There are several indications that same-sex relations involve a love that has been distorted rather than a God-intended love.

It's not sufficient to look whether we see signs of love. Because we can find lots of signs of love in an extramarital affair, a polygamous marriage, or adult incest. The essential thing is whether we see distorted elements. And if so, we know that something is wrong in spite of many things being right.

1) A simple understanding of human reproduction and anatomy is enough to make it clear that homosexual intercourse is an aberration rather than according to the intent of nature.

2) Gay sex in its most common form involves serious health risks. "Doctors who work with homosexual men are trained to look regularly for at least 15 common afflictions apart from HIV/AIDS, and we could double or triple the number by taking into account less common problems" (Thomas Schmidt, Straight & Narrow; 1995, p116).

In the well-known Bell and Weinberg study male homosexuals named insertive anal intercourse as their preferred sexual activity (Homosexualities [Simon and Schuster, 1978] p 108-109; see also New York Times November 23, 1997 "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality"). Physical trauma is a common result of this practice (Schmidt, p117-118). Further, that receptive body area is lined with cells designed to absorb liquids and prone to admit whatever microorganisms come along. The equivalent area in heterosexual intercourse, by contrast, is lined with tough cells prone to repel microorganisms. Thus the incidence rate of sexually-transmitted disease among male homosexuals is far higher than that of the most promiscuous segment of the general population (Schmidt, p121).

3) Some persons talk of relationships of same-sex love "between consenting adults who are committed to each other as faithfully and with as much integrity as any heterosexual couple" (Walter Wink, Homosexuality and Christian Faith, p36). However, that kind of faithfulness is foreign to the experience of most male homosexuals.

Very few gays are in committed, long-term relationships; promiscuity is the norm.

Even more troubling, those who are in long-term committed relationships do not tend to be sexually monogamous. John Stott writes that "the concept of lifelong, quasi-marital fidelity in homosexual partnerships is largely a myth, a theoretical ideal which is contradicted by the facts" (Same-Sex Partnerships?; 1998).

Researchers McWhirter and Mattison, themselves a gay couple, studied gays in long-term relationships (The Male Couple; David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D; 1984). They interviewed 156 male couples and reported that two-thirds of the couples began their relationship with the expectation of sexual exclusivity, but that the partners became more permissive with time. In fact, they found that, of the 100 couples that had been together five years or more, none had remained sexually exclusive.

Further, each of the male couples who had been together at least 5 years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. In fact, the authors concluded that "the single most important factor that keeps couples together past the ten-year mark is the lack of possessiveness they feel. Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest internal threat to their staying together." (McWhirter and Mattison's work is summarized in the professional volume, Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, ed. Robert P. Cabaj and Terry S. Stein; American Psychiatric Press, 1996.)

National gay leaders acknowledge this. Two Harvard-trained gay men wrote a book giving a blueprint for using the mass media to normalize homosexual lifestyle (After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; 1989). The book acknowledges that "the cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an 'open relationship,' for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples" (p330). In his book, Virtually Normal (1996), conservative gay writer Andrew Sullivan contrasts male-female marriages with same sex relationships and explains, "there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman" (p202).

Even gays and lesbians who are members of the Christian community seldom talk about sexual exclusivity. When their leaders do talk about it, they take positions that are atypical of the larger Christian community. They say fidelity does not mean being sexually exclusive -- fidelity really means only keeping your promises (Chris Glaser, Presbyterian minister). Committed couples can have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception (Troy Perry, former moderator of the Metropolitan Community Church). They say that a wide variety of life patterns are equally valid -- not just partnerships for life but also partnerships for a period of mutual growth.

The heterosexual Christian community does not have a laudable track record on monogamy either. But, whatever its percentage of lifelong monogamous partnerships, it is way above zero. All Christian heterosexual communities would say that monogamy is their standard, and seek to call and encourage one another toward this standard.

Is this lack of sexual exclusivity among gays an indication that our Creator did not design men to "marry" men? There indeed is something about male same-sex relationships which is lacking and not satisfying -- otherwise we wouldn't see so much promiscuity. Few would claim that relational wholeness is present in a sexual relationship if monogamy is not also present. It seems that same-sex relations do not portray the love God had in mind when creating us as sexual creatures.

Some believe that it is wrong to expect that same-gender-attracted persons not be allowed to fulfill their sexuality, that our society is unjust if we deny marriage to persons who by nature are only attracted to those of the same sex, that it is oppressive to deny societal approval and benefits to such couples.

However, this is not a simple or obvious matter:

1) Homosexual orientation is not a biological given--all identical twins have the same sex and same race but not all have the same sexual orientation. There is genetic influence but not genetic cause (which would make it a clear matter of justice or civil rights).

2) Is sexual desire a need that must be acted upon if one is to be emotionally healthy? Many generations of faithful Christians bear witness that lives of freedom, joy, and service are possible without sexual relations.

Indeed, many of our natural tendencies must not be acted upon if we want to be emotionally healthy. Consider someone who is hot-headed by temperament, or a shy, anxious personality from birth. Merely having a "nature" does not justify acting according to that nature. Even where there is a genetic predisposition, we must still ask whether such a predisposition should be acted on. The existence of inclinations, orientations, or preferences has little to do with God's moral call upon our lives.

In November 2003 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, by a 4-3 margin, ruled that the state's refusal to recognize "marriages" between same-sex couples is unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights. The court redefined marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others" and said that starting on May 17, 2004 Massachusetts would have to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry and to have the benefit of the same rights and privileges male/female couples enjoy.

In response, a Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced into Congress ["Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups"]. The amendment, if passed, would force the courts to the sidelines in the marriage debate, making sure that they cannot impose "same-sex marriage" on a state or our nation.

How strongly should we rally against legalizing same-sex marriage? Are persons warranted when they worry that this would contribute to cracks in civilization's foundations?

Our society faces several huge risks in endorsing same-sex marriage:

1) If gays receive access to marriage, there is danger that marriage will be redefined to no longer include expectations of monogamy. The institution of marriage is already weak. If marriage is changed to include gay relationships with high rates of infidelity, won't that further weaken the institution by lessening the taboo on adultery?

Many wonder why this issue is not settled quickly. "The Bible is so clear on the issue."

However, others make a case that the Bible does not condemn all homosexual practice, that the passages which mention same-sex relations are not as straightforward as they appear.

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (also 20:13)

Pro-gay comments: These passages are found in what is commonly called the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26) and may refer to ritual impurity (uncleanness) rather than immorality. If so, they are irrelevant to us, for the Gospel releases Christians from this part of the Jewish law.

Response to pro-gay comments: The Holiness Code also contains much moral law (not just ritual law). For instance, the chapter between the two texts contains prohibitions of idolatry, injustice to the poor, theft, vengeance, and so on. These texts (and, for instance, the prohibition of bestiality which accompanies them) may remain relevant today.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "...nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] nor...will inherit the kingdom of God" (also 1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Pro-gay comments: The Greek word often translated as referring to homosexual practice is unclear. It does not occur in any literature prior to the New Testament, and does not occur again for 100 years. It possibly describes and forbids only pederasty or same-sex prostitution--not the kind of homosexual behavior which gay Christians try to defend.

Response: The word arsenokoitai is a compound word formed from two Greek words "man" and "to lie." It has a simple and obvious meaning. The fact that the word occurs nowhere prior to the New Testament and does not occur again for at least 100 years indicates that it could not have, through use, acquired a meaning other than the simple and obvious one. Further, the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 uses the same two words: meta arsenos koiten gynaikos ("whoever lies with a man as with a woman"). Would this not have been in Paul's mind? Leviticus 18-20, seen as a summary of the law, is often quoted in the New Testament.

Romans 1:26-27 "...women exchanged natural relations for unnatural [para physin] ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Pro-gay comments: This passage may refer solely to heterosexual people who engage in homosexual acts. (Paul says these persons abandoned their "natural relations"--that is, they knew and experienced heterosexual affections but abandoned them.) As such, the passage does not condemn those who are homosexual by nature, but only individual heterosexuals who occasionally deny their own "natures" by performing homosexual acts.

Response: In Greek literature the expression para physin ("unnatural") was the standard terminology for referring to homoerotic acts in general. Only we in the modern era with our emphasis on the individual would tend to think that "unnatural" means "contrary to what an individual feels is natural" rather than "contrary to the natural order for humanity."

Josephus (late-first-century Jewish historian) lists same-sex relations and incest as characteristic of the "monstrous and unnatural [para physin] pleasures" of the Gentiles (Against Apion 2.273- 75). Plutarch (c. A.D. 100) contrasts "natural" love between men and women to "union contrary to nature [para physin] with males," and a few lines later he repeats that those who "consort with males" do so para physin (Erotikos 751 C,E).

A basic understanding of human reproduction and anatomy is enough to make it clear that all acts of homosexual intercourse are contrary to the intent of nature.

Pro-gay comments: Perhaps Paul's explicit remarks on homosexuality apply only to some forms of same-sex relationships. For instance, Paul may not have had in mind loving, committed same-sex relationships -- he may have known only of abusive, promiscuous, and/or cultic homosexuality. If so, no wonder he spoke against it!

Response: Paul wrote about female same-sex relationships which are seldom linked with pederasty or other violent forms. In mentioning same-sex relations by both females and males and using terminology denoting mutual desire ("consumed with passion for one another" v27 NRSV), Paul describes behavior similar to most forms of homosexual conduct as we know it today.

Jesus. It is often viewed as significant that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. But Jesus also did not mention incest, rape, or pedophilia. There was no need--all those he met already abhorred such sexual acts.