How do churches that claim to follow scripture justify supporting SSM?

Wonder what the argument is for some protestant denominations to justify supporting same-sex “marriage” when the scriptures clearly refute it (I.E. Episcopalian, Presbyterian).


I'm not aware of any scriptures commenting on ssm.

A guess:
The Bible says to love your neighbor.

But when marriage is mentioned it is always about man and woman.


Here are some Scripture passages about homosexual sins.

“For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.” (Romans i. 26-27) (Bishop Challoner commentary: God delivered them up: Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.)

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians vi. 9-10)

“As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” (St. Jude i. 7)

This is just from the New Testament. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of how grievous a sin it is to commit homosexual acts since God killed them.

I think Protestants do what they have always done and misinterpret Scripture to what they want it to say. For example, I have heard that they say God punished Sodom & Gomorrha for being inhospitable to the visiting angel and not for doing homosexual acts. They also say that since God made them that way, it can’t be a sin.

Yes, scriptures are twisted to explain away the obvious. Marriage is between one man and one woman and the same with Sodom and Gomorrah.


Yes, the “I was born this way” argument has been tried for many years but now I think most people are seeing through that flawed line.

Probably because the scriptures don’t clearly refute it.
And what is written…they take the scripture in the context of the time it was written.

There are a LOT of things written in there that we do not follow today, because we’ve now learned a heck of a lot more about biology, psychology, physics, etc, in the 2-2500 years since those thoughts and words were written.

The ideas about marriage have changed since then, of course–drastically.
I mean…we don’t force a rapist to marry his rape victim…as the law dictates in scripture.
We don’t force a man to marry/procreate with his widowed sister-in-law.
We don’t stone people to death because of adultery.
We don’t (for the most part) allow underage girls to marry (Mary was supposedly a young teen?)
Today, we understand better the biology and psychology of homosexuality; back then, it was a mysterious and misunderstood issue.

Also, from what I recall…same-sex marriage is not specifically mentioned at all in the judeo-christian scriptures, as another poster mentioned.
Just because the writers touch upon the topic of marriages between men and women in the books, doesn’t mean the omission or lack of mention of other kinds of marriages necessarily rule them out.


Well that’s a lot of hogwash. We are told in the New Testament that not all laws of the Old Covenant were binding on us - only the laws of the Spirit. Now, this does open the door to which Old Testament laws pertain to the Spirit, but Paul does point some of these things out directly - such as homosexuality. Now, if you aren’t a believer then this is a moot point. But if you are a believer, then this should be pretty binding. Although Paul isn’t Jesus, Christians, and more specifically Protestants, tend to have this sola scriptura business going.

We also still don’t really understand the biology or psychology of homosexuality. People still don’t know if it’s biological (the “gay gene” has never been found), or if it is environmentally caused, or some mixture of the two. From a purely scientific standpoint, this would be considered abnormal, as a small portion of the population presents with these inclinations, and since the act prohibits one’s DNA from being passed down the generations. We can talk artificial insemination and surrogate mothers all we want, but those are a medical fix for the situation and hardly a naturally occurring phenomenon that would have countered this throughout the ages.

Lastly, let’s look at the words of Jesus himself on marriage to illuminate if He thought marriage was for everyone.

Matthew 19:10-12

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Looks like Jesus is saying there are some people who are not meant for marriage. Either through birth (I was born this way), because others made them that way (environmental causes), or due to self-imposed celibacy. This is, of course, immediately following his discourse about how marriage is between a man and a woman and how divorce is wrong and was only permitted to Israel by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts.

This is from a letter that Paul apparently wrote to the Romans, a congregation he did not establish in a city he’d never been.
I can barely tell what he’s trying to say here, it’s so muddled. But from his other writings on sex, I’d say Paul’s views about sexuality were quite disturbing and self-negative and tortured and many agree they had a lot to do with how he felt about himself.

Being effeminate doesn’t necessarily mean a man is homosexual and has nothing to do same-sex marriage. Also, a lot of women are effeminate.

Nothing here about homosexuality or same-sex marriage, either.

It’s quite the epic, colorful tale. It was pretty unfair to turn that woman into salt, though–looking back is not such a crime. Perhaps she wanted to see the details of what was going on so she could tell others?
But be that as it may…in this tale, God kills everyone because they are all “sinning”–not just because some people are having sex with the same gender.

Lot was pretty, pretty hospitable to those visiting angels…offering his virgin daughters to be raped by them!


Okay, so you are dismissing the argument without actually addressing it. All you are saying is not to listen to Paul. You aren’t saying that scripture here does not address homosexuality. Further, this is not a blanket thread. The question was how Protestants would use scripture to defend same-sex marriage. The problem with dismissing this because Paul was disturbed or something, is that it would mean the bible is not the inerrant Word of God. That wouldn’t much matter if you aren’t a Christian, but if you are then saying that your Holy book can’t be trusted is a pretty strange affair. If you can’t trust one part of the book, how can you trust the gospels? Men wrote the gospels about Jesus. What if they just modified the writings to fit their agenda at the time?

[quote=DaddyGirl]Lot was pretty, pretty hospitable to those visiting angels…offering his virgin daughters to be raped by them!

You do realize that this comment would imply that Sodom was not destroyed for being inhospitable, but rather for the sexual immorality that was rampant. But that is irrelevant because it isn’t how it happened.

The angels came and Lot invited them to stay at his house. He prepared meals for them and was treating them as honored guests. Then the crowd wanted to rape them. Lot attempted to quell the crowd’s lust by offering up his daughters - still not the right thing to do, but then again we all know the people of the Old Testament didn’t exactly have things perfect. Lot didn’t just see two angels and say to them, “Hey, you wanna rape my daughters? They’re virgins!”

If you are going to use the faults of the people in the Old Testament as ammunition, at least use them correctly.

Mark 10

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,a 8and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Every scripture reference, from the beginning of God’s creation, marriage is between a male and a female.


The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans that I quoted was concerning a punishment from God for their sins. God withdrew His grace from them, which made the men fall into lust with one another and the women to likewise commit unnatural sexual acts. The Scriptures are divinely inspired, so any error in them would be in regards to things of minor importance and not of morality.

Sometimes, the Latin “molles” is translated to mean “homosexual perverts” (in the Today’s English Version second edition). A homosexual is effeminate because he acts like a woman when he lusts after other men and has sexual relations with them. Usually, the word effeminate is used for boys/men and not for women.

Lot’s wife was turned to salt because she disobeyed the angel’s command by looking back at the city. She was looking back at vice and sin, which is in one of the Bible notes of Bishop Challoner: “and his wife: As a standing memorial to the servants of God to proceed in virtue, and not to look back to vice or its allurements”.

It is clear from the story of Sodom that they were punished for homosexual acts as is seen when the men surrounded the house: “But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them”. Sometimes, the “know them” is translated as “the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them” (Today’s English Version). I believe Lot offered his daughters to the angels because he didn’t want them to commit the more heinous sin of homosexual acts.

The basis is that we are the wisest, most enlightened generation ever to live on the face of the earth . Whatever we thought we knew about scripture, whatever we thought we knew about morality was wrong and it took this special generation to figure it out It . It Also presupposes a very inept to god -a god so inept that he let his people live in ignorance about the truth of homosexuality for 4000 years . In short it’s all nonsense. Classic example of caving into the pressures of the current culture . It is in evitable fruits of the so-called reformation

One argument is that times have changed. This argument says that St. Paul, and the other Apostles and maybe Jesus were all rubes who didn’t know of any loving homosexual relationships. Apparently these folks know that there were no ‘loving’ homosexual relationships for these folks to be exposed to. Apparently there is something new under the sun, ‘loving’ homosexual relationships. The effect and necessary precursor to the arguments put forth is an undermining of the authority of Holy Scripture.

I agree with everything but the last statement. It isn’t inevitable. Its quite avoidable. One simply needs to maintain, that regarding SSM, Christ meant what He said in Mark 10.
He wasn’t wrong. He wasn’t influenced by His time and culture (His challenges to Jewish laws of the times are proof of that). He wasn’t dropping hints for later generations to discover.
The fact is that the ELCA, for example, which I came out of, is quite candid that they don’t see scripture as anything much more than a guide, filled with “opinion, cultural limitation and bias.”
I am a product of the Reformation, and I haven’t caved in at all. It isn’t inevitable.


I’m Episcopalian and I do not know how they justify it. I haven’t been to an Episcopal church in over three years. I refuse to go to an Episcopal church over this issue.

Problem Is there is no authority.
Although your Lutheran denomination has not caved others have. And recognizing no authority there is no guarantee that your denomination will not cave also

There is an authority: scripture. The problem with the liberal/modernist denoms is they have rejected the authority. To say that two members of the same gender can get married, is an overt rejection of scriptural authority - indeed the authority of Christ! - on the matter.

I don’t want to swerve the thread into one about sola scriptura/Church authority etc. because you and I, our two communions as well, agree on the issue of SSM.


Is there an echo in here? :thumbsup:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit