The Gospel Coalition

Yesterday, to no one's surprise, President Obama revealed in an interview that after some "evolution" he has "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." This after the Vice-President came out last Sunday strongly in favor of gay marriage. Not coincidentally, the New York Times ran an article on Tuesday (an election day with a marriage amendment on one ballot) about how popular and not controversial gay television characters have become. In other words, everyone else has grown up so why don't you? It can seem like the whole world is having a gay old time, with conservative Christians the only ones refusing to party.

The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: "It's no use staying in this battle," we think to ourselves. "We don't have to change our personal position. We'll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It's a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we've already lost. Time to throw in the towel." I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.

Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples:

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the "peace of the city." It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you're bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies--and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a" comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act---by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children." This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that "gay marriage" is really marriage. What's more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it's true that politics is downstream from culture, it's also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I've been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I'm not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some "marriages" to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity's great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil's bargains, the good will doesn't last nearly so long as the law.



[...] Five Reasons why Christians should oppose gay marriage [...]

[...] homosexuality. Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage – Kevin DeYoung What do you think is next on the liberal agenda? Become a CF Site Supporter Today [...]

Why It Matters « Pastor's Blog

May 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM

[...] world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” As such, here are some of reasons Kevin DeYoung gives for why Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose same-sex marriage… [...]

[...] Here are five reasons Christians should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term... [...]

[...] Michael Horton’s Same-Sex Marriage Makes a Lot of Sense Albert Mohler’s Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage Kevin DeYoung’s Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage [...]

[...] Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage (Kevin DeYoung):  “The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: ‘It’s no use staying in this battle,’ we think to ourselves. ‘We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.’ I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.” [...]

[...] Kevin DeYoung offers this piece which, though not a direct rebuttal to Evans’ post, offers reasons why Christians should continue to fight the battle against gay marriage. [...]

[...] Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage by Kevin DeYoung [...]

[...] Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage. How important is it for Christians to oppose gay marriage? How vocal should we be? Is this the proverbial ‘mountain’ or a ‘molehill’? Consider these points: [...]

[...] Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in KFD. Bookmark the permalink. ← That Idol That You Love, It Doesn’t Love You Back [...]


May 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM


I really don't think you could be more wrong on a few of your points. I get the feeling that you were simply raised with these bigoted views, and you were taught that the Bible supported these views, when in fact it doesn't. At one point in time, people justified racism and slavery with texts from the Bible, though I know you wouldn't recognize those arguments nowadays.

Simply put, the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality directly in any way. It condemns acts where people are doing terrible things, and homosexuality is involved in the situation. As said in one of the articles posted a few comments up, the "tax collectors" in the Bible are not considered evil because they are collecting taxes (though, with your logic, we COULD consider tax collecting a sin according to the Bible...but we all know you aren't going to do that). They are considered evil because of their GREED and SELFISHNESS. The (very few) references to homosexuality are used in an amazingly similar light; the homosexuals are being condemned for their PROMISCUITY and IDOLATRY, not their homosexuality. And before you go on to say "oh well Peter said it was bad", just go look at all the other nonsense Peter thought was bad.

Also, in regards to your view on this quote - “Didn’t Jesus help those who were looked down on by society at the time?” - yes Jesus does not leave sinners in sin, but it is not YOUR job, and especially not the GOVERNMENT'S job to lead them away from sin. That is Jesus's job. This is one thing that zealots such as yourself simply can't seem to understand. Ruling the "sinners" and forcing them in to Christian ways is not your job as a Christian! That is Jesus's job, and I honestly believe that it is quite shameful for people of your sort to go out in the world and try to do Jesus's job for him by regulating sin (even though you are no doubt filled with sin yourself...oh the hypocrisy).

I know you will read all this and completely deny the logic and reason, given how zealous in your hypocrisy and bigotry you still are through all this discussion, but maybe this will shine a light to some others who are more confused and reasonable on the subject.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 11:41 AM

@Manda: You asked....
"How do you know that God wouldn’t give it to me?" Because He set up marriage. It is between a man and a woman.

"How do you know that God doesn’t know that you’re doing is not being Christian like?" Well, because I read the bible...

"How is who I love not real?" I don't understand this question

"You say that I deserve last love, right?" No, I didn't say that.

"I get lasting joy in loving girls and God." I don't think so. Not if you tried to kill yourself.

"I don’t mean to offend you or anything but I honestly just don’t get it. I don’t get how you know that my ‘marriage’ is the same as your’s?" I'm guessing you aren't married since you are seventeen...I'm not married either. And you haven't offended me.

"Because doesn’t the Church teach to accept all?" No. It doesn't. It teaches that all can come to Christ, but they have to be changed by Christ.

"Wasn’t it build on love?" No. It was built to preach that Christ saves and to bring believers together to worship.

"Didn’t Jesus help those who were looked down on by society at the time?" Yes, but not by leaving them in their sin.

Kevin DeYoung

May 16, 2012 at 04:19 PM

Unfortunately, some of the comments are getting a bit out of hand. As a result, the comments section to this blog post will be closed.


May 16, 2012 at 04:19 PM

Heather, I am not liberal, I am orthodox.

I don't want to trade spars anymore, I would rather ask that you take my challenge and actually get to know Jesus through the bible and the Gospels. Take a Paul break.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 04:16 PM

@DRT: Oh yes, you can be saved if you don't read the bible. There have been death bed conversions. Jesus can come to you and change your life in an instant. But I highly question people who say they are changed yet don't want to hear God's word.

As for the majority of Christians welcoming homosexuals into their ranks, what do you mean by that? They welcome people into the church that acknowledge that they struggle with same sex attraction and are trying to submit that struggle against a sin to God? Absolutely! And I think that's great! Just as I have to submit my struggle against sin to God. They welcome them in by saying they are Christians while they live a sinful lifestyle without a desire to change? Ehhh, if that's true, they are ushering people into hell with a smile. I find that unconscionable.

"Please put your ego in check and start to understand what Christians actually teach." See, I can say the same thing back to you and it makes us even.

I'm reformed, and may I remind you that liberal theology is a late-comer. We've been here a long time, and we'll still be here a long time.

My place in Christianity? Uhm, that I was dead in my sins and was completely repulsive to God, but He took pity on me and lifted me up. That it was nothing I did, but completely Jesus Christ. That place in Christianity? that an inflated ego. I was nothing, and by God's power am only something as long as I bow to Jesus.


May 16, 2012 at 04:13 PM

Heather, I am not assuming you don't read the gospels. I can virtually guarantee that you read them. My challenge was to only read the gospels and do it in a certain way.


May 16, 2012 at 04:12 PM

re: innerrency, Heather, how do you deal with all the things in the bible that are clearly wrong? Different accounts of the same events? Clearly wrong perspectives on the way that nature and the world works? Even the bible itself never says that it is inerrent. It is "useful".

How do you justify in your mind this radical form of innerrency?

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 04:09 PM

@DRT: Interesting you assume we aren't reading the gospels. How much holier you must be than the rest of us. Hmmm...almost sounds like you are...*gulp* JUDGING people.

No one thinks Paul is Jesus. I know you are under the impression that you are the number one Christian on here, but I assure you...the other Christians on here are sincere. Don't assume things about their hearts. However, God speaks through Paul's letters too. If it's in the's the word of God.

Please, PLEASE a little less pride next time. Thanks.


May 16, 2012 at 04:08 PM

Heather, you have not done a good job defending the Christian viewpoint. By far, the majority of Christians welcome homosexuals into their ranks. By far, the majority of Christians believe that you may actually be saved even if you never read the bible.

Please put your ego in check and start to understand what Christians actually teach.

You are a member of a minority sect that has a radical and unsustainable perspective of the bible that will change, it is only a matter of time.

Now, I do feel that you fairly represent the people who I know that are in the reformed tradition. You were condescending, arrogant, judgmental, inconsiderate, and had an inflated ego about your place in Christianity. Sounds like par for the course for the reformed.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 04:05 PM

@DRT: Actually, that's not true. The bible is inerrant.

Yeees, if someone came with a good question, I might consider that. As Drew came at me with "YOU BIGOTED BIGOT WITH YOUR BIGOTRY!!!!" there really was nothing there to respectfully interact with. I'm imagining since you think the Bible is flawed you must have skipped the part where Jesus doesn't just "party with people." He tells them where they are wrong and changes their hearts AND their actions. I can't really DO this, but I can tell them what He has to say about it.

"It is ridiculous that the followers of Jesus have become the most judgmental unaccepting and mean people I know of." This myth really really needs to die.
A. Judmentalism - THIS is saying you know someone's eternal state. I don't. Telling someone they are wrong doesn't make you judgmental. It means you are helping them. I mean, if I'm judgmental in saying homosexuals are wrong, aren't you therefore judgmental in saying I'm wrong?

B. Unaccepting - In that I won't talk to homosexuals? I just did, so that's out.

C. Mean - Really? Who cares. I'd say Drew was pretty "mean" in his comments as was Anon, but I didn't mind that much. We don't really know each other and if we did in real life I'm sure his comments wouldn't have been that fiery.


May 16, 2012 at 04:03 PM

Something I would love for all of you to do. Put Paul, Peter, James, Revelation, put them out of your mind and read the actual gospels. If you are having a thought that goes something like "see he is setting up justification by faith" then go back and start over because you missed the point of the gospels. That is what Paul says, not Jesus. And Paul is not Jesus. Yes, really, Paul is not Jesus.

And as you go back and read the Gospels, think like they taught you to think in grade school. Think, what is the major idea of this section. What does it actually say, not what Paul says. Get to know Jesus.

If your church is doing something other than the gospels for the next month, don't go. Stay away. Just read the gospels for a month. Start at the beginning and read all the way. Don't pick and choose.

You may be surprised at what you find. You may find Jesus.


May 16, 2012 at 03:54 PM


The bible does not support the strong type of innerrency that you are likely supporting. There are quite a few things in the bible that are incongruent, contradictory, and not literally true. If you are starting out with such a concept then it is no wonder you come across so demeaning to other good people. Please take a close look and see if your theology is the problem, because I think it is.

To Heather and many of the others here. When someone comes forward with good questions and is honest in their quest, be like Jesus, invite them in, party with them, become friends with them. Understand what they are about. Please stop beating them over the head with your bible, it gives Christians a very bad name.

I am hesitant to call myself a Christian because of these types of behaviors. It is ridiculous that the followers of Jesus have become the most judgmental unaccepting and mean people I know of.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 03:46 PM

@April: Well, since I was only saying what was true and was not behaving in an un-Christian way, you can now relax. I point to the post by Mamazee as she says I've done a good job defending the Christian viewpoint.

It's funny because I've had more respectful conversations with Christians on here than not...sooo..apparently we've had vastly different interactions.


May 16, 2012 at 03:19 PM

@Heather, I called you on it because you are a Christian. Drew is not. I'm not holding him to my own standards.


May 16, 2012 at 03:17 PM

@Heather, this actually isn't my first internet debate. But thanks for illustrating my point. That comment had absolutely no merit whatsoever.

My point is this - I have had more respectful conversations on topics of disagreements with non-Christians than what I've seen demonstrated here. And it shouldn't be that way. I am a Christian. I know that the Bible talks about unity, being of the same mind, and even talks about places of disagreement in Romans saying we should each be convinced in our own mind. My point isn't that people commenting here are "mean," it is that it sends a really crappy message to the world. Plenty of people "out there" think anyone who is against homosexuality is a bigoted jerk. Nasty comments and division only prove that point. It does absolutely nothing to advance the kingdom.

I'm perfectly capable of taking the heat. I posted here knowing my voice would be unpopular. And I'm not surprised in the least that you aren't taking my words to heart. But, like you, I feel compelled to speak when I see un-Christian behavior.


May 16, 2012 at 02:48 PM

Anon. - there is no hate. I have seven children and i will love them forever. Would i be disappointed if one were gay? Yes! But same sex attraction can be dealt with Biblically, and there are a lot of cool people who are talking about it (Steve Gershom's blog comes to mind). Homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin, and i would be just as sad if they chose promiscuity, or divorce, or a life of thievery. But being *tempted* in any of those areas is not sin...

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 02:48 PM

@Anon: I'm sure if God chose for that to happen, He'd have some kind of reason.

But now you are kind of saying hateful things about homosexuals aren't you? I mean, using them as a threat? Is that why you don't have the courage to post your name?


May 16, 2012 at 02:38 PM

@Heather I hope you get married some day and one of your kids is gay.

Then you'll realize just how hateful your words are.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 02:26 PM

@Mamazee: Right! Definitely! And thanks! I was starting to feel a little "out there." Sometimes I get in "debate" mode (especially online) and I forget there are other believers who can add things too!


May 16, 2012 at 02:20 PM

@Heather (and @Drew) - there are prob lots of other people reading who strongly agree with Heather, but she is doing a pretty good job articulating our beliefs in the inerrancy of scripture, that if Peter wrote it and it's in the Bible, God edited the Bible :) so it's still His Word. There's a weird view of who Jesus is, among people who have never read the Bible. He took a whip and cleared out moneychangers from the temple, He said He had come not to bring peace, but a sword. He knew He would be the centre of controversy. True, He ate with prostitutes and drunkards, but they were changed because of meeting Him. And He's not huge on the spiritual "experts" but He loved the Word of God, and quoted it constantly (the Torah at that time).

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 02:12 PM

@April: I think perhaps you are someone who ought to just read the blog and not the comments. I can't believe this is your first interaction with internet debate. It's messy. If you can't take the heat....

You see, the thing is, we'll all be talking on here and SOMEONE (a very well meaning person mind you) inevitably comes along and is like "This conversation is so mean!" Well...I don't know what to tell you. Just know that the people who are commenting are taken their feelings into their own hands, and we're ok with that.

I appreciate your call to "niceties," but it's odd you singled me out instead of calling Drew on his "not being nice either." I mean, personally, I'm ok with it. As I said before, usually personal insults happen when you know you are losing an argument. Since Drew flew in guns blazing with personal arguments, I'm not insulted...more...bemused? I just think it's telling that you called me on it and not the both of us.


May 16, 2012 at 02:02 PM

This entire conversation saddens me. Deeply.

@Heather - while I respect your views, I don't appreciate the tone you take when people disagree with you. It is enough to be convinced of one's own views and to act accordingly. There is no need to be defensive with those views, nor is there a need to attack people who believe differently - even if you believe they attacked first. Jesus was not a retaliatory leader. Plenty of people hurled insults at him, and I don't really see him dishing it back. Just sayin'.

The conversation that has taken place in the comments here is really no longer about homosexuality vis a vis the Bible. It is about how we treat one another when we disagree. Even though it is easy to use polemic and harsh words when posting online, there are real people attached to their computers who may be genuinely hurt by the words we use.

@Lisa and Manda - thank you for being courageous enough to share your stories. Though things worked out differently for each of you, I appreciate your willingness to speak up on a heated topic with personal experiences.

@Kevin DeYoung - I realize your targeted audience is evangelical readers. I realize that the conversations that take place on your blog may not go in the direction you intended, but the words in this article are YOURS and you are responsible for the effect they have in this world - insofar as it is up to you.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 01:50 PM

@Drew: *sigh* again with the personal insults. Are you really that threatened by me? I promise, I'm not as scary as I might seem.

OH! You AREN'T a Christian. So, that explains the hypocrisy (i.e. telling me I had to accept sin and not try to change people...yet not accepting my "sin" and trying to change me), the poor biblical analysis, and the...well, plain not understanding.

It's absurd because the bible never makes a claim that "tax collecting" is an abomination. It's absurd because an entire town wasn't burned down due to tax collecting. It's absurd because both of the Apostles Peter AND Paul, do not condemn tax collecting. Is that any clearer? I really felt like I didn't have to spell that out, because I thought you were smarter than that.

Ok, well, newsflash for you, my friend: abusing our text would be to leave out major portions of it. I don't know how else to tell you this, but orthodox Christianity STILL holds to what Peter and Paul teach. If you run into any Christians who claim that they don't, you can tell them the rest of orthodox Christianity would like them to please stop pretending.

*ahem* I'm sorry...what is a "right to happiness"? And what is a "right to social equality"? Who has those rights and where are they found? I believe we should get rid of no fault divorce. So...yeah, no hypocrisy there. I disagree with both (as you put it) "bastardizations of marriage." (May I point out that you called homosexual marriage a bastardization of marriage?)

Actually, see, you said something...I responded. That's a discussion. I know you are improperly defining "bigotry" here, but do you have to improperly define "discussion" as well?

As for bigotry, the dictionary defines it as "Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions." If this applies to me, as you say it also applies to you. So, now we're even...

Your closing remarks were amusing in the extreme! It's quite clear you have an issue with Christianity, because what you THINK is Christianity is "just being a nice person." Christianity is much more than that, because you can't go to heaven by being a nice person. You need much more than that. If you define extremists as those who believe the whole bible is the word of God, they aren't a dying breed. They are here to stay. Forever.


May 16, 2012 at 01:31 PM

Well, considering I'm not a liberal and neither is my point of view, saying that I had a "liberal brainwashing" would be completely and absolutely wrong. Admittedly, though, I am NOT a Christian. This is simply because of people like you, who have ignorant and selfish views of society and want everyone to be like them, and who want to use their own holy text completely wrong to do so. The thing is, I'm presenting logical points and rational comparison between themes in modern society and the Bible, where you are simply bastardizing the text you so love and using it as a tool to oppress those that aren't like you (I bet Jesus would be proud).

I would like to know why my view on the tax collector analogy is any more absurd than any context you use scripture in. In fact, it is quite logical. And what portions of the Bible have I "purposely ignored"? I discounted Peter's condemnation of homosexuality because

1. Peter isn't Jesus or God
2. Peter condemns many things that are quite socially acceptable among Christians nowadays.

I was pointing out your sin to expose your own fraudulent conviction that we must use the government to control homosexuals and their rights to happiness and social equality. You can't simply outlaw one thing for being based in sin, then allow all the other things that are equally sinful. That is hypocrisy. Do you believe that we should outlaw divorce? If not, you are a hypocrite by the very definition. You believe one bastardization of marriage should be illegal and not the other.

I used that last paragraph as a disclaimer because there is no discussion here; you are too ingrained in your faith and bigotry to listen to a single thing I say. This stopped being a debate the very second you started using false claims and using the Bible out of context (which you will deny, oh well). And I still fail to see how I've been judgmental, besides pointing out the bigoted points that I'm sure you were very knowledgeable of making.

The thing is, I do not hate Christians or Christianity. I actually quite like the things that real Christianity preaches: love, purity, and caring for others. I simply don't believe in the metaphysical aspects of Christianity, but I think on the whole it is a great thing. This isn't an issue of "me vs. Christians", it's a matter of trying to expose extremists for what they truly are (and thank goodness they are a dying breed).

Heather E. Carrillo

May 16, 2012 at 01:05 PM

@Drew: Ah, and since you are assuming those things about me, I'll just assume that you are so lost in your liberal brainwashing that you can't think straight. But I'd never do that because that's unfair, and I have a spot of decency.

Simply put you are completely wrong about how the bible speaks about homosexuals. Since you have decided you are going to ignore pieces of the bible you don't like (and I quote "just go look at all the other nonsense Peter thought was bad") there really is no use pointing to the totally explicit verses against it. The tax collectors/homosexuals analogy is SO absurd I can hardly start!

It's not really hypocrisy. If you looked at ANY of my earlier comments you'd notice how I said we ALL of us were deserving of hell and we ALL of us had to be changed. We are supposed to hold one another (believers accountable). If you are a believer (...who discounts chunks of the bible...this is a little incompatible to me) I would hope you'd point out where I was in you did...when you pointed out my supposed bigotry. So, the REAL irony is, you are pointing out my sin in saying that someone is sinning while ignoring that you are sinning the exact same way that...ugh...What a spin you have got yourself into, Drew. Pointing out that someone is wrong is not a problem. I hope you would do this for me.

I know you will read all this and completely deny the logic and reason, given how zealous in your judgmentalism you are through all this discussion, but maybe this will shine a light to some others who are more confused and reasonable on the subject.

....Ahem...just wanted to point out how I can sling the same snot around and say the exact same amount of nothing that you did in your concluding argument. When I was in debate they told us that the last resort of a losing side on a debate, was personal insults.


May 15, 2012 at 08:49 PM

@Lisa Moeller: It is a very beautiful thing that God has done for you!

However, there is an error in your conclusion:

> this debunkts the whole "born this way" theory

Your particular experience doesn't actually debunk anything.

I'm happy to agree that wasn't the case for you - your sexuality was apparently the result of childhood abuse. It is quite a well recognized phenomena that someone who is "wired up" to be attracted to the opposite sex has that natural inclination perverted by childhood abuse. And it is wonderful that God has healed you from the consequences of that abuse.

But that was your particular experience. It does nothing to counter the fact that others *are* simply born - "wired up" - that way. This fact is recognized even by anti-gay conservative Christian groups. I know many gay people from stable, happy families, with well-adjusted caring parents, who had happy childhoods, and, come puberty, simply found themselves attracted to the same sex. They weren't abuses, and they didn't make a "choice". Don't make the mistake of discounting their situation just because yours was different.


May 15, 2012 at 08:47 AM

On my blog I compared DeYoung's 5 arguments against same-sex marriage to a psychiatrist's 10 arguments for same-sex marriage. If you're interested, follow the link above.


May 15, 2012 at 08:18 PM

Thank you for accepting homosexuality.

"Acceptance is not love. You love a person because he or she has lovable traits, but you accept everybody just because they're alive and human."
Albert Ellis


May 15, 2012 at 07:02 PM

Manda, for what it is worth, I am quite into Christianity but believe that you could be gay and that it is perfectly fine with god. Perfectly fine.

I realize that I am a minority here, but I firmly believe that it is fine to be gay.

Here is a good biblical analysis of it.


May 15, 2012 at 06:53 PM

How do you know that God wouldn't give it to me?
How do you know that God doesn't know that you're doing is not being Christian like?
How is who I love not real?
You say that I deserve last love, right?
I get lasting joy in loving girls and God.

I don't mean to offend you or anything but I honestly just don't get it. I don't get how you know that my 'marriage' is the same as your's?

Because doesn't the Church teach to accept all?
Wasn't it build on love?
Didn't Jesus help those who were looked down on by society at the time?

Heather E. Carrillo

May 15, 2012 at 06:34 PM

@Manda: Well, it depends on what you mean by that. Does Christ need you to clean up your act in order for Him to save you from your sins, no. Does He let you continue a slave to it, also no.

Oh Manda, I think you can be happy. Happiness is fleeting and it fades and grows, but it doesn't last. Joy lasts, and that while you don't have Christ, you will never have.

And you can't get married. Marriage is something given by God. He won't give it to you with another woman. The state will probably eventually pass laws that will allow you to get some kind of certificate that they pretend is "marriage," but it isn't. See, the problem is, the church allowed the state to be able to have some impact on marriage. That was a you can see.


May 15, 2012 at 06:28 PM

@Heather E. Carrillo:
What if I don't want Jesus to change me. Isn't he supposed to accept people for who they are. every single one?

This article is starting to suggest that I shouldn't be happy.
My happiness comes from the person that I love and we have the same sex.This not like we will make your kids gay or impact the world in a bad way as much as every other person in this world.

I just don't know why people have to make a big deal about something that really doesn't have anything to do with them.

I want to be happy, I want to get married --to a girl. Why is that such a big deal?

Heather E. Carrillo

May 15, 2012 at 06:19 PM

@Manda: That's not the religious. Well, unless you are talking about some odd religion. If there are people telling you, you shouldn't be alive, they aren't Christians. They can SAY they are, but they aren't. No Christian wants you dead. They want you saved.

You can't change yourself, Manda, but Jesus can change you.

Of course you are a person. What do you need a chance to do? Eat? Work? Walk? Speak freely? Carry a concealed weapon? Drive? Life? Liberty? Pursuit of happiness? You have all those things.


May 15, 2012 at 06:09 PM

I am seventeen. I tried to kill myself because of my sexuality. Because the religious in my community thinks that because of who I love is a crime. Some have even told my that I shouldn't be alive and that I don't have feelings

I have also been told by more people in the community that I am one of the nicest people they have ever met.--I can't believe that. I hate myself because of something that I have tried so hard to change. But I can't and for so long I wasn't okay with it. Now, I've accepted that I'm gay. I just don't know why people who understand something have to hate it, knock people down.

A person is a person. You don't know if he or she is an LGBT until they let you know, they just want to belong. Just give us that chance, please.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 15, 2012 at 05:58 PM

@Lisa Moeller: Wow! Praise God! I think you've said all that needs to be said. Thank you.

Lisa Moeller

May 15, 2012 at 05:53 PM

so, my story is this....i lived as a gay woman my entire adult life. i was also addicted to drugs my entire adult life. i was sexually abused as a child and that was predominantly the reason. in june of 2010, i was healed of the abuse, delivered from drugs, and my identity restored by the power of Jesus Christ. the most humbling part is that i did not reach out to Him, rather He interrupted the downward spiral i was in, and completely changed from that moment on. i was completely homosexual and was instantly heterosexual, with absolutely no effort on my part. this debunkts the whole "born this way" theory, and i plan to release all that i have learned from Him in a book i am writing entitled, "You weren't meant to carry that" which will bring to light the truth that God has placed in my heart, which i know will lead to criticism, resentment, and persecution. but for those with eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts that are open, it may also lead to restoration. i invite anyone who is interested in my story to friend me, and you can see photos and testimonies of God's grace.

[...] 5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law. (Read Pastor DeYoung’s entire article here) [...]


May 14, 2012 at 12:36 PM

@Faithworks, IMO it is better to speak the truth that hurts then heals to individuals, than to try to legislate that truth when it is something that is not agreed upon by the society we inhabit.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 14, 2012 at 12:24 PM

@Daniel: Why are you commenting if you can't understand what you read?

[...] Kevin DeYoung: [...]


May 14, 2012 at 09:35 AM

@Blue Collar Todd...

"People who support gay marriage are already willing to accept polygamy and polyamory."

You don't think that might be generalizing just a tad? And you link to your OWN article making this statement? Is that because you couldn't find any gay marriage supporters actually making such a claim? A bit disingenuous, perhaps?

"The same arguments that people use to justify gay marriage justify legalizing polygamy. I hope Christians don't want to travel down that destructive road."

Actually, it's a much easier argument to justify legalizing polygamy (to Christians at least), since the Bible clearly supports it.


May 14, 2012 at 04:48 AM

I appreciate your addressing this topic, but from your title of this post, I expected a WORD-based post with reasons why we as Christ-followers who wish to glorify God should oppose gay marriage, not why "we shouldn't give up- don't be fooled- everyone else is not pro-gay marriage and it is still illegal in some states!"

I would appreciate even more a Biblical, word-based stance on how we can glorify God and form our convictions regarding this.

[...] From conservative Reformed persons Michael Horton and Kevin De Young. [...]


May 14, 2012 at 01:18 PM

(The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether.) Good! This is a great article that well equips our understanding and presses us onward in our battle for truth.


May 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I read this entire article and all I could hear was "blah blah blah I'm a bigot blah blah blah."

[...] Kevin DeYoung, Five Reasons Why Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay ‘Marriage‘ Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]

[...] Kevin DeYoung, Five Reasons Why Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]


May 13, 2012 at 09:18 AM

You know what drives me nuts about this blog? DeYoung drops these bombshell posts, chaos ensues in the comments, and he is nowhere to be found. IMO, blogs are "conversations," and those conversations tend to include the voice of the blogger. It seems as though DeYoung just wants a platform to express his views and "rally the troops," but he has no interest in dialogue.

As a sister in Christ, I want to call out this divisiveness for the sake of division. We are supposed to have in mind the unity of the church. Posting things like this, and then not returning for conversation shows just how little unity is desired. That makes me sad.


May 13, 2012 at 06:54 AM

I realize I won't change any of your minds on this but I still feel compelled to comment. We should not even be "voting" on whether or not to grant equal rights to members of our society with views that differ from ours. A family with two moms, or two dads, does NOT harm or negatively impact a heterosexual family in any manner. Think of the immeasurable harm your stance does to the children of gay parents. You are targeting them, telling them that their families are not worthy. A real form of bullying. At one time, it was against the law for races to mix/marry; for women to vote; and slavery was legal. Your religious beliefs are yours but you o not have the right to impose them on others. This kind of hatred and self-righteousness is dangerous.


May 13, 2012 at 05:19 AM

The verdict is in. God has already passed judgment on the sin of homosexuality, along with all other forms of evil. "Do not be deceived ...homosexuals, will not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9). The most loving thing a person can do is to try and help and encourage a person trapped in this self destructive way of life, to come to repentance (a turning away from sin) and to Jesus, through faith. While there is still time.

'But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire, and sulfur, which is the second death." Revelation 21: 8


May 13, 2012 at 04:02 AM

I too would like to echo DeeDee's comments. It seems so many pastors are afraid (cowards) to take this issue on for fear of the heat it will generate. Be encouraged. You are standing rock solid.

I agree with Ruben that a christian marriage relationship between a man and a women is picture of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. It's the Gospel being lived out.


May 13, 2012 at 03:24 PM

@Faithworks - yes it is better to speak the truth. However, what good is speaking the truth if there is no desire for conversation and reconciliation? My comment is speaking specifically to the fact that Kevin DeYoung has never ONCE commented on his own blog when conversations get out of control or people ask him a question. At least he hasn't done that on any of his posts that I've seen. He has no desire for conversation. He just wants to polarize, and I have a problem with that.


May 13, 2012 at 01:31 PM

@ sandi & April,

It is better to speak the truth that hurts and then heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills. It is better to stand alone with the truth, than be wrong with the multitude." Adrian Rogers

Joanna Said

May 12, 2012 at 12:36 AM

This is a great article... we face an increasing pressure to give in, as Christians, but that does not mean that we should...
I think it means just the opposite!
Thanks for writing this article, to remind us of that!

[...] with their opinions this week, some worth reading and discussing (Rachel Held Evans, Skye Jethani, Kevin DeYoung), some worth ignoring all together (Ed Young, Jr.). [Warning: Young violates Chaplain Mike's ban on [...]

Contending For The Faith

May 12, 2012 at 11:35 AM

[...] The recent vote in North Carolina and this week’s generally unsurprising announcement from President Obama in support of same-sex marriage have Christians all abuzz. Some, lament the North Carolina decision saying they’re tired of the culture wars. Others have reminded us that there are good reasons that believers ought to continue to oppose gay marriage. [...]

[...] this sparked a fire-storm among political conservatives and conservative evangelicals, most of whom are working from the assumption that the Church’s primary responsibility is to [...]

Penna Dexter

May 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Kevin - this is a great and thoughtful list of reasons and I am drawing heavily from it, quoting you often, for a radio commentary that will air on the Moody and Bott Radio Networks

[...] Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage (Kevin DeYoung): The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: ‘It’s no use staying in this battle,’ we think to ourselves. ‘We don’t have to change our personal position. We’ll keep speaking the truth and upholding the Bible in our churches, but getting worked up over gay marriage in the public square is counter productive. It’s a waste of time. It makes us look bad. It ruins our witness. And we’ve already lost. Time to throw in the towel.’ I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.” [...]

[...] 5. Kevin DeYoung on 5 Reasons Christians Sh0uld Still Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage [...]


May 12, 2012 at 06:05 PM

Here is my response to your 5 reasons. I am a Christian, and until fairly recently, I was also a Republican and anti-gay marriage. Most Christians oppose gay marriage because they believe homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, they believe accepting gay marriage is the same as admitting that homosexuality is not a sin. I believe those who believe homosexuality is a sin can maintain that belief while ceasing their fight against gay marriage.

1. “Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage.” Anytime you put minority rights to a majority vote, the minority will lose. If voting rights for African-Americans in Georgia in 1962 had been put to a majority vote, how do you think that would have come out?

2. “The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good.” And I suppose bullying and persecution of gays is in the common good? Refusing to accept gay marriage won’t stop people from being gay…and it won’t stop them from living together and having families. Shall we refuse to grant them the same legal protections as heterosexual marriage? Divorce laws don’t exist to make divorce desirable or “good”, they exist to protect the rights of the people in a dissolving relationship from taking advantage of one another. Gay couples deserve the same protection.

3. “Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us.” Marriage is in the domain of the state. When you as a minister perform a wedding, you say, “By the power vested in me by the State of Michigan…” The states in this country are responsible for setting the rules for civil marriage, not churches. Of course, no church can be compelled to hold a wedding ceremony for same-sex couples, and no minister can be compelled to violate their own personal beliefs to officiate. But neither can those with religious views impose them on those who do not share those beliefs. Since the state sets the rules, if opposite-sex couples can form a legal union, and with that union enjoy certain rights and privileges, same-sex couples can also form a legal union and enjoy those same rights and privileges. That’s the meaning of “equal protection under the law.” And Jesus gave us some guidance on how to handle situations like this: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

4. “Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior.” Do you know why people are gay? I didn’t think so…neither do I. Are they born that way? Is it something in their early environment or due to some sexual trauma? The definitive answer does not exist. But I do know that most gays didn’t “choose” this orientation. Whatever it is, it’s below the level of conscious choice. So I’m going to err on the side of Not Condemning. Jesus said, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” If Jesus didn’t come to condemn, why do I think that’s my job?

5. “We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic.” Ah…the old “slippery-slope” argument. I’m not sure if you know any gay people, but my gay friends just want to be left in peace to live their lives. There is no “slippery-slope”, there’s only fear and paranoia ginned up by religious zealots who are intent on depriving people of equal protection under the law.

Blue Collar Todd

May 12, 2012 at 05:34 AM

People who support gay marriage are already willing to accept polygamy and polyamory.

The same arguments that people use to justify gay marriage justify legalizing polygamy. I hope Christians don't want to travel down that destructive road.


May 12, 2012 at 02:33 PM

Gay marriage =loss of freedom of conscience and loss of freedom of religion. Look north to see how Canada's society has evolved into massive lawsuits for gay "hurt feelings" which always trump both rights since the govt imposed gay marriage by fiat a few years ago.


May 12, 2012 at 01:54 PM

It is not a matter of 'giving in' to a culture. The issue here is whether or not our stance on this subject should be re-evaluated.
There are arguments to be made. ONe is concerning how the Church is to interact within society. Does the church have to role or moral policing? My question is, how does the United States' legal definition of marriage affect the church's definition or (more importantly) the reality of what marriage actually is? Yes,I believe it is very important to make this distinction here.

There are arguments to be made in favour of supporting gay marriage. One is that Christians came to America in pursuit of freedom of conscience. To not extend this same freedom to our society at large is wrong. The real issue here is the denial among many Christians that the United States is pluralistic. The Church does not have some sort of ultimate say on a culture that the Church has, for the most part, abandoned 50 or 60 years ago.

The debates on homosexuality itself are secondary to this one argument.


May 11, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Let me point out a study conducted by British anthropologist Dr. Joseph Daniel Unwin, the results of which were published in Unwin's 1934 book, "Sex and Culture." Dr. Unwin studied 86 civilizations spanning 5,000 years of recorded human history, and discovered a startling pattern: No culture survived more than two generations after there was a marked loosening of sexual mores.

In his 1940 book, "The Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society", Dr. Unwin wrote: "Expansive energy has never been displayed by a society that inherited a modified monogamy or a form of polygamy." (Dr. Unwin did not single out homosexuality; his study took into account *any* form of sexual behavior deviating from a monogamous one-man, one-woman relationship.) He added, "In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence." Dr. Unwin's findings are particularly salient because they ran counter to the theory of Sigmund Freud. Freud hypothesized that sexual repression was the root cause of a society's problems; Dr. Unwin's research found that the opposite is true.

Dr. Unwin made an unsettling observation about his study: "The evidence is that in the past a class has risen to a position of political dominance because of its great energy and that at the period of its rising, its sexual regulations have always been strict. It has retained its energy and dominated the society so long as its sexual regulations have demanded both pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence...I know of no exceptions to these rules."

In his Farewell Address, President George Washington stated, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports..." Nearly 140 years before the publication of Dr. Unwin's study, President Washington was aware of the connection between morality and the prosperity of society. Starting with the "baby boomer" generation, American society has seen a dramatic loosening of its sexual mores. The millennial generation is now the second generation into America's sexual anarchy; it frightens me to think about how rapidly our society is reaching the point of no return. Again, the chilling words of Dr. Unwin: "I know of no exceptions to these rules."

BTW, Dr. Unwin was an atheist. (I'm not saying that to promote atheism, but to state that some things are apparent to all who can see them.)

The church needs to do what Christ commanded His followers to do: transform the culture. People who love and obey Jesus Christ will not tolerate ungodly leaders who approve of that which is wicked, and in that way our public policy and law will be changed.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 11, 2012 at 12:55 PM

@TimJ: If it's a metaphor, than it's probably not a scientific argument...It's not a scientific article, so...

If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" this article would be unbiblical. It doesn't matter what time it is written in. Being black isn't wrong. Homosex is.

"Embracing things you don’t understand is part of being a human." What?

Who ever said Christians were inherently better than non Christians? That's the whole POINT of the gospel. Everyone is sinful and everyone is going to hell. The only difference is that we believe in a way out (the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf), and only because of Him (not us) are we at all made right.


May 11, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Kevin DeYoung,
Do you think that so many "believers" don't get this because they don't comprehend the unseen spiritual battles? Or do they see Satan as a real being at all? Is that why people cannot see the bigger picture?

Tim J

May 11, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Joe P already said my initial reaction too -- rubs against the grain of the universe?! Is that a scientific argument? Because the metaphor doesn't make any sense.

If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" in this article, it could've been written in 1967, just before that became legal. It seems preposterous that we'd have that debate today. And it is just as preposterous that you feel compelled to deny someone freedom and the pursuit of happiness for the greater good. That's not righteous, not right, not courageous -- it's bigotry, wrong, and cowardly.

Embracing things you don't understand is part of being a human.

Christians aren't inherently better people than non-Christians. Wait, do you agree with that? Because if not, then we have a bigger problem.


May 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Thanks Kevin. I've been leaning back and forth on this one. Leaning in favor of some sort of compromise, such as civil unions, then away. It's a sobering reminder that there is no peace treaty to be had. All the devils bargains are bad news. I've appreciated the way you and Justin and the GC have responded on this white hot issue.


May 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I agree most with reason #5. There is a militant homosexual agenda at work behind the scenes of all these issues, measures, and political positions and they are powerful and wealthy. Already, they are pushing homosexualist education down into gradeschools in many western countries. In some countries, they provide graphic images, scenes using dolls, and language to encourage self-exploration and 'identity' discovery. There are instances where homeschooling parents have been jailed for refusing to send their children to these government indoctrination centers (i.e. public school) and other instances where the children were taken from parents who were choosing to move to another country rather than comply. Gay speakers are often hostile to those with opposing views, especially to Christians. Their aim is to put a wedge between parents and their children with respect to moral codes so they can better control the minds of the next generation in their favor. They want to become the 'teachers' of values to children, stripping parents of this most sacred God-given exclusive right. Since they cannot pro-create, they are pushing hard for adoption rights so they can get their hands on other people's children. If this is permitted, you will see more intense pressure put on public officials to take children away from their birth parents for the most superficial reasons so these couples have a readily-available pool of children from which to choose. In order to continue in their aims, they will be forced to push religious sentiments against their behavior into the proverbial closet so that it will become illegal (a violation of a human right) to speak of the immorality of homosexual acts in public, so attacks on the Christian voice in the public space will increase until it becomes illegal to speak about morality anywhere but inside a church. There are so many liberties at stake here it is hard to itemize them all. But the freedom of conscience of parents to rear children according to their own principles without indoctrination from the state school system, and the freedom to speak about morality at all in public are both endangered freedoms. And this doesn't even touch on the subject of chaplains and other military personnel who face disciplinary measures for simply speaking their minds on the topic. In the military, you adopt and affirm the government position on a subject or face serious consequences so when the government itself takes a formal position on a moral issue, it enforces that position through dictatorial means, which inherently violate the human rights of those in opposition. Our own military is undergoing or about to be purged of all those who object to this radical homosexual agenda, which puts our entire nation in the hands of a radicalized military. Add to that the pressure on priests/ministers/churches/counselors/psychologists etc. to violate their consciences in their work or to perform these marriages and you take an incalculable toll on the human conscience of a nation. American this has to be stopped right now in its tracks before it is too late. God did not intend for people to use the freedom he gave them to do harm or evil to the common good, and he will punish severely those who do this harm.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

@Jermaine: Understood. You have made it clear who you THINK created the term and definition of marriage. I have made it clear that I disagree.

@Drew: I'm sorry, did I say morality doesn't exist outside of Christianity? If I did that was incorrect. Morality is transcendent and it's everywhere. The law of God is, after all, written on all mens' hearts.

1. That's not out of context. I was referring to you being mistaken when you said "women are painted inferior to men in the Bible." In that you are mistaken. "Wives submit to your husbands does not mean what you think it means." In fact, the verses around that make it pretty clear. "Slaves obey your masters," is true. "Slaves" here refers to anything from "slaves" to "indentured servants" to "hired help." Surely you obey your employer....
The King James Version is accepted by most biblical scholars as THE closest and most accurate translation we have available to us. I highly doubt that you are a literary critic so before you spout of things not known to you, you perhaps should look into this. I don't defend the NIV and I don't use it. Ever.

2. Uhm....ok, we can agree to disagree on this one.

3. Gay marriage isn't illegal. It just isn't real.

4. Those aren't petty semantics. You just misquoted the person on whom my entire faith hinges. That wasn't even the general IDEA! It wasn't even CLOSE. How can I know that it's ok for me to tell someone they are wrong? GLAD you asked!
A. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God1 may be complete, equipped for every good work." (Emphasis mine)
B. James 5:20 "Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
C. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?"
D. Nehemiah 13:25 (Nehemiah not only rebukes but pulls the hair and beards of his fellow Jews who married outside the faith)
E.1 Timothy 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
F. Titus 2:15 "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee."

So, yeah, I'd say there is biblical precedent. Would you like more verses? I've got more verses. We believe the Bible is a cohesive whole, Drew. So, when Jesus says "Judge not lest you be judged," it has to work with the rest of those scriptures I just quoted. Obviously He didn't mean, "Never tell anyone they are wrong."

5. I have NO idea what you are talking about. You said you didn't understand this point. The point was, "Gay marriage isn't a thing." Marriage has a form and a function that two people of the same gender don't fulfill.

Marriage is only from God. And it's a gift given to the church to give to the people. Unfortunately we handed it over to the state. That was stupid.

Joe P

May 11, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Kevin, in your #2 reason, you say it "might sound bigoted"... That's for good reason....It's because it is bigoted. Bigoted and ignorant.

And did you honestly use "it rubs against the grain of the universe" as an argument? Seriously?

I find exactly zero of your "reasons" to be compelling reasons to oppose gay marriage.

Why do you spend your energy on something like this? With so many issues facing society today, I would think that a real Christian would focus on something that would be for the greater good of mankind.

You think you are opposing gay marriage in the name of God, but I doubt He is too happy with you speaking out against equal rights for all of His children.


May 11, 2012 at 08:51 AM

Shame on this blog post and on all the words wasted in the comments section. I want to know who has been healed, helped, ministered to, forgiven, or shown the amazing love of God through this divisive conversations.

Our churches crumble, and we continue the in-fighting. I wonder what the Apostle Paul would have to say to the church in the US. And I highly doubt the first bone he would have to pick would be with gay marriage.


May 11, 2012 at 08:11 AM

I think there's a lot more to this comment that is at the crux of this, and many, issues than most people realize. Folks who hold the Bible as truth for living get it, but it seems hopelessly lost on those who don't hold the Bible as a standard for living.

" Please get over yourself and try to view the world and other peoples’ views objectively and fairly for once in your life. "

Two quick thoughts about this before my alleged mind goes a thousand different directions today.

I look at life through the lens of Scripture. There is nothing fair about it. God does not treat everyone fairly. In judgement, yes but, over all, no. We could reel off a thousand different ways we're not created fairly. Those who do live their lives with God'
s Word as their/our/mine standard accept this as God's plan, those who don't, well, dont. It's where head introduces itself to wall.

For me, at least, there just isn't a lot, if any, movement here. Many people want us to judge fairly according to what the flavor of the culture is, as for me and my house, we'll serve the Lord.

[...] 5 Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage by Kevin DeYoung [...]

A reply to Kevin Deyoung | ADKF

May 11, 2012 at 08:00 AM

[...] on Kevin Deyoung’s blog opposing gay marriage: Since when should Christians be using the popular vote or a President’s sentiment to determine what is right or wrong? One of the strategic pillars [...]

[...] Kevin DeYoung, “Why Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage” [...]

[...] came across this bizarre idea via Daniel Kirk’s discussion starter. I assume that it illustrates the (Churchillian?) maxim [...]


May 11, 2012 at 07:27 AM

@Jo "For those who claim only individual adult happiness and consent matter in public policy, on what moral basis do you defend that conclusion?"

EXACTLY. Notice no one has responded to this question (I brought it up like 4 times yesterday in all my comments)!


May 11, 2012 at 07:25 PM


Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my question, Elizabeth.

@Elizabeth: "Since we are not a Theocracy, confining our laws to things that fall under that moral code seems reasonable, especially as most of those types of laws would also be in support of many of God’s commands."

At the end of the day, I believe that the government condoning homosexual marriage affirms a religious sentiment--The religion of Hedonistic Self. And Christianity that defends it isn't Christianity at all but moralistic therapeutic deism..."God exists to make me happy and whatever I feel is what he wants for me."

I just don't think it's possible for the Christian to leave the fullness of God, all that he reveals of himself in his Word, at the courthouse door. And on the other end, it's not possible for a Secularist to leave his convictions against God's absolute truth at the courthouse door. We're all bringing thoughts about God with us into government (into life!). The big question is, whose thoughts will rule the day? And why would a Christian not want to make God's thoughts "rule" the day?

The "theocracy" argument is a straw man, I think. I'm pretty sure that Kevin DeYoung and most politically minded Christians aren't out to set up a theocracy...To desire to bring God into Government isn't an infringement on rights (especially because the government doesn't give rights, it protects ones that already exist). If anything it's the ultimate "do unto others" because it goes beyond "do unto others" with "love thy neighbor..."

And I could go on, but I'm sure this debate here is fizzling out and I'm not adding much to it. :)

[...]     “5 Reasons Christian Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage” is Kevin DeYoung’s encouragement to never give up in the battle to oppose gay [...]

[...] The recent vote in North Carolina and this week’s generally unsurprising announcement from President Obama in support of same-sex marriage have Christians all abuzz. Some, lament the North Carolina decision saying they’re tired of the culture wars. Others have reminded us that there are good reasons that believers ought to continue to oppose gay marriage. [...]


May 11, 2012 at 06:19 AM

The following thought occurred to me........I don't know that a man and woman marry for civil right reasons. I can see where maybe they would, but I've never thought that to be the primary reason.
It seems to me that, that is the one of the only reasons gay persons want to get married. Granted, they say that they love one another, but one of the primary reasons to get married is so that they can both enjoy the same rights that a married man/woman have. If that is not the main reason for gay marriage, whatever happened to "common law". Has the rights of a "common law gay marriage" ever been challenged? I don't know!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ruben Martinez

May 11, 2012 at 06:08 PM

I do not understand why Christians, and I am one, want to tell those who do not know our Lord Jesus Christ to live by the standards that are set in the New Testament for the church. What the world does not see, and sad to say some Christians is that the marriage relationship, between a man and woman is a picture of the our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church, and Jesus did quote the OT when he said that marriage is between a man and a woman. He also quoted Genesis when he said "therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife (not significant other). If you do not accept that, that is your decision, but please don't say that homosexuallity is not a sin, even as being a womanizer, or a drunkard, extorioner, fornicator, etc. (Read I Cor. 6:9-20; Ephesians 5:24-33; and Genesis 2:23-24, and Matthew 19:1-6) And please, do not say that it is taken out of context. Also, Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." Sad to say this, but I believe it is true, The USA is of this world.

[...] Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage by Kevin DeYoung [...]


May 11, 2012 at 06:03 AM

It would seem to me (being a Christian), but excluding that one point, if all people were to believe in gay marriages, and if at some point in time everyone in the entire world became gay and monogamous at the same time, don't these people know that at that instant the World would eventually become barren. Seems like a no brainer to me.................Homosexuality on any thought level or value, especially biblical, is just not right..........

deedee briski

May 11, 2012 at 05:43 PM

Thank you for stepping up to the plate on the tough issues Kevin, with so many pastors dodging anything that offends and leading their flock right into compromise these days, your obedience to Christ is very refreshing. Love does not compromise truth and truth does not compromise love and you are an example of what that looks like. I think there's been enough said without adding more than to say, I agree, and I just wanted to send some encouragement. You are appreciated for stepping out there when you know the hostility that comes against truth, even spoken in love as you did. The dark is offended by the light, we know this and we are called to shine anyways. God bless you. DeeDee


May 11, 2012 at 05:33 PM

Gee Deloyd, I didn't know that as how it worked for homosexual men. I wonder why the perfectly good women are there to be crawled over on the way to look for a "stinky-ass" man.

Deloyd Rankin

May 11, 2012 at 05:19 PM

How repulsive can we get? Religion aside, although I agree wholly with GODS word, I cannot imagine crawling over a perfectly good woman looking for a stinky-ass man.

Weekly Links (5/11/2012) « The Beacon

May 11, 2012 at 05:19 AM

[...] to point you to a few dif­fer­ent arti­cles that I found help­ful: Kevin DeYoung’s on why Christians should oppose gay mar­riage, Justin Taylor on a few sem­i­nars on homo­sex­u­al­ity, Albert Mohler on President [...]


May 11, 2012 at 04:32 AM

In number three; what about married couples who can't conceive? Should they be excluded from marriage?


May 11, 2012 at 04:02 PM

@Clarice, I do not think that we can have any legislation free of *any* moral code, nor do I think that stating that we cannot base *all* our laws in our Scriptures indicates that.

I do think that the case was made fairly well yesterday, that the moral code of the Golden Rule, as seen through the lens of "don't infringe on one another's rights" covers most of the laws that I think the Government should be enacting. (e.g. Don't infringe on another's right to property - don't burgle or rob them, don't deface or destroy their property, etc. Don't infringe on another's right to life - don't murder, don't assault, as that can impede their life continuing on its normal course, etc.)

Since we are not a Theocracy, confining our laws to things that fall under that moral code seems reasonable, especially as most of those types of laws would also be in support of many of God's commands.

[...] Kevin DeYoung explains why, although it will be hard and wildly unpopular, Christians should continue to oppose gay marriage. [...]


May 11, 2012 at 03:55 PM

@Elizabeth, you said: "I do comprehend that our civic laws are not all based on our Scriptures, nor should they be if we value the freedom to worship as God calls us to in this country. That freedom is based on the proposition that we shall not legislate our religion onto others, so they can also enjoy freedom of conscious and religion; and conversely, others will not legislate our religion/beliefs into illegality."

Can you please answer me this one question: Are you prepared to say that legal decisions are considered or ought to be considered free of any moral code? If so, can you please explain to me how this is possible?

No one has responded to me on this and I think it's important, at least for me, in understanding this whole "keep religion out of law" thing.


May 11, 2012 at 03:51 PM

@Anthony, I truly appreciate your zeal, but I'd be careful about calling into question someone's Salvation because of their stance on homosexuality. Weak theology? Probably. Weak hermeneutic? You bet. Maybe a brand new or "baby" Christian? Most likely. Salvation is based on one thing only--the gospel of Christ. If these folks can affirm Christ's substitution atonement on their behalf to satisfy God's just wrath against them because of their sin...yet they don't handle the scriptures about homosexuality very well, or are pressured by cultural definitions, they may just be young in the faith.

We "work out" our salvation (it's evidenced) as we submit to the Spirit's grace through the Word, preaching, discipline, etc. Every Christian is on a different time table but the true Christian IS being transformed into the likeness of Christ. Some of these "Christian" folks may be saying something different about homosexuality next year, or in ten years. God knows. He alone *truly* knows.


May 11, 2012 at 03:47 PM

@Anthony, just because I believe that the civil and spiritual realms operate on different levels and with different standards, doesn't mean that I am not a Christian.

It concerns me that you would presume to call out others on the condition of their hearts before God based on a single issue.

I neither misunderstand, or argue with the Scriptures regarding what God's stand is on homosexual behavior. Anymore than I misunderstand or argue with the Scriptures regarding thievery, lying, heterosexual extra-marital sexual activity, pride, speeding, etc.

I do comprehend that our civic laws are not all based on our Scriptures, nor should they be if we value the freedom to worship as God calls us to in this country. That freedom is based on the proposition that we shall not legislate our religion onto others, so they can also enjoy freedom of conscious and religion; and conversely, others will not legislate our religion/beliefs into illegality.


May 11, 2012 at 03:37 PM

For the "Christians" who have commented on this blog post in favor of gay marriage...There is a good chance you aren't Christian. If you misunderstand and argue with the scriptures to this level, you need to contemplate your standing in the faith. Homosexuality isn't a new issue, and it has definately happened in ancient times. If you're conceding that this issue is fine because of cultural pressures then your faith is in question. There are times when we have to stand firm in our beliefs, we can't always just state "How have we spread Christ's love?" Do you think Lot questioned God after he destroyed Sodom? - "God, how did you spread Your love in this situation?"

[...] Gay Marriage and Christians: “The temptation is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: ‘It’s no use staying in this battle,’ we think to ourselves…I understand that temptation. It is an easier way. But I do not think it is the right way, the God glorifying way, or the way of love.” [...]

Aaron P.

May 11, 2012 at 02:40 PM

I disagree with this article, and responded to each of the 5 points with scripture here: I don't believe opposing gay marriage is biblical or necessary.

James M.

May 11, 2012 at 02:29 PM

It seems either short-sighted or dishonest to suggest that this critique is on par with bigotry. To the one who would make such a claim, I would pose such as the following: "Why do we exercise similar 'bigotry' toward those inclined toward polygamy?" "How about consentual sexual relations between adults and children?" "Can anyone rightfully deny the personal fulfillment one obtains from bestiality?" And so on. My point is to suggest that virtually everyone agrees that lines are drawn; the question is where. To simply foist the charge of unjust discrimination upon folks who apply their understanding of special and general revelation to the issue in a way that is contrary to another's is just not helpful.

As to Elizabeth's thoughtful comments regarding rights and the 14th amendment, I have some thoughts...maybe later when time allows.

[...] Michael Horton’s Same-Sex Marriage Makes a Lot of Sense Albert Mohler’s Evolution’s End? President Obama Calls for Same-Sex Marriage Kevin DeYoung’s Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage [...]


May 11, 2012 at 02:11 AM

Kenneth, thank you for posting one of the many scholarly findings that clarify this issue. The Witherspoon Institute has published a short booklet that summarizes findings from biological and social sciences as well as political and moral analysis on the intrinsic goods of marriage: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles, 2008. The assumption that public policy and faith must be decided without reference to one another ignores the sovereignty of God, as if the political world ever exists apart from His Will any more than the natural world does. The convergence of science, philosophy, religion, and political consensus point to a consistent reality about human flourishing, to a natural basis for morality. The question is not whether anyone is able to judge others as morally accountable; all people do that. The problem is finding consensus about what reliable authority exists for the morality of human beings. The values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness plus the Bill of Rights are not substitutes for discerning good from evil or right from wrong. No matter how valuable they are as political premises, these documents do not provide a basis for assessing harm and well-being. For those who claim only individual adult happiness and consent matter in public policy, on what moral basis do you defend that conclusion?

Heather E. Carrillo

May 11, 2012 at 02:07 PM

@Scott: Ah, that does clear up some things...though I disagree.


May 11, 2012 at 02:05 PM


I actually like much of what Kevin writes about. Aside from the subject matter, I think he's an incredibly talented writer and gifted communicator. Even when I disagree, I usually find his style engaging and clever. That being said, this hasn't been his best week of blogging. This post wasn't well-thought out, the arguments we're weak, and it wasn't especially helpful in fostering dialogue or in engaging the opposing point of view. Additionally, this post, along with the post on mother's day, featured sloppy, sarcastic remarks that added nothing of constructive value. Kevin doesn't want to be known as overly polemical, but his posts this week only further such a categorization.


May 11, 2012 at 01:23 AM


Thank you for that post. It is refreshing to see a Christian take the logical viewpoint and see that giving people rights in the public aspect of society does nothing to undermine the Church in any way. There is no need to fight because there is nothing at stake for the Church. I believe in our society, if Christianity wants ANY hope of making it through the next century or so, they will have to follow Peter's idea of political separatism; Christians need to discard their image of "holier-than-thou" zealots forcing morals on others through law and show that they really DO mean good (as I know they do). Until then, the American youth (and upcoming general population) will do nothing but resent the church.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 11, 2012 at 01:13 PM

@Scott: You know, I've always wondered about this, so I'm hoping you can help me out. If you don't like a particular blogger, why do you follow him? I mean, just to make denigrating comments? Usually if I don't like a blogger/am not related to a blogger, I just don't follow them. I'm actually curious because it always leaves me more than a little curious when this happens.


May 11, 2012 at 01:09 PM

Wow. First Kevin had a post defending celebrity pastors. Then he lamented not having time to prepare sermons, which, of course, is hard to do when you are a celebrity pastor! Then, he completed the trifecta with a piece attacking gay marriage. If he can round up the energy to pop out a blog on complementarianism, then he'll hit the T4G cycle! Solid work.

Terry Rayburn

May 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Actually, the 5 reasons listed are 5 good reasons that EVERYONE (not just Christians) should oppose homosexual marriage.

For Christians, the most compelling reason is not listed: A simple Bible study will confirm that it's opposed by the Word of God.


May 10, 2012 at 12:37 PM


I actually study the Bible, so I would appreciate if you don't scoff at the fact that I've read Paul but don't believe something is a sin. At the end of Romans 1, Paul talks a lot about homosexuality being a sin. I've learned that, in context, he's actually discussing idolatry. And at the very end of Romans 1, he lists off pretty much every sin you can think of, saying all those people are EQUALLY sinful. And if you'd actually read the beginning of Romans 2, Paul's first words are, "And if you judge them, you condemn yourself, because you are just as sinful."

Also, concerning marriage, God really isn't that clear about it. If you mean that marriage is between one man and several women, God seems to be ok with that in the Old Testament. I think marriage is a beautiful, special thing, and I hope to get married someday myself... But ideally to just one man. The thing about reading the Bible with a specific viewpoint (I'm guilty of this myself) is that you see what you want to see. If you think homosexuality is the worst sin of all, you're grossly misreading Paul and certainly misreading Jesus. And actually Paul does that that marriage should be between two Christians, unless you hope to convert your spouse. Also, the churches are not and would not be forced by anyone to allow gay marriage. This is a state marriage, not a church one.

What I think we're forgetting here is that America has no official religion. We may have Christians here, but we are not a Christian nation. To change the law to say that gay marriage be illegal, you need to have proof in the law or constitution about why it's wrong. Surprisingly, the Bible does not hold up at evidence in this case in a court of law. Even if you don't personally think its right, what you hope to do is a horrendous injustice to our country and our rights. If you deny freedom for someone else, you don't deserve freedom yourself.

Nick F.

May 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM

@Michael - I'm consistently disappointed how quickly these discussions elevate to the level of "clearly, you're not a Christian." What else could you mean when saying "faith without works is dead?" Given the context of Jas. 2, I'm not sure a political agenda is what James was thinking about when he wrote that.

I'm not saying this is an easy issue--there's clearly a tension between a majority rules and civil rights. I'm just wondering if, as Christians, our focus should be on convincing others that the Christian ethic is viable (by sharing the Gospel) rather than forcing it down their throats.

I think our worldview is compelling, and I believe the Gospel is powerful enough that a new law isn't necessary. Maybe that's naive, but I'd rather trust God for revival than our government.

Truth Unites... and Divides

May 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Madie: "(I don’t personally believe homosexuality is a sin),"

It's because God clearly declares and teaches that same-sex behavior is sin in His Written Word that biblically-faithful Christians support one-man, one-woman marriage only.


May 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

@ Madie,

Who gets to define marriage? You, the government or God?

Marriage is clearly between a man and a woman. )God's Word and natural law both tell us this.) Therefore the prerequisite for marriage is that two people be of the opposite sex, not that they be Christian.

If you don't believe homosexuality is a sin, why are you concerned what Paul thought when he clearly taught homosexuality is a sin?

Peter Gay

May 10, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Homosexual Marriage: What Battle Are We Really Fighting?

The voters of North Carolina passed a ban on homosexual marriage. The President made a speech in favor of the government recognizing homosexual marriage. And so, once again, it has become a hotly urgent issue in American politics, coincidentally occurring just in time to distract us from any number of other issues that affect us as individuals a great deal more.
As Christians we have to deal with this question very carefully: our stand for biblical morality must be unyielding and unrelenting. Indeed, our devotion to the God of the Bible must form the basis of all that we do – in every activity in which we participate, we must do everything for the glory of God. So we will not be intimidated or ashamed; we will boldly speak the truth of the Word. This necessarily includes the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality.
But beyond what we say, beyond the position we personally adhere to, what sort of action ought Christians to take regarding homosexual marriage? With this question, we enter a new realm of conversation: the nature of interaction between the Christian Church and the unregenerate world. How ought Christians to relate to their surrounding culture? How about the civil government?
It is absolutely certain that our commitments regarding these more fundamental questions will determine which kinds of action we advocate taking with respect to the immediate issue. Those who believe that it is the duty of the civil government to uphold and enforce the whole moral law of God will undoubtedly argue that Christians must promote laws to punish not only homosexuality, but also prostitution, pornography, and drunkenness (they don’t often call for civil laws against sloth, envy, idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, gossip, or heresy, but we’ll assume for the sake of consistency that they’d like to see such laws eventually as well).
Others argue that the proper role of civil government only extends to issues of justice among men, i.e. defending against acts of aggression, to maintain peace and order, while leaving other matters of personal morality to Him who judges justly. Still others believe the institution of the civil government itself, at least as presently conceived, is by definition aggressive and thus incapable of being an appropriate arbiter even on this more limited range of issues.
And within each of these groups there are differing perspectives as to how Christians ought to inform, encourage, petition, or even force the civil government and the culture at large to conform to their proper roles.
In short, if a Christian opposes homosexuality, it does not necessarily follow that he believes there ought to be a civil law banning homosexual activity; likewise, if a Christian opposes such a law, it is not necessarily the case that he is winking at immorality, or wavering in his commitment to the teachings of Scripture, or weary of the fight in the inevitable culture wars.
In a blog post this morning, Kevin DeYoung argues that Christians are tempted to “go silent and give up the marriage fight,” but instead “should continue to publicly and winsomely oppose bestowing the term and institution of marriage upon same-sex couples.” To briefly recap DeYoung’s reasoning:
1. Whenever “gay marriage has been put to a vote … the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage.”
2. “The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good.”
3. Marriage has a real, specific, biblical definition, and so “we should not concede that ‘gay marriage’ is really marriage.”
4. Legalization promotes cultural normalization of what was historically considered deviant behavior.
5. “The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest.”
A potentially serious problem with this reasoning appears in the light of the “prior questions” I mentioned above. DeYoung is clearly operating on the assumption that the Church’s fight with respect to this issue properly takes place in the realm of public politics. He might insist that, rather than an assumption, this is what he’s trying to prove, but that would only mean that his argument begs the question. He jumps right into questions of democratic process, legal recognition, cultural normalization, etc. Evidently, for DeYoung, the alternative to participation on these terms is surrender of the Biblical definition of marriage.
DeYoung naturally has his own view of the nature of ecclesiastical interaction with the culture and the government, but by not making that view explicit, he leaves us with a very unclear picture of just what pertains to the Church, the culture, and the government, as specific entities with specific roles. In fact, he seems to have them all blended together in one giant struggle for control over the moral direction of the masses.
My question comes down to this: what battle are we really fighting?
Take DeYoung’s first point, for example. “Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage.” Does this mean that the majority of voters are upholding Christian morality? Is “traditional marriage” – namely, heterosexual monogamy – some sort of common ground between the biblical view of marriage as a picture of Christ and the Church, and the worldly view of marriage as practically advantageous, or “normal,” or whatever? Are unrepentant, unregenerate sinners “on our side” in a battle over cultural morality because they happen to vote our way? Also, what if this were not the case? What should Christians conclude if “the people” routinely and overwhelmingly voted in favor of homosexual marriage? Morality was never up for a vote to begin with, was it? If the Church would not be *losing* when the people vote against biblical morality, then it’s not really proper to say the Church is *winning* based on the people voting against a particular immorality either.
What is really at stake? In making his second point, DeYoung brings out a fairly collectivistic argument as to why this is such an important fight: “The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.” Well, who specifically are we talking about? Are we talking about my son, baptized and raised in the Church by his father and mother? I suppose not, because whatever “society” does, it certainly does not raise children all by its fictitious self. Individuals “say sex is up to your own definition,” etc. Other individuals teach their children that God teaches us the non-negotiable truth in His Word. This is the case no matter how the vote goes, and no matter what the President says.
The central issue is that people’s hearts and souls are ultimately unaffected by the political process.
The Church can waste its time trying to extract goodness and morality from the stony hearts of the unregenerate. We can fight one political and cultural battle after another, exhausting our resources until we finally discover that wicked people are going to do what they choose, all the way to their own destruction. We can plead with our rulers, begging evil men of power to command other evil men to do what is right. We can turn ourselves into despots, dictating the will of God upon those who lack the military might to resist us, never getting anywhere near their desperate need of the freedom that can only be found in Christ.
Christian morality is not a fight that belongs in public politics, at all. It comes right down to the fact that the gospel of grace is the only source of salvation, the only way to do anything pleasing to God, and the gospel is not spread by the sword, nor can it be. Civil laws against homosexual marriage do not serve as a proxy for biblical preaching about sexual morality. They aren’t intended to. Most of the people who voted aren’t even Christians to begin with.
So rather than waste time trying to legally transform an unregenerate “society,” the Church can do what we are called to do, as the Church. We have the light of the gospel, and we are called to preach repentance and salvation to everyone. This is the only way we have any hope of doing any positive good – but indeed, we have the certainty of God’s blessing on our efforts, and the real transformation of people’s hearts and lives!
When the State has become the arbiter of the definition of marriage, the Church is not in a good position. The appropriate response is not to get in there and make sure they define it right. The Church would be much better served by denying the State its illegitimate claim to jurisdiction over this institution of God’s.
Suppose the government declared that, for practical purposes – a census, perhaps – it was necessary for everyone to report whether they are members in a church. That would be the precise moment to resist! For what would inevitably follow? The government would demand proof of membership, based on its own, legal, definition of church membership. The very keys of the Kingdom would have been handed over to Caesar! At that point, Christians ought not to bother trying to persuade heathen state officials of a biblical definition of church membership. Whatever ills await the Church as a result of its illegitimate arbiter are already automatically on their way.
It scarcely matters how they define it; if it’s theirs to define at all, then the battle is already lost.


May 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM

One of my many problems with this is the definition here of marriage; under this definition, every barren woman or sterile man cannot be in a marriage, because children are NOT a possibility. If we make the definition of marriage based on the conception of children, I think that severely limits what marriage can (and should be). Also, I think you're forgetting that the concept of gay marriage is a marriage under the state, not the church. Under the laws and constitution of this country, there is no reason to deny marriage to people just because a group of people believe they are participating in "deviant" behavior. Paul says very clearly that we're all sinners, equally. If we disallow marriage for everyone who was sinful (I don't personally believe homosexuality is a sin), we would never allow anyone to marry. The state allows non-Christians to marry. We allow Athiests and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists to marry, and they don't abide by Christian ideals either.


May 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I find point 5 particularly alarming. Are you suggesting that Christians are surrendering and are at risk of being conquered just because we are allowing pagans to be pagans? God's plan for marriage is being distorted by evil just like everything else. This shouldn't be surprising to us, and definitely shouldn't cause us to worry about being conquered. I pray the energy of pastors everywhere will be in leading their churches to holiness and love, and not in conquest of the powers of this world. That conquest is already done, and we walk in victory regardless of human law.


May 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM

For proof of your last point, look north to Canada, where gov't has imposed gay marriage by fiat. We now have "Human Rights Tribunals" in every province and at the federal level that obey no democratic principles, from which there are no appeals with i think over 90% convictionrate, where third parties can lay charges based on hurt feelings. Christians are effectively barred from owning B&Bs, being justices of the peace, pharmacists, and a bishop was found guilty and fined for preaching the Bible and another pastor was assigned "thought reeducation". I would really encourage Americans on the fence to consider other implications of this policy, including children with three biological parents listed on their birth certificate (not true and a denial of filiation), as well as the court cases currently wending their way through the courts re polygamy. The province of BC, as part of an activist suit, has allowed a gay couple of men to review and rewrite the entire public school curriculum from K-12 and many provinces will not allow parents to have their children opt out of content teaching the new sexuality. I could go on and on, but rest assured, marriage is not enough, tolerance is not enough. Only celebration and the position of most protected group will satisfy...


May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Is all marriage the same in God's eyes or is there a difference between biblical marriage and secular marriage? Over the years I've come to see marriage as an act of glorifying God between two Christians, therefore it seems that Biblical marriage is only feasible between two Christians. I feel in order for there to be true marriage, God must be in it. If this is accurate (i completely realize it's probably not; i'm just tossing it out there), it would seem that "marriage" between nonbelievers isn't marriage at all but merely a committment between two people.

Back to the article topic. I believe the term marriage has no place in any legal matters. There it seems to only serve matters of state and basically serves a contract that entitles you to certain legal rights as a couple. I believe that all unions recognized by the state should be termed "civl unions" or some variation and marriages should be overseen by your religious organizaton. Everyone should have the same rights, and by tagging those rights onto a religiously rooted term has led to discrimination and is a shame. So when it comes down to it, if we take the word out of law and politics and allow the clergy to decide what marriage is, we can move the discussion from a political standpoint to a religous one, which is where it belongs.


May 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I think, at one level, the whole thing is a political sideshow used by the two parties to rev up their respective bases, to be honest.

If I was a voter in NC I would likely have voted for the amendment, but I would not have been lathered up about it. I can't help but feeling that this fascination with this subject often distracts if not detracts from keeping the Gospel the main thing. But I'm open to persuasion here and this is certainly a thought-provoking piece.

I will say this: Christian marriage can (and should) be held to a different, higher standard than state marriage contracts. In that vein, I'd suggest that the passionate opposition to gay marriage is inconsistent with tacit acceptance of no-fault divorce... but I suppose that's another subject for another time.


May 10, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I think Albert Mohler makes a good point that should be stressed,

"Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins."


May 10, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Truly 'tolerant' people would also one day have to reject 'ageism' and accept NAMBLA and pederasty. There are some interesting articles online about the 'elephant in the gay closet' and 'can you tolerate NAMBLA?'. I hope you'll all read them.


May 10, 2012 at 10:22 PM

This article is boring. Kevin I might suggest to you your highness, that you get your mind off of GLBTQ's and concentrate all of your efforts on trying for the rest of your disgusting life to learn how to love, and find a "cure" in the scripture for the ungodly amount of divorces in this country. This must puzzle you as to why you are so obsessed with gays, and probably never wonder how marriages that end in divorce, murder, or many other unspeakable ways affect all these children you speak of. Does the average christian evangelical rationalize divorce away as just one of those things in our society? Get a grip, and not on the universe you dip!

Thoughts on Marriage | Reveds's Blog

May 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM

[...] Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage - A blog article by Pastor Kevin DeYoung.  While not making a Biblical arguement per se, he does argue from a Christian worldview. [...]

Rev. Paul T. McCain

May 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Great post, Kevin.

I would add to the list something about how same-sex marriage is a total distortion of the Christ-centered purpose of marriage: to portray the relationship of Christ to His Church and the Church to Christ, per St. Paul's words in Ephesians.

Something to consider?


May 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Kevin, Thank you for upholding the authority of Scripture. When we start viewing Scripture through the lens of man's fallible and always changing opinions as opposed to viewing man's fallible and always changing opinions through the lens of Scripture, we head down a very slippery slope of compromise. As one who has humbly answered a call to teach God's Word, I will never ever edit the Bible. I need never wring my hands and fret, "Oh, I just don't know what to think about this issue." I can go straight to His Word, the source of all truth. It's that simple.

[...] Five Reasons – In light of President Obama’s announcement yesterday, Kevin DeYoung provides five reasons why Christians should stand strong in fighting for a biblical definition of marriage. /* [...]


May 10, 2012 at 09:44 AM

"It is pretty confusing to see you speak out in favor of a libertarian approach to economics but then advocate for the growth of the state when discussing social issues." --Nate Davis

In what way is Kevin advocating government growth relating to social issues??


May 10, 2012 at 09:38 AM

(@ James M. *Like Psalm 94)

If I'm honest, I have a deeper concern for how we as Christians go about the process of intentionally teaching/discipling believers struggling with same sex attraction (SSA) in our churches and sharing the gospel with those who do not believe. How many people reading this post have sought out curriculum or taken a discipleship class on dealing with these issues. How many sermons have you heard about not just the politics of the issue, but a practical sermon on how to talk to your self-identified gay co-worker or gay teenager?

Face-to-face witness. It is a so much more difficult than going to vote in a private booth or having one's name be lost on a petition in a sea of other signatures.

If we lose the fight on 'gay marriage', but remain faithful as a church provided true ministry to believers struggling and evangelism to those unbelieving (enough to give them pause about their lifestyle), I would find it to be time well spent. If however, we alienate others past the point of listening without making equal effort to disciple and educate believers in our churches on this issues, I do not believe we have acted as we ought. And I believe we have not brought glory to God as we ought.


May 10, 2012 at 09:27 AM

James M.,
That state creates and enforces laws that are critical for civil rest.
The difficulty here is that with this particular sin, the consequences for civil unrest are not plainly apparent to those who do not believe.

In fact, if I'm frank, I often do not see the consequences in clear and apparent ways of many of my friends (straight or otherwise) who have had sex before marriage, etc. In my heart, I've sounded (a bit dramatically) like 94. Especially when many of these relationships thrive while in my late 20's am unmarried, etc.

I only trust God and believe His Word and He time and time again proves faitful.

But in the meantime, how can I make this argument for someone who doesn't believe? Especially when their own lives seem to tell them that things are going just fine?


May 10, 2012 at 09:18 AM

@ Nick F., jfn, David,

The U.S. is a country "of the people, for the people", not a dictatorship or empire like Rome. As long as we are of the people, we as Christians can vote to make certain laws in line with the Bible. All laws legislate morality, the question is who's morality is behind them?

To say you think it's wrong, but not stand up and vote on it when you are given the chance and have every right to, comes very close to "faith without works is dead."

Nate Davis

May 10, 2012 at 09:15 AM

It is pretty confusing to see you speak out in favor of a libertarian approach to economics but then advocate for the growth of the state when discussing social issues.
They are in many ways connected and your hypocrisy is blatant.


May 10, 2012 at 09:13 PM

@Michael B.

I really hope you're trolling

James M.

May 10, 2012 at 09:11 AM

jfn, I would respond that the civil authority punishes unregenerate folk all the time. Should I, as a Christian, support laws affirming property rights and against theft when the end game might be some unbelievers ending up in prison? Would that somehow compromise my Christian witness? Much more could be said to your point, but a follower of Christ need not be apologetic about voting his conscience when it comes to being a part of the process of producing just laws. Also, I would challenge the underlying assumption that this type of measure is punitive. Someone help me here, but which of the 30 or so states are prescribing civil penalties for gay marriage?


May 10, 2012 at 09:05 PM

For completeness, I will state my argument as to why we should allow gay marriage on biblical grounds.

1. Most of the references to gay sex in the old testament are about abusive relationships and those are clearly not relevant.
2. The other two use Tow'ehbah and that seems to be a cultural restriction and not a moral one. In other words, it is that a particular culture considers it a sin, not god.
3. Paul's use of it being unnatural is quite believable given the amount of information present in the ANE. But we now know that there is a portion of the population for whom it is totally natural and not just being deviant.

This satisfies it for me that there is not a strong biblical argument against us legalizing gay marriage now. Actually, I feel the teachings of Jesus would mandate that we legalize it given the arguments above.


May 10, 2012 at 08:59 PM

As Nate Smith, Drew and others have pointed out the real shame of this post is that kevin does not give better arguments to support his position. Kevin, if you are going to post something as sensational as this, at least get someone who is good at argumentation to read what you are going to post.

I will continue to pray for people who want to put honest, monogamous, wonderful gay people down and hope that their hard heart will soften.

I too used to be in the same anti-gay camp. But am no more and hope that you can come to appreciate what others have.


May 10, 2012 at 08:59 AM

Is there any application of this scripture to this issue?
Revelation 21:11 "Let the one who is doing harm continue to do harm; let the one who is vile continue to be vile; let the one who is righteous continue to live righteously; let the one who is holy continue to be holy.”

As much as I believe homosexuality and gay marriage are morally wrong and self destructive behavior, I am having trouble with the idea that we should so adamantly oppose this in a political sense. As I understand it, the world is going to become increasingly ungodly and sinful no matter what we do. Would we not be better off focusing on evangelism, discipleship, and allowing the Holy Spirit to do the sin conviction?

Nate Smith

May 10, 2012 at 08:55 AM

Kevin, do you realize what someone who knows his way around theology, Bible, hermeneutics, and rhetoric (in the best sense of the word) would do with these five points?

I am not chiding you for your position, but the simplistic way you express them. You make many assumptions that those on the others side do not hold to, and if you were to enter that debate, you have to articulate and defend your premisses, such as "common good" or "deviant behavior."

Again, think what you want and why, but I do wish you would exercise greater circumspection--at least know the arguments of your opponents and address them. As it stands, you are preaching to the proverbial choir, which is a waste of time.


May 10, 2012 at 08:47 AM

I know it's nearly impossible to read all your comments, but I would genuinely like very much, Kevin, if you could share your thoughts about the North Carolina amendment and its impact on the state of civil unions.

What do Christians do in a situation where we are required to legislate sanctification that can only come through the indwelling Holy Spirit? I feel this is the case with NC's Amendment One. In my personal walk with Christ, I do not make it a habit of giving ground with friends and loved ones who do not believe and who do not strive to recognize and struggle against sin in their lives. With God's grace, I seek to tell them the truth.

My question is should I as a Christian, go beyond affirming marriage (which is an institution that primarily tells us of Christ's relationship to the church) to proactively outlawing and potentially punishing sin in the lives of those who have not been regenerated? Is that what I'm being called to do as Christ's witness?


May 10, 2012 at 08:44 PM

Pray for the purification of the church. We have failed in living lives that are counter cultural. Titus 1:16 describes what could be the problem: "They claim to know God, but their actions deny him." The church is responsible for demonstrating the glory of God through Biblical marriage. Yet our divorce is as bad if not worse as the culture's. Our children are undisciplined and rebellious. If you claim to hold to the biblical doctrine of marriage, we should speak through our votes and through our lifestyles. Be filled with the holy spirit. Men, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for her, every day. Women, submit to God, and then to your husbands as according to scripture, as the church submits to Christ. And for goodness sake, teach your children the fear of the Lord. There is a ton of information how to do this in the Word.

If we have happy marriage, and raise godly children, and if our language is gentle, humble and seasoned with salt, that will speak volumes to the culture around us.


May 10, 2012 at 08:42 PM


Believe it or not, morality can exist outside of Christianity. As I said (and you must have completely ignored), basic morality is based on simple human rights (which we have clearly defined in the Bill of Rights).

1. I'm growing weary of quoting your own scripture after you deny the existence of passages. This is one of a few of its kind-
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"
Before you go off on "OH THATS OUT OF CONTEXT", maybe think for a second about how the laws in the Bible regarding homosexuality may be out of context. In fact, most of the "Biblical" arguments regarding homosexuality ARE out of context (namely false translation from the original Bible to the King James Version, and even more bastardization from KJV to NIV).

2. I HAVE viewed the world from a Christian's point of view, shoot I used to be one, and when I'm arguing with someone the first thing I do is take in to account how they see it.

3. Ok so why isn't divorce illegal? It's seemingly just as bad as homosexuality (at least in the sense God hates both of them).

4. Please leave out petty semantics. I know he never said those exact words, I was just expressing the general idea. And if it was truly in the context of JESUS telling someone they were wrong, doesn't that make my original assertion correct of Jesus ESSENTIALLY saying that you shouldn't judge because that's his job? How can you take from that that it's ok for YOU to tell someone they are wrong?

5. I'm glad to see that we've abandoned discussion (I guess you didn't have anything to counter my point) and gone to fallacious derailing of the discussion and more unrelated semantics. I rest my case.

Marriage has a definition outside of the Christian one. Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

jeff Baxter

May 10, 2012 at 08:40 PM

Thank you for posting KD!

Douglas Flanders

May 10, 2012 at 08:38 PM

I am curious to know what your group feels about divorce. How many of your members have been divorced? I am also curious about how many have had sexual encounters outside of marriage. The same Bible passages that discuss homosexuality also discuss those subjects with equally harsh punishments. It seems though that divorce and extra marital sex has been virtually ignored by the christian community to the same degree. Extra marital sex and divorce is heterosexual? so it must be ok ?

Nick F.

May 10, 2012 at 08:33 AM

Is it possible to oppose a sin without enacting laws against it? I don't think "gay marriage" is possible, for some of the very reasons Kevin mentioned -- in essence, it's an oxymoron. Nevertheless, I'm uncomfortable with enforcing that legally because there's no NT precedent for it. Jesus and Paul didn't spread Christianity by petitioning Rome for new laws. And while there's OT precedent, most Christians believe the civil laws of Israel are no longer to be applied generally.

I'm mostly just thinking out loud, but the civil libertarian in me has been trying to wrap my head around this topic for years.

Mike Erickson

May 10, 2012 at 08:30 PM

@Thinker: You can't have it both ways. Either everything in the Bible is taken at face value or it's open to interpretation. The argument I've "fallen into" has only been dismissed by people who pull what they want out of the Bible to twist to fit their own logic, beliefs of prejudices. I don't take the Bible literally. God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it was the result of a natural disaster which, at the time, those who wrote about it didn't have the science or ability to probably understand what happened.

I do believe in God, a loving God who created everything on this Earth for a reason. I also believe a lot of what is written in the Bible is highly interpretive and written to explain events and to keep law and order and relate to the people at that time and on that level.

As for Moral Law vs Civil Law, JFK said it best: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference—and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish—where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source—where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. [...] I do not speak for my church on public matters—and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President—on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise. But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same."


May 10, 2012 at 08:26 AM

I appreciate the post. I have two questions that I think need clarification:

The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted.

How is something in the interest of the common good "benighted" or "bigoted"? Now you may be making concessions for a different reader, but to propose something in public discourse and to make rational argumentation about it, even if unpopular, doesn't make it bigoted. I think this is another area that Christians should stand firm on. We believe there is an external real world, that we can have true (even if sometimes incomplete) knowledge of. There is a need for a stand on realism in the public square.

Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.

This is actually a great point. However, is this really bad law? I think there is value in defending this as good law, just as other current laws protecting human sexuality and marriage are good. I know I'm parsing words here, but its not that we're just forcing our view of the world onto people. We are actually for good and just laws and banning homosexual marriage is both good and just.


May 10, 2012 at 08:22 PM

Jermaine, I'm saying from a legal perspective to name it differently, but grant the same rights is exactly the same thing as the "separate but equal" laws that were overturned and are now banned by the 14th Amendment.

If you're saying that it can't possibly be the same thing, from a legal perspective, then please explain to me how?

If you're saying it can be the same thing, from a legal perspective, but you object to the term "marriage" being applied to something that is different from what your personal beliefs are about that term, then join me on the third side and petition your representatives to ask the government to stop using a religious term for a legal contract.


May 10, 2012 at 08:21 AM

DA knows, he posts all the time. He knows full well that Kevin speaks out. He is just trying to bait a fight.

Oscar Wilde

May 10, 2012 at 08:20 PM

Separation of Church and State makes all of your religious arguments invalid. The government grants the marriage licenses to any couple wishing to marry and that government has always been designed to be free from religious dogma. With a government permit couples can get married in the venue of their choosing, even without any form of religion involved. Let's make a deal though: You can keep your Defense of Marriage Act if the government can remove your church's cushy tax breaks. Let this issue go!


May 10, 2012 at 08:18 AM

Thank-you for the timely post, Kevin. We have a cousin in NC that has been quite vocal against the amendment so have been following the vote/results a little. She would echo the sentiments in this article:

As I read that article I wondered, "How would Kevin DY respond?" Now I know...


May 10, 2012 at 08:17 PM

@Elizabeth - I am not saying I am for or against for the sake of this argument. Never did I say gays should not have the same rights and responsibilities as people that are married. It just does not need to be defined as a marriage, it needs it's own term and definition because it is not marriage, by definition. Doesn't make sense to change the definition of a word, just come up with it's own term to define the joining of gays.

@Heather - I am not even arguing that point anymore, I made it pretty clear who created the term and definition marriage.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 08:12 PM

@Jermaine: No, God did. We had nothing to do with it.


May 10, 2012 at 08:11 PM

Jermaine, my point is, that from a legal perspective the relationship is based on rights and responsibilities having nothing to do with what happens (or doesn't) in the bedroom.

As a religious term, it is clearly defined. As a legal term, it is less clearly defined, and that is why the big push to clearly define it now, so that homosexual couples can't possibly get the same thing as heterosexual couples. Once again, this defies the 14th amendment's first clause.

If you can please explain to me why, legally speaking, those rights and responsibilities are *only* able to be carried out by two members of opposite genders, I am willing to listen.

If you'd read my earlier posts, I don't believe the legal term should be marriage for anyone. I believe that should be reserved, exclusively, for personal/religious usage.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 08:10 PM

@Drew: My guess, is the same reason you felt the need to place yourself in a position of superiority to Mr. DeYoung.
Really discard all morals? Like, thou shalt not kill? Thou shalt not steal? ALL? Are you sure?

1. Yes, you are mistaken.

2. Nope. It has never occurred to me. So, "Please get over yourself and try to view the world and other peoples' views objectively and fairly for once in your life."

3. God still hates divorce. Marriage does not change. As for the children of gay were the one who made the claim. I just want to see some stats.

4. No I'm right. Jesus never said, "Do not judge for that is my job." Those exact words never came from Jesus. For the record the DREADFULLY twisted and warped and misused "Judge not lest you be judged" comes right before Jesus actually tells some people they are wrong. So, obviously saying someone is wrong, is fine. Yes, natural order is clearly defined in the bible.

5. Gay marriage has never affected my life because it's not real. It's like saying "When has a square circle ever hurt you?"

You can't outlaw something that doesn't exist. I'm not outlawing anything. There IS a group of people trying to change a definition. I have a problem with that.

Dee Worley

May 10, 2012 at 08:09 AM

Thanks for speaking up and out with the truth.


May 10, 2012 at 08:08 PM

@ Heather.
That should help with your confusion on whether or not humans defined marriage. We absolutely put the definition behind the label in order for that act to make any sense to us.


May 10, 2012 at 08:02 PM

No, not any two individuals. What is the difference between what I said and what you replied with? Your grandparents were male and female. Not same sex. By definition marriage is man and woman. So, if it is going to be legalized, then it needs to have a term of it's own to define it. Just don't throw it under a word that already has a definition just because "you can". That is ignorant.


May 10, 2012 at 08:00 PM

@Heather:Please don't patronize me. I don't understand why in a discussion of logic you feel the need to take a position of superiority to me.

I simply made that initial statement as a disclaimer. In discussion of this subject, we need to make it clear whether or not we are deriving law from the Bible and its standards. If we are, then by the definition of theocracy America is one. To be the republican democracy we claim to be, we must completely discard the morals of the Bible from the equation; the Bible has no foothold in a country that isn't a theocracy.

1. I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the Bible said at some point that "a slave must obey their master". Also, women (besides the Virgin Mary obviously) are painted as inferior people to men in the Bible ("a wife must obey her husband", etc.) and are generally written to be aloof, morally-loose people in comparison to men. If we base our view of who gets rights off of the Bible's view of people, then slaves should have never been freed and women should never be on an equal footing with men legally.

2. "Brainwashed"...has it never occurred to you that you may be the one who is "brainwashed"? This attitude is the very reason I left the Church in the first place, most everyday Christians have the most demeaning "holier-than-thou" attitude. Please get over yourself and try to view the world and other peoples' views objectively and fairly for once in your life.

3. "The point of this one is that marriage has a meaning. Marriage doesn’t evolve and change." Yes it does, divorce was once a vile sin and now it is commonplace, even in the Christian community. "Marriage is a gift from God." Yes, according to the Bible. However, in legal matters we are not considering the Bible or what it considers true or false. " Who said they were? Now how they do in school, work, life later on…I’d like to see some stats on that personally." Is there any reason for you to believe they are any worse off? Why would that be?

4. "Let me help you out here. Jesus never said “don’t judge anyone, for that is my job.”" You're wrong-
"Luke 6:37-42 [37] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. [38] Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." [39] He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? [40] A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher. [41] "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [42] How can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

"It doesn’t matter what is “viewed” as deviant behavior. It matters what IS deviant behavior. I think Mr. DeYoung means, deviating from the natural order." What is the "natural order"? Is that clearly defined in the Bible? Do you know what that is? Or is it an assumption you are making based on your (somewhat close-minded) view of what's natural. (For the record, homosexuality is "natural" in the sense that there many, many records of homosexuality in animals).
"Actually bestiality and pedophilia share the exact same chapter as homosexuality in Leviticus. One is right before and one is right after. So…why pick and choose? Why not bring ‘em all back?" We are discussing legality, not Biblical correctness. There are reasons for the former two to be illegal outside of Biblical morality, but none for homosexuality.

5. I use "common ideals" as a term that embodies the unalienable rights of every American: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Things such as murder, theft, rape, violent crimes, etc. end up robbing fellow Americans of that right when committed. This is where the term "morality law" comes in place. Any law that bans an action BESIDES those violating the 3 unalienable rights is a "morality law". These morality laws are essentially laws that allow some people to inject their morals in to the life of someone, with no real reason besides the sake of enforcement. A good example is homosexual marriage: when has a gay marriage EVER effected your life? If if one has, did it effect your right to Life(absolutely not), Liberty (absolutely not), or Pursuit of Happiness (gay people aren't trying to destroy your happiness, so absolutely not)? Then there is no reason to outlaw it.

You can't outlaw something because you don't think it's natural or if your religion says it's bad. You outlaw something based on a set of universal principles (in our nation the unalienable rights, among the other features of the Bill of Rights). If something doesn't violate one person's exercism of those rights, it shouldn't be outlawed. It's that simple.

Shoot, I think severely obese people are gross and unnatural. Whenever I see a morbidly obese person in public, I am mildly disgusted and disappointed in them. I wish they weren't like that. The thing is, besides being morbidly obese, they have done NOTHING else to effect my life in any way. I can't outlaw morbid obesity, because that would simply not make any sense (come to think of it, though, gluttony IS one of the seven deadly sins, "lets outlaw it"). I just get over it and live my life.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 07:59 PM

@KC: Nice? I don't really think that thought has entered my mind.

@Jermaine: Humans did not define marriage.

@Elizabeth: BINGO! You put your finger on the problem exactly. Christians really made a mistake when they let marriage (clearly in the sphere of the church) be handled by the state.

@AreYouRewritingHistoryOrJustIgnoringThis?: Clever. I guess your tagline means you don't ever plan on commenting on anything else, but you made up an anonymous name JUST for this blog. Are you kidding me? It's a LiveJournal account. Yes, I'm ignoring it. No, it's not historical. And the "link" is conveniently broken.


May 10, 2012 at 07:58 PM

My father marrying my mother is not the same as his parents marrying, or her parents marrying, because the people coming into it are different.

From a Biblical perspective, yes, it is not the same thing. From a legal perspective, I cannot see why it isn't the same thing, since what two individuals gain from the legal act is standard, cookie-cutter, and applied to any two individuals who fulfill the legal requirements to get married.


May 10, 2012 at 07:54 PM

It shouldn't be the same thing for one simple reason Elizabeth; because, it is NOT the same thing. Man marrying man, woman marrying woman is not the same thing as man marrying woman. Correct? That is just simple logic, completely separate from any religion, moral, or whatever other belief. It should not be the same thing because it is not the same thing.

Are you re-writing history or just ignoring this?

May 10, 2012 at 07:51 PM


May 10, 2012 at 07:51 PM

@Jermaine, why shouldn't it be the same thing in the eyes of the law/government?


May 10, 2012 at 07:47 PM

Call it something else if that is what the problem for some people are. It doesn't really matter though. Humans made up the label and definition of marriage, so I guess they can change it too. That doesn't make it important or final truth though, so it does not really matter in the grand scheme of things. By definition marriage is between man and woman. Just create a new term to define what gays want, but don't label it under the same marriage label with man and woman getting married. It is not the same thing, so do not even try to make it the same thing.


May 10, 2012 at 07:45 AM

He hasn't sat silent DA. See "An Overture Regarding Homosexuality and the RCA" and other posts around that date: .


May 10, 2012 at 07:44 AM

"yet sit silent when it comes to the battle in the RCA"

DA, you've got it wrong that Kevin and others are sitting silent
on this issue. While some have left and blame/shame those who stayed in the RCA, we continue to fight.


May 10, 2012 at 07:41 PM

@ Heather E. Carillo: Doesn't it seem not nice to you to have a definition of marriage that deliberately excludes some of the population?

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 07:38 PM

@KC: Why is it not a marriage? Because marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is. You can engage in some form of state issued contract with another woman and even have your family there to celebrate it, but it just isn't marriage. To me this is like asking the government to start creating square circles. It just isn't a thing.
I'm not sure where in this discussion my childhood dreams fit in, but no. I didn't.


May 10, 2012 at 07:32 PM

@Heather E Carillo: Why? I grew up dreaming of my wedding day and future family just like any other child. Didn't you?

what about others?

May 10, 2012 at 07:17 PM


May 10, 2012 at 07:14 AM


Your denomination has already embraced egalitarianism so you have already promoted "the indistinguishability of gender". You can't have it both ways.

Your denomination already has married homposexual couples in the pulpit. If you're going to take up the fight, start in your own house.

It sounds disingenuous and an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do" when you sit at the keyboard and promote these "battles" yet sit silent when it comes to the battle in the RCA.


May 10, 2012 at 07:11 PM

Sorry but this is a ridiculous issue we have at hand. First, if anyone thinks the Christian God has had anything to do in America from our beginning, you're wrong and need to research further. I mean, deep research. There is no Christian God in the finding of our country. America is pathetic as a whole, very in the dark on issues that go on. For the issue of being gay, it is not my place to judge so I do not. However, stating my belief that I feel it is wrong does not make me judging anyone. I will love, accept, and befriend anyone if they are someone I want to be friends with, regardless of what sex they are interested in. Science has "proved" I was born with the disease of addiction. Obviously I do not go around chanting "Addiction Pride", and looking to be accepted because I was apparently born with the disease. Just because I was born with it does not make it right, or did I miss something? To accept and indulge in the sinful act of addiction is unacceptable. This is the same for something as unnatural as being gay. It is not what our bodies were meant for. If it were a natural occurring thing, and not just a hiccup created in the imperfect human race, then why can two of the same sex not reproduce? The most natural thing for humans to do together is have sex and reproduce. This cannot take place with gays, obviously. Just because someone may have been born gay does not mean it is okay to indulge in that behavior and make it out to be okay across the board. In my belief, it is a sin that needs to be brought to Jesus and forgiven for, in just the same way I have to do with the disease of addiction if I have a weak moment (there have been several, unfortunately) in which I indulge in alcohol. Sin is sin, regardless of what America has made it out to be.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 07:09 PM

@KC: Right...cause it wouldn't be a marriage. I hope we're clear on what I'm saying.
@Joan Quiram: I'm not sure this is a good or helpful way to take this conversation.

Joan Quiram

May 10, 2012 at 07:06 PM

One and only one comment from me: Those of you who decide to exercise your "rights" in violation of God's directives will have to answer to HIM on Judgement Day. Good luck, it won't be pretty.


May 10, 2012 at 06:58 PM

@ Heather E Carillo: You're right; I hope that by the time I meet the woman with whom I want to spend the rest of my life, I won't have to demean myself and my relationship by asking the courthouse for a "gay marriage," as if my marriage is some kind of different, handicapped marriage.


May 10, 2012 at 06:27 PM

@ Mike Erickson

You have again fallen into a poor argument that has already been dismissed so many times before. Shellfish, etc. You site the OT civil laws as so many who do not truly understand the scriptures. That argument holds no water. Moral law trumps civil law. And if God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah he owes all those people an apology. "Sorry guys, I've changed my mind on this subject". Yeah right. What kind of God do you believe in? The flimsy American God who saves us when we need his help and changes his mind and will save us when we need his help the most? The one people curse when their car doesn't start in the morning and then ask for his help when 9/11 comes around? Or the one who gave us his only son Jesus Christ who died on the cross to save us from our sins. Re-read the scriptures and get some commentaries to understand what he's talking about with the shellfish.

@ Madie

It is surprising that you have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a sin despite all of your Bible study. I think you need to read some of Albert Molher's literature and re-read some of the Bible again to truly understand what God's word truly says.

As far as this whole marriage thing it is very difficult to sort out which action Christians should take. Stand against homosexual marriage as defined by the government and laws? Or, argue for control of the word marriage in a religious setting. In other words, homosexuals can have civil unions and get all the rights they want, but when it comes to an actual marriage as defined by God the church decides.

Additionally for everyone who thinks that if we just live and let live that this problem will miraculously disappear you need to read a book...what is the title of it? "A Queer Thing Happened to America, And what a long, strange trip it's been" Very interesting topics are discussed in that.

And for all those asking why we are focused on this topic. Well it's in the news and that's what people talk about? It's one of the few issues that has so many political and religious connections? Pastor DeYoung knows about the other issues. This is just immediately relevant as the vote happended on Tuesday.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 06:22 PM

@Drew: No one said America is a theocracy, honey. Don't get your shorts in a bunch. Plus, I love how you say you are going to inject rationality and then get totally irrational.

1. SUCH a silly argument. Did God say being black was a sin? No. The more appropriate argument is Eliminating slavery is as much of a "Christian law" (if that's a thing) as not allowing "gay marriage." (which definitely is not a thing)

2. If bigoted means telling a group of people they are wrong, sure. Mr. DeYoung DID say "this may SEEM bigoted" but it's only because you've been brainwashed by your own generation.

3. The point of this one is that marriage has a meaning. Marriage doesn't evolve and change. Marriage is a gift from God. He doesn't give it to homosexuals. They can (and probably will) get a piece of paper that they are in some kind of legally binding contract from the state, but it's not marriage. Of course children raised in gay households aren't "lesser citizens." Who said they were? Now how they do in school, work, life later on...I'd like to see some stats on that personally.

4. Let me help you out here. Jesus never said "don't judge anyone, for that is my job." It doesn't matter what is "viewed" as deviant behavior. It matters what IS deviant behavior. I think Mr. DeYoung means, deviating from the natural order.
Actually bestiality and pedophilia share the exact same chapter as homosexuality in Leviticus. One is right before and one is right after. So...why pick and choose? Why not bring 'em all back?

5. America ain't centered around my ideals, Drew, so the "common ideals" thing is bunk. AND...did you know that of the current job losses, 80% of those were sustained by white males. I'm just saying...


May 10, 2012 at 06:21 PM


"so there is no place in a just world for morality laws." I find this kind of argument unsupportable.

I wrote something above that speaks to this. How can morality be separate from law? Why do we have laws at all if morality has nothing to do with it??


May 10, 2012 at 06:16 PM

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is supposed to keep morality out of legal questions. As I said before, I think that's impossible. I'm pretty sure it's there to keep Congress from declaring an official religion of America, like "we hereby degree that we are a Mormon Country and all shall observe Mormonism or be punishable by law"...that's what it's there for--to protect free exercise of religion.

It's a little exhausting how often this Clause seems to be abused/misapplied by people who don't want Christianity or any moral code to enter into legal questions (again, impossible).


May 10, 2012 at 06:08 PM

Ok, I'm going to view all five points with a little bit of rationality (unlike the original article) and give my view on this. For my arguments, I'm going to (rightfully) assume we aren't considering the United States a theocracy; we are considering it a republic representative system.

1. Simply because the majority of a place thinks it's ok doesn't mean it's ok. As others have said, a dozen or so decades ago, MOST people would have voted against women's rights, blacks' rights, and interracial marriage. You can't honestly tell me that you still believe that they didn't deserve those rights. Nowadays, it is the norm. It's not the norm because we've been desensitized to it, it's the norm because it's RIGHT.

2. Yes your statement is bigoted, and the fact that you recognize that and still proceed to make your point is mind-blowing. How can you be knowingly bigoted and feel good about what you are saying? Also, marriage is constantly evolving and changing. It barely means anything nowadays anyways with the divorce rate and such. Why are we trying to hold marriage on a pedestal in regards to gay rights, but in terms of the right for heterosexual people to divorce and cheat on each other it's perfectly fine.

3. Don't really get this point, but what I'm understanding is that marriage should be preserved because it is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a child and procreating, amongst the other emotional benefits. I guess in that case, anyone who is naturally sterile shouldn't be able to marry. Also, many kids today are adopted and raised in gay families and get along just fine. There is NO evidence that children raised in gay families are any lesser citizens.

4. "Currently deviant behavior"...come on now. Back in Jesus's time, it was deviant behavior to be Christian. Back in The 20s, it was deviant to have short hair, or to be sexually interested in a person of another race. "Deviant behavior" is one of the most subjective and terrible terms introduced in to the English language. It's only use is for people to look down on and judge others. I'm pretty sure Jesus himself said something about how we shouldn't judge anyone, for that's his job.

Also, this whole comparison to pedophilia and zoophilia is illogical because the circumstances are different. In the aforementioned cases, there is a lack of consent or even the ability to consent. It's completely different than two grown men consenting to sexual relations. Basically, pedophilia and zoophilia are illegal because of their similarities to rape, not to "deviant behavior".

5. This is essentially implying that gay people are set on world conquest and domination of culture, which isn't true. Is our culture completely dominated by black people and women now? No. yes, there are large portions of our culture associated with them, as there should be in an equal society, but our American culture itself is not centered around black ideals. It's centered around common ideals.

In conclusion, I just want to say that Christians aren't the only people in this country. This country is not an established theocracy (in fact it was created IN SPITE of theocracy), so there is no place in a just world for morality laws. If we continue this ban on gay marriage, we are no different than the theocracies in the middle east who strip women of rights and force them to not show their faces in public. Those laws are based on religion as well.

Timothy Smith

May 10, 2012 at 06:07 PM

Believers need to refer to this as same sex or homosexual marriage, not "gay" marraige, because there is nothing gay about it. Pastor Ken Hutcherson got it right when he called himself the gayest man I know - believers are called to reclaim the language of joy that the world has inverted. I heard a courageous message this morning from Patrick Lencioni on how to stand firm in our faith and graciously resist this evil, while preparing to be persecuted for standing for God's unchanging Word. Believers so far still have the right to take a political stand based on their faith convictions, just as atheists, agnostics and others.

Heather E. Carrillo

May 10, 2012 at 06:07 PM

This is great! And the first paragraph cracked me up!
I was just having this conversation with a friend, and I told her I had no problem with "gay marriage," because it isn't a thing. It's like saying a square triangle. But don't think I disagree with you here. I do think we shouldn't just keep our opinions to ourselves on this one.


May 10, 2012 at 05:58 PM


"This nation was founded 200 years ago governed NOT by the Bible, but by the rule of law."

Interesting statement. Does "rule of law" exist independently of a prior moral code? I don't think so, but you're free to argue that it does.

IMO, there is no such thing as law divorced from morality defined by a moral code. You cannot separate laws from morality. That's impossible. So when you say that gay marriage must be considered apart from a moral presupposition, you are trying to do something that can't be done. Law is based on a definition of morality, and i don't think there's any way around that. Determining laws comes down to defining what is morally right. Otherwise, what's the use of laws. You yourself ascribe to this when you talk about "justice" and "equality" for minorities. Are not justice and equality moral questions? i.e. It's "wrong" to deny someone something and "right" to grant them something.


May 10, 2012 at 05:51 PM

Why should people have to accept a radical definition of a millennia old word describing a millennia old tradition. I have no problem making a way for gay couples to have the rights to medical etc stuff - people should be able to inexpensively do that, to decide who is their next of kin or life partner without penalty. But marriage means one thing and no amount of calling red will make it blue, and two men who want to ape marriage will never produce a child. And the *potential* of creating future citizens and of protecting the rights (particularly of filiation) of these future citizens is the basis for state meddling in the marriage business. I still think marriage is a spiritual thing, not civil and i have pondered sending my marriage license back, as it has been completely invalidated by my government's actions. I would not have wasted the 70$ if i knew it was a license to have sex, not related to marriage at all. And i don't know if i will encourage my children to comply with the licensing, when in Canada, you are "equivalent to married" after three years of cohabitation anyway....


May 10, 2012 at 05:38 PM

I want to understand why gay marriage has suddenly become the forefront issue for Christians. When our churches are disintegrating (and not because of this issue), why is is that we suddenly pick up political mantels? Apart from being questioned directly about taxation and responding "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" Jesus appears to be largely unconcerned with challenging the Roman Empire's oppressive and terrible practices. He changed the world with his life. He changed the world by speaking into situations of darkness and bringing healing. All this blog post (and countless others like it) accomplishes is in adding more noise to the tumult. Thanks a lot.

Mike Erickson (@wirelessmedia)

May 10, 2012 at 05:37 PM

"Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage." I'm sure in North Carolina and many of the other Southern states which have amendments, if you turned the clock back 125 years, you'd have votes for black people who shouldn't have the same rights as white people. Or 100 years ago, you'd have the same people saying women have no right to vote... or 50 years ago from segregation... or 40 years ago that interracial couples shouldn't marry. Just because a position isn't popular doesn't make it correct, as history has shown.

"The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being." Humans have redefined marriage as long as it has existed. Today, MORE THAN half of marriages end up in divorce and many children end up in homes with one parent or the other. Is this good for the long term?

"Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior." And 50 years ago, interracial marriage was considered deviant behavior. 150 years ago, blacks having the same rights as whites was considered deviant behavior.

"It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts." And how do you know it is not? Have you had a visitation about it?

The Bible itself is an interpretation of God's words that itself has been altered over the centuries. There are many contradictory statements in The Bible itself on a whole slew of things. My opinion... if you want to ban homosexuality, you better ban alcohol, shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), shave (Leviticus 19:27), Fortune Tellers (Leviticus 19:31), Tattos (Leviticus 19:28), Polyester (Leviticus 19:19), Divorce (Mark 10:9), Gold jewelry (1 Timothy 2:9),Pork (Leviticus 11:7-8), Cursing (Ephesians 5:4), Gossip (Leviticus 19:16), Anyone who works on Sunday (Exodus 20:8).


May 10, 2012 at 05:28 PM

I oppose government marriage. Get them out of the marriage business, stop making privileges and mandates, and the problems go away.


May 10, 2012 at 05:21 PM

Daniel>>I don’t see why so many people have issues against same sex marriage and couples. I am a christian, i go to church, pray, donate, help out the needy in the name of god, but i have no problems with them. They don’t come up to me in the street and try to touch me, they don’t come into my home and try to make me gay. Do they do that to any of you?<<

That's where you are wrong. Every day rights are being taken away by others due to the homosexual "backlash" due to "legalization".

Christians have been arrested for praying at gay pride parades, lawsuits against their own private businesses for not going against their conscience, being forced to close down their adoption agencies or go against their conscience, and even their own wedding chapels or forced to go against their conscience. The door seems to be swinging one way and in all actuality, the more rights homosexuals get, the less Christians will have. It's just how things are. So, of course the battle will wage on.

[...] “Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage” by Kevin DeYoung. [...]

[...] inordinately is displeasing to God. Another conservative pastor, Kevin DeYoung, blogs “Five Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage” to enumerate the reasons why Christians should continue to contend the legalization of gay [...]


May 10, 2012 at 05:08 PM

@Allen Exactly, like those blacks and feminist yuppies. It's so annoying when a group starts complaining about being mistreated and not having rights...

Women's rights and civil rights for African Americans never would have happened if they didn't demand to be accepted "on their own terms" and been "constantly" pushing. Before this was the norm, and even during the transition, there was so much termoil over if non-White males should have rights or the right to vote. Now it would be horrifying for someone to say what you just said about African Americans or women. Interracial marriage was banned in areas of the South until 1967. That was only 45 years ago.

I already gave my rant on consent. Can that 13-year old neighbor girl consent? Oh, no? Then too bad, it's illegal.

No one's making you have gay sex.


May 10, 2012 at 05:01 PM

re: Daniel @ 4:10

You're right. No one can tell me what to do. If it makes me and my lover happy then so be it. My 13 year old neighbor comes over swims in my pool in her bikini and eats ice cream. She would make me very happy. Who cares what anyone thinks - including her parents! It's my home. I can't help it. I was born with orientated to younger ones.

You think this is far fetched? 50-70 years ago accepting homosexuality was far fetched. Eventually pedophiles and zoophiles will want to be "equal" and left alone too. Think I'm wrong? Who, in 1940, would've thought a president would affirm gay marriage. There's already a large community of zoophiles in the U.S. Where do we draw the moral line?

Also, they don't want to be "left alone." They want everyone to accept them on their terms. That's why there have been constant pushes since the 1970s for more gay freedoms and acceptance.


May 10, 2012 at 04:44 PM

@Clarice Yes, that is where I draw the line, because we're discussing the LEGALITY of same-sex STATE marriage, not morality of it. Personally, I think it's just as moral as a heterosexual marriage, but legally, my personal opinion doesn't matter.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that God thinks the homosexuals God made are TOTALLY gross and God is not okay with them being gay. Let's just say. For citizens of the United States, it shouldn't matter. This nation was founded 200 years ago governed NOT by the Bible, but by the rule of law.

You can believe with all your might that gays are going to hell. To our country and government, it should make no difference. The constitution does not say that gays are second class citizens because of who they love or the way they prefer to have sex- not because people in the government think that being gay is okay from a MORAL perspective, but because, as a nation with no established religion, the government CANNOT and SHOULD NOT make a lawful decision based on one religious group's beliefs. That is what the Estabilishment Clause is for.

This article is not discussing if God thinks being gay is morally wrong. The author clearly believes it is. It brings up the question of opposing state-sanctioned gay marriage. If we vote or support a ban on same-sex marriage, we are ruining any legitimacy in America's government and courts. We deny justice to all. What kind of America is that?


May 10, 2012 at 04:32 PM

@madie I'm pointing out that everyone draws the line somewhere. You seem to draw that line at consent rather than scripture. I'd like to to know how consent makes something morally right? Not sure that scripture says anything about consent as some sort of trump card for immorality?

Two people can consent to do something together that is morally reprehensible. So there must be something other than consent that makes something right or wrong in God's eyes?


May 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM

Elizabeth, I may comment further when I have time. Apparently our president's position has not evolved to the point where he thinks that marriage is a civil right (he's leaving it up to the states), so I probably agree with him as to why it is not one. (I'm joking about the president--we all know that he was for same-sex marriage before he was against it ... and then decided to support it again.)


May 10, 2012 at 04:10 PM

I don't see why so many people have issues against same sex marriage and couples. I am a christian, i go to church, pray, donate, help out the needy in the name of god, but i have no problems with them. They don't come up to me in the street and try to touch me, they don't come into my home and try to make me gay. Do they do that to any of you?

No one has the right to tell anyone what to do. If it's what makes them happy then so what? God says multiple times that all are equal. They're normal people just like you and i so why fight them for it? Religion, God, the government, and you, yes YOU! The person reading this comment right now, have NO right to impose in their lives. What happens in their bedrooms and homes is their information. They don't fight for the dissolution of heterosexual marriages or relationships, all they want is to be equal and left alone and included.

They don't fight you for it, so why should you fight them?


May 10, 2012 at 03:46 PM

KS, could you please explain why you don't see it as a violation of that equal protection clause?

For the source, it was a total of 1138 items, per Wikipedia, citing


May 10, 2012 at 03:34 PM

PS. I also believe that the Civil Union doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with sex. If two asexual people find each other, are great friends, and want to commit to being there for each other for the rest of their lives with those rights/responsibilities/etc., I have no problem with them getting those legal items taken care of under that one umbrella union.


May 10, 2012 at 03:34 PM

Elizabeth, I understand your assertion about section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm an attorney. I disagree with your position.

Where does the 1136 number come from? Source?


May 10, 2012 at 03:33 PM

@KS Marriage actually is not based off love, but off of committment. Love as well as committment would be ideal. And as I'm saying, unless the state can come up with a lawful reason why not, I think (LEGALLY, not morally) it should be allowed. As I said before, I don't have to agree with something for it to be legal under our constitution. I actually think it is unlawful to disallow polygomy, even if I don't like it.

As the law stands, a state marriage can only be with two consenting adults (or a minor with agreement from a parent or gaurdian). A cat is not a consenting adult. A child, or a toaster, are not consenting adults. If you don't like it, find a lawful, constitutional reason why this should change. P.S. The Bible is not a lawful, constitutional source.

Also, since we're on polygamy, God looked with favor on many men in the Old Testament who had multiple wives. Abraham had Sarah, and took Hagar as another wife. King David had multiple wives, as did Soloman. David actually had a guy killed so he could marry that man's wife. God still loved him. I'm certainly not saying I think it's right to have more than one spouse, but God didn't seem to have a problem with it.


May 10, 2012 at 03:31 PM

@Lucy, I believe that the term that accompanies all those legal rights, responsibilities, privileges, etc should be civil union. For everyone, regardless of religious belief.

Anyone who wants to term their relationship a marriage should see their religious affiliate. For those who don't have a religious affiliate, if the term "marriage" is that important to them, they should explain to their family/friends/etc that they view their relationship as a "marriage" and have done the appropriate items (whatever that may be for them) to make that official to each other.

I believe that anyone who believes that marriage means something very specific, should follow their belief system in implementing that (assuming that all laws concerning consent are followed). I believe that the term means something that is intrinsic to some people's religious belief, and by using it to also mean a legal term that doesn't define itself the same way, we are infringing on people's right to freely practice their religion.

Lucy F.

May 10, 2012 at 03:25 PM

Elizabeth, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the term "marriage" is strictly for religious people? I'm just curious because then under that premise, those who are not religious should technically have to follow the same guidelines, right? Like if I go and marry someone, but we're both atheists, then you feel that should be a "civil union" even if we're a heterosexual couple? What about other religions or spiritualies that have practiced marriage as long as (or longer) than christians? Should they have to use the term for marriage in the language of their religious origin? Other than that, I like your stance. You do you're thing, I'll do mine, hopefully we're happy in the end.

All this anti gay-marriage crap is depressing. If two people love each other, then why deny them the same rights (and yes, terminology) that you get? Because of religion? I know you believe you've got the answers, but you're just a person like the rest of us. You hold no superiority over anyone because you choose to follow the bible. You aren't righteous because of your speculation as to how the universe is governed any more than they are vile for loving another person (who just happens to share similar genitalia). There are people out there really hurting others, murderers, rapists, child abusers, etc... yet everyone wants to make a fuss about what kind of love and commitment is the right kind of love and commitment. If two people can get together, strengthen each other, be charitable in life, work hard, raise healthy happy kids, and die knowing in their heart they did their best, then why does it matter if they've got the same junk?

Then again, I could be wrong. I'm only human.


May 10, 2012 at 03:24 PM

@Madie: "I’m talking about love between two consenting adults."

Seriously, why limit it to TWO consenting adults? What is the basis for that? If love comes from God, then who are we to judge when three consenting adults are in love and want to have a three-way marriage? Or how about a sister and a brother who say they're in love--or two sisters or two brothers? Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry, if marriage is based on love?


May 10, 2012 at 03:20 PM

@KS, actually to get the same legal relationship (not spiritual, just legal) without being able to use the legal form of "marriage" to put them all under one umbrella costs significantly more, which is *not* equal protection.

To have the right to talk with medical personnel about your loved one who is unconscious in the hospital. To have the right of survivor-ship. To have access to the other 1136 rights, privileges, and benefits currently afforded or determined by marital status in this country are all separate forms if you cannot use the marriage form.

Do I think the government should get to use the term that has been religious in connotation for millennia? Nope. But I don't think that trying to make the government give the same legal definition as the religious one is the way to preserve our freedoms in this country, either.


May 10, 2012 at 03:07 PM

@Clarice I'm talking about love between two consenting adults. Making the "Well, next people will want to marry their cats" argument is truly absurd. A cat cannot consent because a cat is not capable of it. A child cannot consent because a child has not matured enough to fully comprehend what concention is. A man in love with another man, who are both of age and can (and do) consent should be able to.

No, I don't think it's right that a father and daughter should be together (even if she is of age and consenting). I also thought it was gross that that 50-something actor married that 16-year old, but it's not really my business, is it? Cousins can marry in quite a few states. It doesn't mean that I'm planning on marrying my cousin just because it's allowed. I still think it's gross, but legally there is no reason why they can't. We have laws for consent in place for a reason.

I never said it was "just" human feelings. If love comes from God, than who are we to judge? And if I remember correctly, Jesus loved, cared for, and sat with prostitutes and tax collectors, people who the general public thought were undeserving of his love and company. And yet Jesus and God loved them just as much, despite their imperfections. We're all human. We're all sinful, so why do we insist of judging each other when we're just as much at fault ourselves? Jesus told us to love each other like he loved us. He didn't add, "unless you disagree with what they're doing." I don't see that kind of love even being attempted, especially towards the gay community.


May 10, 2012 at 02:58 PM

Madie said: "People fall in love, and love comes from God."

This argument has been made before and it sounds extreme but I think it's legit: If a father said he was in love with his daughter and wanted to marry her, would you say "people fall in love, and love comes from God"? Or if an adult male said he loved a young boy, would you say "people fall in love, and love comes from God"? Or if a woman said she was in love with her pet cat...and it just gets more absurd, right?

You really really need to think through your statement. It's a slippery slope in the wrong direction.

Love has to be defined by something other than human experience and feelings, something outside ourselves...and that's in God himself, through the person of Christ expressed in his sacrifice for the bride, his Church, and to the praise of his own glory.


May 10, 2012 at 02:57 PM

@Elizabeth: "Since these laws are designed to specifically remove that equal protection of the ability to be at a loved one’s bedside in the hospital for gay people, guess what?"

What do you mean by "these laws"? Are you claiming that the purpose of laws upholding marriage between a man and a woman is to deny hospital visits between people in same-sex relationships? The hospital visitation problem (if it still exists) could be resolved without changing the entire institution of marriage as it has existed for ages.

Reuben DeVries

May 10, 2012 at 02:51 PM

I personally think the church in both Canada and the United States need to get out of the business of legally marrying people. What about separation of Church and State? Why is this the one area of public life that this is allowed? If people were married by a courthouse legally gay couples could enjoy the same legal benefits of being married or common law people without offending Christians by asking to be married in their church. Allow the church's denominations and members determine in their own heart by what the scripture says what they should do when a gay couple goes to them to be "spiritually married before God"


May 10, 2012 at 02:40 PM

@Elizabeth I completely agree.

@KS... I'm not sure exactly how to respond... because that's how the law works. That's how our government works. The law is based directly off of the constitution, and our constitution is there to protect the rights of ALL people, even the ones you don't like... Or especially the ones you don't like.

@John That was beautifully said. I understand the concept of that, and I agree... But I also think that God's works are beyond what we can understand, even with the Bible. God made gay people the way they are, as God made me and you. At the same time, I think the idea of "divine order" and "roles" becomes limitting in our human perspective. It's the same thing people argue to say that women need to stay in the household, even if their talents are better used elsewhere. We like to have rules and issues in black and white, but life isn't like that. God isn't like that, and that's incredible!

Above all, I think we're minimizing this issue to "these people are wrong and I disagree." We're talking about an issue, but we're also talking about people. Homosexuals are not trying to get the right to marry to spite all Christians. They want to marry under the -state- so that they can (1) have the same rights as other married (under the state) couples and (2) to show a committment to their partner the same way some of you have made that committment to their partner. You can get married in a church and sign nothing by the state and the state won't recognize you as married. That's why you get a marriage lisence at the courthouse- so the state will recognize that you have made this committment to each other. You may not like the fact that homosexuals have gay sex, but it's not like you have to watch. People fall in love, and love comes from God. No matter what kind of sex they're having, shouldn't you care more about the amazing fact that people want to make a permanent committment to each other?

I think it's sad that we're so fixated on what's "wrong" with people that we ignore this amazing, God-inspired love that is all around us. Maybe we should stop judging each other and rejoice in the fact that we live in a world (however imperfect it is) under such an amazing Creator, who made each of us in God's own image... including homosexuals.

[...] Thanks to my friend, Brian LePort, for the heads up on The Gospel Coalition’s link. [...]


May 10, 2012 at 02:33 PM

@Madie how is the context of Adam and Eve? Or the context of how He set up biology? Or how about what Jesus talks about as the evil that comes from out of a man which includes sexual immorality and sensuality? Or how about where God forbids for a man to lie with a man? The fact that to look at Jesus is to look at the Father. That the word came to live with us. All the same words?
How about when Paul tells husbands and wives not to refuse each other except for prayer and fasting?
How about the fact that Sarah and Elizabeth continued to have sex with their husbands past the child bearing years and were given the miracle of sons? I seriously doubt they only had sex that one time to get pregnant.
How about one the big things that Jesus chewed on people for was putting the traditions of man over God?
How about the fact that God intended every child to have a mother AND a father. Regardless of how many ways we find to screw that up, that is what He intended.


May 10, 2012 at 02:29 PM

@KS The 14th amendment. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since these laws are designed to specifically remove that equal protection of the ability to be at a loved one's bedside in the hospital for gay people, guess what? You have to find some reason that would be compelling legally for these laws to *not* violate the US Constitution. The same one that protects our freedom of religion, so the government can't tell us that what we believe is illegal.


May 10, 2012 at 02:23 PM

@Madie: "To change the law to say that gay marriage be illegal, you need to have proof in the law or constitution about why it’s wrong."

What is the basis for your assertion? Who says?


May 10, 2012 at 02:23 PM

Not one of these reasons speaks to the fact that we are a country of laws, and one of those laws is that all people will be treated equally under the law, and another is that Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I cannot see how legislating our Christian beliefs about marriage (However true they are) is in keeping with these two laws.

If we expect people to respect the first amendment and not tell us how to worship, who we choose to marry, how we choose to spend our religious dollars for medical coverage, etc. we also have to respect their right, under the law, not in the eyes of God, to form legal contracts of any nature, assuming the rest of the legal forms apply.

I think we would be much better served to rise up and say "You're right, we cannot legislate our beliefs, but by using a term to which we attach such importance for a legal term which does not reflect our beliefs, you are impeding our free exercise. Please remove the term "marriage" from the legal framework, and leave it to us, as the religious people."

There would be no confusion generated that marriage means what God has defined it as in that situation, and the legal framework would be down to what the government has any business governing - the mutual care and responsibility for the physical body of the legal partner.


May 10, 2012 at 02:09 PM

As usual people, Christian or otherwise, could care less what impact this has on children. Children in foster care that have absolutely no say in where they are placed. Christian agencies that have to close or be willing to place children in same sex households. Christian couples that won't be able to foster.
But hey that's okay cause it isn't our job to legislate morality. Those kids aren't our business.

We do still care about abortion though, right?


May 10, 2012 at 01:21 PM

@ Madie,
I don't think the argument is about the possibility of having children, but about telos. That is to say, we are part of a created order and have a place and purpose ordained by our Creator (of which progeny is an example, e.g. the birth of the Messiah).

[...] 5 Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage - Kevin DeYoung The temptation, then, is for Christians go silent and give up the marriage fight: [...]


May 10, 2012 at 01:09 PM

@Nick F., I said it "comes very close" to what James said. Just like James did not think every person he wrote that to was an unbeliever, but instead was making a point about doing good works.


Who said homosexuality was the worst sin of all? It's just the one under discussion right now. Where does God say he is ok with multiple wives? Where does Paul say all sins are equal? (Actually there are different levels of sinfulness and punishment taught in the Bible. cf. John 19:11; Matt. 23:14)

[...] they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” They sound something like this, and this, and [...]

[...] Reformed Church in Lansing, Michigan and a leader among younger evangelicals. Kevin’s blogs on same-sex marriage and homosexuality attracted considerable attention. The author of eight books, Kevin has made [...]

[...] marriage. Whoa. There have been other thoughtful interactions with this decision, as, for example, here, here, and here, but I have not asked for a moment of your time in order to thoughtfully interact [...]

[...] by Trevin Wax 9 Things You Should Know About the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Cases 5 Reasons Christians Should Continue to Oppose Same Sex Marriage Love and the Inhumanity of Same Sex Marriage Why the Arguments for Gay Marriage are Persuasive A [...]

[...] a blog post this morning, Kevin DeYoung argues that Christians are tempted to “go silent and give up the [...]