Are there any Christian denominations that teach a complementarian view of opposite-sex marriages (the husband should lead and the wife should submit), while also recognizing same-sex marriages? If so, do they teach that one spouse in a same-sex marriage should submit to the other, or that both have equal roles?

I've been pondering this for several weeks and I believe that the reformed church (really, the church in general) is woefully unprepared to answer the following question: *How would the church deal with a gay couple that were not Christians when married, that then become Christians?* Specifically when we have passages like 1 Corinthians 7:17 (NIV) > 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. I'm looking for relevant biblical quotations, relevant quotes from reformed scholars past and present, and any statements by reformed churches or denominations that have come out in recent years. I'm also interested in how circumstances and views change when 1 partner becomes a Christian, when there are children involved, and when both partners become Christians. As gay marriage becomes more prominent, legal and prolific in our society, questions like this are going to be more and more relevant and the Church must be prepared to deal with an answer these queries. I'm specifically interested in reformed sources here as they are most relevant to me, but I would be open to other sources that take a similar view of homosexuality.

It is very obvious that marriage biblically is defined as being between one men and women one (Genesis 2:23-24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:6-8, 1 Corinthians 7:2, Hebrews 17:4) but what Early Church Fathers believed and defined marriage as being between one man and one woman?

I would like to know the “biblical” evidence that the Bible condemns gay or lesbian marriage. All I read concerning the matter if read thoroughly, pertaining to the entire segment in that part of the Holy Bible statements are actually about rape, slavery and prostitution. If two adult consenting individuals love each other can it be ordained of God? For churches that oppose same-sex marriage, what is the Biblical basis for their position?

Frédéric Martel in his book [*In the Closet of the Vatican*](https://www.amazon.com/Closet-Vatican-Power-Homosexuality-Hypocrisy/dp/1472966147) has the following remarks on the [Synod of the Family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Ordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops) : > In fact, a ‘liberal* majority emerged from the Synod, but the quorum > required for the adoption of the controversial articles, which > required two-thirds of the votes, was missing. Three paragraphs out of > 62 were therefore rejected » and they were the most to the point. The > pope didn’t get his quorum. Francis’s revolutionary project on the > family and homo­ sexuality was defeated. **Is there any source where I can find the texts of those 3 rejected paragraphs and the votes taken on them?** I am especially interested to check whether all 3 paragraphs indeed gathered the majority votes and were not included in the final document due only to the supermajority requirement. I have read some reviews about the book cited above and they mention many fact checking failures. So, the quoted > 'liberal' majority may be a metaphor and may not mean the majority of votes for the specific paragraphs. I am aware of the [www.synod.va](http://www.synod.va/content/synod/en.html) . The website has the *instrumentum laboris* and similar documents but I can not find the proceedings (transactions) and the votes. AFAIK, the synodal assemblies are not closed as opposed to the Ecumenical Councils. (I heard there are about 50+ volume publications of the [Second Vatican Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council) , therefore the notion that Vatican II was closed is quite dubious). **Question to be clarified**: While the question (as it stands) seems to be legitimate, most likely Frédéric Martel talked about the [III Extraordinary Assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Extraordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops) , which was the preparatory synodal assembly before the [XIV ordinary assembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Ordinary_General_Assembly_of_the_Synod_of_Bishops) .

Why do bishops (catholic) in some dioceses say that the Pope is outdated and ignoring scripture by refusing same-sex couples the sacrament of marriage, i.e. making their union holy. (Example ). They believe that blessing these couples is supported by scripture, but I am not sure where they find support for that claim. One priest in my city says God is "I am" not "I was", and as our understanding develops we ought to see that we should extend our blessings to even "non-traditional" marriages. Since it's not just one or two priests accusing the Pope, but rather many bishops including the president of the bishops' conference in Germany, I don't think this can easily be dismissed as a heretical priest or something like that. I would therefore like to know why they believe it is justified and in line with Scripture to extend the sacrament of marriage to homosexual marriages.

The reason I ask is because a documentary of Pope Francis' papacy was shown at the Rome Film Festival on October 21st. Some of the newspaper headlines I've seen seem rather inflammatory and so I am trying to get an official view on this subject. This is a quote from the U.K. Daily Telegraph attributed to Pope Francis regarding the documentary (Francesco) that was shown: >"Homosexual people have a right to be in a family. They are children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out or be made miserable over it. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stand up for that." What the newspaper article failed to say was when the Pope made this comment. When Pope Francis was the Archbishop of Buenos Aires he apparently opposed gay marriage but endorsed legal protection for the rights of gay people. Is the above quote related to this period of time? It seems that Pope Francis gave approval to two gay men who have adopted three children to bring them up as Catholics (this in relation to the section of the film about Andrea Rubera and his partner Dario De Gregorio). The newspaper article made this comment: >The endorsement of same-sex unions will have a huge impact in Africa, Asia and Latin America It also pointed out that in some of those countries it can be a crime to engage in homosexual activities. What is the official view of this documentary film about the papacy of Pope Francis in relation to the approval (or otherwise) of same-sex marriage and same-sex civil partnerships? EDIT:This link is relevant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#LGBT Update: See this recent Vatican statement (link provided by GratefulDisciple): https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/world/vatican-moves-to-clarify-popes-comments-on-civil-union-laws-515948/ I apologise for still being unable to copy and paste these links properly.

I get that Catholicism won't acknowledge **religious** gender-neutral or same-sex marriage (GNM) and why it won't support GNM, but why exactly does that extend to being outright **against** (as opposed to having no stand) **secular** GNM? Besides possibly the arguments here , what are there? In case the article is too long for you, here is a response that takes the article apart.

>A gay pride rainbow flag flies along with the U.S. flag in front of the Asbury United Methodist Church in Prairie Village, Kan., on April 19, 2019. United Methodist Church leaders are proposing the creation of a separate division that would let more traditional denominations break away because of the disagreement with churches over the UMC’s official stance on gay marriage. AP FILE. Story here What arguments do traditional UMC leaders make for separating themselves from the church over its stance on gay marriage?

The Spanish newspaper El Pais wrote an [article](https://elpais.com/cultura/2019/02/13/actualidad/1550074514_072680.html) the other day (with an awful clickbait, I must say), where it told the story of two women married by the Catholic Church in 1901. The story goes that they were married by a local priest, with one of the woman disguised as a man (as one of her dead cousins, in fact). The priest did not know the situation, and hence the marriage received official approval. The article claimed then that this is "the first (and only) official gay marriage in the Catholic Church" (title of the clickbait), and which has yet not been annuled. Two things come to my mind. First, the marriage act probably stated the name of the (dead) cousin, and hence, the two women were actually never married (i.e. they couldn't prove it, since they didn't have a certificate to the name of both women). Second, as one of the spouses was dead, the marriage was invalid. Thus, there was never a valid marriage anyway, and thus there is nothing to annul. Is this the case?

I have seen some pro-gay-marriage churches lately. The thing is, I don't understand on what scriptural or traditional (to include Old Catholics and Anglicans) do they take such a stance? I'm not for or against it. I'm just asking how they do support their position.

From what I understand, the fourteenth amendment in American law is interpreted by the SCOTUS to be implying that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. To me, this means, from the perspective of Christians who are against states allowing same-sex marriage, one of two things is true: 1. the fourteenth amendment is an immoral law 2. the fourteenth amendment is a moral law interpreted incorrectly Is this right? If so, is there a general consensus among Christians against states allowing same-sex marriage between which of the two is right? If there is, which? If there is none, you can go ahead and close this question. If not, why? To be clear, I assume that one cannot believe in the following things simultaneously: 1. being against states allowing same-sex marriage 2. agreeing with the fourteenth amendment 3. agreeing with the SCOTUS' interpretation of the fourteenth amendment

I know that the Catholic Church is against gays or lesbians having sex. But has the Catholic Church said anything about a hypothetical or actual situation of gay or lesbian Catholics getting married under state law, going on dates, kissing, raising children but not having sex? Would the Catholic Church have any problems with that? If so, what?

What are some of the reasons for which mainstream non-Catholic Christians are against gender-neutral secular marriage? I get that some churches won't acknowledge **religious** gender-neutral or same-sex marriage (GNM) and why they won't support GNM, but why exactly does that extend to being outright **against** (as opposed to having no stand) **secular** GNM? Besides homophobia (like with the Westboro Baptist Church and the sort) and possibly the arguments here , what are there? In case the article is too long for you, here is a response that takes the article apart. I guess mainstream is: Orthodox (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc...) Roman Catholic Protestant (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc...) Historic Non-Chalcedonian Churches (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Nestorian, etc..) Jehovah's Witness The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) Seventh-Day Adventists

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Homosexual couples can get married in all US States and that these marriages are legally equal to the Traditional model of marriage, one man and one woman. Prior to all this I saw many Christians arguing against the redefinition of marriage, but almost solely used their faith and the Bible as their basis. There are arguments against the idea of homosexual marriages being not equal to heterosexual ones. They more or less revolve around the idea that the reproductive system is the only part of the human body that needs a complementary body to unite with to complete and achieve its end (or purpose). Any other union that cannot complete the system and therefore possibly achieve the purpose of sex is inherently incomplete. My question is this: Why didn't Christians argue this way? I am Catholic and I have seen my own church reason this way. Why did Protestants not use this, as this could carry weight in a secular court?

I read in the news today that the Episcopal Church is going to [vote on same-sex 'marriage'](http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25408) . As a Catholic who looks to the Pope to issue statements on matters of faith and morals, and trusts the Holy Spirit to guide him, what sort of weight do Episcopalians and Anglicans put on votes on matters of faith and morals; do they believe the vote is guided by the Holy Spirit? (or is this not even considered a matter of faith and morals any more, just "equality"?) The same thing I believe happened in the early 20th century with the Lambeth conference concerning birth control and happened recently with allowing women to hold higher positions in the church (although that might have been more of an equal rights sort of deal, I'd see it as a matter of faith) Please don't discuss current events, unless very applicable. And, if it offends you, please excuse the quotes around the word 'marriage'. Because of my deeply held convictions, I will never be able to in good conscience call it marriage.

Are there any Christian Churches or communities that teach same-sex marriage is a right? On what biblical basis do they base their teaching? A couple of examples will do for an answer.