How did the different races evolve after Adam and Eve, or after the flood?

We know that all the races emerged from Adam and Eve- and then from Noah. Exactly how this happened is somewhat speculative. I might mention that today there is a debate in some quarters about what "race" exactly means. Some evidence suggests that there are greater genetic differences within a "racial" group, than between different "races." But if we are thinking of outward characteristics that we associate with a race, then we can guess at an answer. We know that there was close intermarriage among the offspring of Adam (and then of Noah). If offspring with particular physical traits (complexion, color of hair or eyes etc.) were to marry, and then become isolated because they migrated away from the main family, their children would exhibit the traits of their parents. All offspring born after that would carry those traits. After many generations, this "offshoot" of the original family may look quite different from other "offshoots."

Aren’t objections to homosexual marriage based on the bible and therefore irrelevant to those who are not Christians?

My thinking and that of other Christians is certainly informed by our faith, and there are many Scriptural reasons for opposing gay and lesbian marriages, but many who do not believe in the Bible still oppose such marriages. The fact is that Hindus, Jews, Muslims, members of other religions, and those with no religious affiliation are among those who oppose redefining marriage to include gays and lesbians.

Since marriage is a civil issue, isn’t the state free to define what marriage means?

The state did not create marriage. Like some other institutions, marriage preceded the state and transcends it. For example, family and parenthood are biological and social realities, more fundamental than the state and not created by the state, but the state recognizes and guards these institutions. In the same way, marriage was not created by the state, but all cultures understood marriage to be the union of male and female and guarded it as beneficial to society. The state simply recognizes marriage and protects it by its laws.

How can we justify withholding the benefits of marriage from gays and lesbians?

The laws of the land regularly prohibit other close relationships from expressing their love through marriage. Two brothers or three sisters might live together, love each other and even share property, but they are not permitted to get married. We don’t enshrine every loving commitment in marriage, so it is not at all unusual that marriage is restricted to the union of a man and a woman.

Didn’t people object to interracial marriage with similar arguments?

There have been distracting arguments in the past, as there are in any debate. But interracial marriage was not a new idea with unknown consequences since it had been practiced in many cultures. There was evidence that societies are not harmed and may, in fact, benefit from such unions. But the idea of gay and lesbian marriage is a novelty, since no society has recognized homosexual unions as marriage, and its consequences are unknown.

How will it hurt you if we allow gay and lesbian marriage?

We are a community. We breathe the same moral atmosphere. What I do affects you and what you do affects me. Gay and lesbian marriage presents a new definition of marriage to the whole of society – it will affect how we all view relationships, families and children, and it will change the way society is organized. In fact, in the Goodrich decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts pressed gay and lesbian marriage upon society because, they said, such marriage is the “public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family” and it “fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity” and is “among life's momentous acts of self-definition.” But by this thinking, “marriage” should not be denied to any loving relationship, since all kinds of people in all kinds of relationships may want to publicly celebrate companionship, intimacy, family and define themselves. It is inevitable that the definition of marriage will broaden under these foggy guidelines, till eventually marriage will mean nothing. That is, when people in every kind of loving relationship want and are granted legal recognition as “married” in order to be fulfilled personally, then “marriage” will cease to have any meaning. This affects everyone.

What’s the harm in just trying it?

If we drain a marsh or build a bridge we have to make a careful study of the environmental impact of such construction. It is a recognition that a delicate biological ecosystem might be inadvertently damaged. We would never think of saying, “What’s the harm in trying it? Let’s see what happens!” In the same way, marriage is a delicate social reality which has formed the basis of society for thousands of years. The burden of proof is on those who insist on driving a bulldozer through the traditional definition. Can they prove that it will not harm society? We have to be sure of such things before we change our laws and society; it is not something to consider after the fact.

What does the Bible say about the issue?

Any careful study of the Bible about marriage will quickly show that all thinking is based on the events of Genesis 1 and 2. There God creates the institution of marriage and by His authority as Creator, defines it to be the union of one man and one woman. The Law, the gospels and the epistles are commentary and application of what God did in Creation.

But isn’t homosexuality only condemned in the old testament?

The Old Testament certainly is clear, from Genesis on, that God is opposed to homosexuality – it is not part of His design or holy purpose. The Law of Moses stated clearly (for example Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that such practices were outside of God’s will. But the New Testament echoes precisely the Old Testament. In Romans 1:26-27, the apostle Paul says that such practices are a result of rejecting God’s truth and refusing to honor and thank Him. Similarly, I Timothy 1:9,10 says that the law is designed to reign in the “arsenokoitai” – a word referring to homosexual activity. The same word, along with a similar one, is used in I Corinthians 6:9-10 to indicate that Christ changed the lives of those who formerly were homosexuals.

Everyone always quotes Paul. Doesn’t Jesus Himself have anything to say on the subject?

In Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus comments on the sacred institution of marriage as created by God in Genesis. He says, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” Jesus explicitly restates what Genesis teaches: Marriage is for male with female. Then Jesus continues quoting Genesis, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (or ‘woman’ since it is the same Greek word), and the two shall become one.” Jesus is saying that marriage is intended by God for the union of a male and a female, and to be joined in marriage a man is joined to a woman.

Homosexuality is just two people loving each other, and doesn’t the Bible say we should love one another?

There are many kinds of love. (The New Testament itself uses different words for love in different places.) But romantic or erotic love is not commanded for all people. When Jesus (quoting the Old Testament) said “Love your neighbor as yourself” He was not saying that we should have erotic relationships with our neighbors! He did not use the Greek word for love which refers to that kind of love. That would contradict the Law (which He said He came to fulfill) and His own teachings where He commanded sexual purity of body and heart.

How can we ask homosexual men and women to remain unfulfilled sexually?

The Lord Jesus said that we should follow Him wherever He leads because we trust in Him. His closing instruction to His apostles (Matthew 28:20) was for them to “teach all He had commanded.” He taught that following Him would not be easy and that all His disciples (homosexual or heterosexual) would be asked to deny themselves in order to follow Him. Christ promises grace and power to do what seems impossible to us, but He calls all of us to deny our desires in order to satisfy the deepest desire of our hearts – to have Christ Jesus. Christ demands sexual purity of every follower. I have met heterosexuals who claim that philandering is part of their nature and say, “I can’t help it!” But they are under the command of Christ to remain sexually pure before marriage and faithful to their spouses after marriage. Heterosexual and homosexuals alike are offered the redemption and strength of Christ to live according to God’s will of sexual purity.

But heterosexuals have a “legal” means of satisfying themselves sexually – marriage, isn’t the plight of the homosexual far worse?

I think it is harder in many ways. There are two things to say. First, Christ Jesus is able to transform us. I Corinthians 6:9-10 is an illustration of this and it causes our hearts to be filled with unique praise and thanks when we experience this work of God. Secondly, there are singles who remain single and pure sexually all their lives. This is not easy always, and they suffer periods of loneliness and sexual temptation – whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. But they are doing it as an act of worship: they are honoring the Lord Jesus and His created design. Their suffering is not empty and without purpose. This kind of suffering and self denial touches the lives of all Christians – if not in the sexual arena then in some other way. We are all called to honor our Lord and show Him our worshipful love by keeping His commandments (John 14:21).

Who did Cain marry?

It does seem perplexing since Adam and Eve, Cain's parents, were the only people around. But Genesis 5:4 says that Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughters." Only prominent individuals are mentioned by name but there were many other inhabitants of the earth. So, essentially, Cain married one of his sisters. This may seem strange, but the genetic pool was pristine at the time, and such close marriages didn't pose the danger they might today.