The same-sex marriage issue is currently big on the political and cultural scene. So, I decided to put here my conclusions thus far on the matter. I have not completed my full opinion of homosexuality and the law, but what I have put here as definite is indeed where I have landed strongly and unwaveringly. My final opinion has taken some years to form, my first considerations being given to it when California passed the law banning same-sex marriage. I have not given all the background for each assertion I make since my primary purpose is to state my position and state the beliefs that have led me to that position, not to give a supporting argument for each belief along the way.
The first thing that must be established before stating a position on an issue like same-sex marriage is my moral beliefs. My moral beliefs sum up to these basic presuppositions: (1) Moral absolutes exist. For an intellectually sound but readable argument for this, read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, there is a chapter on this topic. (2) The Triune God of Christianity is the real and true God and He has revealed His moral will to men in Scripture and has revealed much of His moral will to all men in conscience and nature.
The Bible is very clear on homosexuality. “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surly be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” (Lev. 20:13 NKJV) This was the law given by God to Israel. Homosexuality is an abomination. It falls into the category that is commonly labeled “crimes against nature.” Indeed, this is one of those things that is quite obviously contrary to the natural order and has also brought with it negative physical consequences. Both from a Biblical and natural law perspective, homosexuality is immoral.
For the government to give legal recognition to an immoral act is wrong. Marriage, as it is being fought for by homosexuals, is a legal institution regulated by the government. If the government includes same-sex marriages as part of that institution, it will be condoning homosexuality by giving it a legally recognized status. In fact, granting any positive legal recognition to homosexual couples for any purposes would be to give government sanction and protection to immorality. It has been argued that to allow these unions would open up the way for other unions such as polygamy and incest. With this I strongly agree. If the government gives legal recognition to homosexual couples there will be no foundation upon which it can stand in order to deny sanctioning other morally deviant unions as legally recognized by marriage.
Should the government outlaw sodomy? That I have not decided yet. And there is a distinction between these issues. What I have been talking about thus far is proactive, positive government recognition of an immoral act. It is a somewhat different issue to say that the government should take a step further and prosecute people who engage in sodomy. I actually do lean toward outlawing sodomy, partly because of the argument I have already mentioned that says that to allow sodomy is to leave no ground on which to stand to outlaw other sexual practices such as polygamy, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and any other immoral sexual practice that the sinful mind has concocted.