By Dan Vander Lugt
In most places, law prohibits the marriage of two persons of the same gender. Many years of cultural wisdom are the foundation of these laws. Even more significantly, same-sex marriage violates God’s natural order. Jesus added His own emphasis to the law of Moses when He said that marriage is a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6).
One of the reasons the Creator made separate sexes was for the purpose of procreation:
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:27-28).
But God also created woman separately from man for the specific purpose of providing a complementary relationship designed for healthy physical union and wholeness:
So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:20-24).
In every way, from the complementary nature of their physical forms and biological functions to their unique natural potential for emotional and spiritual unity, man and woman were created to become “one flesh.” This is a timeless truth, recognized by all cultures. Two people of the same sex not only are unable to come together for the conception of new life, but their natural design makes them incapable of being truly joined together as complementary parts of a “one flesh” unity. The attempted “marriage” of two men or two women can be no more than a mere caricature of heterosexual marriage, just as a transvestite can be no more than an imitation of a woman.
Even within the bounds of an exclusive relationship, homosexual behavior is hazardous. 1 In stark contrast, heterosexual intercourse within a loving, marital relationship is capable of physically illustrating the profound spiritual union that should develop between a man and a woman. This is only the most obvious of many facts that demonstrate the folly of a same-sex “marriage.” The apostle Paul explicitly referred to the unnatural nature of homosexual practice in Romans 1:22-27:
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Paul may not have considered homosexual behavior worse than other sins, but by listing it immediately after idolatry, he made it clear that he considered it especially symbolic of human rebellion against God and the natural order. The Creator designed the sexes to compliment each other, creating a sum greater than its parts. (Genesis 2:20 says that “for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.”) But outside of the bonds of heterosexual marriage, sexual behavior always has a malignant, long-term effect on relationships. This is caused by inevitable guilt, jealousy, fear of exploitation, and suspicion of motivations. Relatively few long-term homosexual relationships exist, and of these only a tiny portion include sexual faithfulness and exclusivity. Since two persons of the same sex can never truly become “one flesh,” it is always better for them to express their love for each other in chastity.
For the church to authorize homosexual marriage would violate its role to encourage good and healthy relationships in behalf of Christ. In addition, church-sanctioned homosexual marriages would have detrimental effects on society as a whole.
Redefining marriage to include such subjective criteria as “strength or duration of emotional bonds” would devalue it to such an extent that nearly any kind of relationship would fit the definition — polygamy, group marriage, open marriage, marriage between adults and children, and so on. To redefine marriage in order to accommodate deviant or unnatural behavior would also devalue commitment. If a brief, easily ended “partnership” is, by law, made equivalent to lifelong traditional marriage, there will be inevitable social consequences. Given the weakness of human nature, if lesser commitments receive equal benefits and recognition, young people (who lack the wisdom that comes with years of life experience) will have less incentive to make the serious commitments that alone are capable of providing the foundation for a healthy society.
A vast array of evidence demonstrates that it is best for children to be raised in an intact family with a father and a mother. Both sons and daughters are greatly dependent upon healthy relationships with same-sex and opposite-sex parents for their socialization and development into emotionally mature and fulfilled men and women. The further we depart from the ideal of heterosexual marriage as the appropriate outlet for sexual intimacy, the more God’s judgment will fall on our society, leaving us with children who are emotionally disturbed, confused, and destined to corrupt future generations with their unnatural behavior.
Given the biblical description of the purpose of human sexuality, it is clear that any sexual relationship outside the bond of a permanent covenant between a man and a woman is a perversion of what was intended by the Creator.
Anal intercourse is unavoidably unhygienic and injurious, as are many other “normal” homosexual practices:
A brief and simple anatomy lesson is necessary before proceeding. It does not require a medical degree to appreciate the risk of infection by external oral contact with the penis or anus, but few people understand the anus’ internal susceptibility to damage. The end of the digestive system, the large intestine, is a long tube, consisting mainly of the colon. About six inches from the end of the colon, this tube takes a sharp turn down and narrows briefly, creating another area called the rectum. The last half-inch of the tube is the anal canal, a nerve-rich area lined with stratified cuboidal epithelial cells and surrounded by the anal sphincter muscle. The rectum is lined with a single layer of columnar epithelial cells designed to absorb liquids.
The vagina, by contrast, is lined with tough cells called stratified squamous epithelium. These cells have a layer of mucus that, along with other secretions and the thicker, more flexible vaginal wall, protects against abrasion and infection. The rectal wall has no surrounding muscular support, and it secretes a small amount of mucus that does not protect well against abrasion. But the key difference between the vagina and the rectum are the cell types and the thickness of the cell layers. The two orifices may feel very much alike to the intruding finger or penis. But one orifice is prone to repel, the other to admit, whatever microorganisms come along for the ride. . . .
Anal intercourse stretches the opening to the size required for a large bowel movement. The problem, however, is not the size of the opening but the direction and repetition of the movement. The anus is a one-way valve, stimulated to open only by pressure from inside, and stimulated to contract by pressure from outside. Sudden or inadequately lubricated penetration can tear the anus itself. But more commonly the cumulative effect of anal intercourse is to cause dysfunction of the anal sphincter muscle, and the result is chronic incontinence or urgency of defecation for about one in three men who regularly engage in the practice.
Nor is that all. Once past the anus, the danger of physical trauma worsens. Irritation of the sensitive rectal mucus layer causes a host of reactions, including diarrhea., cramps, hemorrhoids, prostate damage, and ulcers or fissures which in turn invite infection. The thin cell layer of the rectum is easily perforated and its insensitivity to pain can lead to serious complications before a person is aware of any harm (pp.117-118, Straight Narrow Compassion,Clarity In The Homosexuality Debate, Thomas E. Schmidt, IVP).
Taken from Help For My Life