Kevin DeYoung’s article opposing gay marriage has broad appeal

Marriage and family
Marriage and family

In my own secular case against gay marriage from a while back, I argued for 3 points:

  • same-sex marriage is bad for liberty, especially religious liberty
  • same-sex marriage is bad for children
  • same-sex marriage is bad for public health

My hope when I wrote that was that pastors and other Christian leaders would learn to argue for what the Bible says by using evidence from outside the Bible, so that they would be able to appeal to more people instead of only appealing to the minority of people who accept the Bible. I think that Christians who argue for their views by citing the Bible only will only be convincing to people who already accept the Bible. But there is not a majority of people who do accept the Bible as an authority, so I think that pastors have to make another plan. They need to argue using the Bible to those who accept the Bible, and without the Bible to those who don’t accept it.

Now with that said, take a look at this article by pastor Kevin DeYoung that Dina sent me. It’s from earlier this week. The article makes the same exact three points as I made in my article last year. Let’s take a look at how Kevin does that.

My first point was liberty, especially religious liberty. He writes:

[I]n the long run, the triumph of gay marriage (should it triumph as a cultural and legal reality) will mean the restriction of freedoms for millions of Americans.

This will happen in obvious ways at first–by ostracizing those who disagree, by bullying with political correctness, and by trampling on religious liberty. Surely, Christians must realize that no matter how many caveats we issue, not matter how much we nuance our stance, no matter how much we encourage or show compassion for homosexuals, it will not be enough to ward off the charges of hatred and homophobia.

[G]ay marriage will challenge our freedoms in others way too. It’s not just Evangelicals, traditional Catholics, and Mormons who will be threatened. Once the government gains new powers, it rarely relinquishes them. There will be a soft tyranny that grows as the power of the state increases, a growth that is intrinsic to the  notion of gay marriage itself.

My second point was bad for children. He writes:

[T]he state has an interest in promoting the familial arrangement which has a mother and a father raising the children that came from their union. The state has been in the marriage business for the common good and for the well-being of the society it is supposed to protect. Kids do better with a mom and a dad. Communities do better when husbands and wives stay together. Hundreds of studies confirm both of these statements (though we all can think of individual exceptions I’m sure). Gay marriage assumes that marriage is re-definable and the moving parts replaceable.

My third point was bad for public health. He writes:

The unspoken secret, however, is that homosexual behavior is not harmless. Homosexuals are at a far greater risk for diseases like syphilis, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, gonorrhea, HPV, and gay bowel syndrome. The high rate of these diseases is due both to widespread promiscuity in the gay community and the nature of anal and oral intercourse itself. Homosexual relationships are usually portrayed as a slight variation on the traditional “norm” of husband-wife monogamy. But monogamy is much less common among homosexual relationships, and even for those who value monogamy the definition of fidelity is much looser.

He also talks about the definition of marriage, and more.

I’ve criticized pastors before for dealing with social issues by only citing the Bible, like John Piper does. That approach won’t work on enough people to change society, because not enough people consider the Bible to be an authority in their decision-making. We have to use evidence from outside the Bible – like Wayne Grudem does in his “Politics According to the Bible”.

I think that pastor Kevin’s article is quality work, because it follows the pattern of taking an all-of-the-above approach to persuasion. He uses all means to persuade so that he might win some over to his side. I hope that many more pastors will do the same thing on this issue of marriage and other issues – even fiscal issues. Fiscal issues do have an impact on moral issues – think of how abortion subsidies and single mother welfare lower the penalties of recreational premarital sex. We can do this, we just have to do what works, instead of what makes us feel “holier-than-thou”.

11 thoughts on “Kevin DeYoung’s article opposing gay marriage has broad appeal”

  1. “But there is not a majority of people who do accept the Bible as an authority, so I think that pastors have to make another plan.”

    This is not true:

    While it is true that most do not view the Bible as they ought, it is not true that they do not view it as an authority. There is a reason why the left-wing not only does but must use Christian language and poor Biblical argumentation, and that is because their point-of-view would be absolutely nowhere if it had no appeal to Christian people, or at least people who want to think of themselves as Christians. So, we must first clarify the lines. It must be made clear what the Scriptures teach. People are genuinely confused and legitimately believe that opposition to homosexuality is inconsistent with Christian Love. That is a bigger enemy overall than whatever force the irreligious, even the spiritualist irreligious, can muster up.


  2. Good post, though if anything your points about “monogamous” relationships and the prevalence of promiscuity among homosexuals are dramatically understated. There are a great many studies, often conducted by homosexuals, showing that promiscuity among homosexuals would, according to one gay researcher, “boggle the heterosexual mind.”

    Among homosexuals, the very idea of monogamy is redefined. One’s partner in such a “monogamous” relationship is regarded merely as one’s ‘main’ sex partner. While lesbians have a lower incidence of promiscuity than male homosexuals, among these it is still much higher than among heterosexual women.

    There simply is no equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and there is no such thing as “gay marriage,” as the nature of the relationship is not the mirror image hallucinated by advocates of SSM.


  3. About religious liberty, I wonder if a devout Christian baker can make an Iftar cake with a crescent moon decoration for a Muslim customer. Is being Muslim a sin in the same way being homosexual is a sin?

    My hunch is that the Christian baker would have no problem with his Muslim customer’s order because of the long history of Christian-Muslim relations, and because you have grown to accept each other’s existence and you just agree to disagree.

    If this is true, it suggests that we just have to wait a few decades or centuries, and Christians will eventually have the same resigned attitude toward homosexuals too.

    Please correct me where I’m wrong here!


    1. The question isn’t whether a Christian baker should make a cake for a Muslim, but whether he should be FORCED to, even if he feels it is wrong. I think any baker (or photographer or caterer or whatever), whether Christian or not, should be able to refuse business that forces him to contradict his own conscience, regardless of the source of those beliefs. So if an atheist baker wants to refuse to make a cake for a Christian that has a cross on it because he finds that offensive, I think he should have every right to do so. If a Muslim wants to refuse to cater a meal that includes bacon, he has every right to do that. It’s called freedom. And it’s supposed to apply to everyone.


      1. Well, but that is the question I was interested in. Would any devout Christian in America today refuse to make a custom-ordered cake with a crescent moon decoration for an Iftar event?


        1. I think most Christians, including myself, would not know what an Iftar event was, and wouldn’t even be aware of it unless the customer specifically said that that was what the cake was to be for. That being the case, I don’t believe there would be any objection unless of course the Baker knew what he was participating in. I think it would be a lot tougher to keep the fact that the cake is to be for a same-sex wedding a secret from the Baker. Wedding cakes are not just fancy regular-sized cakes. They are in a size and complexity category all their own, and anyone wanting one of those would immediately be understood to be preparing for a wedding of some type.


        2. I don’t know whether or not any Christian would see making a cake for a Muslim event as sinful. That belongs to the conscience of that person. If I thought that by making a cake for such an event, I was celebrating the Muslim faith or promoting worship of Allah, I would decline to make the cake. And I, or anyone else who feels the same, should have the right to decline to provide services in such cases.


    2. The difference is that I do not hear the Christian bakers objecting to making products for homosexuals. They are not denying service to people simply because of their lifestyle choice (in most instances they could come to the bakery and buy things and leave without the Baker ever having a clue as to their sexual proclivity). What they are objecting to is the active participation in a public celebration of homosexuality by making a cake for that purpose. I would liken it more to a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a muslim who wishes to serve it at a Jihad celebration or, for instance, as a cake to “celebrate” 9/11.

      This is not simply a matter of time. One cannot honestly claim to hold to the Bible as the inspired word of God and, at the same time, ignore or (worse yet) attempt to rationalize away what it actually says. Resignation and or compromise is not nor will ever be an option to those who are serious about truth.


      1. Yes, they are willing to serve the customers, but not to celebrate a wedding that goes against their deeply-held beliefs about what marriage is about – the needs of children for mothers and fathers.


  4. Yes, I don’t think we should accept the term “same-sex marriage.’ To do so is to have already lost the argument. Because if “same-sex marriage” is a real thing, then we are mean, unjust and bigoted people to oppose it. But same-sex marriage is as real as unicorns — for the reasons you stated. It is not monogamous. It is not fruitful — you cannot bear children without a surrogate, which is unjust to the child who does not know his identity and it is unjust to the surrogate who must bear a child for someone else. It is not structurally complementary. Therefore the purpose of sex is completely defeated because sex is about total self-giving to another person of the opposite sex with openness to new life. Frankly, I had to listen to a person who self-identifies by his transgenderism on the radio the other day tell us that he will not be found out in the bedroom if it’s done in the dark, and only done orally or anally. In other words, no one would be any wiser about his actual biological sex, I don’t believe that people of the same sex have REAL sex. It just is a fable like unicorns. They are all virgins who masturbate as far as I am concerned. We opposite-sex married people who are faithful, monogamous, joyfully married and open to life should have buttons made that say, We Married People have REAL sex.” I think we are the only ones. Everyone else using porn, using whatever are seeking sex, but never finding it. Even promiscuous unmarried heterosexual persons do not get the real thing by any means. It’s worth waiting for or it’s worth not having at all. God bless you. Susan Fox


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s