Rachel Gilson grapples with the temptation of same sex attraction.
But that is not her identity. As she says, “Our attractions don’t own us.”

“We don’t own us; our friends don’t own us; our families don’t own us; our attractions don’t own us. Only Jesus owns us.”

We are not our desires; what we desire, especially when it comes to sinful desires, does not define us. Rachel, like her friend Emily she talks about, “really just wants to be known as a Christian.”

“Same-sex attractions are true in the sense that they exist. They are important, especially because the culture presses us to treat them as safe and good while Scripture presses us to soberly flee temptation of all kinds. They must be denied, in the sense that we must say no to their demands for same-gender sex and romance.”

As a Christian Rachel believes the Bible; she believes that same sex marriage (SSM) is wrong. This despite the fact that, as a young Christian, two older “Christians” assured her that the conflict between Christianity and same-sex romance was based on a traditional misunderstanding, and gave her a packet of information that, they said, would set the biblical record straight. But she testifies:

“However, when I looked up the Bible verses discussed, it didn’t square. The interpretations looked like a misreading of what was plain in the Bible text: that same-gender sexual contact was forbidden by God.”[1]

This was confirmed as she continued to study the Bible.
And not just because, negatively, there are “a handful of passages that prohibit same-gender sexual contact.”[2]
But because, positively, she came to realise that the way God designed marriage as heterosexual (uniting as one two who are different) is bound up with the whole message of the Gospel, from Genesis to Revelation, as a picture of His Grand Plan for the union of Christ and the Church.
SSM is not just a rebellion against God’s good plan for marriage; but ultimately rebellion against the Gospel message and God’s plan of salvation.

The true nature of marriage should be self-evident to all, whether you believe in the Grand Plan or not.
And it would be self-evident to all except for the fact that “although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful… and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man.” (Rom 1:21-23). Romans ch 1 tells us that idolatry is at the root of the SSM misrepresentation of marriage.

In my last post I referred to Glen Scrivener’s post in which he observed that while there is presently something of a movement in our Culture to say, ‘No to Trans’, Society still says ‘Yes, to Gay Marriage’.
But this is inconsistent. It is illogical to say, ‘No to Trans’, but, ‘Yes, to Gay Marriage’.

Here is a line of argument he suggests he would follow with someone who already has doubts about the whole trans thing. Though I might not express all his arguments quite the way he does, I think he makes a good case from “nature” itself (as Paul does in Rom 1:26).

If People Aren’t Gender-Neutral, Why Is Marriage?

– by Glen Scrivener

If I were to tease out what I meant by my gender-neutral line, here’s how I’d do it.
I’d try to find common ground on these seven admissions.

Can We Agree That…

1. Sexual activity is significant.

We know it’s significant because we’re rightly protective of female spaces. It’s not that trans people are more likely to be perpetrators of sexual crimes; it’s simply that we want to exercise an abundance of caution about anyone’s access to changing rooms, rape crisis centres, female prisons, and so on. Why? Because the potential for anyone to perpetrate violations of a sexual nature is significant.

We recognize sex is in a different category, that it’s not a leisure activity. When leisure activities go wrong, we give one-star reviews. When sex goes wrong, we call the police. If you force a game of tennis on me, you’re simply weird. If you force sex on me, you’re a rapist. The exceptional evil of rape tells us there’s an exceptional sanctity to sex.

This means modern assumptions about “hookup culture” are nonsense. Sexual activity is significant. It’s a union of persons, not just a union of bodies. It’s profoundly meaningful and not casual or disposable.

2. Sexual self-expression isn’t a right.

I don’t have a right to unleash my sexual desires; I have a responsibility to tame them. And the taming of sexuality—especially male sexuality—is vital for the blessing and protection of others, especially women and children. This has been at the heart of the Christian sexual revolution that has built our modern sensibilities about consent and much more.

3. There are two sexes and they aren’t interchangeable.

All of us struggle in various ways with what it means to be a member of our sex. Culturally speaking, gender expression can indeed be fluid. But people aren’t gender-neutral or gender-interchangeable. Perhaps our neighbours and coworkers may balk at this. But many in the U.K. are returning to this “common sense” position, and I foresee many in the U.S. doing the same.

4. There are sex-defined spaces.

We’ve already mentioned some sex-defined spaces: changing rooms, male and female sports, prisons, rape crisis centres, and so on. You cannot claim a right to enter such spaces simply because you choose to. If I enter a female-only space, I haven’t wonderfully expanded that space to include different ways of being female. I have violated that space.

If I insist my human rights include the right to enter that space, then I, a man, have redefined “female” and essentially destroyed that space. And that isn’t right.

5. In this area, behaviours are more important than desires.

To forbid a biological male from entering a female-only space isn’t to deny his strong sense of being female. Nor does it erase his identity. Instead, in these circumstances, it’s to prioritize the external over the internal and the physical over the mental.

6. There are ways of caring for people who struggle without reordering society around them.

Sometimes inclusion rightly involves society-wide transformations (e.g., racial integration or disability access). But sometimes this isn’t possible or desirable. Our hearts genuinely go out to those who experience great discomfort with their bodies generally and their sex specifically. We want to do all we can to alleviate that discomfort—but we also must uphold the previous five admissions. Sometimes this will mean maintaining certain institutions and structures, and that doesn’t equal bigotry.

7. People have been called ‘bigots’ in this debate who really aren’t.

Passions run hot in the culture wars, and even hotter when it comes to matters of sex and identity. But at times, people have been unfairly called “bigoted” when in fact they’re prizing the well-being of a different overlooked group—such as the interests of women or children.

Marriage Is a Sex-Defined Space

These seven admissions can be agreed on by those who’ve become even a little trans-skeptical. They’re also foundational to the Christian sex ethic. The addition a Christian makes is to say that marriage is also a sex-defined space. It’s the ultimate sex-defined space. And again, if people aren’t gender-neutral, then we can ask our secular friends to consider whether marriage also isn’t gender-neutral. If that’s granted, then everything else in the Christian sexual ethic follows.

We say that sex is significant (1) and therefore sexual self-expression should be trained and restrained (2).
We believe that sex (male or female) is integral to sex (the act) and that, because the sexes aren’t interchangeable (3), a male-male relationship is very different from a male-female relationship, which is very different from a female-female relationship. These are simply not the same things.
So David Cameron is wrong[3]: adding male-male and female-female relationships to the definition of marriage doesn’t expand marriage—it completely redefines it. (Just as adding biological males to your definition of female redefines “female.”)

I don’t have the right to enter into a sex-defined space simply because I want to (4). If I don’t fit that sex-defined space but insist they include me, I’m insisting they redefine their sex-defined space. But there are some things I don’t have a right to enter or redefine—and marriage is one of them.

This isn’t to erase the existence of those who are same-sex attracted. It’s just to say that, in this area, behaviours are more important than desires (5).
We should care greatly for the minority of people who are exclusively same-sex attracted—just as we care greatly for the minority of people who experience gender dysphoria—but that doesn’t have to mean reordering our institutions or sexual ethic (6).
Finally, we should admit some have been called bigots who, in fact, have been prizing institutions and often-overlooked groups (such as children) in their adherence to the Christian sexual ethic (7).

I’m not saying any of this will convince our secular friends—not in a single conversation, that’s for sure. But the journey we’ve been on in the U.K. is suggestive of what might happen with the trans conversation in the States and further afield. In the near future, making the case against gender-neutral marriage might, with some people, become easier, not harder.

[1] Rachel Gilson. Born Again This Way: Coming out, coming to faith, and what comes next p. 20
[2] Ibid p. 30
[3] Back in 2011 then prime minister in the U.K., David Cameron, announced: “I don’t support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I’m a Conservative… Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.”