The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.

Thank you for the reply.Rebuttal 1:"Conservatism traditionally has been defined in politics as a sentiment of having minimal government interference in the day to day lives of citizens."As accurate as the definition of current Conservatives being about small government and little interference is, it doesn't match up to your resolution. Marriage Rights aren't publicly owned, like Constitutional Rights, but are private rights governed by the Church. Making Gay Marriage illegal may be unnecessary, but is meant to support the decision of Marriage's governing faction, the Church. Making laws that make Marriage a legal right regardless of the Governing faction's opinion would be contrary to the aim of keeping Government interference minimal.Making laws that interfere in the Church's business and telling the Church who to marry is contrary to the Conservative ideology of minimal interference. Making Gay Marriage legal in the first place is also contrary because Conservatives are anti-Gay Rights.ConservativeMarriage is the union of one man and one woman. Oppose same-sex marriage.Support Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, which affirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others, who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. - (1)[1] http://www.studentnewsdaily.com...Rebuttal 2:"The republican party should take a pro-gay rights stance to increase voter support as well. Gallup polls show that 52% of Americans are in favor of gay rights."That depends on the voter. Most would likely see the Republican Party as not being loyal to those it represents. Instead of representing it's Conservative voters, it represents what ever gets it elected. This is disloyal and will lose it a lot of legitimacy. The largest problem is using voters it prior held. That will be brought up in Argument 2.Rebuttal 3:"Before the twentieth century, the conservative parties stood for equality and minimal government interference in the personal lives of Americas."Conservatism in the past is different from conservatism today. In fact, the Conservatives of today of closer related to mid-20th century Liberals, minus Abortion. The technical definition of a Conservative isn't minimal government, although that premise has been common in Conservative values for a long time. The technical definition is an ideology that seeks to conserve the current position and status quo of the Government and Nation.Conservatives of today are against Gay Marriage and don't believe the Government should make laws telling the Church whom to marry. Everything else you mentioned seemed irrelevant and an Appeal to Emotion. Aside from Marriage, which doesn't belong to Government or Gay People, or anyone besides the Church, Gay People aren't really Oppressed. They can't give blood, but than again, a lot of people can't. They can't adopt, but not many can.Argument 1: Moral IncentiveYour whole argument is that of opinion and perspective. To whom's morals are right?The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.While morals aren't subjective... There is for most cases a right and a wrong,(2) although consequences are relative to ignorance, they are still relative in a sense. While you see Gay Marriage as right, I see it as wrong. There is a truth, but neither of us have the divine authority to claim which side is right. Much like how I can't punish a Muslim for oppressing his wife. It's true that he is likely wrong, but he has a moral code of his own that he is following. My code is different, but to punish him would be wrong, as I should hold him to his moral code, not mine.You say that the Republicans should change their views for morality. Whose morals? Yours? Arrogant.... They are, relative to their position, following what is moral and just. The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences. - Legal Dictionary.(3)While there is an absolute, only God knows the whole code. Saying Republicans should change to match morals is a crap assertion. Republicans should change to match Republican Values, not your values. From a Republican perspective, you are the one who needs to change to match morals.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...Argument 2: Political IncentiveThe Pro confuses himself where. The party can not change for both Political Incentives (as stealing votes and getting ) and Moral Reasons. The two contradict. Abandoning the people you represent to obtain votes is not moral.The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.Even if we remove Morals from the equation, it still doesn't work. At most, Republican's could gain no more than 53% of Independents (the number who supports Gay Marriage)(4) but lose nearly every Republican who opposed Gay Marriage, which equals 67% of all Republicans.(5) Of course this wouldn't take into account the massive percent of Independents who would refuse to join the disloyal party that abandons it's morals for political elections.Keeping the current path is best, however. As is, the Republicans have lost 250,000 members in one year to Independent groups, while the Democrats have lost 800,000.(6) Democrats are losing voters faster than Republicans, but if Republicans abandon their voters, they will find themselves gaining no one and losing everyone (exaggeration.)[4] http://www.people-press.org...[5] http://www.people-press.org...[6] http://www.examiner.com...Conclusion:By perspective, the Republicans are abiding to Moral Code by opposing Gay Marriage, and would find a negative Politic outcome by abandoning their belief and the belief of those they represent.