"We shouldn't have to win a theological argument to secure our civil rights"

I completely agree

So we now have to say my interpretation of a fairy tail is more perfect than your interpretation of a fairy tail. And the winner either gets civil rights or loses civil rights.

Get me off the fucking planet already!!!

Yeah, no. This is about as relevant to the real world as the Alice in Wonderland case for same-sex relationships.

The production on this video is so wonderfully campy.

Making a Biblical case for gay marriage is like making a Biblical case for Medicaid. You can argue in favor of it based on principles of righteousness and goodwill, but in the end, it will all come down to some rather derived interpretation, which will not be particularly convincing to a conceptually-entrenched opponent. Why?
Because homosexuality as we understand it was not known to the ancient Israelites, and neither was medical insurance. Their society didn't have any concept of them, and so there is nothing directly regarding them in Scripture. (The closest the Tanakh comes on those issues are the passages condemning temple prostitution/situational homosexuality and explaining how to identify leprosy respectively.)

It's misleading, I think, to say that gay men are more into commitment without monogamy than straight people are. The difference is not that gay men do it but that straight people talk openly about it less. That's the same paradox that covers much of the conversation about gay vs. straight sexuality these days -- gay men are far more open in discussing what they do and how they do it than straight people are. We know that straight people use all the same forms of sexual play we do, but they won't admit that out loud and turn, instead, to the idea that gay men doing those things together is icky or against the Bible or whatever. It would be more accurate to say that gay men are less hypocritical than most straight people, certainly less than most straight politicians.

Historically speaking, prejudice against gays was a cultural change that got incorporated into the Church. Things are just finally coming around full circle. We have a long way to go but there is progress. The ultimate goal of Christianity is supposed to be self improvement and support/love for others. If that actually happened more often, this really would be a better place to live.

"Tale," @ 2. Tale.

Unless that was supposed to be a pun.

@6 I think your missing the significance of what Mathew Vines is doing. The core of the case he is making is nothing new, Boswell (to name but one) made a lot of the same points decades ago. The difference is that Mathew is making his argument from the evangelical perspective not the progressive perspective. Yeah I know that sounds like hair splitting but that hair split is why Mathew has the fundamentalists throwing a fit.

Your right his efforts likely won't have any effect on the fundamentalist. It is however gaining traction with the evangelicals. For at least the past generation evangelicalism and fundamentalism have been fused together but they are in fact two different streams with Christianity. Dividing those streams is a good thing. It will allow the evangelicals to get out of their defensive crouch and turn towards their better selves.

This comment is the extent of my caring about "theological arguments" ... who gives a fuck?

@13 - is that you, Perd Hapley?

Feed them all to the lions and let God sort 'em out.

@kwodell Poor lions.

@12 interesting observation about the evangelicals.

My first take was who cares, he is still slut shaming and non-mongamy shaming, it's all a bunch of bronze age sand dweller nonsense anyway, but I suppose you're right, to a subset of people who believe in those bronze age sand dweller fairy tales, building a case for marriage equality based on what The Word of God (TM) really means might actually work.

Plus, he's kinda cute. Sure would like to corrupt him to the dark ways of non-monogamy Satan.

While of little interest to us heathens, less homophobic and punitive interpretations are helpful to liberal Christians (many of whom follow the "If we gave up slavery, we can give up homophobia" path) in their discussions with less accepting Christians. The haters are rarely in our orbits, but giving theological ammunition to liberal Christians for discussions with moderates is all for the good. In another decade maybe the moderates will be talking to the fundies.

But as @8 said, literal Biblical readings don't inform culture, culture dictates one's Biblical interpretations. As culture changes quickly on gay rights, more Christians will take up these meanings. A few dozen scholars might argue the Greek, Latin and Aramaic roots and definitions but the masses respond to memes and sound bites. And our sound bites are starting to gain traction.