Just a few days ago Mildred Loving died. She was the one responsible for getting the Supreme Court of the United States to strike down anti-mixed race marriage prohibitions. Yes, only 40 years ago getting married to someone of an opposite race meant you ran afoul of the law, and were not welcome in many states. Google Mildred Loving, and read her story. Then tell me that white and black people or mixed races shouldn't marry. Gay marriage is exactly, absolutely, 100%, identicaly to this ruling back in 1967. In 20 years time modern America will look back at this time frame and wonder what kind of uneducated, neanderthal, idiots, used to run the place.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other on gay marriage, however, I do get tired of the above argument. Just because a past wrong was corrected doesn't automatically connect it to a current issue.
To me gay marriage isn't a "religous" argument. Instead, it's one of "what does society accept" and hold as a standard that we as a people decide. In California, the voters decided that gay marriage wasn't for them. The voters spoke and it should be end of story. However, a small minority decided that THEY would decide what's best and voted to allow gay marriage. THAT'S the part that rubs me the wrong way.
Two other issues i have with gay activists. One, here in Chicago there is the gay pride parade. I'm sure most big cities have them. While I'm very much a "live and let live" type of person, I am disgusted by these parades and shocked that policitians support them. Not because they are gay pride parades but rather the whole sexuality displayed in public - during the day - for all to see. Here is a parade that features men in black leather, bare-ass showing and basically dry humping each other while on floats. All the while Mayor Daley gives his hip-hip-horray for gay pride. And people wonder why this is issue pushes people buttons? You don't have to be a fundy-Bible thumber to say "hey, i don't want my kids exposed to that." Secondly, I do agree (somewhat) with the slippery-slope argument. Since it is a common argument that homosexuality and gay marriage is between two consenting adults, one could use this same argument about siblings getting married or for that matter a parent their child. If we as a society condone gay marriage, why not any marriage between consenting adults?
I guess why end game argument is - at what point do we say that "yes" that is an individual's right but we as a society also have the right to say that it has a negative affect on out nation.
