Congrats to gay and lesbians, the US government cannot deny your legitimate marriage

MY favorite thing, possibly ever, is when libs and atheists who openly oppose the teachings and reliability of the bible pick out excerpts and passages to fuel their own arguments.

Are you saying that people should be opposed to gay people getting married if they prefer their kids to be straight? Huh?

Would you encourage your son to be fat or to date fat girls? Or how about smoking? Probably not, so does that mean you're in favor of banning marriage for fat people or for smokers? Or of course, we could just use the interracial marriage analogy one more time.

And another thing, if my son turns out to be gay there's absolutely nothing I can say or do to change that even if I wanted to. But no, it's not something I worry about. I would have worried about it 20 years ago because being gay would mean he would have to live his life as a discriminated minority. As it is today, he only has to worry about it if he were to move to a red state and there's not much chance he'll ever do that.

I learned in sex education that the corn hole was not designed to be penetrated by the penis. Just saying..

professional gays wrote:

I don't try to play matchmaker with my kids, be it boys or girls.

You don't talk to your kids about boys and girls?

Retarded bigot idiot racist wrote:

....reliability of the bible .....

^^^^^^ this is funny!

Retarded bigot idiot racist wrote:

MY favorite thing, possibly ever, is when libs and atheists who openly oppose the teachings and reliability of the bible pick out excerpts and passages to fuel their own arguments.

Bible-thumpers cherry pick the Bible too. Watch The West Wing to see the hypocrisy in all of this.

professional gays wrote:

I don't try to play matchmaker with my kids, be it boys or girls.

cards on the table wrote:

You don't talk to your kids about boys and girls?

I talk to them about procreation, if that's what you are referring to.

Retarded bigot idiot racist wrote:

MY favorite thing, possibly ever, is when libs and atheists who openly oppose the teachings and reliability of the bible pick out excerpts and passages to fuel their own arguments.

Pretty standard rhetorical device to use the arguments of an opponent against that same opponent. I agree it is amusing.

cards on the table wrote:

I'm truly curious for honest responses for those of you who are so pro gay marriage. I imagine that if your son or daughter came out, you would happily accept that without hesitation.

But my question is this. Before such an admission or indication that your child might be gay, would you ever encourage your son or daughter in this way? I mean, would you tell your son, "Hey, there's a cute boy over there, why don't you date him?" If he hadn't indicated he was gay, would you encourage him in this way, just like you would encourage him to date a cute girl?

If not, do you think subconsciously you're biased against homosexuality more than you're willing to admit? Seems like you would have a preference for one sexual orientation over the other, even though you wouldn't want to admit it.

Homosexuality isn't the norm, so I wouldn't assume a child to be homosexual, therefore wouldn't suggest homosexually oriented relationships. However, homosexuality is a genetic truth, so if a child showed they were homosexual, then I'd start adapting to it. I have gay and straight friends, I've set them both up on dates. I wouldn't think to introduce a gay female friend to a guy (for the purpose of dating) and likewise for a staight female friend.

cards on the table wrote:

I imagine that if your son or daughter came out, you would happily accept that without hesitation.

If my son is gay (he's only 5 so we won't know for about 10 years) I will probably be concerned that he may have a difficult time accepting who he is or being accepted by his surroundings. I have gay friends who went through some very difficult times when they were younger, including one friend who attempted suicide. So from that point of view I'd be concerned and I would do everything in my power to be a supportive dad. If anyone were to every imply that I should love him any less because of his sexual orientation then I would immediately sever all associations with that person.

cards on the table wrote:

If not, do you think subconsciously you're biased against homosexuality more than you're willing to admit? Seems like you would have a preference for one sexual orientation over the other, even though you wouldn't want to admit it.

This is truly an odd statement/question. As pointed out by others in this thread (and also incredibly obvious) homosexuality is in the minority. 10-20% max depending on whose numbers you accept as truth. So if you had absolutly no clue about orientation of your child you are more likely to be accurate guessing hetero. Also, I would be willing to be that the percentage of couples that have children is skewed even more towards hetero. (Yeah, jaw dropping assumption there).

So your big revelation is that a person with a child (much higher percentage hetero) would assume that their child (80% or more likely to be hetero) would be hetero. And that they might have preference towards that. STOP THE PRESSES!

In other news, Yankee fans prefer to go to Yankee games instead of Mets games. (not a great analogy, but will do in a pinch)

Old Man Runner wrote:

Can't wait to read the dissenting opinion on how they justify continuing discrimination.

I'm all for it but why can't you marry your sister or brother

let's keep this on track wrote:

So far we've had gay marriage compared to:

Polygamy

Marrying a tree

Incest

Pedophilia

Slow down guys, it is hard for me to keep up!

Next thang ya know a feller will wannna marry his ol' dawg! har har har..yuck yuck yuck..

Yeah, people are so stupid it's hard to comprehend, but then I see the church pews packed on Sunday and sigh.

1. Worldwide, the vast majority of HIV cases are straight people.

2. Buttsex is not the only or defining gay sex act.

3. More buttsex is had by straight people than by gay people (gay people are more likely to engage in anal intercourse, but a lot of straight people doing it too and there are a lot more straight people in the world).

You guys do realize that no one has actually given any reasons why bigamy, polygamy, or incest is any different than homosexuality. Apart from the obvious greater number, 3 or 4 or more, involved in bigamy or polygamy. So do you actually support equality, or are you just lazy thinkers who'd fail a basic logic course?

Doclove wrote:

Old Man Runner wrote:

Can't wait to read the dissenting opinion on how they justify continuing discrimination.

I'm all for it but why can't you marry your sister or brother

Incest is best.

Stop. Wait. No. Don't. wrote:

You guys do realize that no one has actually given any reasons why bigamy, polygamy, or incest is any different than homosexuality. Apart from the obvious greater number, 3 or 4 or more, involved in bigamy or polygamy. So do you actually support equality, or are you just lazy thinkers who'd fail a basic logic course?

Well for one thing, where is the demand? Gays are a minority, but a pretty large one. How many people do you see wishing for marriage among relatives? Although I don't live in the South, so my perspective may be skewed...

Stop. Wait. No. Don't. wrote:

You guys do realize that no one has actually given any reasons why bigamy, polygamy, or incest is any different than homosexuality. Apart from the obvious greater number, 3 or 4 or more, involved in bigamy or polygamy. So do you actually support equality, or are you just lazy thinkers who'd fail a basic logic course?

I don't have any particular problem with any of those, as long as it is between consenting adults. Why should I?

You're The Dumbest Poster Ever wrote:

[quote]Hobbit Feet wrote:

Wikipedia is your source? Wow!

Actually, all those links to citations about the stuff were the original sources. Classic Letsrun argument though. "I have no way to refute what you wrote, so I'll just call your source stupid!"

Wikipedia is usually fairly accurate, and if you just follow the citations to the original work you can make up your own mind. I doubt you will do that, though.