Well, my only point to MLU is in reference to his slavery post a while back. People on both sides like to jump the extreme of things. To say to not allows gays to be married is equal to the slavery thing is stupid and ungrounded as well as the other side of the isle with not allowing full civil rights. The difference between the slavery bit and gay marriage is that slavery was physical in nature. People actually suffered physically. Gays are not suffering in bondage. Now I am not saying that civil unions are perfect (they need to allow the full rights), but this is strictly a social issue. Slavery was much much more than a damn social issue. I think the problem for making Gay marriage a legal right is the church and state issue. I say that b/c it will be a tight balance to allow church organizations to refuse gays in marriage it is against their beliefs. It would only be a matter of time before peoples religion crumbles.
Slavery (and women's right to vote) only seem extreme because we have come so far since then. This country did condone treating people very differently to the extreme of not granting them basic civil liberties simply because of the pigment of their skin and their lack of make sex organs. Extreme? Sure. That doesn't make it any less factual or more extreme that denying people basic civil liberties because of who they choose to share their bed with. Why do gay people have to suffer the exact same way as black people did to make the comparison? That's just dumb. You might as well eliminate the word "compare" from the English language if that's the strict standard for using it. It's a fact that gay people have suffered both physically and emotionally because of bigotry. Why does it matter that they have not physically been whipped and placed ion chains. Although I bet I could find some examples of public humiliation and physical torture of gay people in this country if I looked. Actually the problem from denying them the right to marriage on the basis of some people defining marriage with a religious basis brings church into the state. Please explain to me how gay people getting married will crumble people's religion. I really, really want to hear this explanation. FWIW, that statement alone is more extreme than anything I have ever typed...
Forcing a church to marry gays, if it is against the church's doctrine, will destroy a relign. Allowing civil marraige or union will do nothing. A note: the American Physicatric Association defined homosexuality as a mental disease until sometime in the 1950's or 60s. I AM NOT saying that it was right or defending it, but to point out where thought was and BTW if one is crazy he/she can't enter into a legal contract.
You tell me, you are the one that brought it up. You can find that people have been murdered over sports.. That is not a good argument. I didn't say that. I also didn't mean "crumble" literally.
Who is forcing church's to marry gay people? Church's are a private organization. They can choose to allow marriage ceremonies for whomever they please. I have seen ministers refuse to perform marriage ceremonies before for straight people and no civil suits were filed. The couple just went to another church or the courthouse and went on with their lives. I wouldn't think that doing it for gay people would be any different.
and you're the one complaining about the comparison on the basis that it's extreme. It is a great argument, but tell me more about this idea of sports fans being denied basic civil liberties and suffering from physical and emotional abuse as a result of their fight for equality. Yes you did. I even quoted it. Here, I'll quote it again. Do I need to screenshot it, too?
“I think the problem for making Gay marriage a legal right is the church and state issue. I say that b/c it will be a tight balance to allow church organizations to refuse gays in marriage it is against their beliefs. It would only be a matter of time before peoples religion crumbles. Is not the same as: I cannot help you any further..
As I said many times if churches aren't forced to perform marriages then there is nothing to object to. As you note there are multiple places one can be wed civilly and in a church. I expect some churches to marry gays, fine I have no problem if that is their position. I respect it as I hope churches whose position is against gay marriage is respected.
Of course churches aren't going to be forced to perform wedding ceremonies between gay people. How could anyone think that churches would be forced to perform wedding ceremonies between gay people when they can't be forced to perform wedding ceremonies between straight people? They can't be forced to perform any kind of ceremony any more than you can force Walmart to sell American-made merchandise.
