Politically speaking, the same-sex marriage debate is over – at least for the foreseeable future. The Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a Constitutional right. Even Republican lawmakers have caved on the issue when they passed The Respect for Marriage Act in December 2022 (39 Republicans in the House of Representatives and 12 Republicans in the Senate voted for it). Even on the social front, the debate seems to be over. Not only do 63% of Americans currently approve of same-sex marriage[1], but conservatives have disengaged from any public debate on the matter. We have conceded defeat with our silence. So why keep talking about the issue, then? While the debate is essentially over in the political and social arenas, it is still raging on in the church. While conservatives may still have the numbers on our side for the time being, the pro-LGBT and pro-same-sex marriage crowd has gained a momentum that may undermine our majority in the near future. Christians still need to know why same-sex marriage is morally incompatible with Christianity (theological), and still need to understand why we think that same-sex marriage should not be legal (political). This post will focus on the political issue (for a Biblical case against homosex, see my article “Homosexuality and the Bible”).

Many Christians take the “personally opposed, but…” approach to same-sex marriage. They say they personally believe that same-sex marriage is immoral, but they think it would be wrong to “impose” their religious beliefs on others in a secular society. But is it an imposition of our religious beliefs if we don’t expand the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples? Not at all. The argument against calling same-sex relationships a “marriage” does not require any religious presuppositions, yet alone Christian presuppositions. So what does a Christian argument against expanding the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples look like? Here’s one such argument:

Have you ever wondered why governments involve themselves in the marriage business? Are they interested in promoting romantic love? Are they interested in personal happiness and fulfillment? No. While romance, personal happiness, and fulfillment may be part of the marriage enterprise, these are not the reasons government involves itself in the marriage business. Governments regulate and promote marriage because they have a vested interest in the production and socialization of children. Children are needed for the perpetuation of society, and those children need to be properly socialized so they can be productive members of society. Opposite-sex couples – and opposite-sex couples alone – are capable of delivering on these government interests, and thus their relationship has been privileged, promoted, and regulated by the government.

Apart from children, there is no reason for the government to sanction or regulate any private relationship in any official capacity, including same-sex relationships. Seeing that same-sex relationships have nothing to do with the purpose for which civil marriage is enacted; therefore, same-sex relationships are not entitled to the benefits of marriage. They may enjoy the same love and commitment heterosexual couples enjoy, but they are not equally situated to heterosexual couples because they cannot produce children. Their relationships do not serve the same function in and for society, and thus there is no need to officially recognize their relationships any more than there is a need for the government to officially recognize friendships. As important as we might deem these relationships to be, they do not need, nor do they deserve the same sort of social support as marriage.

How We Got Here, and What We Can Do About It

The reason our society has come to give official recognition to same-sex relationships is because we have redefined the purpose of marriage so that children stand at the periphery, rather than the center. Marriage is now being defined in terms of love, commitment, and personal fulfillment rather than children. Given this redefinition, it is no wonder we have considered it “only fair” to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

We will only succeed in saving marriage to the degree that we can restore a cultural understanding that marriage is fundamentally about children. Unfortunately, most Christians have bought into the cultural redefinition of marriage themselves, which is why many were fooled into believing that so long as we could retain the exclusive use of the word “marriage” to describe opposite-sex relationships, we would succeed in preserving the historic definition of marriage. While this may have preserved the form of marriage (one man, one woman), it would only do so at the expense of abandoning its purpose (procreation and socialization). Given the fact that the historic form of marriage is logically tied to its historic purpose, when we cede that purpose, we have no further basis on which to argue for its form. It does little good to fight over who gets to use the “M” word to describe their legally recognized relationship unless we also fight to reclaim the historic purpose of marriage, and its exclusive right to legal recognition and social support. Unfortunately, we lost the battle over who gets to use the “M” word as well.

Why the “M” word matters

Speaking of the battle over who gets to use the word “marriage” to describe their relationship, I was once of the opinion that if we were going to extend the same marital rights and benefits to same-sex couples, then there was no principled reason not to call their relationship a marriage. Eventually, however, I came to see that this was wrongheaded. Even if society chooses to grant the same rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples that are enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, there is still good reason for limiting the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples. Why? Because the male-female pairing is absolutely unique. Humans are gendered beings, and our sexual organs are only designed to function with the opposite sex (i.e. our sexual organs are inherently incomplete, and only achieve their biological purpose when united with the sexual organ of the opposite sex). A sexual union of male and female has the natural capacity to produce new life. Of all the different kinds of human relationships, the kind of relationship that can join together two sexual halves into a sexual whole capable of generating new human beings is absolutely unique. We call this kind of relationship a “marriage” (the marriage covenant formalizes this organic union with a commitment to keep the union intact until death). So even if we grant the same rights and benefits associated with marriage to same-sex couples, they still should not be allowed to describe their relationship as a “marriage” because marriage refers to a specific kind of relationship that necessarily excludes same-sex couples.

We should not engage in verbal fictions by calling a relationship a “marriage” that is not of the marital sort. Calling a same-sex union “marriage” is like calling a person with brown skin a “Caucasian” simply because they want to be identified by that term. “Caucasian” is a term that refers specifically to people with white skin. To apply the term to people with brown skin would not just change the meaning of “Caucasian,” but would eviscerate it of its meaning. When “marriage” is expanded to include same-sex couples, then what word remains to describe the unique relationship that produces a sexual whole and is capable of generating new human life? It is absurd to change the definition of marriage simply because same-sex couples want their relationship to be identified by that term, and then be left without a term to describe the unique relationship of opposite-sex couples, or to come up with a new term.

In summary, the institution of marriage is based on the objective nature of human biology and fulfills the practical need of managing the children that naturally and typically result from hetero-sex unions. “Marriage” describes a particular kind of relationship that fulfills a particular role in society. Since the sexual union of same-sex couples does not form a sexual whole and is not capable of generating new human life, their union is not of the marital sort and should not be called “marriage.” As such, it is wrong for governments to expand the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples.

For a fuller treatment of this argument, including answers to the most common objections (such as “what about childless couples?”), see my article “I Now Pronounce You Man and Man?”: An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage

 

______________________

[1]Pew Research Center, “How People around the World View Same-sex Marriage”; available from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/27/how-people-around-the-world-view-same-sex-marriage/; Internet; accessed 12 January 2024.