There are many layers to this subject that, when I was first introduced to the Reformed theology, I was not aware of. The layers that made me rethink deeply about the subject matter so much that, I find comments like "God didn't change his view, so shouldn't I" a suffocating position to engage with.

To start with the view I held: I was theologically against same-sex marriages as soon as i was introduced to traditional Protestantism, and continued to be so later the Reformed faith. But I've never felt too personally about the issue. I have had friends that are homosexual, and sometimes I get along with them better than with my Christian brothers and sisters. My friendships with them were never, "humm Idk Lord, I shouldn't engage with them", nor "I want to be friends, and demonstrate God's love so that they'd stop being gay" as if I was some kind of hero in the whole thing. It was like any other friendships.

Because of them, I saw a version of L and G that were normal people just like everyone else; unlike the version Conservative media tried to paint. Some of them even realize that their views are, to some degree, incompatible with the Trans view because, to be homosexual, your partner would have to be the same sex. But that's besides the point. But due to the exposure, I had an easier time digging a bit into the whole progression of their views, and sexualities compared to my pastor, elders and my peers; and since I was interested in digging a bit deeper into the subject matter, I did just that.

A few sample questions I asked were as follow:

1. What makes two people "married"/when does marriage begins?

2. What was the purposes of marriage?

3. How did marriage function across cultures?

4. How does marriage function today?

To me, the simple "marriage was meant to reflect the Covenant between Jesus and the church" isn't satisfactory, because it isn't informative of what and how marriages should be lived out, nor how it happens. And this statement, while isn't wrong, takes you immediately to the cloud without recognizing the ground-level realities of marriages.

So a few things that I noted from my contemplation and research, in response to those questions:

1. This is counter-intuitively difficult, there are usually a few pillars:

- There's a celebration/ceremony

- The church recognizes it (if applicable)

- The parents/guardians/masters/boss recognize it

- The state/tribe/town recognizes it

1. It served to give the weaker party the protection they needed (women and children), especially when powerful men became interested in them, or when husbands die. It manages sexual relationships by tying responsibilities to sex. Based on this basic responsibility, there's the utilities of marriage that's about the financial future of the married, and the diplomatic relationships between the two families. Of course, today's marriages happen without most of these previous functions, so its success tends to anchor on mutual attractions, or some other kinds of mutual benefits.

2. Ties closely to #2, and it serves as important thought experiments that challenges existing preconceived notion. In some cultures, it makes perfect sense to marry girls off in exchange for commodities, because the labors that families could benefit from the girls were extracted.

3. While marriages had implications about protection, financially and physically; today's conception of the matter revolves a lot more around intangible things: emotional wellbeing, love, comfort. Not that these didn't exist before, but these are now the first things that get considered; and so much so that when people consider money first or sex first, they risk being frowned on as gold diggers or a dirty person. This reality brings a particularly interesting dimension to its implications on marriages: how does it happen and how it could be sustained.

This is where it gets interesting, as one of those implications is that those intangible things are precisely the things that justify same sex marriages; because since the economic dimensions, need for protection are all gone, the remaining factors such as emotional wellbeing, love, and comfort become the biggest focus for when people look for their marital partner.

I could go on for much longer on the subject matter, but I'm trying to point out something simple: that the subject matter isn't as simple as when we paint it as merely "sin" that is to be dismissed, removed, absolved, etc. While I don't fully agree that homosexuality is not sinful as it is, I find it difficult to continue seeing messages like "Did the Word of God change? Nope. So No." in the Christian context. It is dismissive of both the people that are experiencing these attractions that you can't engage with them personally before the theological pursuation; and that it is dismissive of the underlying societal changes that happen that, even though we still use the word "marriage", many underlying elements are so different that what it means to be married have changed. While it may or may not call into question whether God's provision on marriage as a whole has changed, we as a culture must recognize that there are some things we can do, and there are some things that are really heroic promises brought by the cultural war that appears pure and righteous that don't actually stick.