As Christians navigate the contemporary ethical landscape, there is probably no topic that arises more frequently than that of sexuality and gender. Amid Christian attempts to navigate these contemporary issues with biblical fidelity, there have been a variety of recent scholars who utilize some form of a “trajectory” or “redemptive-movement” hermeneutic to argue for a biblical basis for same-sex unions. The use of trajectory hermeneutics have long been debated, and they are often criticized for their lack of grounding in the person and work of Christ, leading Kevin Vanhoozer to pointedly ask “Whose text is it anyway?” This criticism is even more warranted towards those who would attempt to utilize a trajectory hermeneutic to justify same-sex unions. This paper engages with the work of James V. Brownson, who provides a particularly canonical and eschatologically-minded example of an attempt to apply a trajectory hermeneutic to the allowance of same-sex unions in his 2013 work “Bible, Gender, and Sexuality.” While his work has been around for a little over a decade, its methodology helped lay a foundation for the biblical arguments for same-sex unions that persist today. This paper will also engage with the work of Chrisopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, who provide a popular level yet more contemporary application of a trajectory hermeneutic to the question of same-sex unions in their attention-garnering work, “The Widening of God’s Mercy.” Responding to these key voices in the field, this paper will utilize the work of scholars such as Kevin Vanhoozer, Oliver O’Donovan, and Danielle Treweek to critique the christological insufficiencies of the arguments of Brownson and the Hayses. Ultimately, this paper argues that a hermeneutic and eschatology that is sufficiently grounded in the person and work of Christ precludes a biblical argument for same-sex unions.