Perhaps you didn’t follow the thread of the discusison. The OP said he wanted the government to come out and say what the DFP candidate has: (1) they don’t respect gays, (2) it’s an abomination, and (3)gay cruises should not be allowed to visit. If you think saying you don’t respect a group and it’s an abomination is NOT taking a stance on private behavior, (or even dangerously close to thought-policing, as I mentioned earlier) I think our interaction is done here.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I don’t respect the individuals who flaunt their sexual immorality.
How am I to know that they are “gay”? What is private about “gay cruises”?
Of course it’s an abomination, as is any sort of sexual immorality. Of course we should not encourage open sexual immorality. Of course I do not respect anyone who openly practices sexual immorality.
As to your next post after this one: You are trying to confuse the issue by changing the definition of both marriage (union of one man and one woman) and equality.
“Equality” does not meant that you can do whatever you want and change the rules (and definitions) to fit what you want. It means that if a given act is legal for one, it’s legal for all.
I can own my home. I can’t declare that “home” now means my neighbor’s house or city hall or a State park and I now own one of them.