Homosexuality & the Bible: Genesis 1:1-31 & Procreation

The first argument for heterosexual marriage as the only Biblical kind is, simply put, “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” In the first creation story, God simultaneously created a man and a woman as complementary beings that could create new life.

Together, Adam and Eve are physically capable of being fruitful and multiplying, as God commanded all beings in the beginning. The argument is that this command to procreate extends to all subsequent humans. It focuses on procreation. I do not disagree with the necessity of a man and a woman in the beginning. The world needed people who would procreate and fill the earth! [Side note: check out this hilarious video (hyperlinked here)]

However, some commands were necessary in the beginning that would not be necessary (and/or we don't follow) now. For example, God commanded Adam and Eve to eat only plants. He commanded them to be vegetarians. If Adam and Eve had been craving a good hamburger and then had killed a cow (when God only created two cows, a male and a female), then, oops, no more cows on earth. That’d be bad for the whole “I’m creating a cool, self-sustaining world full of crazy creatures” thing (Seriously, have you seen a giraffe, a manatee or a sloth? This world is full of strange critters). Health concerns about what is better for us (meat v. non-meat) aside, we can eat beef now without wiping out an entire species.

While the need for propagation of the human species was a compelling reason for heterosexual unions at the beginning of our existence, it is not an issue any more. This is not to say reproduction is not important, but as a human population, we are in greater danger of exterminating our self through the destruction of the planet through over population than we are to just dying out through a failure to reproduce. We are too demanding on our planet. We are using too many resources. We are over-populating this finite earth God has given us. We are a long way from the total population being two people on the entire globe.

The argument surrounding the unique ability to procreate states that heterosexual unions are exclusively blessed and encouraged, and therefore homosexual unions are implicitly condemned. It is built upon the notion that sexual acts are only morally permissible if they are intended to (and actually do) lead to pregnancy. This means birth control is immoral (for an entirely separate reason than the rare argument that it ends a life or is a form of abortion). The procreative argument means no one, including married couples, should be having sex unless they are “trying to get pregnant.” Condoms should not exist. Birth control shouldn’t either. This is an extreme position that most people disagree with, as they should.

Sex is not simply for procreation. God created us to enjoy it. We could have reproduced like plants, just getting pregnant to keep the species going whenever we’re outside. But we don’t. Humans have a God-given desire to have intimate relationships—intimate emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Here’s just a little snippet from the Bible:

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth— for your love is more delightful than wine. Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the young women love you! Take me away with you—let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. (Song of Songs 1:2-4)

This is the beginning of an entire book about a young maiden and her lover. The book is about their desire for each other, their pleasure together, and the love they share. It is not about children.

Furthermore, the argument that marriage is primarily intended to produce children is undercut by the implementation of an overbroad policy. As far as fertility of a couple is concerned, there is no difference between a post-menopausal woman and her husband and a lesbian or gay couple. There is no difference in ability to procreate between any infertile couple and a homosexual couple. Why then, do we allow infertile couples to marry?

There is no statement on a marriage application such as the following: “Neither member of this proposed union has reason to believe he or she is personally infertile, and the couple intends to procreate and raise their children.” There is no requirement that married couples have children. States recognize marriages before (and without) children.

While one could (and many do) argue that the presence of children creates a compelling state interest for regulating marriage, that is not the issue addressed here. That is not what the Bible is putting forward. Here, the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” argument is based upon a need to procreate—a need that would exterminate the human race if not fulfilled. This is no longer a problem.

Furthermore, the procreative argument is based upon the notion that naming one type of approved act condemns those not listed. This simply cannot be true. The Bible does not address cars, cell phones, the internet, and an endless list of inventions and changes in society that came after it. We must take Biblical principles and apply them to new situations.

The procreative command was necessary for the survival of humanity at the time it was given, but it was silent on consensual, committed homosexual relationships.

Today’s sources:

Fish Out of Water, documentary by Ky Dickens, 2009 (Accessed via Netflix).

Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views by Dan O. Via & Robert A. J. Gagnon (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003).

UP NEXT: Homosexuality & the Bible: Genesis 2-3 & “Ezer Kenegdo”

In the second creation story, God created Adam before He created Eve. Adam’s need for a companion, a helper, and a corresponding strength (found in the term “ezer kenegdo”) resulted in God creating Eve. Together, their relationship reflected the oneness of God, both the masculine and feminine aspects His relational being. This next post will address the relational “wiring” of humans, the rare call to celibacy, and the traditional Biblical “solution” to homosexuality: forced celibacy.