Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gay marriage should be legal everywhere.

carriead20
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:01:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Too many Catholic/Christians in power that don't want to.
To all the people fighting a hard battle out there - life's giving you a pretty hard beating. There's no sugarcoating that, but there's no shadow that's free of light. When life sneers at you and asks, "Ready to go again?" - Raise your hand. Reach out to victory. Don't give in.

---Help Bsh and YYW see each other---
http://www.gofundme.com...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:54:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Marriage is... should be... a personal choice. It does no harm to you if two men, or two women, or groups of three or more choose to marry. It's none of your business.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

For the purposes of government protecting rights associated with marriage? Yes, they are equivalent in that regard.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:13:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Marriage is... should be... a personal choice. It does no harm to you if two men, or two women, or groups of three or more choose to marry. It's none of your business.

Once tax money is involved, it is everybody's business.

Last I've heard, there is no one preventing you from declaring love (romantically or non-romantically). So I don't get the point of your statement.
Hunter695
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:15:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?
Yeah, one is not better or worse than the other.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:17:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:09:32 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

For the purposes of government protecting rights associated with marriage? Yes, they are equivalent in that regard.

Last I've heard, most states don't equate homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage.

You didn't answer the question. is homosexuality the same as heterosexuality?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:17:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:13:31 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Marriage is... should be... a personal choice. It does no harm to you if two men, or two women, or groups of three or more choose to marry. It's none of your business.

Once tax money is involved, it is everybody's business.
And tax money shouldn't be involved. It's an arrangement between two people, and the religious who try to make it their business when they're not involved, need to be aggressively pushed back into their place. If you think you should be able to tell other people whether or not they can live together in a marriage, then they should be able to exercise the same kind of restrictions against you.

Last I've heard, there is no one preventing you from declaring love (romantically or non-romantically). So I don't get the point of your statement.
The point is that the marriage between other people has nothing to do with you. And that's something I would suggest you struggle diligently to understand.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:18:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:15:17 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?
Yeah, one is not better or worse than the other.

Interesting, but I still don't get it. How do you define homosexuality and heterosexuality?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:21:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

What terms are you having trouble with?

Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:17:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:13:31 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Marriage is... should be... a personal choice. It does no harm to you if two men, or two women, or groups of three or more choose to marry. It's none of your business.

Once tax money is involved, it is everybody's business.
And tax money shouldn't be involved. It's an arrangement between two people, and the religious who try to make it their business when they're not involved, need to be aggressively pushed back into their place. If you think you should be able to tell other people whether or not they can live together in a marriage, then they should be able to exercise the same kind of restrictions against you.
So all interpersonal relationships are equally beneficial to society?

Last I've heard, there is no one preventing you from declaring love (romantically or non-romantically). So I don't get the point of your statement.
The point is that the marriage between other people has nothing to do with you. And that's something I would suggest you struggle diligently to understand.
So it doesn't affect society?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:27:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

What terms are you having trouble with?

Heterosexuality & homosexuality are the critical terms so far.

Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:24:58 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:17:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:13:31 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Marriage is... should be... a personal choice. It does no harm to you if two men, or two women, or groups of three or more choose to marry. It's none of your business.

Once tax money is involved, it is everybody's business.
And tax money shouldn't be involved. It's an arrangement between two people, and the religious who try to make it their business when they're not involved, need to be aggressively pushed back into their place. If you think you should be able to tell other people whether or not they can live together in a marriage, then they should be able to exercise the same kind of restrictions against you.
So all interpersonal relationships are equally beneficial to society?

Last I've heard, there is no one preventing you from declaring love (romantically or non-romantically). So I don't get the point of your statement.
The point is that the marriage between other people has nothing to do with you. And that's something I would suggest you struggle diligently to understand.
So it doesn't affect society?

No more so than does your marriage or any other marriage. And if you have the right to affect society through your marriage, then anyone else should have an equal right.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:27:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

What terms are you having trouble with?

Heterosexuality & homosexuality are the critical terms so far.

Heterosexuality:
Heterosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender.

Homosexuality:
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of like sex or gender.


Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:28:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:24:58 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:17:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:13:31 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:54:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Marriage is... should be... a personal choice. It does no harm to you if two men, or two women, or groups of three or more choose to marry. It's none of your business.

Once tax money is involved, it is everybody's business.
And tax money shouldn't be involved. It's an arrangement between two people, and the religious who try to make it their business when they're not involved, need to be aggressively pushed back into their place. If you think you should be able to tell other people whether or not they can live together in a marriage, then they should be able to exercise the same kind of restrictions against you.
So all interpersonal relationships are equally beneficial to society?

Last I've heard, there is no one preventing you from declaring love (romantically or non-romantically). So I don't get the point of your statement.
The point is that the marriage between other people has nothing to do with you. And that's something I would suggest you struggle diligently to understand.
So it doesn't affect society?

No more so than does your marriage or any other marriage. And if you have the right to affect society through your marriage, then anyone else should have an equal right.

True. By law, everyone should have the ability to marry.
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:36:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Wrong forum smart one.
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:38:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Gay marriage is bad for society because marriage in general is bad for society. Therefore we should prohibit gay marriage, as well as heterosexual marriage.

That being said, the only argument I can see possibly made for heterosexual marriage being given special status (over same sex marriage) is purely to facilitate the raising if offspring. In this case though I would argue sexual infertile heterosexual couples should not be able to marry.

The argument is so weak pragmatically though that the notion to prohibit same-sex marriage can only now be made 'because lots of people don't like it, and we ought to value the feelings of the population', which is agreeable, but steps all over more significant values one would hold (such as rights, etc).
Hunter695
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:39:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:36:58 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Wrong forum smart one.

What are you talking about????
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:33:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:27:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

What terms are you having trouble with?

Heterosexuality & homosexuality are the critical terms so far.

Heterosexuality:
Heterosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender.

Homosexuality:
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of like sex or gender.

So lets say there is a pedophile who have romantic and sexual attraction toward a child, without displaying behavior, what does it matter? Why can't he demand equal recognition?

Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:39:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:39:18 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:36:58 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Wrong forum smart one.

What are you talking about????

You're in the religion section.
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
Hunter695
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:42:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:39:55 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:39:18 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:36:58 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Wrong forum smart one.

What are you talking about????

You're in the religion section.
So what??!! I forgot to change the forum category when i made it. If you can tell me how to change it i will. You could have been more nice about it.
Conservative101
Posts: 191
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:44:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:42:25 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:39:55 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:39:18 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:36:58 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Wrong forum smart one.

What are you talking about????

You're in the religion section.
So what??!! I forgot to change the forum category when i made it. If you can tell me how to change it i will. You could have been more nice about it.

Oh please, this is the Internet. Don't expect people to be nice all the time.
When in doubt, start riots and scream racism
Hunter695
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:55:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:44:03 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:42:25 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:39:55 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:39:18 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:36:58 PM, Conservative101 wrote:
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Wrong forum smart one.

What are you talking about????

You're in the religion section.
So what??!! I forgot to change the forum category when i made it. If you can tell me how to change it i will. You could have been more nice about it.

Oh please, this is the Internet. Don't expect people to be nice all the time.

That is not what i am expecting. i am hoping that people will be a bit more mature and think before they say something mean, because this is supposed to be a more civilized site.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:38:59 PM, Envisage wrote:
Gay marriage is bad for society because marriage in general is bad for society. Therefore we should prohibit gay marriage, as well as heterosexual marriage.

That being said, the only argument I can see possibly made for heterosexual marriage being given special status (over same sex marriage) is purely to facilitate the raising if offspring. In this case though I would argue sexual infertile heterosexual couples should not be able to marry.

The argument is so weak pragmatically though that the notion to prohibit same-sex marriage can only now be made 'because lots of people don't like it, and we ought to value the feelings of the population', which is agreeable, but steps all over more significant values one would hold (such as rights, etc).

The infertile objection can be countered from many angles:
Couples who once thought they didn't want children end up having them, previously thought infertile couples can end up having children or fertile treatment is successful, an old man can still impregnate a fertile woman and marriage keeps him monogamous and prevents out of wedlock pregnancy, the government privacy invasion isn't advanced enough to track fertility or sexual activities, the general rule doesn't get refuted by exceptions, marriage is assumed to be at least an indicative of procreation and a stable relationship children can be raised into.

Children are pretty much why some heterosexual unions such as incest were not legalized.

Of course, the alternative promoted by mainstream gay organizations is more or less child trafficking.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:56:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:39:41 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:33:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:27:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

What terms are you having trouble with?

Heterosexuality & homosexuality are the critical terms so far.

Heterosexuality:
Heterosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender.

Homosexuality:
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of like sex or gender.

So lets say there is a pedophile who have romantic and sexual attraction toward a child, without displaying behavior, what does it matter? Why can't he demand equal recognition?]

Child:
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Legal age of Majority:
the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions.

Marriage:
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Do I need to say anything else? Children are not yet of age to make such a decision. Your hypothetical and homosexual marriage are not equivalent.


Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:02:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:56:58 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:39:41 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:33:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:27:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:11:10 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:52:09 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:44:12 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
I am a hella confused. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality?

Are you suggesting the only purpose for marriage is to produce offspring?

I"d like to answer that question after we clarify the terms first.

What terms are you having trouble with?

Heterosexuality & homosexuality are the critical terms so far.

Heterosexuality:
Heterosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender.

Homosexuality:
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of like sex or gender.

So lets say there is a pedophile who have romantic and sexual attraction toward a child, without displaying behavior, what does it matter? Why can't he demand equal recognition?]

Child:
a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Legal age of Majority:
the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions.

Marriage:
the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>


Do I need to say anything else? Children are not yet of age to make such a decision. Your hypothetical and homosexual marriage are not equivalent.

Unrelated reply. I clearly stated that no behavior is displayed, why can't he have "pedophile" respectfully written on his documents?

If we"re only talking about thoughts and feelings, then perhaps they are equal, but then so are all the other orientations you can think of. If we compare them by the types of behavior they involve, that"s a different story.

So you agree that the criteria of judgement should be based on the sexual behavior?

Alternatively, you can separate the question away from the quote.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:54:27 PM, Hunter695 wrote:
The question is not should we legalize it but why haven't we already?

Because the politicians in power still pay lip service to the religious constituents, and some of them actually endorse the narrow-minded and presumptuous position that they have the authority to impose their religious beliefs on the masses via the legislation of morality (law). The fact that they overlook is that there is no moral associated with adult, consensual mutual love, irrespective of gender. There is no depth to which a politician will not sink, for votes. If this means oppressing people that have different emotional and romantic attractions to the "mainstream," they will not hesitate. They are perfectly willing to deny a loving couple their legal protections and freedom of choice, as long as it is "popular." As long as the christian majority is in favor of oppression of non-conformist views, it will continue to happen.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein