Please Return to Free Christian Ministry Home


A lesbian couple, whose marriage is legally recognized in Massachusetts,failed to get a Rhode Island court to dissolve their legal bonds. The problem, as found by a state judge, is that the "clear intent" of the legislature in discussing and legislating marriage is that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman.

In fact, whenever that state's law discusses the gender of marital parties in legislation, it clearly identifies the parties as "man and woman.'

Therefore state law clearly does not recognize the Massachusetts union of same-sex couples.

The homosexual communities of course cry foul. The couple in question lament that they are being "put out" and that their rights are being denied.

Of course, the entire homosexual community is decrying "bigotry and hate."

But is opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions actually bigotry and hate?

In asking for same-sex marriages, the homosexual community (men and women) claim they are asking for the "same rights as the heterosexual community."

Is this true?

They claim that they should have the same recognition of their sexual and romantic preference as the heterosexual community.

What they fail to recognize or admit is that societies seldom recognize marriage and give benefit to the marriage bed for the sake of sexual or romantic preferences. In fact, it is not much if any about the recreational sexual activity of the union at all.

Recognition of marriage is generally simply cultural, social and political recognition that society is better off when society nurtures the human nest. Recognition and social advantages of the marriage union is not to nurture and protect the romantic and sexual relationship of the adult parties, it is to nurture and protect the progeny of such a union.

Marriage in our society is therefore based on the natural make-up of the human nest: one mother, one father, the child of that union. This is the natural make-up of a human nest.

One mother, one father.

Homosexuals can be a mother or a father. Homosexuals can join the other-sex parent of their offspring in marriage.

What homosexuals desire are therefore not equal rights.

They want new privileges.

They want "rights" (privileges, actually) that have not ever existed in this society, and that would forever alter the fabric of what we consider to be the human nest.

Some have another goal. Some simply want a severance between the privileges of marriage being based on the nest. This may have even more drastic repercussions.

They want these changes to be based not on the natural nest, as we see marriage is rooted, but based on their sexual and romantic desires.

They want society to honor the concept of a child or of children having not a mommy or a daddy, but having two mommys or two daddys instead. This is not an equal thing, it is a new thing. It negates the reality of human procreation and rights children have based on that

To these ends, the supporters of homosexual marriage accuse anyone who disagrees as being "haters" and "bigots," when in fact neither is true.

Some of us accept the idea of marriage as recognition of the natural nucleus of the human nest, one potential mommy and one potential daddy. One man and one woman.

As Christians, we are not to hate. We are not to judge BY OUR OWN STANDARDS. We are to accept what the Word of God says.

What do the Scriptures say?

Of course we are familiar with Romans:

Rom. 1:26-28: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;"

For a specific cause, men were leaving "the natural use of the woman…men with men working that which is unseemly."

Of course, today there are those who say this is not referring to homosexuality.

'Leaving the natural use of the woman, burning in lust toward another, men with men' is not homosexuality? Of course it is, and the reason it happened was this, "for this cause":

Rom. 1:21-26: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

"And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

Because Mankind rejected God, serving other things rather than God, God gave us up to our lusts. He gave us up, he let us do it.

And of course, Lev. 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Even today, the worship of the things of this world in many of the "earth religions" entails acts of intimacy in many of their most sacred rituals, and among those who serve philosophy, money, or hedonism often act no better.

This lust led to what we call lesbianism, the woman changing the natural use, and homosexuality, men with men working that which is unseemly.

Scripture calls this behavior "against nature" and "unseemly." Our question is, are we going to accept or reject Scripture? If we reject the knowledge of God we are reprobate, headed down this path we are analyzing in this study!

So the homosexual community complains that to become Christians, a homosexual must give up sex is simply another excuse to reject the knowledge of God.

Furthermore, it is a ridiculous assertion.

If a person becomes fixated on a body part, or an inanimate object, or on children or on certain acts, psychologists speak of events that have an "imprinting" affect, regardless of genetics. They chronicle how a person's sexual history affects their preferences for every other sexual disposition.

Yet when it comes to homosexual behavior, this is rejected, and people try to prove it is "inborn" rather than a consequence of imprinting and activities.

While those activities that have a "taboo" affect tend to develop exclusive preference and be harder to shake, people making other choices and restricting themselves to more accepted practices have been known to change.

Homosexuality is merely another deeply imprinting form of fornication, which is sex outside of marriage.

So the answer by the homosexual community is to allow homosexual men to marry homosexual men, and to allow homosexual women to marry homosexual women.

("Homo" in "homosexual" is not the same root of "homosapien" as the lesbian community demands we believe, but "homo" as in "same," like "homogenized." "Hetero" means "other." "Homosexual" means, "sexually oriented with the same sex" as "heterosexual" means "sexually oriented with the other sex."

Thus "homosexual" includes both sexes, protests of women who prefer the term "lesbian" in honor of Lesbos aside.)

Our concern is of course, "What does the Word tell us?"

That is our only standard.

1 Cor, 7:1-3: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband."

To avoid fornication, a man is to have his own man or woman? No, he is to have his own wife, and the word "wife" in the text is "gune" (pronounced "goo-nee") which simply means "woman," without regard to marital status.

To avoid fornication, sex outside the union God proscribes, a man is to choose a woman, and a woman is to choose a man.

Then they are told to cling to one another, and not to stray.

Gal. 5:19-21: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

"Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

On that day our works are burned, adultery, which is sex outside of that one woman-to-one man arrangement, shall result in loss. It does not say the Christian shall die, for as 1 Cor. 3:14-15 states:

"If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

If we fornicate with men or women, these works shall be burned, we shall suffer loss, but we ourselves shall be saved.

We are saved by this:

Rom. 10:8-13: "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

"For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

That's right, if the man or woman involved with fornication of a homosexual nature confesses Jesus as Lord and believes God raised him from the dead, what does this Scripture say?

It says they are saved, whether you or I like it or not.

But if they turn back, if they go back or decide to continue in their old ways, what happens?

They themselves shall be saved while they shall suffer loss, they shall not be rewarded, shall not receive an inheritance in the Kingdom.

Why do we want to insist that every time the Word says we fail to receive an inheritance, it means we die or we suffer pain throughout eternity?

Have you received an inheritance every time a loved one passed? Did you die when you failed to receive an inheritance, were you cast into a fire?

Of course not.

Have you lost a race? Did you die, were you burned, when you failed to get the prize?

Of course not, but you suffered loss, you felt disappointment.

So it is with the homosexual fornicators, no matter how many "ministers," justices and state representatives they can convince that their unions are on a par with that of a man and woman.

So it is with whatever area of sin we may choose to embrace, whether it be fornication, lying, wrath, idolatry, witchcraft…all these lead to loss. Wood burns as well as stubble, and we tend to value it more.

The Word is clear: One man to one woman, one woman to one man.

What the world says is it's own business, the world will answer at the White Throne Judgment, and Christians who embrace the world will answer at the Bema.

But as Christians, it behooves us to embrace the commands of Scripture, and to reject what the world, and the world's carnal "ministers," would have us believe.

I am to be the man of one woman. I will embrace that, because my God told me. One potential Mommy, one potential Daddy, with all the potential children that nest might provide.

But if a sinner wants to use our churches as a place for "fresh meat," if rather than repentance they seek justification or even an outlet for sin,

Eph. 5:3: "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;"

We love people, and reach out our hands to all. Even those who sin must be welcome. We preach repentance, forgiveness and change, not wrath and condemnation. But we draw the line at allowing sinners to seek prey for their adventures in our fellowships.

Do not expect followers of Jesus to say homosexual unions are good, natural or justified.

And understanding these things, we are under no obligation to reject our faith and our conscience to support things the Word and logic tell us are against what is right.

That, my friends, is God's Word, and therefore is the final word.

Please Return to Free Christian Ministry Home