I Get Mail – Against Marriage

This was sent in by a reader for me to cover and in light of the gay marriage debate in the USA, I figured I should weigh in.

This comes in from Life in the Liturgy which is a blog written by Samuel Stanton who appears to be either a priest or a priest to be.

I am not one to voice my political opinions on any form of social media, but given the circumstances and the topic, I would like to share my thoughts. There has been a lot of buzz going around on almost every form of media about the fight for “equality” in the legalization of same-sex marriage. There has been hurtful things said on both sides of the issue that have been rooted in hate and ignorance. By the grace of God, I hope that I can respond in love and speak truth with grace. I am not trying to create a “new truth” that we can all agree on, rather I want to look back to the absolute truth that has been revealed to us in God’s holy scriptures thousands of years ago. I also know that truth will frequently divide people, however I know that as people embrace the truth of the gospel the power of God unites us in Christ. My prayer is that we would humble ourselves under the word of God and turn to the truth of the gospel to find that God has loved us beyond measure.

Firstly? The god you believe in is Jehovah. And yes this is hurtful but hurtful in the same way that telling a child that there is no Santa is hurtful. We are removing a fantasy that has stopped being adorable. And unlike Santa, this is a fantasy that’s harming people. And while claiming that you are responding with love and speak with grace you are ignoring the fact that you are speaking hurtfully and entrenched in bigotry and hate.

Your usage of Leviticus to influence secular law is frankly appalling and shows a double standard to which all Christians adhere to when they utilise Leviticus to oppress the GLBT. I shall respond with “Leviticus says you can own slaves and tells you which people you can own as slaves”. Now either the “Absolute Truth” is unchanging and Jehovah is a slave holder (Which is entirely possible considering the genocide and slavery he exhorts his followers to as a character) or the truth is not absolute and we have recognised that Leviticus is incorrect and that owning slaves is incorrect despite what Jehovah says.

The point is we have grown above and beyond the morality of 2000 years ago. In fact blind adherence to such morality has harmed human progress more than it has helped.

As I look through the scriptures, I only see God endorse marriage between one man and one woman. In Genesis chapter 2, God creates Adam, the first of mankind. God sees that man is not good alone so he creates Eve, his wife. God says that she is a helper who is fit for Adam. I think the word “fit” has some very interesting implications. If you look at the anatomy of a male and a female you would notice the biggest difference in their reproductive organs. When a man and woman come together they are connected as if they were pieces of a puzzle perfectly fit for one another. You would also notice that Adam needs Eve, and Eve needs Adam, if they are going to carry out the cultural mandate that God gave them, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Okay. This claim only works if you believe in the literal creation of the universe by Jehovah in 7 days which is demonstrably false considering evolution is required.

And the male and female genitalia also fit perfectly because of evolution rather than due to divinity. I can argue for this in two separate ways.

1. Argument of Perfect Design – The male and female HUMAN genitalia is fine. There is nothing explicitly bizarre about them. However? Your god claims to have made other animals and their genitalia is often a realm of unending horror. Dogs for example have a massive swelling at the base of the penis which locks the penis into the vagina. Cats have hooked/barbed penises that actually damage the vagina. What sort of a sane loving god that you claim designed the human vagina and penis with such loving forethought also designed such geigeresque terrors,  the sort of which would terrify Sigmund Freud into catatonia.

2. Argument of Perfect Fit – This goes back to Ray Comfort’s Banana Argument. The Banana is also perfectly shaped for other things. Oral and Anal sex are things and before you clutch your pearls in biblical fervour remember the argument of “fit” and pleasure means that these are equally acceptable since that’s what you were arguing on.

The fact of the matter is not that this was designed to fit but that’s how our evolution fit them together. Remember, the male and female urethra are both linked to their reproductive tracts. What sort of god would utilise the reproductive tract for waste disposal?

Again! This is all based on the concept that god not only exists but is called Jehovah and hates the GLBT. And be fruitful and multiply can also mean “Sit your arse down and do mathematics and educate yourself”. Or you know. The overpopulation of the Biblical era was hard to accomplish due to the massive mortality rate of infants and children so even if you had 7 or 8 kids most would die growing up, so uncontrolled breeding wasn’t particularly harmful to the environment. However in the modern world such a policy is foolish and indeed harmful to society. 

Right before the end of Genesis 2, God defines marriage. Not a definition from man, but God. God tells us his original design for marriage, and because he invented it, he gets to tell us how it works. He says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” From this text, it is clear that marriage consists of one man and one woman.

Wait so the original demand for marriage involves effectively marrying your twin sister? Your clone?

And which myth are we to follow? Genesis 1 where Jehovah created Man and Woman or Genesis 2 where he created just Man and later created woman. Are we to assume both are true and utilise Lilith to make it all fit? The first Feminist and Mother of Monsters?

Except for the fact marriage pre-dates the writings of the Hebrew by a greater period of time than the existence of all the Abrahamic Faiths. And biblical marriage has been everything from rape victims marrying their rapists, concubines and multiple wives and at no point did “god” come down and say “WTF is this”.

Also? If god thinks all animals come in twos then the author of the Bible is completely unaware of even  the most basic of animal existence. Permanent monogamy (Humans and er… Swans?) is a very rare thing in nature. Most animals are either serial monogamists (tigers) OR polygamous with one male having many female mates (lions).

Like how sheep and cows function. What? Did they too sin and their glorious monogamy end up as debased polygamy?

Shortly after that passage, everything that God created, the purpose and design, gets distorted because of sin. Sin came into the world because man rebelled against the design of the creator. Bad things happened then and bad things continue to happen because of Adam and Eve’s decision to rebel against God. All you need to do is read a few chapters in Genesis to see that mankind is screwed up. Cain kills his brother, Abel. Polygamy begins shortly after, which is also rebellion against God’s design for marriage. Abraham himself, the father of the faith, rebels against God’s design of marriage and takes for himself two wives. It is important to understand that God doesn’t tell us this in scripture to justify us in our sin, he tells us this so we can know that he chooses to use sinful people to bring about his glorious purposes. The problems with the design of marriage don’t end there, polygamy and other marriage related sins continue into the next generations.

In every faith the acquisition of knowledge has been seen as a good thing. The Greek gods did not punish Mankind for using Fire. They punished Prometheus. The Hindu gods have festivals dedicated to knowledge.

You know for all the screwing up that happened at no point does your Jehovah explicitly say “Monogamy Only”. What you are doing is implying that monogamy is the way forward by backwards compatibility. We are monogamous today so you are excusing all the non-monogamous bits. And if we analyse the Cain and Abel story we run into more issues such as where the fuck does Cain actually get his wife?

And how does it explain rape and that whole “kill them all, except the sexy sexy virgins” exhortations from Jehovah? Did mankind’s alleged sin of “Learning” also make Jehovah an epic wanker? Just saying that if you want to argue a pure plot point based argument about Jehovah then you have to consider his actions too.

I hope you can see that rebellion against God’s marriage design isn’t a new thing. Because of our sin, humanity has struggled with this for ages past. We are not facing a new issue. What happened back then was people conforming to the patterns of their culture and that led them into sin. We are doing the same at this very moment. Culture is telling us that we need to rethink the design of marriage in order to move forward as nation and as the human race. They say this is the next step for equality for all people. Culture is making a push to move away from God’s perfect design of marriage and create their own design that is “better.” This is at the root of what culture is doing and it has been that way since sin has entered the world.

If marriage is a purely religious Christian organisation (which it isn’t since Hindus get married just fine without any invocation of Jehovah but I am sure that’s down to the Tower of Babel and what have you) then by the establishment clause of the USA it cannot be supported by the government.

Culture also told us that the colour of your skin doesn’t matter, that women are equal to men and that owning people like one owns a chair is wrong. Shall we go back to what Jehovah said about owning people or are we to assume that culture was right about that?

In Matthew chapter 19, Jesus himself repeats the same words that God gave us in Genesis 2. Later on in Ephesians 5, Paul reinforces God’s original design for marriage by quoting that very same passage. Paul is addressing the married couples as “husbands” and “wives.” There isn’t a clause in there for husbands and husbands or wives and wives. He is simply restating that marriage is designed by God and it is for one man and one woman. However, the most important thing that we look at is how marriage points to Christ and the Church.

No its not.

Marriage is a cultural development and an evolutionary advantage which allows humans to allocate breeding rights which prevents competition which allows humans to work together rather than spend time worrying about inter-group violence for the right to breed.

In the book of Revelation, we see a wedding taking place. The Lamb, Jesus Christ, is taking a bride dressed in fine, pure white linens, the Church. This is the wedding of all weddings and it is between one man and his bride. God tells us clearly in scripture that marriage is for one man and one woman. He tells us that in the Old Testament when he created marriage and he tells us that again in the New Testament to show us that he hasn’t changed his mind. This means that polygamy and same-sex marriage are both rebellion against God’s original design. They have been from the beginning and will always be.

Yet Jehovah never explicitly mentions that. You are making a lot of inference from a single “action” in the Bible which completely contrasts the tone where God was giving mad props to various polygamous people such as David. Also? There is this.

He mentions his hatred of people who eat owls (and Eagles, Kites, Ravens and Pelicans and Comorants) and goes on about delicious grasshoppers yet at no point does he turn around from this list of “Birds That Do Not Taste Nice” and say “Also? Marriage is for one man and one woman” and “Slavery is Totally Unacceptable”.

One’s priorities seem to be rather warped here.

Marriage is a common grace with restrictions. What I mean by that is marriage is a gift that isn’t just for Christians, it is for the unbeliever too. Whether it be a wedding of a believer or an unbeliever, it all points to a great wedding that is to come. That is why we naturally celebrate weddings, God designed us that way. Marriage also reveals to us that as we sin against our spouse and our spouse sins against us that we need a savior. Marriage will either push you into a deeper relationship with Jesus or show you that need to have a relationship with Jesus.

Because clearly other cultures couldn’t have possibly come up with a system of ensuring all men had a bride and to stop ensuing fights over brides unlike many hunter gatherer societies?

And also kind of doesn’t explain how all those people who aren’t Jewish got married and made empires.

At the same time marriage is a common grace to the believer and the unbeliever, marriage is restricted within the confines of God’s design. Let’s think about this logically, if a man were to take two wives this wouldn’t point toward the wedding in the book of Revelation between Jesus and the Church. No, this would point to Jesus taking two wives. That would mean there is division in the church and in Ephesians 4, Paul urges us to pursue unity in the body of believers.

The logic where we have to assume that a magic jewish guy in the sky exists or the logic where we have to assume that all of life came out of massive amounts of incest?

Now think about this, if a man were to take a man, that also wouldn’t point toward the wedding in Revelation. That would point to a gospel where there wouldn’t be a church. Jesus would be marrying himself and the church is just left to her own devices. That just doesn’t make sense. God, who has always been three persons in one, doesn’t need to be united in marriage, God was already perfectly united since eternity past. There would be no good news for the church then, they would be spectators at the wedding and wouldn’t benefit from that union at all.

Wait what? Just thinking about that hurts my mind.

If gay marriage was acceptable in the bible why would that mean that there would be no church and Jesus would get married? Is Jesus gay? Am I the only one reading it as “If gay marriage was legit by the Bible then Jesus could get married?”

That kind of makes the Judas kissing Jesus scene a bit more hot and heavy.

Now look at this one, if a woman and a woman were to marry they would not be displaying the wedding we see in the book of Revelation either. With that configuration God is completely left out of that wedding picture. If Jesus is left out of the picture then there is no atonement of sins or inheritance to the kingdom of God. The bride simply trades the best spouse for a clone of herself. This is really scary because without Jesus the Church is a group unfaithful, selfish, pagans. There isn’t any good news in that wedding it is just a path to destruction.

My family history may not be roses but I know Tigasuku’s grand parents are “selfish pagans” and they lived a long and happy life full of love for each other. Honestly? By this logic all Hindus, Jews and Muslims have shitty and unhappy marriages when we find out that nearly everyone is generally “happy” with their marriages. Mainly because we think the secret to a good relationships is love, trust, honesty and adventure rather than “Prayer and Jesus”.

Thankfully, by God’s design, marriage points to that wedding that we find in Revelation 19. This is the wedding that girls and boys have dreamt of since their youth. This is a story where the most attractive, charming, faithful, rich prince sets out on a journey to win himself an undeserving bride. This bride has no redeeming qualities. She is poor as they come, she isn’t smart, she worships things that she made with her own hands, she is an adulterer, she has been beat down with the ugly stick and she drools. There is not an ounce of good in her. However the prince says, “Because I am gracious and full of compassion, I choose you to be my bride.” The bride knows she isn’t a good fit for him, she has too much baggage, she has done some much wrong. Nevertheless, the price takes her and says, “I will become the mess you are so you can become all that I am.”

Dear boys and girls. Advice.

Do not base your weddings on the following books “Revelations”, “Anything by H.P Lovecraft”, “Ghenghis Khan” and “The collected works of the Warhammer 40K Universe”.

Oh? That doesn’t seem like a prince. That seems like a weapon’s grade arsehole. What sort of man marries you because you are ugly and because he makes you beautiful.

“You are fat, ugly and slutty and you cannot do anything better than me” is not the mating call of a truly nice guy, it is the mating call of the goddamn MRA.

And wait. Jesus was going to get Gay Married a few seconds ago if gay marriage was legal? Jesus is a Bi MRA?

As it turns out, the prince ends up getting killed for becoming like her because she was so nasty she deserved to be killed, according to God’s standards. He died and stayed that way for 3 days and then on a glorious Sunday morning God rose him from the dead. The bride’s sin had been paid for! Her slate had been washed clean! Not only was she freed from the doom that was once set before her but she now had a hopeful future to look forward to. In marrying the prince, she became a co-heir to the riches of the Kingdom of God. She would no longer feel hurt or pain, there would be no more suffering, all of the shame she once felt has been lifted and she had been fully restored. Not only was she fully restored and rich but she would be that way for the rest of eternity as she gazed into the beautiful face of her prince.

Never mind the fact that most of the shame she felt was due to this Prince wanker.

Sorry… this is the only Prince I know about who is a bigger wanker than Prince Harry

This is the gospel story that God’s design of marriage tells us. This is the good news! As a Christian this is what I am standing for. I am not standing for what the government says marriage looks like, I am standing for what God says marriage is. By God’s design, marriage is for one man and one woman.


Dear Christian.

No one is forcing you to marry a gay guy. Now in your fancy world of Jesus Fan-Fic up there you claim that Christianity is the sole moral marriage option. That’s fine. You can go be Christian married as I will get a traditional Hindu wedding for myself and not be moral. However it is my life and you wouldn’t dare show up to my wedding and demand I dress in a black suit instead of my sherwani and pointed shoes. You wouldn’t demand the bride wear white instead of colours. You would shut up and enjoy the damn ceremony and eat your damn samosas with everyone else and stop whinging about the lack of expensive tiered cakes.

Why? Because you aren’t a dick IRL. Because everyone around you would go “What a fucking wanker” if you pulled out your Bible and ejaculated your faith onto someone else’s wedding.

Except that’s precisely what you are doing here.

The GLBT do not want your idea of a wedding. They want theirs. The government is going to recognise their wedding as it recognises yours. Now your wedding isn’t harmed at all by them being married.

The only thing that the GLBT seem to be doing is producing some of the most heartwarming tales of love and devotion in the quest to get married and be recognised. The only reason I can think for not letting them get married is “because we are jealous of such devotion”.

Their marriage doesn’t affect you in any single way.

This isn’t about homosexuality, this is about marriage. I feel like I need to end this by saying that I am not against people who gather under the rainbow colored flag. My stance isn’t to condemn homosexuals but it is to preserve God’s perfect design of marriage and the wedding that we have to look forward to when Christ is standing at the alter as the bride he made beautiful walks down the aisle. The reason why I am against same-sex marriage is because it is in direct contradiction to God’s design for marriage and what scripture tells us about marriage.

Yes you are. That’s like saying “I Am Not Racist but I think the Dutch Should Live on Rafts on the Sea”.

Your fan-fic aside, at no point does the GLBT getting married impinge on our weddings what so ever.

And by this logic you should be for Slavery because not owning people like property is in direct contradiction to Jehovah’s design for the workforce.


  1. says

    If you really want to break peoples’ brains, pair bonding is actually the exception rather than the norm in the animal kingdom.

    Heck, heterosexuality seems to be the exception to the rule in half the animal kingdom as well. You got bisexuals, trisexuals, homosexuals, animals that pretend to be female so that they can get with the females that go for the males, females that temporarily take on the role of male so that their single sex species can have babies, you have females who leave their eggs / children with males to raise, females that eat the male after / during / before sex, males that attach to the female and basically wither away into a pair of extant gonads producing sperm to fertilize the eggs, and so on.

  2. Pierce R. Butler says

    … The Lamb, Jesus Christ, is taking a bride …, the Church.

    So we have here a combination of bestiality and polygamy, in that “the Church” is a composite of many individuals.

    Or perhaps a foreshadowing of the words of the Prophet Mitt:

    Corporations are people, my friend.

  3. Jo(h?)n says

    This appears to illustrate the main drawback of attending “bible collage”. There is only one book to read.

  4. maudell says

    The sexism he displays is interesting. The first woman was made to be Adam’s “helper” (women are secretaries by god’s design!) i.e. complementary/inferior. Woman on Earth to assist the white man in his amazing endeavours.
    Then, he uses the formula “a man and his bride”. For some reason, “a woman and her husband” doesn’t sound as Christian.
    (as a side note, the punishment was for uncovering good and evil, not for wanting to learn. The name “tree of knowledge is confusing, but it is knowledge of good and evil. You may know this already (not that you should). Actually, tons of Christians don’t know either.)

  5. Sophy says

    My husband and I had samosas, lasagna, beef stew, and strawberry/rhubarb pie at our wedding; our guests seemed to like the combination. I hope when you get married it’s as memorable and enjoyable an event as ours was. If both/all parties are in enthusiastic consent why should it not be a celebration? I hear the arguments against same sex marriage and they just NEVER make sense. Thank you for the patience to rebut. I’m alternately appalled and fascinated by the mental contortions of those that still argue against it..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>