The LGBTQ+ community has made huge strides towards increased representation in recent years. Now, sexuality is no longer a barrier when it comes to making your love legally binding throughout the US, and people are slowly but surely beginning to realize that gender exists on a spectrum, with many insurance companies making changes to accommodate gender variant people. Despite this, there is still a long way to go when it comes to achieving equality.

Case in point, the prevalence of homophobic views amongst prominent members of the Republican Party. Many members of Trump's cabinet have supported groups with extremely disturbing attitudes towards the LGBTQ+ community. Tom Price, for example, voted against gay marriage, and Tony Perkins has been linked to support of gay conversion therapy.

The latest Republican to pin his colors to the anti-LGBTQ+ agenda is lawmaker Eric Porterfield. After being elected to office as the representative for Mercer County in November, he has made a number of problematic comments about the community, describing LGBTQ+ people as a "terrorist organization" and complaining that he is being "persecuted" by them after comparing the LGBTQ+ community to the notorious white supremacist group the Ku Klux Klan.

And when asked what he'd do if either of his children came out as gay, he said he'd see if they "could swim":

[[jwplayerwidget||https://content.jwplatform.com/videos/D9xawXGZ-Q0L14jDU.mp4||D9xawXGZ]]

Porterfield made the above statement on local TV station WVVA on February 10.

"Well, I will address my daughter first," he said in response to the possibility of fathering a gay child. "I would take her for a pedicure, I'd take her to get her nails done, and see if she could swim. If it was my son, I would probably take him hunting, I would take him fishing, then I'd see if he could swim."

When pressed by the interviewer Rachel Anderson about what he meant by seeing if they "could swim", Porterfield simply said, "I'd just wanna see if they could swim."

Understandably, Porterfield's statement provoked quite the response on social media:

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/MrBrandonStroud/status/1095793070556229636]]

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/xintra/status/1095102967848460288]]

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/JohnRMoffitt/status/1095338228553412608]]

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/NiklasUniverse/status/1096564257364340736]]

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/GCast45/status/1095469361677156354]]

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/johnmichoian_/status/1096763475710410753]]

In response to the backlash, Porterfield claimed that what he said was, in fact, not what he said and that he'd only implied that he'd drown his children to upset liberals.

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/JakeJarvisWV/status/1095548134925758465]]

The Republican Party has also commented on Porterfield's remark. Chairwoman Melody Potter said in a statement: "These comments are unacceptable and we denounce them. They have no place in America."

A groom has caused a dramatic rift between himself and his brother after kicking him and his family out of his child-free wedding.

Earlier this week, the groom in question, Redditor u/Road-Block30554, took to the site's "Am I The A**hole" forum to share his side of the story and to ask others whether they think he did his brother wrong by turning him, his wife and their four kids way from the ceremony.

He shared: "Ramsey married young and has 4 kids that he takes everywhere he and his wife go. They're always there at every family event. The kids are grade A, hyperactive to say the least."

The groom says he handed his brother the child-free wedding invite in person and noted that Ramsey didn't seem happy about his kids being excluded from the occasion - but did appear to accept the decision.

However, when the wedding came around, Ramsey and his wife didn't show up until shortly before the ceremony began. And when they did arrive, the groom says his best man notified him that all four of his kids were with him.

He immediately confronted his brother over the rule break and said he wanted him and his family to leave.

The newlywed explained: "He also called me a simp for agreeing to my wife's 'stupid' rule, saying, if that was him, and his wife even hinted he couldn't have the family's kids at their wedding he would've dropped her right there right then.

"It was humiliating and loud enough for the guests to notice. My in-laws did too. I told him to leave that's when my mom and aunt tried to convince me to let it go and let them stay but I refused and had him leave after a massive argument between us."

Since the wedding, the Reddit user admits that a number of people close to him have criticized his handling of the situation - especially his dad.

However, on Reddit, there was an entirely different consensus. An overwhelming majority of those who responded to the post felt that the groom was "not the a**hole", and reasoned that his brother should have respected his wishes.

One person wrote: "As a parent, I hate people like the brother so much. Makes the rest of us parents look like idiots. I didn’t even read it, and I will say NTA. Childfree is child-free FFS. Get a sitter. Damn. Quit pushing your kids down people’s throats."

Another said: "No kidding!! I mean, the bride and groom get to make the call about their wedding. Don't like it? Don't go. If it seems unreasonable to you, DON'T GO. If you care about the people, send a nice gift anyway."

However, a third commenter decided that pretty much everyone involved in the situation was in the wrong and sympathized with his brother's family who would presumably have been hurt after being barred entry into the ceremony.

The commenter said: "I'd say potentially every sucks here. Because the brother made a valid point. It sucks that the kids weren't invited to their uncle's wedding, especially if they were close to the uncle.

"That would be so hurtful for his brother's family. Depending on how young they were too - of course."

Who do you think was in the wrong? Let us know in the comments!

Featured image credit: Pexels / Emma Bauso

The state of Ohio has sparked international outrage after passing a law that allows doctors to deny healthcare to LGBTQ+ patients.

Governor Mike DeWine said that Ohio's new state budget "speaks to what pulls us together and it reminds us that we have so much more in common than the things that pull us apart", per ABC5 News.

However, he failed to mention that it includes a new law that gives medical practitioners the ability to legally refuse treatment on moral, ethical, or religious grounds.

ABC5 reports that a 700-page document of amendments is a part of the budget, however, when a summary was posted to DeWine's website, he did not mention how they would affect LGBTQ+ people.

Reacting to the news on Twitter, one user wrote: "Ohio state legislature has just passed a nonsensical 'religious freedom' law that allows the denial of health services to LGBT+ if you have a 'moral' objection to doing your job. *sigh*."

A second added: "Ohio really signed a law allowing a doctor to refuse someone who is lgbt medical treatment because of their beliefs… I'm sorry but if you are a doctor and refuse to save a life solely because they are lgbt, then you are disgusting and should have your liscense revoked [sic]."

A third agreed, writing: "Ohio governor, Mike Dewine signed a bill that allows doctors to refuse medical care to LGBT+ patients if they have an objection based on “moral” grounds. Yesterday the bill which discriminates was passed into law. America! The land of the free? [sic]"

Gwen Stembridge, who works with Equality Ohio, said of the law: "It makes it clear that there are people who do not want the LGBTQ+ community to access healthcare and that is not ok.

"It should go through the committee process. It should go through the process that a bill goes through, sneaking it in a budget is sneaky and it's deceitful. It's a time when they knew people would be distracted and so they snuck it in there and it passed."

"The fear of going to the doctor and of knowing are they going to treat me equally? Am I going to get the care that I need? That is already the question and this just exacerbates that," Stembridge added.

However, despite the condemnation of people like Stembridge, DeWine did not take issue with the way the law would affect LGBTQ+ people.

"I think we have to respect people's rights and people's ability to make those decisions," he said.

Featured image credit: Alamy / rfranca

A Republican representative has claimed that his alleged donation to a homophobic "holocaust denier" was a simple mistake.

Per The Daily Beast, Federal Election Commission files showed that the Texas GOP Louie Gohmert donated $5,500 to the anti-LGBTQ+ and antisemitic Pastor Steve Anderson last December.

However, Gohmert's Chief of Staff Connie Hair told the above publication that the donation was an accident.

Hair stated that the politician's 'donation' was the result of a botched internet search for an address by the congressman's treasurer, William Long.

Long had intended on hiring a Christian singer named Steve Amerson to play at an event. However, he mistakenly filed with the FEC that the money was given to Steve Anderson instead.

He added: "That's who it was written to, and Louie gave it to him, and when Bill Long got the check and the charge, he searched 'Anderson Ministries' instead of 'Amerson.' Bill Long is amending our filing."

Anderson is a pastor at the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. The fundamentalist church's doctrinal statement states that "homosexuality is a sin and an abomination which God punishes with the death penalty."

Meanwhile, a 2015 report from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League found that noted Anderson previously spread erroneous claims that millions of Jews had not been gassed and cremated in Nazi Germany during World War II.

Gohmert infamously drew widespread mockery after suggested changing the moon's orbit around the Earth, or the Earth's orbit around the sun, in a bid to halt climate change, during a hearing with the House Natural Resources Committee.

Speaking with senior Forest Service official Jennifer Eberlein, Gohmert stated:

"I was informed by the immediate past director of NASA that they've found that the moon's orbit is changing slightly and so is the Earth's orbit around the sun. We know there's been significant solar flare activity.

"So is there anything that the National Forest Service or BLM can do to change the course of the moon's orbit, or the Earth's orbit around the sun? Obviously, that would have profound effects on our climate."

NASA has previously debunked the idea that the Earth's orbit is responsible for climate change, with a spokesperson writing in a blog post:

"The small changes set in motion by Milankovitch cycles operate separately and together to influence Earth’s climate over very long timespans, leading to larger changes in our climate over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years."

Featured Image Credit: Alamy/SOPA Images Limited