A biblical rationale for same sex marriage?

I wonder how you responded to reading that title?

Were you enraged? Curious? Excited? Nonplussed?

Before going near addressing this issue, it is important to address the genuine concern that the Bible appears at first glance to have a negative message towards homosexuality.

If you read some of my previous posts, you'll see that I don't believe these verses hold up to much scrutiny if you view homosexuality as a natural orientation, in the same way that left handedness is a natural deviation from the norm of right handedness. The Bible passages then can be seen clearly not as a condemnation of all expressions of homosexuality, but rather all abusive expressions of homosexuality (prostitution, temple worship, orgies, child molestation, rape and the like). In Romans 1 we read that the temple context of same sex abuses is from people who do not acknowledge God (see Romans 1:21 and 28).

When a committed Christian prayerfully discerns how they are to live their life by guidance of the Holy Spirit, then we can start to discern fruit in their lives (my belief is that at the point of committing in faith to Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes into our lives and God makes his home within us, as we read in John 14). It is through faith they are justified and they have to remain true to their own conscience as we read in Romans 14. It is worth mentioning that a believer's conscience is not entirely their own thinking, but they have an intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit, the great advocate and counsellor.

From this point (if you disagree with the view that homosexuality is like left handedness, but prefer instead to believe that it is like an addiction or is about a lustful lifestyle choice, then the conclusion I come to will make no sense to you, and in fact, you would be wrong to accept it if it takes you against your own conscience) the homosexual believer has some decisions to make. Sexual attraction of any kind is not right or wrong. In that way, it is like anger. It is a response to a stimulus. Paul says that in our anger we should not sin. Anger increases our likelihood of sinning because we think less rationally and more emotionally. However, if channelled correctly, anger can lead to great works (e.g. anger at injustice, poverty, abuse etc.). Likewise, sexual attraction or arousal is not in itself a sin, but it is what we do with that attraction that is important. We need some safeguards to ensure we do not follow every human instinct to its natural conclusion, which is usually the shortest route to gratification. This takes us to advice from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that."

To me, this is a passage about safeguarding. A quick aside here - some will be perplexed that Paul is referring only to heterosexuality in this context. That is of course true. However, we must remember that sexual orientation was not a concept understood for centuries to come. Sexual activity, yes, but orientation no. Studies of human sexuality have only recently helped us understand that orientation is not a choice (when did I choose to become heterosexual?) but something we are in all likelihood born with or at the very least develop through puberty (but we cannot and should not ever try to change someone's sexual orientation). So of course Paul is only talking within a frame of reference they will understand and no-one was asking about same sex marriage, so why would he address it?

So Paul teaches that like Jesus and his own life, singleness is a blessed gift. He explains later why he has this pastoral concern in verses 26-28.

"Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this."

Now, this is where our conclusion will depend significantly upon our starting point. Of course, a view that all sexuality that is not heterosexual must be sinful will have reached a dead end in terms of conversation a long time ago. However, if we are talking left handedness and something natural that is not a lifestyle choice, and if a believer is guided by the Holy Spirit and is justified through faith in Jesus and they feel a true and genuine love for someone (regardless of orientation) then if they feel led towards a lifelong commitment of faithfulness and love and they do not have Paul's gift (of an ability to live a full life of celibacy), then we need to ask ourselves what response can our Christian community offer to this couple?

My conclusion, that I understand not all will agree with, is that the Church should seriously consider offering Christian marriage. Currently, what most offer at the moment is quiet tolerance of cohabitation or passive acceptance of civil partnership or zero tolerance and demands that they repress their sexuality and discontinue any same sex relationship. What is missing is the support of a Christian community to help sustain a relationship and possible family, nurturing a couple in Christian love.

Certainly no minister who opposes homosexuality should ever be forced to conduct such a ceremony (there is already space for conscience in cases of divorce for example). However, I have moved from a view of thinking same sex relationship might not be all bad, but I wouldn't go as far as marriage, to embracing the concept of marriage where appropriate. The consequences of driving a natural sexual orientation underground is psychologically unhealthy and serves not to advance Christ's message of transformation and love but rather runs the risk of driving honest seekers away from the Bible, from Church and ultimately from Christ himself. I thank God that no lost sheep is ever disregarded, but do worry at times that it is Christians around the world who actively scatter the flock, usually with good intention.