Why We Will Never Win the Argument Against Gay Marriage by Quoting the Bible

Is marriage God's idea? Yes, of course. Will we win the argument by quoting Scripture or arguing marriage as a religious institution? I doubt it. Why?

Because marriage is not a religious institution. In the past I have heard a lot of Christians defending previous behavior in prior marriages by saying that they "were not in a Christian marriage." But God expects faithfulness from us whether our marriage is Christian or not. Whether we have the means to accomplish it is quite another matter. Marriage is a legal and binding contract that applies to all who enter into it regardless of faith.

The truth is that marriage both pre-dates the writings of all major religions and has applied to all people everywhere, religious or not. For centuries many marriages have been performed with no religious undertones at all. Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious one. Secondly, in the west, marriages were performed in secular contexts, often then blessed by the church, until around the 16th century.

Subsequently, secular authorities allowed churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to perform them. These religious institutions still had to conform to secular laws and turn in paperwork to account for these marriages. In a court of law, marriages could be annulled based on never having been consummated. Often property and other matters depended on the fact or lack of consummation, another embarrassing historical fact to advocates of gay marriage, which is an artificial arrangement that can never be consummated.

The radical left pushing gay marriage has two tactics when it comes to 'religious" arguments about marriage. The first is to dismiss any argument that has religious constructs as being out of bounds. In the eyes of many, arguments against gay marriage can be easily dismissed by appealing to "the separation of church and state." The second is a kind of under-handed appeal to compromise. In this approach, gay marriage proponents argue that "religious marriage" and "secular marriage" are two different matters. One should be governed by the church and the other by the state. This is the "half a loaf is better than none" argument. Leftists want to govern all "secular marriages" in hopes of returning later to claim the "religious" ones. Remember that the Obama administration already attempted to compel churches to hire gay clergy, a notion that was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in the Hosanna-Tabor decision in 2012. 

Our response should not be to argue what the Bible says, though we believe it with all our hearts, but to appeal to the universality of marriage. In other words, we argue on our opponent's ground, not our own.

The key to winning is to keep our arguments to the universality of marriage and not play the religious "half-a-loaf" game with the radical left. Anatomy, history, culture, child development and family health are all on our side. If we stay consistent, informed, humble and resolute, this is an argument we can win. But remember, our opponents want to fight this on religious grounds. We cannot let them.

Jay Haug is author of Beyond the Flaming Sword, available from Amazon.com. You may ciontact him at cjcwguy@gmail.com

Is marriage God's idea? Yes, of course. Will we win the argument by quoting Scripture or arguing marriage as a religious institution? I doubt it. Why?

Because marriage is not a religious institution. In the past I have heard a lot of Christians defending previous behavior in prior marriages by saying that they "were not in a Christian marriage." But God expects faithfulness from us whether our marriage is Christian or not. Whether we have the means to accomplish it is quite another matter. Marriage is a legal and binding contract that applies to all who enter into it regardless of faith.

The truth is that marriage both pre-dates the writings of all major religions and has applied to all people everywhere, religious or not. For centuries many marriages have been performed with no religious undertones at all. Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious one. Secondly, in the west, marriages were performed in secular contexts, often then blessed by the church, until around the 16th century.

Subsequently, secular authorities allowed churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to perform them. These religious institutions still had to conform to secular laws and turn in paperwork to account for these marriages. In a court of law, marriages could be annulled based on never having been consummated. Often property and other matters depended on the fact or lack of consummation, another embarrassing historical fact to advocates of gay marriage, which is an artificial arrangement that can never be consummated.

The radical left pushing gay marriage has two tactics when it comes to 'religious" arguments about marriage. The first is to dismiss any argument that has religious constructs as being out of bounds. In the eyes of many, arguments against gay marriage can be easily dismissed by appealing to "the separation of church and state." The second is a kind of under-handed appeal to compromise. In this approach, gay marriage proponents argue that "religious marriage" and "secular marriage" are two different matters. One should be governed by the church and the other by the state. This is the "half a loaf is better than none" argument. Leftists want to govern all "secular marriages" in hopes of returning later to claim the "religious" ones. Remember that the Obama administration already attempted to compel churches to hire gay clergy, a notion that was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in the Hosanna-Tabor decision in 2012. 

Our response should not be to argue what the Bible says, though we believe it with all our hearts, but to appeal to the universality of marriage. In other words, we argue on our opponent's ground, not our own.

The key to winning is to keep our arguments to the universality of marriage and not play the religious "half-a-loaf" game with the radical left. Anatomy, history, culture, child development and family health are all on our side. If we stay consistent, informed, humble and resolute, this is an argument we can win. But remember, our opponents want to fight this on religious grounds. We cannot let them.

Jay Haug is author of Beyond the Flaming Sword, available from Amazon.com. You may ciontact him at cjcwguy@gmail.com

RECENT VIDEOS