Here’s my latest tack on arguing gay rights with fundies. Make it an argument on religious freedom. To wit:

Do you believe that people of different religions should be allowed to marry? (“Sure!”) Should a person be fired from their job just because they’re Muslim? (“No!”) Should Quakers be allowed to adopt? (“Absolutely!”) What about housing; should an Episcopalian be evicted just because the landlord doesn’t like Episcopalians? (“Of course not!”)

What if the religion is a little more non-traditional — say, charismatic snake handlers, voodoo practitioners, or paganists. Should even their religion be protected and should they be allowed to marry, work, adopt, or rent regardless of their non-traditional religious beliefs? (“Well…”) OK, assuming that we can show no harm is done to children or society by allowing them to practice their religion… (“I suppose so…”)

Now, if you can get them to jump off that ledge with you, hit them with this: What if “homosexual” is a religion? They have strange rituals, but no stranger than handling snakes and speaking in tongues. They have revered symbols, not the cross or the fish, but the triangle and the rainbow. They have their own sacred holidays (Pride week, Stonewall). They have their own beliefs about their place in the universe and their purpose in life. They have their own philosophical leaders and codes of conduct.

I use this argument to force them to defend their belief of “love the sinner, hate the sin” and “nobody is ‘born’ gay, they become gay.” Well, nobody is ‘born’ Christian, either, are they? You must choose to accept Christ, right? You wouldn’t defend discrimination against that particular “lifestyle choice”, would you?

Then I swerve into my “gay virgins” argument. Do you believe in gay virgins? That is if you’re a man who’s never had sex with a man, but you would really like to, are you gay? If you “hate the sin”, but the sin hasn’t been committed, aren’t you then forced to just “love the sinner”?

With the “gay virgins” argument, we force them to address whether they’re hating the sinner or not. If you’re not “born gay”, then you can’t be a gay virgin. You’re not gay until you make that “lifestyle choice”, and then we’re back to the “gay religion” argument.

So, can gay virgins be fired, evicted, or denied adoption just because someone might think they are considering “becoming” gay? If so, then you’re discriminating against someone’s beliefs (their “gay religion”); if not, then you’re discriminating against them for immutable characteristics and you’ve gotten them to admit (circuitously) that gay isn’t a choice, it’s something you’re born with.

I like arguing with fundies, because eventually it all comes down to the irrational fear and need to control who, how, and when people fuck. And I’m not one to drop f-bombs casually; I use it specifically when arguing with fundies because it makes them blush and it’s funny to me to watch them defend the idea that the maker and shaper of the cosmos, architect of black holes and quasars, infinite master of superstrings and quantum dimensions, ageless designer of salamander and supernova, is monumentally concerned about the methods of slippery genital friction employed by hairless primates, and gets really peeved if a boy should poke his tallywacker into an orifice where it doesn’t belong.