Thursday, December 4 2025

While puttering around in my email, I discovered an old unpublished blog post. This is dated from the summer of 2014 a few weeks before I got married. I was twenty-three. The first supreme court ruling about gay marriage had landed and a lot of people were talking about it. While this topic riled me up enough to write about it, I didn't have the guts to publish it. My wedding coming right around the corner, and I was afraid of stirring things up before seeing everyone.

I feel such a funny mixture of emotions reading this again. The "smartest guy in the room" energy is so thick, it bludgeons me in the face with cringe. But once I manage to put all the embarrassment aside, I feel... I don't know - nostalgic? I miss feeling things like this so deeply. I miss writing with so much piss and vinegar. Being honest, I'm also a little proud that I was grappling with this topic so honestly in 2014. I can honestly say that purely on principles, I feel the same over 11 years later.

This entry would have made quite a splash in 2014. But 2025 is just as good. Better late than never, right?

There are some problems with the way Christians argue against gay marriage. No - I'm not coming out. I just think we need to have a good meta-discussion.

Why do you always have to be right?

I tend to upset people whenever I want to talk about something serious, and to my chagrin, it wasn't until my early twenties that I began to understand why. My tendency to wind people around the axles of silly conversations time after time perplexed me, especially since I never considered myself much of an enforcer, a pighead, or generally a dick.

I can control myself when someone expresses an opinion different from my own. I can't stop myself from pointing out when things aren't working.

There's an important distinction there, and if you saw it there would be no need for you to flip me off.

When this happens, I'm on your side. I'm don't wake up and decide to show as many people how stupid they are as I can (that would be a pitiful conquest anyway, being pretty stupid myself). I'm fighting for you. I get myself into trouble when I point out things that simply aren't working for you.

I hope this is serving as a gospel those affected by people who do the same. I speak for all wikipedia- thumping neck beards when I say we aren't really concerned with being 'right'. We usually just want you to be right - and more importantly - consistent.

Things that aren't working with the gay marriage debate

Luckily, for what I'd like to talk about, this might come in handy. When it comes to the right for homosexuals to marry, there is no shortage of opinions. Unfortunately, as we share what we believe, we repeat ourselves, generalize others, and petrify anything we have to say with all the socially awkward furry months of sheltered single-sided misrepresented discussion can provide us. I don't know if I can take it anymore. To those who oppose a homosexual's right to marry - there are some things about your argument that just aren't working.

I have purposefully set out to obfuscate what I actually think. I don't want this entry to be just another voice in a sea of meandering voices. For a moment, let's take our eyes off the scoreboard. Let's stop treating the debate for homosexual rights in America like it's the Stanley Cup. I'm going to charge you with the responsibility of reading this carefully. If you actually care about this kind of thing, I implore you to give reasonable discernment to what I am actually trying to say - knowing that I am not going to willingly provide my stance. I'm serious. If anyone responds to this treating it like a pro gay marriage rant, I hereby give anyone the right to embarrass you with a quippy GIF.

Let's dig in. Remember, I'm not setting out to show anyone how dumb they are. I'm just urging people to remain conscientious and consistent.

Setting the scope

Before I begin, I'd like to draw a thin red line around everything I'm intentionally addressing. Depending on what you are arguing about, failing to define you argument's scope can either destroy your chances of winning or purchase them. Either way, losing on the grounds of a noodly scope is not a fun way to end a conversation.

Here is my scope: Should consenting, homosexual adults be allowed to legally marry?

As a warning, I am not talking about whether or not it should be allowed in the Christian church. I have not set out to magically clarify the role of the church in celebrating, tolerating, or eradicating same-sex love, and I don't see acknowledging the weight of that much bigger debate as a weakness. I'll be honest - I'm still figuring it out.

I do, however, want to address three arguments the Christian church resorts to in answering the above "scope" question.

1. "The Bible condemns homosexuals"

The first argument that isn't working is the idea that the Bible outright condemns it.

As a reminder, I'm not trying to convince you it doesn't. I would be happy if I witnessed a Facebook Christian acknowledge that it's tricky. Every passage we can site is either a working definition of sexual promiscuity or juxtaposed with the protocol of Biblical polygamy. If I have offended you by merely introducing the murkiness of modern day interpretation, maybe I can win you back by getting you to admit that this is not a no-brainer.

If condemning the tendency to same-sex love were truly outlined in the Bible as clearly as, say, lying to a judge, we wouldn't be talking about it. That is why this argument is simply not working.

It would also be helpful to acknowledge that these dark, shadowy false-prophets who somehow infer that the Bible advocates same-sex marriage are not really barricaded in the Deep Web or living underneath Nietzsche's backyard. I guarantee you they are delivering your mail, managing your finances, and maybe even leading a small group at church. There's no harm in being sensitive.

It would also be helpful to acknowledge the apologetic leverage you abuse when you make a statement like "the Bible condemns homosexuals". While you let your opponent do all the dirty work on parsing ancient Greek, studying past cultures, and tediously addressing every possible verse that could be under the hood of your gas-guzzling argument, you can just simply sit back and wag your finger when she is done.

2. "We cannot let homosexuals redefine marriage"

Now for me, there is no ambiguity needed here. This argument has been already copy-pasted to death on my facebook feed. Apparently, homosexuals are out to redefine marriage, and Christians cannot let them.

Planning a wedding myself, I am very familiar with what a marriage legally is. One thing I find amusing about the process is that it all comes down to a marriage license. We go through all the trouble of hand-picking a thousand flowers, hemming a dress that's more expensive than the computer I'm typing on, and throwing a party for 200 people of which I cannot guarantee I know their names - and the only thing the USA cares about is the license.pdf I saved on my dropbox three months ago. If you wanted to, you could have a televised ceremony on the International space station officiated by Gary Busey, and by the time you get back to earth, the only thing that will prove anything to the department of motor vehicles is the marriage license.

Clearly, the church doesn't hand out licenses, which is why I think it's curious that so many Christians think it's their administrative responsibility to govern whose names make it to marriage_license.pdf.

I'm only curious as to why it's so many. You may continue to believe Christians define marriage - but I want you to know that you are standing for something bigger.

If you are outraged at the church's slipping influence over a legal marriage, then you should be arguing against the separation of church and state. True to its form, this argument states that citizens of the USA may declare any religion they are motivated by, but the Christian church takes precedent over the morality of our our country's legislation. In short, though a Muslim man may marry an atheist woman, their union must still be ultimately approved by the Christian church.

You may oppose the separation of church and state if you wish - I won't be offended by this. I will be offended by anyone who believes in a religiously neutral government that still mourns the injustice of marriage being redefined. That is why this argument isn't working. It's confusing when you set out to argue that the Christian church is still important to our legislation and you begin that weighty discussion with gay marriage. If you are going to talk to someone about this, make sure you begin by making that unforgivably clear. Better yet, if you believe America was founded as a Christian nation and that the Christian church should not be separated from the legislation of the states, leave the gay marriage fiasco and join the real fight. You are wasting your time on this front.

3. "Allowing gays to marry is a slippery slope"

Watch this video. Please only watch up to about 1:10 and spare yourself the commentary. The video is of Pat Robertson outlining his worries with budging on homosexual marriage [LINK].

If you bothered looking at the comments, I am sure it did not take you long to realize this argument is not working. It would not be a risky wager to bet that pretty much nobody was spurred with a reflection that went something like "He is right. It is unfair for me to ask my country to change its definition of marriage." I am sure most people were still trying to process the excerpt about having sex with a duck.

The argument that allowing gays to marry with open the floodgates to an age of sexual perversion that the Phillistines would envy is not working. Here's why:

No one like's being compared to a child molester or a... well... duck guy. Pat Robertson's bizarre list of examples were all inescapably distinct from the premise of gay marriage. But lumping it in with other freaky kinks is a cheap tactic known by debaters as a straw man.

In a straw man argument, you erect an argument that is obviously faulty and try to impress the audience by hacking it down to pieces - all while relying on the implied confidence that the straw men you hastily set up accurately reflects the view of your opponent.

Just comparing the partitions of time devoted to each step in the process, it is easy to see why this is regarded as a logical fallacy. Setting up the straw man happens in no more than a breath - it is usually finished before the orator has finished a sentence. The takedown, however, is deliberate and lengthy - and it is only impressive if you have placed uttermost confidence on the fact that the opposing view has been delicately preserved in the opening dependent clause of whatever the guy said five sentences ago.

You cannot just include the right for gays to marry with the right for child molesters, rapists, and zoological predators to have their way with their victims. If this argument has ever gone well, it is because everyone already agrees with you. It is your sin that you are just dumbing down their own perspective - diluting their understanding with argument "pornography" and anything else classed as a "shower debate" (i.e., arguments you win every morning in the shower).

Additionally, where did the idea that laws cannot change come from? Why would modifying an American sanction suddenly give way to a hoard of problems? The founding fathers had a tough job, starting a country and all. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they may have failed to account for some thing when they first, you know, started a new country. These were the same people that thought slaves fairly deserve 3/5ths of a vote. It may have made sense at the time in their heads, but changing a law for the sake of what was happening in culture didn't give rise to people demanding 2X and 3X and negative votes. The rejection of changes for fear of losing purity is a practice that is honored no where in the working world. Any foreman or boss would expect a reasonable explanation for why things shouldn't change - or at least one better than a straw man argument

If you still need convincing, I'm giving you a bit of homework to do. Talk to an actual gay person - everyone knows one, right? Just sit and listen to someone's life story for a bit. You don't have to trick them into it or something. Just be honest. Tell them that you have never heard a gay person's perspective on gay rights. You don't have to change what you believe. Ultimately, there is no good reason why you cannot do this. We all could benefit from associating a human voice with the straw man we beat rip apart nightly on facebook. I am sure you will discover that most gay people aren't just in it for the kicks. The stuggle for gay rights in America is not just a game to see if they can ultimately openly romance farm animals in the streets on Sunday morning. Love is still love, and love lost still sucks. People's emotions are real, whether you feel they are coming from an inherit sinful liberty or not.

A final warning

As a final warning, I would like to point out something different about the age we live in. Some of you still know your great grandparents. People this old will admittedly make us cringe when the use the phrase colored people or worse. Their intentions may be sweet and innocent - a product of their time or what-not - but just imagine the grief we would feel if we could read our ancestors' facebook posts during the Jim Crow laws or the Holocaust. Imagine what it would be like knowing what every one of your ancestors was "into" every day of the Nazi uprising.

I don't mean to compare the debate for gay rights in America to the Nazi uprising or racially driven lynchings (for fear of setting up a straw man of my own). I only mean to point out the grave fact that our children will know more about us than any generation has in history. Every impassioned post and endorsed article will be preserved beyond your years. You won't have the privilege of simply being a sweet, ignorant elder. It is very likely that you will have to answer to everything you believed in in your twenties because your great-great grandchildren will be able to read it for themselves.

Please think about what you say. If you are going to echo the words of something that stirs you up, make sure you read it over to make sure it's worth defending in 50 years. No one ever looks bad for listening, learning, and understanding. You are just as wise in God's eyes as you are in Karl Marx's when you take the time to expose yourself to the human element of whatever opposes you.