Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
(July 2004)
A shortened
version of this essay will appear in the September issue of
Presbyterians Today. Subscriptions to Presbyterians Today are
available by calling 1-800-558-1669.
For
a version with sidebar comments (in pdf) go
here.
Sidebar comments in the pdf version are put in boldface in this HTML
version.
Advocates of
homosexual practice often argue that “gay marriage,” or at least
homosexual civil unions, will reduce promiscuity and promote fidelity
among homosexual persons. Such an argument overlooks two key points.
“Gay Marriage” as a
Contradiction in Terms
First, legal and
ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine
the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is
to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions. We will
come back to this later.
Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong
primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of
promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among
females). They are wrong because “gay marriage” is a contradiction in
terms. As with consensual adult
incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor
only after certain structural prerequisites are met.
The vision of
marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting
male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just
about more intimacy and sharing one’s life with another in a lifelong
partnership. It is about sexual merger—or, in Scripture’s understanding,
re-merger—of essential maleness and femaleness.
The creation story
in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally
binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam (“earthling”) is split
down the “side” (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than “rib”)
to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the
reunion of the two constituent parts or “other halves,” man and
woman.
This is not an
optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created
by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only
way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is
to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can
never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite
sexual counterparts or complements.
By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or
sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition
that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being
(anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of
sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other.
As one
ancient text puts it, “seeing themselves in one another they were ashamed
neither of what they were doing nor of what they were having done to them”
(Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart 20). The modern word “homosexual”—from
the Greek homoios, “like” or “same”—underscores this self-evident
desire for the essential sexual self shared in common with one’s partner.
I am not talking merely about
what some prohomosex advocates derisively refer to as an “obsession with
plumbing.” I am talking about a fundamental recognition of something
holistic, an essential maleness and an essential femaleness. Why else
would 99% of all persons in the United States (97% heterosexual, 2%
homosexual) limit their selection of mates to persons of a particular sex?
Why else do so many “gays” claim exclusive attraction for persons of the
same sex rather than, say, gender nonconforming persons of the other sex?
All this indicates a basic societal admission that there is an essential
and holistic maleness and femaleness that transcend mere social
constructs.
In this connection,
too, it is interesting that homosexual men, even those who bear effeminate
traits, usually desire very “masculine” men as their sex partners. Why?
Undoubtedly many desire what they see as lacking in themselves: a strong
masculine quality. Such a desire is really a form of self-delusion. They
are already men, already masculine. They are masculine by virtue of their
sex, not by virtue of possessing a social construct of masculinity that
may or may not reflect true masculinity. They need not seek completion in
a sexual same. Rather, they must come to terms with their essential
masculinity.
The New Testament
recognizes the importance of the Genesis creation stories for establishing
a “two-sexes” or “other-sex” prerequisite for marriage.
St. Paul
clearly understood same-sex intercourse as an affront to the Creator’s
stamp on gender in Genesis 1-2. In his letter to the Romans, Paul cites
two prime examples of humans suppressing the truth about God evident in
creation/nature: idolatry and same-sex intercourse (1:18-27). Paul talks
first about humans exchanging the Creator for worship of idols made “in
the likeness of the image of a perishable human and
of birds and animals and reptiles” (1:23); then about
“females [who] exchanged the natural use” and “males leaving
behind the natural use of the female” to have intercourse with other
“males” (1:26-27). This obviously echoes Genesis 1:26-27: “Let us make a
human according to our image and . . . likeness; and
let them rule over the . . . birds . . . cattle . . . and .
. . reptiles. And God created the human in his image, . . . male
and female he created them.” Taken together, we have not only eight
points of correspondence between Gen 1:26-27 and Rom 1:23, 26-27 but also
a threefold sequential agreement:
A.
God’s likeness and image in humans
B.
Dominion over the animal kingdom
C.
Male-female differentiation
It would be fair to say
that if there is no intertextual echo here, then there is no such thing as
an intertextual echo, as opposed to direct citation, in all of the New
Testament.
What is the point of
this echo? Idolatry and same-sex intercourse constitute a frontal assault
on the work of the Creator in nature. Those who suppressed the truth about
God transparent in creation were more likely to suppress the truth about
the complementarity of the sexes transparent in nature, choosing instead
to gratify contrary innate impulses.
In 1 Corinthian 6:9
Paul mentions “men who lie with males” (arsenokoitai)—a term formed
from the absolute prohibitions of man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and
20:13—in a list of offenders that risk not inheriting the kingdom of God.
Just as Romans 1:26-27 has Genesis 1:27 in view, so too 1 Corinthians 6:9
has Genesis 2:24 in view (partially cited in 1 Cor 6:16): “For this reason
a man . . . shall be joined to his woman (wife) and the two
will become one flesh.” Taken in the context of Paul’s remarks in chs. 5
(a case of adult incest) and 7 (male-female marriage), there is little
doubt that Paul understood the offense of “men who lie with males” as the
substitution of another male for a female in sexual activity; or, put
differently, the abandonment of an other-sex structural prerequisite for a
holistic sexual union.
As with the case of the
incestuous man, Paul would have found absurd any argument that suggested
marriage as a means to avoiding sexual immorality. Same-sex intercourse,
like incest, is a far greater instance of sexual immorality than
infidelity. If it were otherwise, the church would be compelled to
validate all committed incestuous unions. Same-sex intercourse, like
man-mother incest, is not substantially improved by the manifestation of
fidelity and longevity. Indeed, making the relationship long-term only
regularizes the sin.
That Paul did not
limit his opposition to homosexual practice only to certain exploitative
forms is evident both from his indictment of lesbian intercourse in Romans
1:26 and from the advocacy for non-exploitative homoerotic behavior that
persisted in many quarters of the Greco-Roman world. Moreover, modern
views about “homosexual orientation” would have made little difference to
Paul’s critique. There were “pagan” moralists and physicians who both
posited something akin to homosexual orientation and held such desires to
be “contrary to nature” even when given “by nature.” We know that Paul
viewed sin as an innate impulse, operating in the members of the human
body, passed on by an ancestor, and never entirely within human control.
It is not
mere coincidence that when Jesus dealt with an issue of sexual
behavior in Mark 10:2-12 he cited the same two texts from Genesis, 1:27
and 2:24, that lie behind Paul’s critique of homosexual practice. Jesus
adopted a “back-to-creation” model of sexuality. He treated Genesis 1:27
and 2:24 as normative and prescriptive for the church (Mark 10:6-9). In
contending for the indissolubility of marriage, Jesus clearly presupposed
the one explicit prerequisite in Gen 1:27 and 2:24; namely, that there be
a male and female, man and woman, to effect the “one flesh” reunion.
Jesus was not
suggesting that lifelong monogamy was a more important consideration for
sexual relations than the heterosexual (i.e. other-sexual) dimension. Rather, he narrowed further an already carefully circumscribed sexual
ethic given to him in the Hebrew Bible. Sexual behavior mattered for
Jesus. In the midst of Jesus’ sayings on sex in Matthew 5:27-32 appears
the following remark: If your eye or hand should threaten your downfall,
cut it off. It is better to go into heaven maimed then to have one’s whole
body be sent to hell.
There are many other
sayings of Jesus, besides Mark 10:6-9, that, taken in the context of early
Judaism, implicitly forbade same-sex intercourse. These include: the
reference to “sexual immoralities” (porneiai) in Mark 7:21, a term
that for Jews of the Second Temple period called to mind the forbidden
sexual offenses in Lev 18 and 20, particularly incest, adultery, same-sex
intercourse, and bestiality (cf. the prohibition of porneia in the
Apostolic Decree in Acts 15, formulated with the sex laws in Lev 18 in
view); Jesus’ affirmation of the seventh commandment against adultery in
Mark 10:17-22, which presupposes the preservation of the male-female
marital bond (cf. the reference to not coveting one’s neighbor’s wife in
the tenth commandment) and could be used in early Judaism as a rubric for
treating the sex laws in the Bible, including the proscriptions of
male-male intercourse (cf. Philo, Special Laws, 3); Jesus’
acknowledgement of Sodom’s role in Scripture as the prime example of abuse
of visitors in Matt 10:14-15 par. Luke 10:10-12, which in the context of
other early Jewish texts indicates a special revulsion for the attempt at
treating males sexually as females (e.g., Philo, Josephus, Testament of
Naphtali 3:3-4; 2 Enoch 10:4; 34:1-2; within Scripture, Ezek
16:50; Jude 7; and 2 Pet 2:6-10 also point in this direction); and Jesus’
warning against giving “what is holy to the dogs” (Matt 7:6), a likely
echo to Deut 23:17-18 which forbids the wages of a “dog” or qadesh
(lit., the self-styled “holy man,” “sacred one,” but often translated
“male temple prostitute”) from being used to pay a vow to the “house of
Yahweh” (for “dog,” cf. Rev 22:15 with Rev 21:8).
The unanimous and
unequivocal opposition to same-sex intercourse that persisted in early
Judaism and in early Christianity leaves little doubt about what Jesus’
view was. The portrait of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is of someone
who, instead of loosening the law, closed its loopholes and intensified
its demands (Matthew 5:17-48). Jesus did devote his ministry to seeking
out the “lost” and “sick,” such as sexual sinners and the biggest economic
exploiters of Jesus’ day (tax collectors). Yet he did so in the hope of
bringing about their restoration through grateful repentance. He
understood the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus
19:18; cited in Mark 12:30) in its context, which included the command to
“reprove your neighbor and so not incur guilt because of him” (Leviticus
19:18). Continual forgiveness was available to those who sinned and
repented (Luke 17:3-4). Jesus’ requirement for discipleship was
self-denial, self-crucifixion, and the losing of one’s life (Mark 8:34-37;
Matthew 10:38-39). It is time to deconstruct the false portrait of a
sexually tolerant Jesus.
Space does not
permit a fuller exploration of the evidence from Scripture. For that I
refer readers to my books and articles. There I also show, through
examination of literary and historical contexts and the history of
interpretation, that the story of Sodom in Genesis 19:4-11, like the
stories of the Levite at Gibeah in Judges 19:22-25 and Ham’s act against
Noah in Genesis 9:20-27, is intended as an indictment of male-male
intercourse per se, not merely of coercive acts; that the prohibitions in
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are not antiquated purity laws; and indeed that
every text in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations
presupposes an unalterable heterosexual requirement. It is a relatively
easy matter to demonstrate that in ancient Israel, early Judaism, and
early Christianity, the only form of “consensual” sexual behavior regarded
as a more severe infraction than homosexual practice was bestiality. The
historical evidence indicates that every author of Scripture, as well as
Jesus, would have been appalled by homosexual relationships, committed or
otherwise.
The Social-Scientific Case against “Gay Marriage”
Returning to the
first point, the social-scientific evidence to date does not encourage the
notion that validating homosexual unions is a win-win situation. A series
of articles in 2004 by Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained social
anthropologist and fellow at the Hoover Institution, show that the
introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has
coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. In articles
published in
The Weekly
Standard
(2/2/04,
5/31/04), National Review Online (2/2/04,
2/5/04,
5/04/04,
5/25/04,
6/03/04,
7/21/04), and elsewhere, Stanley Kurtz has shown that in Sweden and Norway from 1990
to 2000—that is, in the period roughly coinciding with the introduction of
same-sex registered partnerships (now almost de facto “gay
marriage”)—out-of-wedlock births have increased roughly 10%. In Denmark
about 60% of firstborn children now have unmarried parents. Since the
introduction of registered partnerships in the Netherlands in 1997,
out-of-wedlock births have increased annually there by two percentage
points—double the average annual increase of the previous 15 years. The
passage of official (not just de facto) same-sex marriage in 2000 did
nothing to slow this national increase in 2001, 2002, and 2003. None of
this is surprising given that homosexual unions are structurally incapable
of producing children from the union and therefore depend on rhetoric that
ultimately decouples marriage from the raising of children.
Moreover,
a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from
1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples,
male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female
homosexual couples 3 times more likely. As time passes and it becomes
possible to inquire about same-sex registered partnerships of more than
one-to-seven-years’
duration, we should see even larger differences between
heterosexual and homosexual unions.
It is important to
note, too, that only a tiny minority of the homosexual population has
taken advantage of civil recognition of homosexual unions. According to
the 2004 study cited above, the number of same-sex registered partnerships
contracted in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 is only one-half of one percent of
the number of opposite-sex marriages created in the same interval (compare
.7% for Norway). Yet homosexual persons comprise roughly two-to-three
percent of the population. (Note that this suggests that, as bad as the
divorce rates are for Swedish same-sex registered partnerships, they still
represent the best of the best in the homosexual population.) The
Netherlands has had full-fledged “gay marriage” since Apr. 1, 2001. From
then until Apr. 2004, only three percent of all adult homosexuals and one
out of ten homosexual couples have chosen to get married. By contrast, the
number of persons in an other-sex marriage account for sixty percent of
the adult Dutch population (seventy-five percent if one counts those
widowed or divorced;
for these figures go
here). In effect, the institution of marriage is made to
suffer for the sake of a tiny percentage of the homosexual population.
Whatever the motivations of its proponents, “gay marriage” ends up being
more about validating the homosexual life than about strengthening
marriage or stabilizing homosexual unions.
While male
homosexual unions have a greater likelihood of longevity than female
homosexual unions, they also have a much greater likelihood of “open”
relationships. A 1994 Dutch study of “close coupled” male homosexuals
showed that by the sixth year of the relationship the number of outside
sex partners averaged eleven. A 1997 Australian study showed that only 13%
of homosexually active males aged 50 or over had had as “few” as 1-10 sex
partners “lifetime”; three-quarters had over 20 sex partners and half had
over 100
(for these two studies and others, see my The Bible and Homosexual
Practice, 452-60). J. Michael Bailey, chair of the psychology department at
Northwestern and one of the foremost researchers of homosexuality (and
prohomosex in outlook), contends that “because of fundamental differences
between men and women” and “regardless of marital laws and policies,” “gay
men will always have many more sex partners than straight people do. Those
who are attached will be less sexually monogamous” (The Man Who Would
Be Queen [Joseph Henry Press, 2003], 101).
Studies to date
suggest that only a tiny fraction of homosexual unions will be both
monogamous and of twenty years duration or more (probably less than 5%).
When society continually calls “marriages” unions that almost invariably
end in divorce in 1 to 10 years or turn into “open relationships,” the
cheapening effect on the institution of marriage will be inevitable.
Besides severing the
institution of marriage from the values of childrearing, monogamy, and
longevity, “gay marriage” will have at least three other catastrophic
effects.
First, we can expect
an eventual end to any structural prerequisites for a legitimate sexual
relationship. The whole “gay marriage” debate is predicated on the
assumption that affective bonds trump the structural argument from
Scripture and nature for an other-sex prerequisite. What logical basis
will remain for denying marriage to committed sexual unions comprised of
three or more persons? In fact, the limitation of two persons in a sexual
union at any one time is itself predicated on the idea that two sexes are
necessary and sufficient for establishing a sexual whole. Once church and
society reject a two-sexes prerequisite, there will be no logical ground
for maintaining the sacredness of the number two in sexual relations. It
is not surprising that litigants in polygamy cases in Utah and Arizona are
now applying the moral reasoning of the Supreme Court decision in the 2003
Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case. Similarly, a committed sexual
relationship between a man and his mother, or between two adult siblings,
has as much right to marriage as homosexual unions. Incest prohibitions
are predicated on the idea that it is inappropriate to validate a sexual
merger between two persons who share too much structural sameness (here,
of a familial sort through close blood relations). But an approval of
same-sex intercourse cancels out arguments based on excessive
structural similarity. Not even adult-child sex can be ruled out of bounds
completely, and much less adult-adolescent sex, since some adults who have
had sex as children are asymptomatic in terms of scientifically measurable
negative effect.
Second, there is
good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase
the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual
practice. We know that: (1) Adolescents experience a much higher rate of
sexual orientation uncertainty than adults (G.
Remafedi, et al., “Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents,”
Pediatrics 89:4 [Apr. 1992]: 714-21). (2) Most self-professed gays
and lesbians and some heterosexuals experience one or more shifts on the
0-6 Kinsey spectrum in the course of life. (3) Geographical (rural vs.
urban) and educational variables have a profound effect on the incidence
of homosexual self-identification. (4) Those who self-identify as gay or
lesbian are several times more likely to have experienced sex at an early
age than those who self-identify as heterosexual. (5) A 2001 study by
University of California professors
Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz reported that children of homosexual couples were “more likely to be open
to homoerotic relationships”
(“[How] Does
the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American Sociological
Review 66:2 [Apr. 2001]: 159-83). (6) There are instances of significant
cross-cultural differences, ancient and modern, regarding the incidence
and shape of homosexual practice. (7) The best identical twin studies
indicate that the large majority of identical twin pairs where at least
one twin identifies as non-heterosexual do not show a concordance match in
the co-twin (i.e., the co-twin identifies as heterosexual).
See further
The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 395-429. Given these
considerations, it would not be surprising if the significant increase in
homosexual activity reported for both the United States and Britain over
the past decade or two were attributable, in part, to an increase in
homosexuality and bisexuality. Since the homosexual life is characterized
by a comparatively high rate of problems in terms of sexually transmitted
disease, mental health issues, nonmonogamous behavior, and short-term
unions—even in homosex-affirming areas of the world—an increase in
homosexuality and bisexuality will mean more persons affected by such
problems.
Third, “gay
marriage,” as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will
bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil
liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual
practice (see Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda).
The latter will be regarded, legally and morally, as the equivalent of
virulent racists. In the civil sphere, they will see their, and their
children’s, educational opportunities, gainful employment, and even
freedom from incarceration put at increasing risk. Christian colleges and
seminaries will risk losing their tax-exempt status, access to federal
grants and student loans, and ultimately accreditation itself. Public
schools will intensify their indoctrination of children into the
acceptability of homosexual unions and single out for ridicule any
who question this agenda—from kindergarten on. Parents’ rights in instilling moral values in
their children will be abridged. Indeed, the state could remove
self-professed gay and lesbian children from parents who express moral
disapproval of homosexual practice on the pretense of “child abuse.”
Mainline denominations will comply with societal trends by refusing to
ordain “heterosexists” and disciplining heterosexist clergy and
ostracizing heterosexist members. Since approval of homosexual practice
can only occur at the cost of marginalizing Scripture, the trend will be
toward a hard-left radicalization of mainline denominations.
Conclusion
In sum, why is “gay
marriage” wrong? Most importantly, the idea of “gay marriage” is an
oxymoron and a rejection of a core value in Judeo-Christian sexual ethics.
Marriage requires the two sexes to reconstitute a sexual whole. By
definition same-sex erotic attraction is predicated either on the
narcissism of being attracted to what one is as a sexual being or on the
delusion that one needs to merge with another of the same sex to complete
one’s own sexual deficiencies. Arguing that we should grant marriage
status to homosexually inclined persons to avert promiscuity is like
insisting that we grant marriage status to adult incestuous or polygamous
unions to promote relational longevity. It doesn’t address the main
problem with this particular kind of sexual immorality.
But “gay marriage”
is also wrong because it will more likely weaken the institution of
marriage than moderate the typical excesses of homosexual
behavior. The dominant rhetoric of “gay marriage” severs marriage from
childbearing and, not surprisingly, leads to more out-of-wedlock births in
the population as a whole. The fact that relatively few homosexual couples
will get married precludes from the outset any major positive impact on
homosexual behavior. Those that do get married will still experience
extraordinarily high rates of outside sex partners and divorce, owing to
the absence of complementary male-female dynamics. The result will be a
further devaluation of monogamy and permanence for the institution of
marriage.
Finally, “gay marriage” will bring about the ultimate demise of
structural prerequisites for marriage (for example, as regards
“plural
unions” and adult incest) by making affection the ultimate trump
card; increase the incidence of bisexuality and homosexuality in
the population and thereby expose more young persons to their negative side-effects for health; and
lead to the radical abridgement of the civil and religious liberties of
our children, to the point of prosecuting any public expressions of
misgivings regarding the active promotion of homosexual practice.
© 2004 Robert A. J.
Gagnon