Why Loving Homosexuals Means Letting Them Marry: A Christian Perspective

Sponsored Content

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About C. S. Humble

C.S. Humble is an author and editor for CCP Comics, a graduate of Hardin-Simmons University, and a former Baptist Minister. He currently lives in Midland, Texas with his wife and their two sons.


  1. And for those who prefer to take the more reasoned and honset approach to this debate, a couple of brilliant videos in which the actual issue is discussed: http://www.theblaze.com/books/what-is-marriage-man-and-woman-a-defense/

  2. “We want to refuse marriage to homosexuals not because they are different, but because we know it proves they are equal with heterosexuals. And if they are equal with heterosexuals, we’ll be afraid to ask, ‘What if being gay isn’t a sin?’ and ‘If being gay isn’t a sin, what does that say about my entire paradigm of what I think about sin and what it means to love unconditionally?’ ”

    Thank you for not fearing to ask yourself — and speak aloud — the hard questions. Both my father and grandfather were Baptist ministers. I went to Baylor. I spent 10 years actively trying to cure myself of homosexuality. So I definitely appreciate your thoughts and words. Keep speaking them.

  3. Richard Aubrey says:

    There it is again.
    If you disagree, you “hate”. Bingo. Entire argument is disqualified.

  4. courage the cowardly dog says:

    “It is unjust to segregate a section of God’s creation because we cannot grasp how they could love someone of the same gender. It is a social crucifixion! Where instead of Christ on the cross, we choose to nail equality to the dogwood and let it suffocate and die, and then cheer when it has taken its final breath. We’ll say: “WE WON, WE WON, THE HOMOSEXUALS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! MARRIAGE IS OURS! JOY BE TO GOD, WE KEPT WHAT WAS OURS!” Instead of sharing that which we know to be the deepest commitment we can make to another human.”

    So are you saying that if my faith teaches me that gay marriage is antithetical to the teachings of Christ then my faith is bigoted? I have never known a Baptist who didn’t have a thorough grasp of scripture. I note that you site no scripture in your article. Your article while claiming to know what Christ’s love encompasses, sites no basis in either scripture or catechism for the propostion. As I have heard it said that God does not hate the sinner (and make no mistake, we are all sinners), but rather he hates the sin. I am not opposed to civil unions which bestow all the legal rights and prvileges of marriage on same sex couples but does recognize same sex marriage. That does not make me a bigot or a homophobe and I believe people who make such claims do so because they have no argument. Our God is a God of life and anything we do that interfers with God’s plan for life interferes with God, something you probabky don’t want to do. I can extend Christian love to all of God’s people without tacitly approving the homosexual lifestyle. That does not make me hateful or bigoted.

    • JadeCrystal says:

      Far be it from me to speak for the author of this article, which nearly made me cry with joy to read a Christian finally expressing love and acceptance to our homosexual brothers and sisters, but I believe that everything said in the article could be referenced back to the “Love” chapter: 1 Corinthians 13. Also Matthew 22:36-40 in which Jesus tells us that the two greatest commandments are to love the Lord your God with all your being and to love your neighbor as yourself. And let’s be honest, each one of us wants the chance to marry the person we fall in love with, don’t we? Do you honestly believe that it pleases God that we treat some people as second-class citizens?

      Civil unions do not grant same-sex couples all the rights and privileges that marriage does, by the way. For instance, a couple in a “civil union” can’t technically call it a “marriage” and that goes for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. If you are claiming a Christ-like love, then there should be no room in your heart to deny a same-sex couple the covenant with each other and God that opposite-sex couples are afforded without question. That love and commitment glorifies Christ just as beautifully as heterosexual love and commitment. I truly believe that God sees no difference between us. We are all His children, He loves all of us equally, and He wants us all to love each other equally.

  5. courage the cowardly dog says:

    I was just saying the other day that this site posts comments so long as the comments comply with the commenting policy. I just posted a comment that was completely within the commenting policy and yet it got deleted. Because I disagreed with the author? Only ideas that can withstand critical analysis are ideas that are worthy of consideration. Since my critical analysis of your assertions were deleted I take it that you don’t feel your ideas as expressed in this article are capable of withstanding critical analysis.

    :because we know it proves they are equal with heterosexuals. ”

    Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships because of one simple reason. They cannot create life. Only a heterosexual relationship can do that. Above all God values life. Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection 3 days later was an affirmation of life. If you believe that life is the at the core of faith in God then you can only believe that the means by which life is created is that which is the most important to God. That is fundamental belief of the Catholic Church. I am not saying that homosexuals can’t marry. I am saying the state should and cannot be compelled to elevate gay marriage to traditional marriage. The state has an interest in propogating the species. Putting gay marriage on the same footing, affording it the same recognition as traditional heterosexual marriage endows it with more recognition than it deserves to the extent that it is contrary to the state’s interest in propogating the species.

    • The “state” is not the Catholic Church and thank whatever systems that be that it isn’t. These ideas of what marriage is are regressive and will fail, ultimately. They already have.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        No the state is not the Catholic Church, but the author approached this topic from a religious or faith based perspective. The state has an interest in propagating the species any actions taken by the state to diminish that goal is contrary to the states interests. I was trying to point out the traditional Catholic perspective on this issue and the State’s interests on this issue.

        • AnonymousDog says:

          Can a case for same-sex *civil marriage* be made from any religious perspective? The interests of society/the state are not the same as those of any Christian sect.

        • wellokaythen says:

          “The state has an interest in propagating the species….”

          So the federal government is a pronatalist institution? I’ve always wondered about that….

          If the state has a fundamental interest in propagating the species, then it should be actively encouraging as much sex as possible, not buttressing a monogamous form of marriage. A promise of lifelong monogamy is hardly a great strategy for maximizing the birth rate. If the state’s interest was in reproduction, one would expect the state to be backing polygamy.

          Then again, restricting the teaching of sex ed in school and limiting birth control options for young people could be a very shrewd move on the government’s part to keep young people having babies. Giving parents a tax break could be seen as a state sanction of babymaking. (Fascist governments did that in the 1930’s.) Maybe there’s something to this after all.

    • “Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships because of one simple reason. They cannot create life. ”
      -This invalidates every heterosexual relationship that either won’t or can’t create life. This includes grandma marrying her “special friend” in the nursing home some 20 years after becoming a widower. I think grandma and her special friend as well as Adam and Steve’s relationships deserve to be honored and give equality in the eyes of the law.

      • courage the cowardly dog says:

        This invalidates every heterosexual relationship that either won’t or can’t create life. This includes grandma marrying her “special friend” in the nursing home some 20 years after becoming a widower. I think grandma and her special friend as well as Adam and Steve’s relationships deserve to be honored and give equality in the eyes of the law.

        Well, not quite. First of all many heterosexual couples marry not intending to have children initially and then find themselves pregnant, so while man proposes, God disposes. Believe it or not, it happens. Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was thought to be barren but found herself pregnant in her old age. Moreover, a sterile heterosexual couple can plausibly represent to a child they adopt as an infant that they are the child’s mother and father without ever getting into the biological connection thereby sparing the adult child from wondering who in fact is his biological parent. Homosexual couples cannot plausibly make that representation. We should always be considering what is best for the child. I don’t think a lot of people consider that first and foremost.

        As far as granny marrying her special friend, I have no problem with some legal recognition being extended to gay couples such as civil unions, but I do not think such couples should be put on the same plane as legally married heterosexual couples for the reasons I have stated herein.

        • wellokaythen says:

          This is only a partial refutation of Luke’s point. Luke’s point was that if the right to marry is based on fertility, then a lot of hetero couples would also not have the right to marry. Your arguments refute some cases but not all of them. Some people are just infertile — should they never be allowed to get married?

          The use of the biblical example of Sarah is fraught with problems. For one thing, if we are to support all the forms of marriage portrayed in the Old Testament, then we will have to allow more than just the one man/one woman ideal. If you bring up Sarah, then you have to bring up Hagar. If you bring up Abraham, then you have to bring up super-polygamists like Solomon. Unless you’re suggesting that we pick and choose which OT examples to accept and which to reject. In that case I’ll take Solomon and ignore Abraham.

          For a chart of many of the Old Testament forms of marriage, see:

          Furthermore, if we are supposed to hold out the possibility of an infertile person miraculously becoming fertile, then we should be open to all birth miracles. By your logic, if a woman has had a hysterectomy then she cannot get married. She physically cannot get pregnant, so the chances of her having a baby are the same no matter whom she married. A post-hysterectomy woman and her husband are exactly as fertile as a same-sex couple.

          If you say that a woman who’s had a hysterectomy can get pregnant, then a gay man can get pregnant. Yes, that defies logic, but isn’t that what miracles do? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t leave space for some miracles and not others. You can’t say some things are just physically impossible AND say that we have to accept the chance of miracles.

          Also, I don’t believe there is a strict religious, legal, or cultural definition of marriage that requires that a married couple have sex with each other. A married couple is married whether they have sex with each other or not, so clearly the ability to have children is not a requirement for marriage. People who don’t have sex with each other are not going to create a child together.

          Finally, perhaps it would be terrible for a child to wonder who his/her biological parents are. There is a simple solution for that: tell the child who his/her biological parents are.

          • wello, thanks for posting ‘For a chart of many of the Old Testament forms of marriage’.
            that is going in my bookmark

          • wellokaythen says:

            Crap, I can’t believe I did that. I said “sex” when what I was really talking about was PIV intercourse. Of course a fertile hetero couple can have sex without any chance of having a baby, if they have some kinds of sex but not others.

    • wellokaythen says:

      “Homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships because of one simple reason. They cannot create life.”

      In that case, before any person can get married, that person will need to demonstrate to a government agency that he or she is fertile. If marriage is solely about having babies, and that’s the only criteria, then that needs to be enforced. Every infertile couple should be banned from getting married, no matter what the sexual orientation. Anyone who’s married who becomes infertile should therefore have the marriage dissolved. A tubal ligation or vasectomy would be equivalent to a divorce.

      If fertility is the central feature, then why is no one tested before getting married?

    • According to your logic, allowing homosexuals the right to marry will in turn cause heterosexuals to stop reproducing? Marriage does not guarantee pregnancy. The abundance of single parents and infertile couples is a testament to this fact, thus making your assertions critically flawed.

  6. Here’s another straight Christian ally! I work and hope for one day where all LGBTQ relationships are given equality in the eyes of the law. Yet I’m biased, so let me name those biases:

    1. I have a lot of LGBTQ friends and I know it’s not a choice for them, it’s who they are, so that skews my vision since I’m emotionally invested in their well-being.
    2. I’m a pastor and I’m in the business of blessing unions. With more unions means more blessing which means more money for me, so I’m economically biased.
    3. I know that the Bible says NOTHING about same-sex relationships (at most it says things about same-sex acts), so I’m scripturally biased

    Despite these biases, I hope I’m not too far off.

    • courage the cowardly dog says:

      What if I told there was a study recently published that said the children of gay parents turn out to be gay themselves a higher percentage of the time than do children of heterosexual parents. If arguendo, homosexuality is genetically determined, in light of the fact the homosexuals constitute only 10% of the general population you have to conclude that as a genetic trait homosexuality is recessive. In the case of adopted children of homosexual couples, if it is genetically determined, you would only expect to find one out of every 10 adopted children of homosexual couples to be gay, but the percentage is higher which logically leads to the conclusion that homosexuality may not be genetic at all, but rather a learned behavior. Even in those instances where one of the homosexual parents is biologically related to the child, to the extent that such sexual preference is recessive one would expect that the other biological parent (the one donating the egg or sperm as the case may be) is more likely to be heterosexual and thus have the dominant sexual preference gene leading to the conclusion that nurture has more to do with once sexual preference than nature and thus that homosexuality may very well be a learned behavior that can be unlearned.

      • wellokaythen says:

        This makes it sound like homosexuality is a bad thing. I disagree.

      • What if I asked you to CITE your sources? Then at least other individuals could actually see what you are talking about. Regardless of the nature vs nurture agreement the freedom in general is the issue here. Let’s break down your arguments shall we. First you state that you and not opposed civil unions that afford same sex couples all the responsibilities and benefits that a marriage includes (which they currently do not). Fine that’s all well and good, but then what is the point of distinguishing between marriage and a civil union? Also, if you are so familiar with scripture then you know that Jesus associated with all sorts of people whether they were prostitutes, lepers, or other undesirables. Now I do not claim to know that Jesus would have interacted with homosexuals in the same manner or know of any such example in the bible, however; it could be reasonably inferred that Christ he would have treated all people the same. Next, to assume that the propagation of the species is in the best interest of the state is probably true. However, that fails to recognize that a reasonable population size is beneficial as well. Bear with me here and brace for a devils advocate type argument. Consider explosive nature of human population in the past few centuries. Homosexuality is possibly one of natures checks to population growth. So in interest of resource preservation and availability, homosexuality is beneficial to the system. Also, Luke and wellokaythen do a much better job of arguing then finer counterpoints to your point.
        Yes, the author does examine the issue from a Christian standpoint based on the love we should feel toward everyone. But, one must consider the entire context of the issue not just how the author approached the issue. Nonetheless, the state is secular. This secular state allows you to practice freedom of religion among many other freedoms. Yet, in the same breath you would ask the state to allow you to practice your religion, but deny others rights because of what your religion says. Doesn’t make much sense for a secular state does it?

        • JadeCrystal says:

          “Nonetheless, the state is secular. This secular state allows you to practice freedom of religion among many other freedoms. Yet, in the same breath you would ask the state to allow you to practice your religion, but deny others rights because of what your religion says. Doesn’t make much sense for a secular state does it?”

          Thank you so much for stating this. So many people don’t seem to understand this.

      • I would say “cite your sources” and then a heavy dose of skepticism would be involved because it sounds like a crock of B.S. Hetero-people have gay kids and gay couples have straight kids and there’s plenty of studies which prove the opposite.

        You can start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM
        Here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X01916800
        Here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.short
        And here: http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.4199/C00064ED1V01Y201208DBR008?journalCode=dbr&&

        And as for “..homosexuality may very well be a learned behavior that can be unlearned.”
        you can check here for a mountain of peer-reviewed data which proves the statement above is complete bullocks: http://www.adulterc.org/applications/ClassifiedListingsManager/inc_classifiedlistingsmanager.asp?ItemID=1349&CategoryID=156

        • A blogging friend of mine recently conducted a straw poll and you can read the results here: http://thegaychristian.com/?p=959

          I find this fascinating. Not only does it show that the “gay lifestyle” (usually a phrase that means “Wild, romping orgies. A distaste for relationships. No “real” commitments.”) is patently false, but in fact that it better describes the “heterosexual lifestyle.” Oops. Looks like the only threat to marriage is from the only people who can legally marry…. namely Heterosexuals.

  7. I cannot tell you how much I agree.

    I was reared S Baptist and so much of my life “network” is from the conservative end. Church members questioned my faith and salvation and most think I have fallen off the “cliff of liberalism” (believing Jesus himself was a liberal…might be a marked compliment actually) and question my morals as a person.

    I have said several times that supporting (or in the least, not fighting) same sex marriage might be the “drink of water” Jesus told us to give those in need. Regardless of what any one person believes about homosexuality and the Bible, legal equality is legal equality and our “distinctions” in who is MORE equal is actually biased, prejudiced, and inflammatory in and of itself. This “hate the sin love the sinner” nonsense (which Jesus never said) is killing the church and making it irrelevant to society and the world. Something I believe Jesus never had in mind.

    Our “separate from the world” has to hold true to our values and mandates as Christians. Statements by Paul or the Old Testament can only be guides or beliefs that we personally hold true to as part of a body of faith, not force all of civilization to adhere to. I never saw a single example of Jesus or Paul speaking mandates or rules or even GUIDELINES to those outside of a faith or church.

    At the very least, we can believe or not believe homosexuality is a sin, but really, we should be so busy beating our own chest that we do not have time to stare (or even address) the nonabusive actions of someone that has never signed up to be accountable to us. I cannot find a single reference in the Bible that supports that the world is accountable to Christians or any faith for that matter.

    With that said, I think that if we applied the same historical context and societal norms of the Biblical passages to homosexuals that we do to women or slaves, we have to come to a conclusion that the Bible is not clear cut (as it is preached often) on its stance on loving and committed homosexual relationships. I am like Tony Compolo, it is pretty clear that erotica sex, rape, and other like plans is against God’s plan for us (regardless of orientation), but beyond that, it is gray at best.

    If someone asks me about the sin of homosexuality, I have to conclude “I don’t know” and really, why do I have to? I do know that if it is, it was not important enough for Jesus to directly address it (though he does address haughtiness and piety of the church quite a bit), then really, it is of no significance to me but to ensure that I am truly loving and accepting of the inhabitants of this world as Jesus commands…

    and if we are “loving” as the Jesus commands, there is nothing fluffy or lukewarm in that! If we think there is, we probably are not doing it right.

    • wellokaythen says:

      “…against God’s plan…”

      Once again I’m stumbling on a theological question. If God’s plan runs the universe, and God is omnipotent, and no one can thwart God’s power, then how could *anything* actually go against His plan? Everything that happens is part of God’s plan, or else God is not really in charge of everything.

      If I can do something that is against God’s plan, then that means that in this instance I am more powerful than God. That seems quite blasphemous.

      Surely nothing exists without God’s will for it to exist. So, all the apparently evil things you mention must be part of God’s plan.

      Then again, saying that I understand God’s plan is also blasphemous. For me as a puny human to say that I comprehend the mind of God is the height of arrogance. The road to hell is paved with those who claim to know exactly how God thinks.

      If I understand omnipotence correctly, that is.

      I’m also not so sure about the “against God’s plan” aspect of “erotica sex.” Could you explain that, please?

  8. Randy Strauss says:

    The gay marriage outrage isn’t about religion. It’s about love, finances, benefits, taxes and wills. WWJD? Stop the stupid hate.

  9. Beautiful. If we repeat the message enough, maybe the haters (fear + lies + stereotypes = hate) will finally get a clue. *fellow straight ally fist bump*

    • Another *fellow straight ally fist bump!*
      Yes, it’s about more than 1000 federal rights denied to gay couples.
      It’s also about recognizing that in no other aspect of life would we use the knowledge base of the Bronze Age as part of our decision-making process. The writers of the Bible knew as much about human sexuality as they knew about the Hubble Constant. This is to say – nothing.
      It’s about recognizing, as the author does, that there is not one Christian position on this issue. My Christian church has been blessing same-sex unions for more than 20 years.
      It’s about recognizing that all of the weak anti marriage equality arguments expressed in some of these comments were found to be invalid during the Prop. 8 trial, as a reading of the transcript would show.
      And, BTW, the very last thing the state should be promoting is more procreation. We face the very real prospect of rendering the only planet we have un-inhabitable.

Speak Your Mind