that I should hit record. All right, now I'm recording. So this week, to report myself, will be a God's Word on homosexuality. Next week, we'll look at the gospel interactions with a homosexual. But before you turn there, let me kind of get you thinking on how I'm going to be thinking about this topic together this morning. If you've ever had the opportunity, and I'm getting somewhere with this, so you're going to say, how is this relating? But I am getting somewhere with this. If you've ever had the opportunity to interact on your doorstep with a Jehovah's Witness, let's say, they come. you'll understand that they have arguments that can be convincing if you're not prepared on how to answer them. And that's the point. They've intentionally tried to make their arguments convincing, obviously to dissuade people away from truth and towards themselves. And that's a challenge because of one particular method that they use to make their arguments. And their method is that they actually use the Bible to make their arguments. Anybody ever notice that? Have you ever had that interaction? So they'll actually point to the Bible to persuade you why they're right. And it's kind of, for some, if they've never had that, a new believer, it can be a shocking experience. Like, what in the world? They're actually saying the Bible. I thought, that's what the Bible says, but now they're telling me something different. And the reality is they do study the Bible. The problem is that they study the Bible to twist the truth. Of course, one great example of their teaching is that Jesus is not God, and they'll say, they just won't do that. But I bring that up because in a similar way, those who engage in sin, and the very tempter himself, can twist God's word to say whatever they want God's word to say. So I use the Jehovah's Witness because I think that's more of a classical example. People are used to that. But it's true in any other realm. And they are able to do this, and they do this very smoothly. And most often this scripture twisting is done eloquently, with much effort, but eloquently. Though anybody who read a plain reading of the text would say that's not what the text is saying, but yet they're twisting it to do that. And the strangeness of the conclusions others make as they twist scripture ought not shake your foundation. You should be prepared. And so I want us to be prepared when it comes to the topic of God's word on homosexuality. And the reason I brought that to light is if you're familiar, and I'll show you in a moment, There are many, many proponents of homosexuality who will use the Bible, believe it or not, to support their position. They really, yeah, I'm gonna show it to you. I wanna introduce you to it. Just a few stats, though, as we're getting into it. A recent Pew Research poll indicated there are as many as 54% of people in America who identify as Christian who now say homosexuality should be accepted as part of their faith. So if you say it's not Christian, you are now in the minority of those who say they're Christian. That figure has grown by 10 percentage points since 2007, which reflects a growing acceptance of homosexuality within churches. Among Christians, this trend is driven partly by young church members who are generally more accepting of homosexuality. For example, Nearly half, 51% of evangelical Protestants in the millennial generation say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with only a third of evangelical baby boomers. I think that's interesting because for years it always bothered me a little bit. I know I'm chasing a rabbit here, but it always bothered me when I go to these pastors' conferences. And I still am the youngest guy at pastors' conferences. It's just always that way. And they're always talking about how we should reach millennials. And I'm like, you guys, the millennials are now married and have kids. You guys probably should think about something else. And then they'll turn and go, well, what about you, you say, because you're a millennial, which, by the way, I am. Just wanted to let you know that. And they're like, well, what do you say? I'm going to say, the way you reach people really hasn't changed all that much. It's just people. So you can stop figuring this out. They're panicked. How are we going to reach millennials? And I don't know, it's always that way. And I'm always the youngest person in the room and I have to be like, just settle down for a moment. It'll be okay. That said, that rabbit being chased, every single mainline denomination in America reflects the same trend, either on the national or on the individual church level. Every single denomination, broadly speaking, has churches or many churches within their sphere that are accepting of homosexuals in their church, as members of their church. Now, that may come surprising to you, although I suspect it probably doesn't. You might say, though, how can they do that? We have been given clear verses in Scripture. How can they possibly twist Scripture to make that? What I'm seeking to do is simply to look at a handful of the Scripture passages on this topic. I don't pretend that this sermon is exhaustive, but I have picked a handful of the passages that explicitly mention homosexuality, and I want to ask two questions. How do Christian supporters of homosexuality handle that passage? Because they have to look at it. And then what is our responsibility? So in keeping with my Jehovah's Witness analogy, imagine you are talking with someone who is supposedly a Christian, who is a supporter of homosexuality, and they're using these passages to make their claim Are you going to be prepared to answer that? And I want to prepare you. Because the biblical record is not silent on this matter. And even those who talk about supporting homosexuality would have recognized it's not silent. It's not like there's no passages on this. So they have to use passages to support their claim. What are they doing with them? And I want you to prepare for that. So my plan is to look at three passages in the Old Testament. three passages in the New Testament that are explicit in what they say about homosexuality that's a tall order I understand that and then go through what they say and how we would respond to it so Old Testament and then New Testament does that make sense so we're gonna go first to the Old Testament Old Testament teaching on homosexuality and as we begin this journey it's only makes sense to begin at the beginning there's a rule of Biblical hermeneutics that can be misconstrued and amounted to be higher than it needs to be, but it is still helpful. And it's the first mentioned principle. And the law of the first mention says, to understand a particular word of doctrine, we must first start in scripture where that first word or doctrine is mentioned. And that can be misconstrued a little bit, but it is still a helpful rule, at least to help us be a guideline. So let's start there. So where is homosexuality first mentioned? I shouldn't have had you open. That's terrible. I should not have told you. I wish I wouldn't have. Now, if I teach this again, I won't open your Bibles until later. So the answer is, All right, there you go. Genesis 13. Now what's happening in Genesis 13? What is happening in that passage? Let's look at that. Genesis is the book of beginning. The first mention begins with a particular group of people, Genesis 13, verse 13, of Sodom. Verse 13 of Genesis 13. The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. And clearly the people were wicked folks. Scripture paints that very clearly, right? They were wicked exceedingly. Chapter 13. And by the way, if you're staying in Genesis 13, but I'll put it on the screen, Genesis 18 talking about this is the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great because their sin is grievous. So the question is, in this first mention, what was their grievous and wicked sin, right? This is the account of Lot living in Sodom. And in this passage, we are told of the atrocities. It is wicked, it is grievous. What is wicked and grievous? In the beginning of this passage, Lot, you'll remember, welcomes two angels into his home and he shows them hospitality. And he says in Genesis 13 verse four, that's 13 verse four. Um, actually go over to Genesis 19 verse four, excuse me. This is 19 verse four. So he welcomed into his home and he says in just 19 verse four, before they lay down the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, What are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them to us, that we may know them. Now remember, God foiled this attempt miraculously by confounding the men outside the door and inflicting them with blindness, and then God destroyed the city with fire and brimstone. So that's the end of the story, you know. But what we're saying is, now that, they are, this is men lusting for homosexuality. That's what we would say. Now, what would those who are proponents of homosexuality say what this passage is? Because they can't ignore the fact that it is described as grievous and wicked. So what is their grievous or wicked sin? If I go to someone who's a Christian pastor, supposedly, and he's going to use this passage, what would they do? Well, they come up and they have two claims they make. Some will say that the sin of Sodom was a lack of hospitality. I'm not making this up. That's what they'll say. Now, that hardly seems to rise to the level of sinfulness, right? But they would say, well, they didn't welcome the angels in. Only Lot did. That's why Lot is spared and nobody else is. It hardly seems to rise to that level. The others will say, well, this sin of Sodom was rape. Now, there's a reason why that wouldn't work. The trouble with that explanation is that the passage indicates Lot wickedly offers his daughters but the men didn't want them. This is terrible too. There are those who will twist it to say, that's what it means, that's what it's talking about. You can't make that claim. Ezekiel 16, verses 49 and 50 puts it this way. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom. Pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters. Neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. They were haughty and committed abomination before thee. Therefore I took away as I saw good. And there are those who will use this verse to say, see, it doesn't include homosexuality. That wasn't their sin. And the reality is, they're right. You don't see homosexuality in the verse. But what this verse does say is that there was an abomination committed. So it adds to the list of the other sins an abomination. saying there was someone in front of the door, right? They're going to use this verse. I'm just telling you, this is what they're going to use. You can say, well, what was the abomination that's listed there? Go back to chapter 19. The text is clearly referring to and focusing on the sin of homosexuality, and two points in that text makes it very clear. Number one, the text that makes it clear that only the men were gathered around Lot's house. The text in Exodus 19 is very clear. Only the men were. The text is also very clear. The men did not want Lot's daughters. And by the way, the New Testament makes it further when it puts this in Jude 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around about them in like matter, giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth an example, suffering the vengeance of an eternal fire. The King James translates, going after strange flesh. And that phrase, going after strange flesh, is a Greek phrase which literally means they pursued unnatural desires. That's what they're referring to. And this unnaturalness is what Jude highlights as being the grievous sin. So even in that first mention, they can't deny it's grievous and wicked, but they've got to misconstrue it. They've got to twist it. They're going to make some pretty big leaps and bounds to come to another conclusion. How about the prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament? Is there a strong law against it in the Old Testament? Well, yeah, we would say there is. Go to Leviticus chapter 18. Leviticus has a long List of things God forbids and various kinds of sexuality, immorality are listed. And towards the end of the prohibitions in Leviticus, we read this, thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination. And that seems pretty straightforward, right? That's pretty straightforward. So you tell me, what is a common way that someone would say, you can't use that passage? What do they normally say with that kind of stuff? It's under the law, right? It's Old Testament. It's under the law. We don't talk about that. Then that's how they use it. Now in balance, homosexuality here is not singled out from among the rest of sexual sins. Look at what else is included. Just look at Luke 18. Let's be honest with the text. Look at verses 6 through 18. This is a command against incest of any kind. That's verses 16 through 18. Same chapter. Verse 20, it's a command against adultery. Verse 21, it's a command against Molech worship. What was Molech? What was the problem they were doing with Molech worship? I mean, remember, what did they do to worship Molech? They were sacrificing their children, right? Verse 22, that's the command against homosexuality. Verse 23, that's the command against bestiality. So this command is commonly objected on the grounds that one was born or created with homosexuality, right? I was born this way. God made me a homosexuality. It is my nature to be a homosexuality. It would be against my nature to be homosexual or heterosexual. And the problem is that the Bible says we are all sinners by nature. Not a single person is born without an attraction to sin. We should not say that God made the homosexuality. We could say that Adam did when he passed on the sin nature. So the one who practiced homosexuality can no more justify himself by saying, I was born this way, or I love this person, as they could say, well, any other of the things in Leviticus 18 are now OK. Well, we write off verse 22. This is Old Testament. Do we also write off all the other commands that are listed there? I hate to say it, this one's getting harder to say because our culture continually says, yeah, that's OK, too. But I'm just telling you, at least presently in 2023, I could at least make that case. Unfortunately, it's going to make it harder. It does seem to open itself more and more to that. How about the punishment for homosexuality in the Old Testament? Is there a punishment? Anybody remember what is the punishment? Stoning, go to Leviticus 20. We're in Leviticus. A few chapters later in Leviticus, it gives a consequence of homosexual activity in the Israelites, theocratic government. Leviticus 20, verse 13. If a man also will lie with mankind as he lies with women, both of them having committed an abomination, they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them. So the punishment for homosexual acts was to put to death both parties. And this is parallel passage to Leviticus 18, which seems to clarify what is meant in that passage to cut off. At the end of that passage of Leviticus 18, it says to cut off those people from their midst. So the people that committed any of the lists that were given in Leviticus 18 are to cut off. Now in chapter 20, it seems to clarify what he means by that. But again, we're reading this in the Old Testament. How does this apply to us not living in that time? We live in a different age. What do we do with that? Well, remember Ephesians 2? Let me just read it to you. I don't have it on screen. Verse 15, it says, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contain an ordinance for to make himself of twain one new man, so making peace. As with any challenging contention, this makes it difficult because there's some measure of truth when they say we don't live in Old Testament times. There is a measure of truth there. Obviously, we don't. Are there not some Old Testament laws we don't follow? Are there some we don't follow? Okay, I am wearing clothes that would indicate that I don't follow. I'm wearing woven fabric, right? Some of you men have the audacity to trim your beard corners, right? Or shave your faces. So obviously there are. So what's the way we would, what do we do with those arguments? Because is this not a common argument? Let me just ask you that. But how do we answer that? Let me help you out, because I just introduced a whole thing into this congregation. There are categorizations for Old Testament laws. There are three categories. I'll put them all on the screen, then we'll go through them. There were the civil laws. These were laws for the country. that they needed to have in order to govern the country. They were designed for the nation of Israel. They lived in a theocracy. There has only ever at this point in the Old Testament been one theocracy. One day we look forward to another one. The church, by the way, is not a theocracy yet. I heard people say that. Well, the church is a theocracy. No, it's not. The Israel government was a theocracy. What is a theocracy? ruled by god so the church is not a theocracy no why do we say that there is not a theocracy Well, I guess we'll answer that on Sunday night. Well, we can answer that in that Sunday night Billion Blocks series. But Israel was. So obviously to have a land, a nation, you need to have some laws. There were ceremonial laws. These were religious laws, because the nation of Israel had the form of right that they followed. Paul refers to it as the law being our schoolmaster that teaches us of Christ. That's the ceremonial laws that were put into practice, really, to demonstrate our need for a savior. And apart from the utilitarian purpose of those first two laws, both of these laws also looked ahead, then, to the future promise of a Messiah. And those laws go away, these first two go away, when Christ comes. Well, one goes away even when they've rejected the theocracy, right? Then God said, okay, fine, have your king, and then they get Saul. That worked out great. uh... but then they've got the ceremonial laws that goes away when paul talks about the mystery unfolded but then there were these moral law and the moral laws was the ethical dimension that is not restricted to the land of palestine and not restricted to the period of the old testament there are moral laws that are always right or wrong and you need to read libidicus with this just these distinctions in mind Look at chapter 18 again. Look at verse 3. You shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan to which I am bringing you. Don't do that. And immediately after that verse on homosexuality, it reads this, look at verse 24. Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these, the nations I am driving out before you are unclean. So these are moral laws. It doesn't matter what the time period. Just because it's in the Old Testament doesn't make it obsolete. So Christ fulfilled and ended civil and ceremonial laws. Did Christ end moral laws? Is murder always wrong? Okay, murder's always wrong. Good, we can at least start with a moral law. Okay, now what other moral laws are always wrong? Well, if they're gonna say, well, we don't follow Leviticus, just say, well, then let's go through that list. Can we go back to chapter 18? Is incest always wrong? Okay, is adultery always wrong? Okay, is Molech worship? And you could actually say the sacrificial killing of children. Is that always wrong? Okay, skip verse 22. Is bestiality always wrong? Come back to 22. Is homosexuality always wrong? You see what we're doing here? So we're using their own passages in the Old Testament, the first mention, the prohibition, the punishment, to say, yeah. Now, I want to move forward to the New Testament. Before we move to the New Testament, I want you to know one of the things that they'll still do then is they'll just detach the Old Testament from the New Testament and say, we just don't use the Old Testament. And I would say that our churches can be dangerously tiptoeing that line, but just not referencing them, not preaching through them. Obviously, we're about to preach through Ecclesiastes, so I guess we're trying to make it focus, but that is still God's Word. I hope you agree. But let's go to the New Testament here. We've spent some time in the Old Testament. Let's move to the New. There's a guy named Matthew Vines. I've referenced him in this class before during the Ask the Pastor time, because he is probably the biggest proponent of the idea that you can be a gay Christian. In fact, he is the author of the book entitled, God and the Gay Christian, subtitled, The Biblical Support of Same-Sex Relationships. Let me just read the subtitle again. The Biblical Support for Same-Sex Relationships. And the book teaches readers that the Bible condones homosexuality in a monogamous way. Here's what he says, quote, the permanence of same-sex orientation does not settle the moral questions at issue here, but we cannot adequately address those questions without acknowledging it. If you are a straight Christian, I invite you to think about your own experience with sexuality. I doubt you could come to a point when you chose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. The attraction is simply part of who you are. And so by analogy, Vines believes that his orientation is just a part of who he is. And he points to the New Testament to make his case. He actually uses the New Testament verses to prove his point. So let's look at the verses he uses and see how we would use them in response. So what about God's word on orientation? What? That's a big thing. You hear about orientation all the time. I just wired this way or whatever. Romans 1 discusses homosexuality more extensively than any other passage. So go to Romans 1. No, any other New Testament passage, I should say. Verse 26, he says this, for this cause, God gave them up unto vile affections, for even their women did change the natural use of that which is given against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one to another, men with men working that which is unceivably, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error, which was meat. but from this tax that we see homosexuality is example of god having delivered people over to their consequences you this is the consequence of what it It's clear just from the very terminology that Paul makes no suggestion what that inward orientation may be. And Paul simply states that it is the act of homosexuality itself that is a sin. And he indicates that all sexuality between members of the same gender is wrong. And Paul goes on in that passage to list 23 different sins. And Paul's indication in that passage is that all of them are wrong regardless of nature, regardless of orientation. They are all wrong. And you can't say, verse 23, and say, it doesn't apply to me because I was just wired that way. Well, it's still wrong. It doesn't matter how you feel like you're wired. I bring that up because I think we have actually built a church culture that allows for the orientation argument to work well. Because we basically say, well, I'm just kind of more naturally angry. Or I'm just more naturally anxious. Or I'm just kind of a worrier by nature. Is that not the same argument, friend? Is that not exactly the same? You can't use that argument. Ephesians 2 verse 3 says, yeah, you are. We are all by nature the children of wrath. So yeah, I guess in that sense. But just because you have a propensity to sin doesn't mean the sin can be excused. Let's just use it. You've got parent children at home. I am not as tempted to not want to share my toys with my friends as my three-year-old is, OK? Does that still mean, oh, well, it's OK. He's three. He doesn't really need to learn to share. It's just a hard line. Well, at the same time, he's not more tempted to waste time at work as I might be, all right? Does that make sense? But you can't just excuse your sin because, well, I've been oriented that way. How about God's word on final destination? We move on to the writings of Paul in our next New Testament passage. Go to 1 Corinthians 6. Paul again writing about it. Paul writes about this often. You might wonder, why is it Paul writes about homosexuality so frequently? Anyone want to take a stab at it? He's reaching the Gentiles. And there's some wicked cultures. We just turn to one, Corinth. That's not a fun history study. I'll just put it that way. It's just not a fun history study. 1 Corinthians 6, verse 9. But if they cannot contain, he says, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. And unto the married I commend, yet not I, but the Lord. Let not the wife depart from her husband. And so he continues on and he begins to outline what it is to marry And then he says this, in this passage, in 1 Corinthians. Know ye not that the, 1 Corinthians chapter six, verse, I was reading from seven, so now go back to chapter six. Verse six, chapter six, verse nine. I did wanna read seven, but then I go back to six. It's hard when it's both verse nine. All right, verse nine. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor coveters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Now there are two very important words that are used here. The words adulterers, well three, you've got adulterers, I think we understand what the context is that way. Then he says effeminate, then he says abusers of themselves with mankind. What is he referring to? Well, one translation actually combines these two words. You're holding an ESV, it will say men who practice homosexuality. Now what is, they combine the two words, but there's actually two words, it's not just one. So they combined it to convey what they believed it meant. But it's actually two different words, and it's not one. And the words, King James says effeminate, and then it has another word, abusers of themselves with mankind. So they are trying to show you and alert you to the idea that there are two words underlying the Greek text. By the way, ESVN and King James both are using the same Greek text in that verse to make their translation. It's interesting. So they made their choice. What are those two words? The one, which the King James says is effeminate, refers to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. That's what that's saying, okay? And the other word, abusers of themselves and mankind, refers to the very act of homosexuality. And there is no evidence of anything else. Here's what, what does Matthew Vines say? Because he's the guy using this passage to provoke. He says it's just referring to male prostitution. That's what he's saying. That's what these words are saying. that would be difficult to read into this text, Paul was pretty explicit. In fact, this is the kind of text you go, obviously this is an unfortunately worldly wise church. They really knew what he was saying. This is talking about homosexuality. And you ask, is this saying that a homosexual cannot go to heaven, shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Well, yes, along with all the other sins that are listed here. Now quite helpfully for us today, this is a clear statement. Let me make it really clear. Like other sins, homosexual behavior may be forgiven. Just like these other sins that are listed can be forgiven. We've got to understand that. And, since Christians have come out of such sins, they should be more desirous to share God's love with others. So it's a powerful conviction in statement. Some would say, well, wow, you guys are so harsh. No, it's actually not harsh. It's saying that if you continue to read the passage, he says, such were some of you. Let me ask you, were there homosexuals in the Church of Corinth? Yeah, former ones. Paul clearly indicates that that's what happened. Paul says, you were that way, you were gloriously transformed. Let me ask you, were there adulterers in the church of Corinth? Revilers, all of these things, sure there were, but God changed their lives. What about God's word on damnation, right? Let me hasten quickly, all right? way in his passage Paul uses again two terms we were in 1st Corinthians go to 1st Corinthians 1st Timothy Paul is very interesting when he's talking about this topic as I just showed you we don't always like dig into the Greek there I thought that was interesting though I think it's helpful he does another thing that's rather interesting in 1st Timothy chapter 1 here's what he says 1st Timothy chapter 1 verse 9 I'll put on the screen he says knowing this that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, knowing this, but for the ungodly and for sinners, for untold and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. All right, the King James translates it Them that defile themselves with mankind. And again, I just want to do an interesting study. All right? All of the major translations have the same Greek words in the same exact order in this particular verse. All of them. So what do they say? Well, King James says, men that defile themselves with mankind. They're all translating, by the way, in this particular verse, the same Greek words. New King James, which is actually using the same manuscript family, says, sodomites. That's what they were prized. So if you're reading a New King James, you're reading sodomites. If you're reading an ESV, a CSB, or a NASB, or even a lexical English Bible. Anybody ever read a lexical English Bible? It's very choppy. It literally just takes the Greek text and doesn't even attempt to make it sound nice. It just puts it in the order it came through, right? And they just call it homosexuals. That's all they say. They just read it as homosexuals. And there's also no difference between those two major text families, be they TR or critical text, they use the same words in this verse. So what are we saying when we say, men that defile themselves with mankind, what is he clearly referring to? It's very evident he is referring to homosexuality. And we have no record, by the way, of anyone else using this Greek word anywhere else but in Paul's writings. He's the only one who uses this word. And he uses it twice. Now why would Paul need to coin, by all accounts, he makes up a new word in the Greek language. Why would Paul need to make up a new word if he was referring to something that was already referred? Why is he doing this? You guys are thinking, what in the world is going on? Well, it's really interesting. Paul is coining a new term by taking two words that they already knew. And both of the two words that he uses, he combines to make this new word that appears only in Paul's writings. And he takes two other words that are used regularly in the Old Testament and marries them together for this new word. Where do you find those other two words? Are you ready for it? You find them in Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20.13. What was in Leviticus 18.22 and Leviticus 20.13? What were they talking about? Pretty evidently, homosexuality. So of course, here's the Greek translation of these verses, you combine those two words together, you have very obvious, probably the strongest evidence in this verse that the Bible is against homosexuality. What does Matthew Vines do with this verse? I'll tell you what he does. He doesn't. He'll try his best to use the other verses he I mean you there's nothing you can do with that that is so Abundantly obvious and God is talking about the damnation. It's highly interesting Paul says the bottom line Though is that Christ came into the world to save that person. That's the bottom line point So here's the question is homosexuality a sin The biblical and Christian worldview on homosexuality is that it is a sin. So let me ask some pertinent questions, because you might say, well, why does this all matter, right? But that's kind of one of the people asked. So why would we care who marries whom? Like, why does that even matter? If two consenting adults want to make commitment to each other, aren't they just right and free to do whatever they want and stop talking to them about it? And there are a number of people that'll say that. That's probably one of the bigger arguments that they'll say. Like, why do you even care? So let me ask you, why do we care? Well, number one, we care because the Bible is pretty clear that it is a sin. And we have seen this clearly laid out through numerous texts. So that's number one. I'll give you two others. Number two,