Heretic;1579981 wrote:Uhhh, did this become the point where you realized your argument is based on fallacies and personal belief systems such as religion which aren't grounded in logic and decide it's time to just take things way off the tracks?

I mean, as far as hetero sex goes, I've done that with and without and definitely prefer the sensation of without. But I'd also prefer not getting a disease or hearing that I'm going to be a father. And so I consider it worth it to sacrifice a bit of good, rubby, frictiony enjoyment to not deal with those hassles.

Heretic;1579983 wrote:Michael Sam apparently has the belief that he's gay and that's okay. And yet that seemed to bother you enough to state that you wouldn't be supportive of that as a father and discuss that statement at length. Why do you even give a fuck? Honest question?

ernest_t_bass;1579987 wrote:Someone stated that they don't understand why his father didn't support him, to which I said, "I'd love unconditionally, but not support," as many were more than likely confusing love with support.

If people want to be gay, that is completely OK with me, seriously. Go be gay. But why do I have to support you?

ernest_t_bass;1579976 wrote:Yeah, but have you ever had gay butt sex without a condom?

I Wear Pants;1579988 wrote:Why wouldn't you? I don't like meatloaf but lots of other people do. I don't feel the need to state "I'd still love my son but I would not support his preference for meatloaf" for that because it's ridiculous.

Nope.

ernest_t_bass;1579991 wrote:Use biblical references, not meatloaf, b/c that is what I'm basing my ill-support on.

Would you support your adulterous son, if you knew he was committing adultery, yet his wife did not? You'd love him... but would you support his actions and decisions?

I Wear Pants;1579969 wrote:We treat obesity as something undesireable because it has causes health issues. Not because it is abnormal.

I Wear Pants;1579994 wrote:Adultery is not similar to being gay. Yet another bad example.

OSH;1580002 wrote:You have negated every example without any reasoning. If you don't like them, why not give a reasoning on why it is a bad example?

I have understood every single example given on the whole "support v. love" topic throughout this thread, they make sense to me. That includes your pizza v. cheeseburger one -- which, made it seem like you were saying homosexuality is a choice since liking pizza/cheeseburgers is a choice.

I Wear Pants;1580009 wrote:I don't think that homosexuality is a choice but I don't think it changes anything if it were....

I Wear Pants;1579994 wrote:Adultery is not similar to being gay. Yet another bad example.

ernest_t_bass;1580023 wrote:"Sin" vs. "sin."

I Wear Pants;1580036 wrote:I was trying to have a discussion as to why something should/shouldn't be viewed/treated negatively and it appears that you're trying to have a discussion based upon a set of things that should be viewed negatively because a book says they should and not because there's any rational to it. This probably won't be fruitful then.

Pick6;1580066 wrote:saw a deadspin article today that a former nebraska player was openly gay and got along with his teammates. he never had some special announcement..whaddyaknow.


Like I said- the announcement is all for attention and a win/win situation for Sam. Pretty brilliant actually.

Pick6;1580066 wrote:saw a deadspin article today that a former nebraska player was openly gay and got along with his teammates. he never had some special announcement..whaddyaknow.


Like I said- the announcement is all for attention and a win/win situation for Sam. Pretty brilliant actually.

I Wear Pants;1580076 wrote:So anytime someone moderately famous mentions they're gay it's only for attention? Do you think the same anytime they mention a girlfriend or wife or something indicative of being straight?

pmoney25;1580104 wrote:Was this Nebraska player a potential NFL player who was going to be outed/questioned during his draft preparation. If the answer is no or you don't know, then what you said means nothing. Congtats

Pick6;1580107 wrote:so being an openly gay player on one of the best programs in college football history means nothing all of the sudden? Got it.

I Wear Pants;1580076 wrote:So anytime someone moderately famous mentions they're gay it's only for attention? Do you think the same anytime they mention a girlfriend or wife or something indicative of being straight?

WebFire;1580145 wrote:So Sam just mentioned it to someone? Lol

I Wear Pants;1580329 wrote:The point is that even if he did just mention it when talking to a reporter or whoever that it would have blown up into a big story. He's decided he doesn't feel like hiding the fact that he's gay so he went ahead and made an announcement to get it over with. I don't see why you have an issue with that unless your position is that gay people should just never talk about or acknowledge that they are gay.

WebFire;1580330 wrote:I think they should talk about and acknowledge it just as much as heterosexuals do.