Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
(July 2004)
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 samesex
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 selfdeception.
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
conve rte d by We b2PDFC onve rt.com
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.
Scripture, Creation, and a Two-Sexes Prerequisite
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 o f 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
di d 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
i n 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 homosexaffirming
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
