GOP Maintains Anti-Gay Party Platform In 2016

[dubious_doomhammer]

First world in wealth, third world in morals

You're morals mean absolutely zero when it comes to what two (or more!) consenting adults do behind closed doors.

[sethman75]

You're morals mean absolutely zero when it comes to what two (or more!) consenting adults do behind closed doors.

You're right of course. But it does mean something to them. They will realise that when they grow up

- - - Updated - - -

Not stoning or executing people for nonharmful traits is third world, apparently.

1. When was the last stoning event in the west?
2. Who said it is non harmful??

[dubious_doomhammer]

You're right of course. But it does mean something to them. They will realise that when they grow up

What exactly does it mean to them and how would you profess to know? Are you gay?

Please post some evidence that being gay is a "phase" they'll grow out of.

I wonder who really holds the moral high ground, two gay people that love each other, or someone that's spewing a bunch of hate towards them.

[Tackhisis]

I don't think how refusing to profanate the marriage is "anti-gay". In my opinion, criminalization of homosexualism is "anti-gay". People should stop overdramatizing and stop equating real and fake families.

[dubious_doomhammer]

I don't think how refusing to profanate the marriage is "anti-gay". In my opinion, criminalization of homosexualism is "anti-gay". People should stop overdramatizing and stop equating real and fake families.

What makes a family with gay parents, "fake"? Plenty of them do a far better job rearing their children than their straight counterparts.

[kail]

I don't think how refusing to profanate the marriage is "anti-gay". In my opinion, criminalization of homosexualism is "anti-gay". People should stop overdramatizing and stop equating real and fake families.

Because there's a thing called equal treatment. Keeping gays from marrying may not be from hate, it might just be from disdain. Neither belong to politics when considering individual rights. If you can't find any supporting evidence that gay marriage is harmful, then the debate is done.

[Tackhisis]

Because there's a thing called equal treatment.

Both gay and straight people can marry the persons of opposite sex. They are treated equally. It is not about hatred, disdain, etc.: The marriage is defined as a juridically significant union between one man and one woman. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with laws.

[sethman75]

What exactly does it mean to them and how would you profess to know? Are you gay?

Please post some evidence that being gay is a "phase" they'll grow out of.

I wonder who really holds the moral high ground, two gay people that love each other, or someone that's spewing a bunch of hate towards them.

This isn't a court case man, it is simple human behaviour. I don't hate gay people at all, they are the words used by people that are defensive about it.

It's not even about moral high ground either. Nobody is better than anybody else on the planet. Just don't be hypocritical and label people bigots etc for not thinking like you do.

[dubious_doomhammer]

This isn't a court case man, it is simple human behaviour. I don't hate gay people at all, they are the words used by people that are defensive about it.

It's not even about moral high ground either. Nobody is better than anybody else on the planet. Just don't be hypocritical and label people bigots etc for not thinking like you do.

I didn't label you as anything ... you were talking about morality, so I asked who holds the moral high ground. If you don't hate gay people then why do you show such disdain towards them? They're people, and they were born the way they are ... you're telling everyone here its immoral to be born a certain way ... that's disgusting.

[kail]

Both gay and straight people can marry the persons of opposite sex. They are treated equally. It is not about hatred, disdain, etc.: The marriage is defined as a juridically significant union between one man and one woman.

The rule of 1 man - 1 woman is simply set by us, there is little reason why the genders should even matter. Gays are not treated equally because they are not allowed to marry the person they love.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with laws.

Alrighty then, just allow them to marry! Or did you not think while typing that.

[Tackhisis]

there is little reason why the genders should even matter.

The children can be born only from the union of man and woman. The only reason the marriage exists at all are children. Not the 'love', which similarly has no relationship to law.

[taliey]

Better question, how much of these social conservatives have clout in the Republican party?

[Polybius]

I don't think you know what a orphanage is...

Those children won't die there...

Do you even know what reactive attachment disorder is?

Child developmentalists have already stated that happy parent(s) are better than no parent(s) or unhappy parent(s). The well-being of a child lies in how well the adult can take care of themselves, and whether they apply those techniques on the child.

[Dendrek]

Both gay and straight people can marry the persons of opposite sex. They are treated equally. It is not about hatred, disdain, etc.: The marriage is defined as a juridically significant union between one man and one woman. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with laws.

You're not this stupid. If your religion (whatever it is or is not) were made illegal, would you be happy that you had just as much right as everyone else to practice the approved religions? Equality is meaningless if it is undesirable.

We live in a representative society, a democracy, where we have the right to change laws and regulations if they do not suit our desires. If enough people think that homosexuals should have the right to marry, it is absolutely in their power to make that possible. There is no reason to prevent them from doing so just because precedent/tradition/religion forbid it. And you are never going to convince anyone who disagrees with you that precedent/tradition/religion are valid reasons to deny someone else rights.

Your argument is absolutely meaningless.

[s_bushido]

The children can be born only from the union of man and woman. The only reason the marriage exists at all are children. Not the 'love', which similarly has no relationship to law.

Straight people who are unwilling or unable to have children can get married.

Try harder.

[Moralgy]

The children can be born only from the union of man and woman. The only reason the marriage exists at all are children. Not the 'love', which similarly has no relationship to law.

Two men or two women can raise a child just fine. Between invitro, surrogates, and adoption there are many ways that these families can come about without a "union between a man and a woman".

[sethman75]

I didn't label you as anything ... you were talking about morality, so I asked who holds the moral high ground. If you don't hate gay people then why do you show such disdain towards them? They're people, and they were born the way they are ... you're telling everyone here its immoral to be born a certain way ... that's disgusting.

I don't hate the person i hate what they are doing. Big difference and one that most people can't seperate.

- - - Updated - - -

Two men or two women can raise a child just fine. Between invitro, surrogates, and adoption there are many ways that these families can come about without a "union between a man and a woman".

Think about what you just said.

1. Man and women have a normal biological and natural birth.
2. Gays need to rely on a donor, have a medical procedure performed and one of the couple has zero genetic relationship with the baby.

Which one do you think God and nature intended?

[timberx]

I don't hate the person i hate what they are doing. Big difference and one that most people can't seperate.

- - - Updated - - -



Think about what you just said.

1. Man and women have a normal biological and natural birth.
2. Gays need to rely on a donor, have a medical procedure performed and one of the couple has zero genetic relationship with the baby.

Which one do you think God and nature intended?

Who gives a shit? Let people live their lives the way they want to live them. And btw, you're also putting down straight couples that adopt, as well.

[Moralgy]

Which one do you think God and nature intended?

I don't have a direct connection to these vague forces that you claim have sentience, so I don't presume to know. Why don't you tell us since you seem to have the answer.

[Powerogue]

Think about what you just said.

1. Man and women have a normal biological and natural birth.
2. Gays need to rely on a donor, have a medical procedure performed and one of the couple has zero genetic relationship with the baby.

Which one do you think God and nature intended?

What we should be concerned about is the law. The law is not God, and the law is not nature. It's invented rules by humans, for the benefit of humans.

I support gay marriage being allowed in the law because it's to the benefit of those gay couples' happiness, as well as the welfare of the orphans they adopt.