(The following is an edited message sent to our ministry mailing list on 02/12/2004. If you would like to subscribe, please send a blank message to subscribe@rmiweb.org.)

"Gay" marriage, of course, means happy marriage. However, the debate that is going on almost down the street from where I am typing this message is on homosexual marriage. I might address homosexuality in some detail in the future, perhaps in a book or an article. Here I will explain only the general direction of my thinking on this topic.

Even many Christians who are against homosexual marriage are eager to insist that they don't want to discriminate against homosexuals, and therefore they would have no problem with "civil union." But I am not so quick to make this concession.

Sodomy has been a criminal offense in some states. Some of you have probably heard how police officers caught two homosexual men in the act of sodomy in Texas, and brought them up on sodomy charges. The men were acquitted because the court said that the law should not interfere with personal and consensual acts between adults. I am not familiar with the details of the case, but the details are unimportant — my point is that homosexuality is technically still a crime in some places, and saying that homosexuality should be considered a crime should not be entirely novel.

The Old Testament regards homosexuality as not only a criminal offense, but also a capital offense, deserving death. I agree with this categorization and this punishment, and there are at least a few other theologians who also agree with this. This is just to say that we agree with the Bible on the subject. Thus Christians should not be so quick to discuss marriage and civil union between homosexuals. What I want to settle with the unbeliever is why homosexuality is not a crime in the first place.

Is it because the act or the relationship is between two consenting adults? First, what is an adult? The State arbitrarily defines the adult, so that a consenting 17-year-old doesn't count. Second, why is the act or the relationship permitted if it is between consenting adults? That is, why is the premise true in the first place? Third, since all arguments must eventually escalate to the presuppositional level, I must finally ask whether the act or relationship has God's consent.

Is it because the act or the relationship does not hurt anyone? First, what is the definition of "hurt"? If I say that homosexuality disgusts me and spoils my appetite, and thus wastes a perfectly delicious chicken drumsticks dinner that my wife has prepared for me, does that count? Why or why not? It "hurts" me in some sense, doesn't it? If spoiling my appetite, wasting my wife's time, and disappointing the chicken drumsticks that had to wait so long in the oven all do not count as "hurt," then what kind of hurt are they talking about? They must define it, and then defend the definition. Second, why should the act or the relationship be permitted so long as it does not "hurt" anyone? What makes that the standard? And is that the only standard of morality, or is that the only issue in determining whether homosexuality is right or wrong? Why or why not? We can go on and on, but as with any other topic, the unbeliever cannot move one step beyond where we let him, since he has no justification for any of the steps in his reasoning process.

Again, my position is not just that homosexuals should not be married, but that homosexuality is a crime, just like murder or theft, so that even before we consider civil union, we must consider whether or not to punish homosexuals, with the possible punishments ranging from imprisonment to execution. Morally speaking, civil union and marriage should not even be on the list of options. Even if biblical morality does not require punishment or execution for homosexuality, surely no Christian should argue that homosexuals should have the right to have civil unions. But it appears that most Christians are not sufficiently bothered or disgusted by homosexuality.

So why is homosexuality not a crime? Why? If I let the Bible define what is a crime and what is not a crime, then how can I not define homosexuality as a crime? But once someone asks why I must submit to the Bible's definition, then we have moved beyond a confrontation on homosexuality alone to a presuppositional confrontation concerning our different worldviews. Thus an even more fundamental and productive debate can begin, and it is a debate that we can and must win every time.

As with other topics related to apologetics, Christians tend to yield too much ground before they draw the line and stand firm. So watch yourselves when you talk to unbelievers. Don't yield ground or permit premises that you don't have to yield or permit. Although the laws of the land might not change to reflect the biblical standard any time soon, when it comes to intellectual debates on this issue, we don't need to compromise anything.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Vincent Cheung, Apologetics in Conversation
Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Vincent Cheung, On Good and Evil
http://www.rmiweb.org

Greg Bahnsen, "In the Shadow of Sodom: Does the Bible Really Say What We Thought About Homosexuality?"
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe182.htm

Gordon Clark, Essays on Ethics and Politics
http://www.trinityfoundation.org

John Murray, Principles of Conduct

Posted in Theology, Apologetics, Current | Permanent Link