OFFICIAL SITE
Institute of Marriage
Research & Studies
Calling Something a Marriage Does Not Make It a Marriage
SAME-SEX
Contents
- First the Sin, then Same-Sex Marriage
- Red Herring Argument: Hate the Sinner
- Same-Sex Marriage Timeline
- Percentage of LGBT Marrying
- Straight Fact: No Gay Gene
- Following the "Born Homosexual" Research
- All 47 Judges Say No to Same-Sex Marriage
- Scheme Behind the Homophobic Label
- Relating to Marriage: Builder v. Tear Downer
- Countries Same-Sex Marriage is Legal
First the Sin, then
Same-Sex Marriage
It seems there cannot be a discussion on same-sex marriage these days without someone bringing up the subject of homosexuality being a sin. The plain fact, homosexuality is a sin.
Nowhere in the Bible is there Scripture that legitimizes homosexuality. Whenever the Bible speaks of "homosexuality" it condemns it (Genesis 19:4-9; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:24-27, I Corinthians 6:9-10; and Timothy 1:9-10); in contrast the Bible consistently treats "heterosexuality" as normative (1 Corinthians 7; Ephesians 5; 1 Peter 3; et al).
Thus, from the standpoint that the Bible condemns homosexual acts (not necessarily saying homosexual temptations are sinful) how should homosexuals (especially those who want to follow God’s Word) address it?
There are all sorts of sins and everyday people, whether or not they intend to, commit sin. So, how should homosexuals who acknowledge homosexual acts as sinful address it; and if that can be addressed in all fairness, then maybe with the same degree of honestly we can discuss same-sex marriage.
Breakdown
Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
July 2025
Andorra (2023) Parliament in the small mountainous country between France and Spain voted to legalize same-sex marriage.
Argentina (2010) First country in Latin America to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Australia (2017) Voters supported legalizing same-sex marriage 62% to 38% in a nonbinding nationwide referendum.
Austria (2019) A court ruling in 2017 eventually led to the change.
Belgium (2003) Second country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage after its neighbor, the Netherlands.
Brazil (2013) About half of Brazil’s 27 jurisdictions had allowed same-sex marriage until a court ruling made it legal nationwide.
Canada (2005) Same-sex marriage was legal in a majority of Canada’s provinces before Parliament passed national legislation.
Chile (2022) Sixth South American country to legalize same-sex marriage.
Colombia (2016) Colombia’s Constitutional Court legalized same-sex marriage by a 6-3 vote.
Costa Rica (2020) First Central American country to legalize same-sex marriage.
Cuba (2022) Legalization of same-sex marriage was part of a broader referendum on family law that passed by a 67% to 33% vote.
Denmark (2012) Same-sex marriage became legal through a separate process in Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, in 2016.
Ecuador (2019) A court ruling made Ecuador the fifth South American country to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Estonia (2024) The law amended 2016 legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions and made Estonia the first Baltic country to legalize same-sex marriage.
Finland (2017) The law, passed by Parliament in 2014, started out as a “citizens’ initiative” – a public petition with nearly 167,000 signatures. It came into effect in 2017.
France (2013) Then-President François Hollande signed the law after an unsuccessful court challenge.
Germany (2017) Legislation passed after then-Chancellor Angela Merkel said members of her ruling Christian Democratic Union should vote their conscience even though the party formally opposed same-sex marriage.
Greece (2024) First majority-Orthodox Christian nation to legalize same-sex marriage.
Iceland (2010) After the law took effect, the country’s prime minister at the time, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, wed her longtime partner, Jónína Leósdóttir, becoming one of the first Icelanders to marry under the statute.
Ireland (2015) First country to legalize same-sex marriage through a popular referendum, with 62% of Irish voters in favor.
Liechtenstein (2025) A same-sex marriage bill passed in the country’s parliament and received a royal assent from Prince Alois in 2024. The law took effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
Luxembourg (2015) The bill was championed by the country’s former prime minister, Xavier Bettel, who is openly gay.
Malta (2017) Parliament voted almost unanimously to legalize same-sex marriage.
Mexico (2022) Same-sex marriage eventually became legal nationally after the Supreme Court declared state bans unconstitutional in 2015.
Nepal (2024) An interim Supreme Court order led to Nepal’s first federally registered same-sex marriage in 2023. However, local officials reportedly weren’t consistent in following that order. In 2024, the federal government directed all local governments to register same-sex marriages. While gay and lesbian couples can marry, there is not yet a marriage equality law on the books.
Netherlands (2001) First country to legalize same-sex marriage after its Parliament passed the law in December 2000.
New Zealand (2013) First country in the Asia-Pacific region to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Norway (2009) The law replaced a 1993 statute permitting civil unions.
Portugal (2010) Portugal’s Parliament passed a measure allowing same-sex marriage, which was approved by the Constitutional Court.
Slovenia (2022) First country in formerly communist Eastern Europe to legalize same-sex marriage.
South Africa (2006) Only African country where same-sex marriage is legal; several countries on the continent have passed laws in recent years that ban homosexuality.
Spain (2005) Third country globally to legalize same-sex marriage after a vote in its closely divided Parliament.
Sweden (2009) Gay and lesbian couples in Sweden previously had been allowed to register for civil unions since 1995.
Switzerland (2022) Nearly two-thirds of Swiss voters (64%) cast ballots in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in a 2021 referendum.
Taiwan (2019) A court ruling prompted a change in the law that made Taiwan the first jurisdiction in Asia to permit gay and lesbian couples to wed.
Thailand (2025) Thailand became the first nation in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage on Jan. 23, 2025. The law passed in the National Assembly and received royal assent from King Maha Vajiralongkorn in 2024.
United Kingdom (2014) Legal same-sex marriage took effect in Northern Ireland in 2020, six years after the change in England and Wales. Separate legislation was enacted in Scotland in 2014.
United States (2015) Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia had legalized same-sex marriage before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees it throughout the country.
Uruguay (2013) Second Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage, following Argentina.
________________________
Pew Research Center
Same-Sex Marriage Around the World
www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/same-sex-marriage-around-the-world/
Same-Sex Marriage Timeline
For an excellent timeline of how same-sex marriage progressed; see Gay Marriage Timeline: History of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, ProCon.org, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000030#2012-present.
Straight Fact:
No Gay Gene
A few years back numerous media outlets and print publications reported on a study by UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun, wherein he asserted the identification of "epigenetic markers" intricately associated with male homosexuality—an observation occasionally, though erroneously, dubbed the “gay gene.”
The study was promptly met with skepticism by William Rice, an evolutionary geneticist affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara. Subsequent proceedings at the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) 2015 Annual Meeting vindicated Rice’s reservations, casting doubt upon the initial claims.
Reporting from the press release by ASHG, the Daily Wire wrote that "the study been misrepresented in a way that led many publications to announce that a 'gay gene' had been found." Media Misrepresent Gay Gene Study without Contacting Lead Author, The Daily Wire, October 17, 2015; see also, No, Scientists Have Not Found the Gay Gene: The Media is Hyping a Study that Doesn’t Do What it Says it Does, The Atlantic, October 10, 2015.
The Daily News went on to say: “But accuracy is not what the study was proving. In fact, the study was proving the opposite of what the public was led to believe: that there is no gay gene.”
Unfortunately, such an unvarnished truth proved intolerable to the sensibilities of those ensconced in political correctness, for its acknowledgment would necessitate conceding that young boys who don cosmetics are not, by dint of biology, inherently homosexual—they remain, quite simply, young boys adorned with makeup. Such a revelation would erode the very foundations of the so-called "gay community" and cast aspersions upon the authenticity of countless men who assert their homosexuality as an immutable identity.
A mere week prior to the convening of the conference, Dr. Ngun—an avowed homosexual—resigned from his post at the laboratory.
Following the
"Born Homosexual"
Research
The absence of a "gay gene" raises a pertinent inquiry: does this also imply that no individual is inherently homosexual? This is not only a legitimate question, but also a logical corollary to consider.
Whilst earlier studies, particularly those conducted during an era where political expediency often took precedence over factual accuracy in research on the subject, suggested that certain individuals are indeed born with a homosexual orientation, more recent investigations appear to be yielding contradictory evidence, indicating an alternative trajectory.
Numerous recent publications have indicated that no scientific evidence exists to support the notion that individuals are born homosexual.
For example: "Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the 'born that way' hypothesis, simply are not supported by science" Looking Back on How Science Has Progressed in Sexuality and Gender, Genetic Literacy Project, Sept. 9, 2016; see also, Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences, The New Atlantis, Journal of Technology & Society, No. 50, Fall 2016, page 7).
"Regardless of its political worth, the “born this way” paradigm is not backed up by sufficient scientific data" Gay People Not "Born That Way," Sexual Orientation Not Fixed, RT Report, August 23, 2016.
NOTE: This is worth following and in doing so it is anticipated in the future there will be a need to revise this article, as new research going beyond these preliminary findings continues.
ADDENDUM
October 2017
A summary study authored by Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence Mayer of Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine in Baltimore, Md., titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings From the Biological, Psychological and Social Science” reports among other things: (1) people identified as LGBT are not born that way, yet biological sex is innate; (2) gender identity is an elusive concept, and so transgender people do not exist; and (3) it is harmful to so-called confused children to offer them transgender treatment and societal accommodations. Instead, they need non-surgical intervention. See, www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf; and www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender. Immediately the LGBT community deemed the summary study controversial, www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/hrc-sets-sights-johns-hopkins-after-controversial-sexuality-gender-report-n641501; which then opposition pushed back, www.lifesitenews.com/news/editors-push-back-after-gay-adovcacy-group-attacks-journal-over-homosexual. More recently the study was successfully used in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, in Deirdre Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, U.S. Supreme Court No. 16-273. See, www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16-273-amicus-petitioner-mchugh.pdf.
Red Herring Argument:
Hate the Sinner
The notion—particularly directed at Christians who oppose same-sex marriage—that divine mandate compels them to harbor animosity toward all homosexual individuals is, at its most charitable, an absurdity born of profound ignorance. More often, however, it serves as a deliberate red herring, a specious diversion from the substantive matter at hand.
When deployed as such a fallacy—intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate—it frequently arrives accompanied by argumentum ad hominem, wherein the personal character of an individual expressing a viewpoint is assailed, rather than the merits of the position itself.
The red herring argument is also analogous to proffering a blanket assertion in the hopes that it will be deemed veracious, or, in essence, perpetuating a stereotype. This phenomenon is likewise concomitant with the actions of a hypocrite, as the argument itself is predicated on stereotyping others.
It is reminiscent of those who vociferously decry intolerance, yet themselves exhibit the most egregious forms of intolerance (or bigotry); and who do not hesitate to employ pejorative labels such as "homophobia", which constitutes another fallacious trope. Refer to this page, Scheme Behind the "Homophobic" Label.
Regrettably, some individuals mistakenly assume that Christians are compelled by their faith to harbor animosity toward homosexuals, a belief often rooted in misinformation which they may genuinely accept as fact.
However, what the Bible actually condemns is homosexual conduct—not the inclination itself; for even Christ endured temptation, yet temptation does not constitute transgression. As countless Evangelicals, Christians, and like-minded individuals affirm: “Cherish the sinner, yet abhor the sin." This distinction stands as the prevailing Christian doctrine—and, indeed, the biblical mandate—embracing compassion while upholding moral conviction.
Regrettably, even the acceptance of same-sex marriage proves insufficient for many of its proponents, who insist that Christians must surrender completely and offer unequivocal endorsement. Naturally, such a demand would necessitate disregarding the teachings of the Bible. Consequently, a mindset rooted in fallacy and diversionary arguments persists for numerous individuals, often at the expense of a more enlightened perspective.
Scheme Behind the
Homophobic Label
Merely attempting to discuss same-sex marriage—while expressing disagreement and presenting your reasoning—often provokes the immediate accusation of homophobia, frequently directed at you personally.
It has been suggested that the recent emergence of the term "homophobia" conceals an agenda to foster discrimination and incite animosity. Let us examine this claim.
Initially, it becomes apparent that the term "homophobia" is derived from "homo," denoting homosexual, and "phobia," connoting fear. However, the designation is seldom utilized in a manner that accurately reflects its etymological origins. Rather, it is frequently employed by homosexuals and others as a means of intimidation or deterrence, aimed at discouraging individuals from scrutinizing their behavior, and to accuse those who oppose certain concepts, such as same-sex marriage, of doing so out of ignorance or hatred.
In an effort to legitimize homosexuality within American culture, the term "homophobia" was devised as a pejorative label to be applied to those who dissent from the homosexual agenda. This was intended to portray such individuals as irrational and hostile toward homosexual individuals. The underlying aim was to imbue the term with negative emotional associations, thereby enabling its use to accuse opponents of the homosexual agenda of baseless prejudice and discrimination.
Undeniably, holding reservations regarding certain tenets of the homosexual political platform—such as opposition to same-sex marriage—does not inherently signify either ignorance or animosity toward homosexual individuals. Yet the prevailing narrative increasingly suggests that endorsement of same-sex marriage has become obligatory, with dissenters facing immediate stigmatization as homophobic.
Disapproving of same-sex marriage does not necessarily connote an irrational fear of individuals, but rather a moral, religious, or personally motivated objection to the concept itself, whereas the term "homophobia" is often perceived as a pejorative epithet, tantamount to mere name-calling.
Relating to Marriage:
Builder v. Tear Downer
Advocates of same-sex marriage have been questioned as to why they choose to dismantle rather than construct, and why they seek to redefine the concept of "marriage" instead of establishing a parallel, equivalent institution. The central contention in this discourse revolves around their insistence on altering the historically rooted and divinely ordained understanding of marriage, imposing this reinterpretation upon society at large—when they might just as readily create an arrangement such as a "civil union" or another designation, endowed with identical legal rights and safeguards as marriage.
Countries Same-Sex
Marriage is Legal
Last Updated
July 2025
A total of 39 out of 193 nations acknowledged by the United Nations have instituted legislation permitting same-sex marriage, although certain observers also consider Vatican City, represented by the Holy See, and Palestine as sovereign states, which are not included in this enumeration. The countries wherein same-sex marriage has been legalized are:
1. Netherlands (2001)
2. Belgium (2003)
3. Spain (2005)
4. Canada (2005)
5. South Africa (2006)
6. Norway (2009)
7. Sweden (2009)
8. Portugal (2010)
9. Iceland (2010)
10. Argentina (2010)
11. Denmark (2012)
12. Brazil (2013)
13. France (2013)
14. Uruguay (2013)
15. New Zealand (2013)
16. United Kingdom (2014)*
17. Luxembourg (2015)
18. United States (2015)
19. Greenland (2016)
20. Colombia (2016)
21. Finland (2017)
22. Germany (2017)
23. Malta (2017)
24. Australia (2017)
25. Austria (2019)
26. Taiwan (2019)
27. Ecuador (2019)
28. Costa Rica (2020)
29. Switzerland (2022)
30. Chile (2022)
31. Cuba (2022)
32. Slovenia (2022)
33. Mexico (2022)
34. Andorra (2023)
35. Greece (2024)
36. Estonia (2024)
37. Nepal (2024)
38. Liechtenstein (2025)
39. Thailand (2025)
* United Kingdon including England, Scottland and Ireland.
On January 9, 2018, the illustrious Inter-American Court of Human Rights rendered a landmark judgment affirming the legitimacy of matrimony between individuals of the same sex—a verdict poised to resonate across some twenty sovereign nations.
This judicial pronouncement arose from a formal petition tendered in two thousand and sixteen by the Republic of Costa Rica, which, in a demonstration of juridical deference, has pledged adherence to the ruling and is anticipated to enact its provisions in due course.
For the remaining IACHR member states that currently do not recognize same-sex marriage, it remains to be seen whether they will adhere to the ruling. These nations include Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Suriname.
All 47 Judges Say "No"
to Same-Sex Marriage
On June 9, 2016, in Chapin and Charpentier v. France No. 40183/07, 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which make up the full Court of Strasbourg (also referred to as the World Court of Human Rights) ruled there is no right to same-sex marriage.
The ruling was an unanimous vote among the 47 judges, and the decision based on a number of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law.
Both of the petitioners were French nationals.
The case has no legal authority in the United States, though courts may take it under consideration if offered by a party to a civil case.
www.humanrightscommission.ky/upimages/publicationdoc/12321127_1468610547_1468610547.PDF
www.lifesitenews.com/…/european-human-rights-court-rejects-…
www.humanrightseurope.org/…/france-judges-reject-same-sex-…/
OFFICIAL SITE