'The Christian case for gay marriage': A Rebuttal

C. S. Pearce recently wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times called “The Christian case for gay marriage.” In it, he claims that since the Pew Forum states that “a majority of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics now favor legalizing same-sex marriage,” those of us who don’t are wrong.

Pearce’s article is filled with errors, inferences, and his own interpretation of the Bible. He gives some of this away when he states, “And since Christians are a ‘people of the Word,’ we look to the Bible to justify our thinking.” In other words, instead of looking to the Bible to tell us the truth relating to a question we have, we twist it to fit with our preconceived opinions. He gives some examples, such as the Inquisition, Crusades, and others to demonstrate this—and then the rest of his article proceeds to use the Bible to justify his thinking.

He raises several points:

  1. Only three passages in the New Testament deal with homosexuality, and he claims that they are really only talking about temple prostitutes and not homosexuality as we define it today. The problem is, in any reasonable look at these passages you will find that Paul talks about more than temple prostitutes. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV), Paul says that neither “male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In Romans 1, Pearce begins with verse 23, but if you go back to verse 20 you find that Paul is talking about all men that “exchanged the truth of God for a lie . . . Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. . . . Men committed indecent acts with other men.” Looking at the verses Pearce mentioned in his article, it is hard to come to his conclusion unless he is using the Bible to justify his way of thinking.

  2. He next moves on to the Old Testament, citing Leviticus 20:13 and then simply dismissing it by saying that “if we took all of the Old Testament's orders literally, at least half of us wouldn't make it to age 40.” He never gives any argument why we should ignore this particular verse or how this means that homosexual activity is okay in God’s eyes. But using his logic, should we then ignore those passages about killing others and make murder legal? I would say we need to understand why God said this before we simply dismiss His Word and make it something that isn’t there. That is, unless you are using the Bible to justify your way of thinking.

  3. “Jesus never addressed the subject of homosexuality” is another of his justifications. He is correct Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Pearce’s inference is that meant Jesus was not against it. I argue Jesus never said anything about it because it was widely accepted then that same-sex sexual activity was considered sinful and an abomination. Therefore Jesus didn’t have to add anything. Pearce also says that Jesus wasn’t saying anything about same-sex marriage, but that was because it didn’t exist. I also add that Jesus never said anything about rape; does that mean he is in favor of rape? I think not. Again he is using the Bible to . . . well, you know.

  4. Another inference was that because Jesus talked a lot about divorce, and the church not only accepts divorced members and allows them to be church leaders, therefore the church should make the same provision for couples. Today many churches have disregarded the teachings of the Bible concerning divorce and have changed to reflect the world’s thinking. However, God hasn’t changed His view. Divorce is a sin and God is not only against it but He hates it (Malachi 2:16). But it is not an unforgivable sin, and God offers seek forgiveness, redemption, and restoration to those that have divorced in the past. This does not mean the church should make cultural allowances for divorce. As for divorced people being leaders, it depends on when they were divorced. If it was prior to being a Christian, they are now a new creation and can be leaders. However if they divorce post-conversion, then, no, they shouldn’t be leaders as they send the wrong message. Because the church is failing in this doesn’t translate that we should commit more sins by saying same-sex marriage is okay. Pearce is using the sinful man’s ways to try to elevate same-sex marriage to something that should be accepted by the church.

Pearce’s case is weak and unconvincing. There is no Christian case for gay marriage. I would also go as far as saying if you look at the statistics and real world history, there isn’t a secular case for gay marriage either. The only true marriage is that relationship between one woman and one man, a definition that God has put together and warns that no man should put asunder.

His final paragraph concludes that as more and more churches give in to the world’s ways, the church will give gay people equal rights. “Then we will come out on the right side of history once again.” I don’t know about history, but I would rather be on right side of God. Remember, a lie believed by everyone to be truth is still a lie.


Some good points here. I want to add to point #3. Jesus actually addressed the issue of "same-sex" marriage in Matthew 19:3-6 & Mark 10:5-9, just not in name.

He states: "“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,' 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Here Jesus states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. He makes no mention of the possibility of marriage being between two men or two women. Clearly, marriage between a man and a woman is the only acceptable form of marriage that God recognizes according to him.

Furthermore, he refers to difinitive distinctions and roles for men and women when he states that "God made them male and female" thus stating that men were created to be men and women to be women (what all that entails would take more room...)

Additionally, he went so far as to say that a man lusting in his heart after a woman that is not his wife is a sin in Matthew 5:28, so how is a man lusting after another man or a woman lusting after another woman OK based on this standard?

How can homosexual acts be OK in the eyes of God if having lust in your heart towards the opposite sex is not OK?

He said more than those that are seeking to find an excuse for homosexual behavior want to admit.
Indeed it is and I am hardly saying one should not have compassion. What I said was simply that that specific article said nothing new with great pretention.
I have a son who is planning to be "married" to his partner in August of this year. I am so torn between wanting to love and affirm him as I've always done and following Christ. This issue is one that it is easy to have a position on until its your own kid. My heart breaks.
"His final paragraph concludes that as more and more churches give in to the world’s ways, the church will give gay people equal rights."

That's another error right there. The sad thing is that Christians concede the moral high ground on this point, and often agree that homosexuals do not have equal rights.

That's simply not correct. Homosexuals already have equal rights. In fact, they have the exact same rights that I do as a heterosexual single woman:

We both have the right to marry one person, of the opposite sex, who is of legal age and standing to do so.

The fact that they do not desire a person of the opposite sex is not the point. The rights are the same.

What homosexuals want are special rights, over and above what they already have.
Pearce is simply repeating old and frivolous arguments like a tape recorder and taking less time about it then the rebuttal of the rebuttal.

The Christian case for gay marriage is simply "most people aren't Christians anymore". And possibly, "It's just to much of a bother." Anymore is absurd.

In Medieval cities at the time when Christiandom was still considered Christiandom it was common for prostitution to be permitted. It was still considered prostitution and not marriage.
I haven't yet read your full article, but I just had to pipe in that, Thank God!, Biblical Truth is not based on human majority opinion.

BreakPoint Blog