The homosexual revolution is unparalleled in just how quickly it took to invert the cultural perspective. Few issues can compare to the swift-moving tide that culminated in the 2015 Obergefell ruling. Yes, it was a slim 5 to 4 ruling that produced more intellectual and legal questions than it clarified, but public opinion has been changed for the foreseeable future.
If Christians are to engage the world on this issue, we need to have a substantive basis for our appeal. This requires an ever-increasing knowledge of Scripture as well as maintaining an attitude of love. It will also mean that we need to be well-versed in multiple arguments.
We must understand that the legally defined parameters that existed prior to the SCOTUS decision in no way violated anyone's civil rights. A person who identified as gay could walk into any courthouse and obtain a marriage license, as long as they were marrying one person of the opposite sex. No secondary litmus test of sexuality was ever administered. The issue was (and remains) in how marriage is defined.
First, we must avoid the notion that marriage was created simply to show that two people love each other. Marriage as a legal and societal institution, was never intended as merely the declaration of a romantic or even platonic relationship. If it were, then why must we stop at gender defined matrimony between two persons? The same logic could then justify marriage to direct relatives, pets or even multiple numbers of people.
The primary reason societies have sanctioned marriage is that it encourages the best possible outcomes through strong families. A man and wife join together for life, biologically procreate children of their own and raise them with a balanced masculine (dad) and feminine (mom) influence. This cohesiveness generally promotes emotional and financial stability, independence, and a resulting positive net effect on their community. These factors are also why government often promotes the family via the implementation of tax exemptions and the like.
Anything outside of this model becomes deficient in some area. A gay couple simply can never procreate through natural means and clearly cannot provide the balance of masculinity and femininity that even secular psychology says is most beneficial to children. Even when adoption makes child rearing possible for same sex couples, that child will still long for the mother or father they have no connection with. While the couple may certainly provide love and nurturing, it remains an inferior imitation of the real thing.
While these benefits of traditional marriage are based in societal reasoning, we still must address the moral argument. If Christians accept that God has revealed His plan through Scripture, then that must be our final authority in addressing the moral aspect.
The self-labeled "gay Christian community" has been diligently working on formulating standard argumentation to sway opinion within the church. Sadly, this has resulted in them defining themselves by the justification of their own sin. Leaders of this movement such as Matthew Vines, James Brownson and Justin Lee have based their primary argument around the notion that the six "clobber" verses contained in scripture are general warnings about the lust associated with the sexual acts and not the acts themselves. There are powerful exegetical methods used to dispel these assertions but God's plan for sexuality and marriage is clear throughout the entirety of Scripture. The picture that God reiterates over and over again in the Bible is that of one man and one woman for life.
This is evidenced from the Genesis account of God creating man and woman clear through the new testament where we have multiple admonitions and commands regarding marriage. A common retort of the gay affirming position is that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. While He never used the direct term, he absolutely dealt with sexuality and marriage but always within the design of one man and one woman.
Another common methodology of debate is the pick and choose argument which was in some part made famous by an episode of the TV show West Wing. This is where old testament verses from the holiness code are quoted to accuse their opponents of hypocrisy. These are verses such as the prohibition against eating shellfish, touching pig skin, and other laws where God spelled out legal parameters for the Israelites. As Christians, we must understand that there is a difference between the ceremonial law and moral law within the Bible, and civil law within our societies. The ceremonial law that God applied to the Jews prior to the atonement of Jesus Christ is not the same as the moral code that remains applicable to our lives today.
It has become standard operating procedure to label believers who adhere to such moral absolutes regarding the LGBT community as hate-filled bigots and homophobes. This might be understandable if we have gotten to a place where we cannot separate the concepts of absolute judgment from moral discernment. Believers are in fact commanded to discern what is right and wrong. In fact, if we truly love others, we should want to warn each other of our sins, no matter what they are. The notion that loving someone means endorsing everything they do and claim is fallacious.
So how is someone who identifies as gay supposed to deal with their desires? Well this is where it gets more difficult. Advanced counseling and re-programming protocols have not been scrutinized long term and there is justified doubt about their ultimate effectiveness. As Christians, our efforts should be directed towards sharing the gospel with the homosexual. A real understanding of our offenses against a Holy God cannot be expected from an unregenerate person. Heartfelt repentance that comes via salvation is the only thing that can change a sinners life and behavior.
Those who engage the gay community only on their sexual behavior will most likely never change anyone's mind and will only ramp up tensions. This is why we as Christians must approach the issue with an attitude of concern for the person's eternity and not just their sexual behavior. The believer knows they have sin in their own life but the difference is that we must not excuse it or redefine it as acceptable to God.
