is your Father and will never be ashamed of you even if your earthly father was. May you find strong, loving community that can faithfully minister to you and support you in your commitment to a life faithful to God's will.

      • Matt

        Hannah, thanks

        But, to be honest, I think what I am saying is sort of the opposite of that.

        Even if I had decided to "enter the lifestyle" (as having gay sex is often euphemistically called) I would still have needed my father. And I'm not talking about just the good stuff but the whole experience of having a dad, including discipline - beyond telling me I held my hands like a girl or walked like a sissy.

        Nor was I the only one who lost out. I think my dad felt like a failure as a father. He needed the right to feel proud of his son but everything he heard from church taught him that he could not be proud of me if I was not "straight." If I lost a father, my father also lost a son.

        The problem is that when pastors, church leaders and Christians political action parties talk about homosexuality, they never mention the forgiveness of Christ. Seriously, a 10 minute video with 3 pastors and not one mention of the cross? There was a perfect opportunity to bring in the cross at 7:45 but then the discussion veered over to John the Baptist. And then we expect the parents in our congregations who face the crisis of a gay kid to be able to forgive and love their children when the only thing they have ever heard about homosexuals is how "wrong" they are? When they have never heard their pastor talk about mercy or forgiveness toward homosexuals?

        How can any reasonable Christian leader not see the recipe for disaster and destroyed families in the absence of the cross?

        • http://www.sometimesalight.com Hannah Anderson

          And I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. I see how what I wrote looks like I was being dismissive of the loss of relationship between you and your father. Sort of "Oh, don't worry--you still have God." That was not my heart.

          I agree with you that when "homosexuality" becomes simply a theoretical issue we are fighting against, we leave the very people wrestling through it with their friends and family at a loss. We must find a way to lead them through the process and model the Gospel for them. Unfortunately there seems to be a disconnect between theory and pastoral practice--and yet we must be faithful to the whole teaching of Scripture. Including, as you mentioned, the forgiveness and acceptance of God through Christ.

          • Matt

            No, I didn't take it as dismissive and I hope I did not come across as angry at you.

            My anger is at the pastors on the video who failed to point to Christ and His cross and who seem to be totally ignorant of the damage done by that failure - no pastor should be allowed out of seminary and into the pulpit if the cross is not the center of all he does and says as a pastor. A pastor who does not point to the cross is only tearing down the Church and destroying the souls of kids.

            I responded to your post because sometimes gay people feel the love of Christians is conditional, that Christians will love us as long as we remain celibate. I don't think you meant to imply that, of course, but I just wanted to point out that the fault is not in failing to separate SSA from the lifestyle but that it lies with pastors who fail to apply the cross to both.

  • David

    The statement that homosexuality doesn't harm/hurt anyone needs to be clarified. Is it a financial hurt, emotional, or does it hurt society? Christians have been sued for refusing services to gay couples, this is a financial hurt. A man divorces his wife to marry another man, emotional hurt. I actually know someone in this position, left his four kids and wife. Are they hurt by this, of course they are! So, if homosexuality does harm or hurt someone, is it now considered wrong or will they brush it off and tell everyone to get over it?

  • Pingback: 6-String Salvo, July 5, 2013 | Mike Lee

  • Pingback: The 411: July 4, 2013 | Phil Wages • Senior Pastor, Winterville FBC

  • Pingback: How Can Homosexuality Be Wrong if It Doesn’t Harm Anyone? Voddie Baucham + Others Answer | The Confessing Baptist

  • Christian and Libertarian

    I respect all of these guys a lot on a number of topics, but the last part about the state was pretty bad. Moore's big argument against a non-state view of marriage is essentially "The state has an interest in the product of a male/ female relationship - children. Therefore, it should legislate marriage to keep children from starving on the side of the road." Let me show a counter-example of how I, too, can turn this into a slippery-slope argument the other way: Moore's view leads to state-legislated scheduling of child-bearing, state-owned children, and finally, laws excluding the unmarried from having children. The state's interest is so important to the protection of children that people shouldn't decide for themselves when they will have children, or bear sole responsibility for them, nor should Heathen, un-weds raise them...we don't want these kids to end up starving on the side of the road, do we!?!?

    C'mon guys, this was pretty good until you started replacing the family and church's role of caring for children back into the Gov's hands - and then used it as a 'proof' for why the government HAS TO be involved. Just like Education and Charity (in previous generations), we seem happy to give over the most intimate and important things in our lives because we are lazy or unwilling, and we want to control the actions of others more than we want to gladly bear responsibility and be a light to the world.

    • Nate

      I'm glad you're a Christian libertarian (hopefully little "l"). I am too. But here is my big question for fellow Christian libertarians. If our aim is freedom and liberty - isn't it true that sin is never freedom?

      We are for freedom, and that means that it is OK for society to setup some laws promoting freedom. We are not anarchists. There is a clear limit to how much we can punitively punish sin and which sins, but we must agree that all laws are inherently moral. It certainly seems most loving for society to only recognize heterosexual marriage. That doesn't mean we lock up homosexuals who perform marriage ceremonies, but society should not "recognize" sin, ever. That is not freedom. Recognition is the key, as of course we can't police sin. You've not proved your case that there is not a societal motivation for only recognizing heterosexual marriage. To do otherwise is highly unloving.

      Additionally, what about adoption. As a Christian, you must be against homosexuals adopting children, and gay marriage leads to this, thus creating a clear harmed party.

      I charge once again that the most usual motivation for Christians saying the state should have no interest in marriage is to save face in the world. A purely Christian and loving worldview would not lead you here.

      • Christian and Libertarian

        Nate,
        I think we disagree on some of the details, but I'm glad to see that I'm not the only "walking paradox on TGC blog". The key detail being that "being against" something, and "legislating" are not equal in my mind. I can be completely against any of the activities you mention, and not feel the urge to have the government make an act or definition a legal matter. I'm not shy about sharing my views on any sin issue, but their are ethical AND utilitarian reasons for why it's a bad idea to hand this over to the government. I'm with you that we are not anarchists, but with a federal government this bloated and involved in our most honored rites and privacies, I have no confidence in them to be the answer. In the end, I'm not about the business of giving up the responsibility to be salt and light by allowing a court with guns to decide such a sacred event, and then flip because public support changed. That's what happened and now we're paying for it - in my opinion. Thanks for the follow-up!

  • http://WWW.thinkpoint.wordpress.com Steve Cornell

    Whether one claims to be heterosexual or to be homosexual in orientation, the desires and actions associated with orientation must be treated as volitional and capable of restraint. Otherwise one cannot speak of actions like adultery, rape or incest as culpable and wrongful moral behaviors.

    While we cannot tell a person of race to restrain or stop being Asian or African-American anymore than we can tell a woman to stop being female, we must require people of both heterosexual and homosexual orientation to restrain and control their sexual behavior under threat of punishment for wrongful expressions of it. If a society intends on making laws regarding sexual actions, sexuality (whatever orientation one claims) must be treated as a chosen behavior.

    Is there a better way to resolve the gay marriage debate? http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/is-there-a-better-way-to-approach-the-gay-marriage-debate/

  • http://- Pastor Terry Cunningham

    Good comments and certainly worth discussion. But also *years* too late.

  • http://www.keyword-power.com Lamar Carnes

    I could quote dozens or perhaps thousands of scriptures on this question but you can read the Bible for yourself and get the answers.
    But I will say, sin affects every person tremendously. I have always contended that the homosexual person MUST submit to, admit before God and all, that their acts are sinful! It is sin like any other rebellious sin of any type! Until the homosexual admits this and understands this he or she will never be saved nor will they ever have any hope of deliverance and/or pardon and acceptance before God. Having said that, any SIN THAT EXISTS BRINGS THE SAME CONCLUSION! Mankind is sin, full of it, that is our status. Only Christ can forgive and pardon and HE becomes our righteousness and right standing before God - not our self-righteousness or behavioral modifications through various self centered programs. Looking to HIM ONLY brings deliverance from any selfish desire and lust! So, where do you stand in this evaluation from the word of God? A sinner needing pardon and forgivenss and deliverance, or a rebel who insists that sin is o.k. as long as I don't think it harms anyone?

  • Barry

    Sadly, this was terrible. The starting point is what is sexuality for? It's morally wrong because the Triune God has commanded that it is wrong. Period. End of story.

    If anyone wants to disagree with that then we start the discussion there.....

  • Christopher Olson

    This video was one of the best and worst videos that I've seen from TGC. It has made me angry and hopeful at the same time.

  • Pingback: Why Christians Aren’t Like Racists Regarding Homosexuality | a servant named chad

  • http://southerngospelyankee.wordpress.com Esther O’Reilly

    I really liked this discussion. Excellent thoughts all round.