Fourteen Religious Traditions Agree: Marriage Between a Man and a Woman

humanumAs I was listening to the latest podcast from Wallbuilders Live this morning, I learned about an interesting conference that occurred at the Vatican last fall.

It was on “The Complementarity of Man and Woman” and it involved representatives from 14 religious traditions around the world–including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Tao, and Buddhist–coming together to recognize and support the complementary relationship of a man and a woman in marriage.

It’s amazing when 14 people of the same religion can get together and agree on something, much less representatives of 14 religions around the world. Yet that is how fundamental marriage is to human existence.

Ted Cruz 2016


If the Bible is correct (and I have zero doubt at all that it is), then marriage is the FIRST sacred relationship and institution established by God for humanity at the beginning of creation. It predates the church itself, and predates the institution of human government. It applies to the whole human family, regardless of whether or not various people groups forgot or rejected the true God later on as they spread around the earth. That is why every major religion and every civilization throughout history has recognized that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; the institution goes back to the very beginning of the human race, with the first man and woman.

Only the hedonistic, the ignorant, and those with malevolent intent toward society disagree.  They do so in complete defiance and denial of total historical, scientific and societal refutation of their contention.

As I have pointed out above, history refutes the validity of any shred of legitimacy for homosexual behavior or counterfeit marriage.  Leftist claims that defenders of marriage and sexual normality are “on the wrong side of history” would be laughable, were not the stakes so high.

Statistics and demographics on the health of society also refute the Left’s claims that homosexual behavior and counterfeit marriage are not harmful to society. In addition to the multiple accounts of children of homosexuals that we are hearing, all reputable studies reveal that homosexual parenting is at least as harmful to children and society as is the plague of divorce and out-of-wedlock parenting that has beset our society in recent decades. In addition to the personal harm done to children by the weakening of marriage and family (poor academic performance, anxiety, depression, emotional problems, trouble with the law, poverty, etc.), the $12 billion a year it costs taxpayers to deal with this societal problem is not insignificant.

Finally, science itself resoundingly condemns the legitimacy and efficacy of this behavior, as well as the contention that two people of the same sex can create anything resembling a real marriage. The health hazards associated with homosexual behavior alone should tell any rational person that homosexual behavior is neither legitimate nor positive. Homosexual behavior, from a segment of the population that makes up less than 3% of the whole, accounts for about 70 percent of new AIDS cases, and in some locations, the AIDS rate is ten times higher for homosexuals than for prostitutes. That’s not normal, and that’s not an indicator of a legitimate behavior. Homosexual behavior is also associated with greatly elevated rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, HPV, anal cancer, hepatitis, depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence and more.

Science also makes it clear from the complimentary design and function of the male and female sex organs that they were designed to be used in concert with one another (I shouldn’t have to get graphic about this complimentary design and function, but just think about how they function together for a few minutes and you’ll figure it out).  Male and female sex organs used in concert with one another are also the only way to produce a biological and scientifically purposeful outcome from the use of those organs: reproduction.

What’s more, the female body is designed with the ability not only to help reproduce a new human being, but to provide a safe environment for the development of that organism until it is ready to live outside her body, and her body was designed to be able to nourish that new life in its early years; the male’s body was also designed to be stronger and more sturdy so the male can provide resources for the female and the child while she is nourishing the child and it is growing.

And as I pointed out above, societally, a home with the biological mother and father is statistically proven to be by far the best environment for the healthy development of a child.  Having a male and a female parent for the child goes beyond simply having two adults to provide for the child. A male and female parent model the complimentary nature and interaction of males and females to the child, and demonstrates to the child that both males and females are necessary and valuable. Conversely, a home that deliberately avoids a male or a female parent sends the unhealthy and unbalanced message to the child that one or the other sex is either unnecessary or undesirable, or both.

It’s obvious what marriage is about…and it has nothing to do with a state-sanctioned “friends-with-benefits registry” or any other kind of state-recognized sexual relationship registry.

Ultimately, there is a virtual tsunami of affirmation for sexual normality and the preservation of marriage and family, and an avalanche of evidence that self-centered efforts to undermine it is poison to society and its individual members.  How much more clear could it possibly be?

But of course, the Leftist agenda against marriage, family and sexual normality has nothing to do with science, history, facts, evidence, or the good of society. It is, at best, purely about feeding the narcissistic tendency of a few malcontents, and for some, using that narcissism as a vehicle to advance a dark agenda against a free society.

That should be as clear as the foundation for marriage and sexual normality, so good people have no reason whatsoever to be timid about defending what is right and pushing back against the Left.

Let’s get busy turning back the barbarians, folks!

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
  • DCM7

    There are a lot of people who would disagree with what you’ve written. However, we should keep in mind that they basically KNOW that all this is true. But they are in a position that requires them to DENY — possibly even to themselves — that it is true. That’s because, for them, the only alternative to denying it would be to acknowledge that huge changes are needed in their thinking and living — changes that they are highly unwilling and unmotivated to address.

    • Bob Ellis

      I understand.

      But they wouldn’t be disagreeing with me. They’re disagreeing with history, with science, and with God. That’s the epitome of arrogance.

      • DCM7

        Of course, they’ve been given the message all their lives that truth is whatever they want it to be; they’ve been lied to loudly and convincingly that history and science say something very different from what they actually say; and they’ve had it drilled into them that the Creator is just some ancient myth.
        The result of all this, unsurprisingly, has been to create people who think this life is all they’ll ever have, so they have the right to step on whoever they have to in order to get what they want while they’re here.
        It’s an appealing illusion, and it’s not easy to “un-teach” it to someone.

        • Bob Ellis

          That’s true. Yet Romans 1:18-20

  • Parks

    Gender matters to God. He made us male and female and told us to be fruitful and multiply. We disobey His plan only at great risk to ourselves and our nation.

    • Bob Ellis

      Very true, Parks.

      • franklinb23

        “He made us male and female and told us to be fruitful and multiply.”

        So are heterosexual couples who refuse to have children (whether it’s for financial considerations or not) violating God’s decrees? (Keep in mind that contraception of any kind was considered as bad as abortion by the early Church Fathers.)

        What about those who choose to remain single?

        This is the thing about the Bible. You can fight one passage with another. Marriage is an ideal in one passage, yet Paul recommends that no one marry and everyone remain single and celibate as he was.

        • Bob Ellis

          A married couple who refuse to have children are likely failing to carry through on one of God’s imperatives. Of course, there are some couples who remain childless for valid reasons. Some are biologically incapable. Some marry late in life. Some, like a couple I know, have health issues that make childbirth and/or child rearing dicey.

          As for what the Bible says about remaining single, let’s take a look at it:

          1 Corinthians 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

          8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

          First off, notice that it says in this letter to the Corinthian church that Paul is responding to “the matters you wrote about.” What are those matters? I don’t think we know exactly what the subject was, so we are missing a vital piece of context in the conversation.

          Nevertheless, while we may not be able to make full, 100% application here, we are still able to glean more than enough to gain some valuable insight into proper sexual relationships here.

          It isn’t hard to figure out that a single person has more time and energy to devote to ministry than one who is married. Marriage, with or without children, takes a lot of time and energy. Paul makes this clear later on in that same chapter:

          32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

          Mother Teresa is a good example of what a person can do as an unmarried person who devotes all of their time and energy to ministry.

          So no, you CAN’T fight one passage with another. Unlike human beings, God is not deficient in knowledge, flighty, inconsistent, and he doesn’t change his mind about what is right and best. What WE flighty, biased, myopic human beings have to do is take the WHOLE instruction of God (i.e. read everything God says on a subject) to apply it to as many situations as possible.

          Some people do not feel the same drive for companionship (and sexual expression) as others, and they can devote much more of their time and energy to ministry. Others of us, who desire companionship more and/or “run a little hotter” should marry rather than engage in sexual immorality. Both are within the parameters of obedience to God.

          Homosexual behavior, on the other hand, is NEVER within the parameters of obedience to God because it is expressly forbidden.

          • Parks

            Bob, well said. Apparently the Gay Lobby believes gender doesn’t matter, that gender is irrelevant. But gender matters to God and ignoring His instruction manual about how we are to live (the Bible) is very risky. God is gracious and forgiving — if we repent (the Bible says “turn from our wicked ways”) — but His judgment has fallen in the past because of a culture that endorsed sodomy.

            • franklinb23

              Parks writes: “His judgment has fallen in the past because of a culture that endorsed sodomy”

              I assume you’re referring to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

              A few things worth noting about that story:
              1) The mob in the story seemed bent on sexual conquest regardless of what anyone had to say about the matter. They were going to break down Lot’s door, in fact. I would consider these folks to be rapists. There is no moral equivalency between rape and consensual sex of any kind. None.
              2) The story, in its literal reading, gives morally ambiguous messages. Lot (deemed a “righteous” man) offers his daughters to be raped. Is this something a righteous man would do? Later, no condemnation of these same daughters is made for them getting Lot drunk and getting him to have sex. Is it because of their fear of being childless? Does that lessen moral culpability for incest? How drunk was Lot, anyhow? Did he really not know what he was doing?
              3) Ezekiel 16:49 gives us a different reason for God’s condemnation of Sodom: “Now this was THE sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy”
              Not “a” sin, not “one of the sins”. THE sin.

              Read the story again with your eyes open.

              • Bob Ellis

                The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were no doubt many. Yet God made it clear in both Old and New Testaments that he finds the sin of homosexual behavior particularly abhorrent, calling it “detestable” and an “abomination.” God also specifically condemned the sexual perversion of Sodom in both Old and New Testaments. So it’s a pretty safe bet that homosexual behavior was very high on the list of things over which God had aught with Sodom.

                But Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t the only civlizations to embrace this perversity and were judged. Greece embraced it, as did the Roman Empire, and several other cultures. Indeed, when a society condones something as grossly immoral and counter to nature as homosexual behavior, that is a sign of advanced decay.

                Don’t make excuses and quibble over something that is clearly wrong and unhealthy, to its individual practitioners as well as to society as a whole.

  • Pingback: Tearing Down Marriage()