Interesting video from 2012 – Missouri pastor's surprising take on gay rights

[Mental_Mouse]

Well, there actually is way to get married without state involvement, at least in a few jursdictions: "Common-law marriage" essentially means that if a couple has been living together and "acting married" (including representing themselves as such), for some given length of time, they can be recognized as having a "common-law marriage". Note that this is fairly scarce in the U.S., and the legal conditions are much stricter than the layman's idea of what the phrase means.

[Estil]

Don't forget about 1 Timothy insisting that women should not have authority over men and must be quiet/submissive. I don't see the hardcore preachers insisting on that part. :P

This is exactly what I figured all along (and also how I feel regarding the main reason I'm pro-life...that we are making the same mistake regarding unborn children). But seriously, name for me any moment in history where a country/nation/tribe/whatever insisted on denying basic human rights (as was done then regarding race and more recently sexual orientation) to a group of people...and the side on denying those basic rights was ever on the right side of history.

Now that whole "LGBT's are nothing but rotten no good sinners destined for hell if they don't turn or burn!" may have been eh, understandable back when it was believed that sexual orientation was a free will lifestyle choice, but after the 90s or so when science pretty much proved that LGBT's are born that way and that them being LGBT is no different than being born black/white/brown/etc, then it should've been obvious that those who were against LGBT rights were dead wrong. Seriously, we know better now. Please those who continue to insist LGBTs are gonna burn in hell, you're gonna end up like those guys in the history books who protested against integration or women's suffage or slavery or whatnot. You know, the ones that are perceived now as the "bad guys"/"villians" of history? :P

And on that note, was "being on the wrong side of history" at all a concern in the late 60s when segregation was dying (well as something you could openly support politically I mean) or did people just not have that term back then?