I’m going to assume you’re all familiar with the barely six
(being generous) references to homosexual behaviour in the Bible. I’m not going
to spend a whole lot of time arguing about why I believe they don’t describe a
Christ-centred, God-ordained marriage between two people of the same biological
sex. Justin Lee does a lot better job of that than I do. I will, however, briefly
go through the main prooftexts. There are links at the end of this post for
further reading.
First is Adam and Eve’s marriage, the first marriage,
between a biological male and a biological female. This is an extremely common
objection to same-sex marriage. I don’t think it holds any water because of the
distinction between the idea of an archetype and a prototype. The archetype of
something is the ideal to which all others in that category must be upheld. The
archetype for marriage, as is the archetype for *all* human relationships of
any capacity, is the Trinity. Perfect, selfless, mutual love. A common analogy
for this archetype is the relationship between Christ and the church—but more
on that later. Adam and Eve’s marriage was the prototype, the first one, not
the archetype, the ideal one. Must we take only what Adam and Eve did and claim
that we musn’t do other things because Adam and Eve didn’t do them? Bear in
mind that Adam and Eve did not read the Bible.
Next is the few passages in Leviticus against homosexual
behaviour. I think they are irrelevant. Christ’s sacrifice abolishes the Old
Law to make way for the New—to love the Lord with all our
hearts/souls/minds/strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Why would
we hold ourselves to the Israelites’ law if Christ has completely fulfilled it
and rendered it null?
Probably the biggest argument against homosexuality is in
Romans 1. In Romans 1, Paul was describing to the readers what sin looked like.
He used the wild orgies of the fertility cults to describe how sex had been
perverted and how it caused damage in the lives of those who participated in
them. It was an example of sinful behaviour (and of course reckless orgies are
sinful) to make a point. He didn’t address or even mention committed,
Christ-centred marriages between two people of the same sex, although many
people extrapolate from his discussion of the fertility cults that they’re
sinful. Paul does not include any mention of sexuality in his list of real sins
at the end of the chapter. I don’t think this is an effective argument. It’s
akin to claiming that because extramarital heterosexual sex happens,
heterosexual sex within the boundaries of marriage is sinful. I think this
passage too is irrelevant.
My main problem with the use of the (extremely scant)
references to homosexual behaviour in the Bible as prooftexts that God doesn’t
want us to marry someone of the same sex is consistency of interpretation. How
can we say that some specific rules apply only to the culture in which they
were written and some are valid throughout history? How could we ever determine
which exact commands apply? I believe the Bible communicates God’s moral will
for our lives through the underlying themes of God’s love for us and God’s
desire for us to love other people since we see the image of God in them. I don’t
think there’s any reasonable way we could expect to apply the same *specific*
rules of the Israelites’ time to our culture.
Let me continue building my case. I think—I certainly hope—we can all agree that racism is bad. What is racism, exactly? Racism means attributing certain character or personality traits to a person based only on their membership in a particular ethnic group—based only on their physical characteristics. This idea has caused multiple problems throughout human history, particularly when speaking of racism and sexism. After all, what is sexism? Sexism means assigning particular character or personality traits to a person based on their sex chromosomes, or their primary sex characteristics, or their external gender presentation.
Historically the church has continually ended up on the side of not prejudicing against people groups because of physical characteristics—such as the fierce debate in the early church over circumcision. Abolition is another example of this, as is interracial marriage. Although there are people who use the Bible to further their own prejudices, it is obvious throughout the Bible and in Jesus’s own words and interactions that God cares about people’s hearts, not their external physical characteristics.
Most reasonable people will admit that in principle it is
unfair and unwise to be systematically sexist. However, the church’s attitude
toward same-sex marriage is based purely in sexism. God’s rules are not
arbitrary. However, the church’s interpretation of the first chapters of
Genesis that all marriages throughout
all time must be limited to one biological male and one biological female is
completely arbitrary.
All Christian arguments against same-sex marriages come down
to the complementarian model, a philosophy of marriage espoused by most major leaders
of the Christian faith today, and by the majority of Christians. The root of
the complementarian model is that biological males and biological females are
intrinsically different in their talents and roles in life. Namely, that
biological males are “wired” to work hard and be the main fiscal provider for
their family, and also the authoritarian spiritual leader, and biological
females are “wired” to take care of the children and basically just do whatever
her husband tells her to do. Isn’t this the definition of sexism? Isn’t this
prescribing to one population certain character traits, talents, and abilities
based solely on a set of physical characteristics?
Complementarians’ major prooftext is Ephesians 5:21-33, a
passage with which most Christians are familiar. This passage instructs
husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and wives to submit to
their husbands as the church submits to Christ. While this sounds like a pretty
picture, I don’t think it makes much sense.
Marriage is a mutual partnership between two individuals to build each other up, lean on each other, and ultimately point each other to God. (Plus sex, because sex is pretty awesome [or so I’m told].) The strict model of marriage as a hierarchy of the biological male making every decision and being the sole spiritual leader puts far too much pressure on one partner to be perfect. And according to this model, if I marry a man, I’m not supposed to try to be like Jesus? I thought the whole point of *life* is to try to be like Jesus. Why am I not supposed to try to be like Jesus in marriage? The complementarian model encourages manipulation on the wife’s part since she is not “allowed” to make decisions, and undue authoritianism on the husband’s part as he is supposed to be the “head” of the household.
I’m not saying Paul was wrong. The epistles are personal
letters and, like the rest of the Bible, need to be taken in their proper
context. Paul’s idea of marriage was at the time very progressive and
egalitarian, but women as a population no longer rely on marriage for their
livelihood. The best marriages are the ones in which both spouses make use of
their individual talents to contribute to the relationship and help each other
do well in every aspect of life—spiritual, physical, emotional, sexual, financial,
mental, etc.
I find the evidence for the idea that one of these spouses
must be biologically male and the other must be biologically female *highly*
unconvincing. It’s a completely arbitrary, and I would argue unbiblical
requirement that does more harm than good.
There is one other point I would like to bring up—in fact,
it was the convincing point for me. And that point is that God is
gender-neutral. God does not have an X and Y chromosome, testicles, or male
secondary sex characteristics. Certainly Jesus did, but no biblical scholar
will insist that God is technically a male. Pronouns in Hebrew are somewhat
more ambiguous and less consistently used than they are in our English
translation.
For that matter, the church is not a woman. The body of
Christ does not have two X chromosomes, ovaries, or female secondary sex
characteristics. In fact, the two most common alternative names for the church
imply this gender-neutrality. The church is both “the body of Christ” (which
was male) *and* “the bride of Christ” (the word “bride”, of course, being
exclusively female).
The Bible is clear that all humans regardless of physical
sex are meant to function best while trying to be more like God. God can’t
marry someone of the opposite gender since God does not have a gender. Why
should I be forced to marry only someone of the opposite gender? Gender is
nothing to God. Certainly biological sex is, but the beauty of creation is in
its diversity. Even though the majority of people primarily desire that which
could theoretically produce children, I believe that God created some
people to like other things, too—and that is beautiful and wonderful since it
reflects God’s character in all its gender-blindness.
I’m not saying everyone should marry someone of the same
sex. I’m saying that marriage should be between two people who love each other
deeply and want to commit their lives to God and each other for mutual support,
companionship, and growth in every area of life. I think that God delights in
all marriages like that, no matter if the relationship is between two
biological females, two biological males, or a biological male and a biological
female.
This post is a (very!) brief overview of the basic reasons I believe God wants me to marry an awesome, godly woman, do life with her, and eventually grow old with her. I've been primarily influenced by Justin Lee, from the Gay Christian Network, and Rachel Held Evans. Here's some further reading that explains more eloquently and specifically what I've said here.
