In response to:

Even If Your Child Is Gay...

WRH Bill Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 10:28 AM
Dennis Prager is wrong and self-serving when he insists that his position on same-sex marriage is based only on "reason" while the opposing view is based only on "feelings". I for one am OK with same-sex marriage not because of any big emotional stake in the issue-- I am not gay nor is anyone in my family-- but because the arguments offered by Prager and others, as to why gay marriage will supposedly do terrible harm to society, seem to me to be very weak. On the other hand, I think Prager is fooling himself if he believes "feelings" have nothing to do with his stand. I don't mean feelings of hate-- I believe Prager when he says he doesn't hate homosexual people-- but feelings of revulsion and fear of change.
Science Avenger Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 11:52 AM

The GOP=reason, Democrats=feelings myth is especially ridiculous when you consider that the professions out there that deal with evidence and logic: scientists, historians, fact-checkers etc., are dominated by democrats, whereas the realm of religion, fraught with emotional and faith-based arguments, is dominated by Republicans. The reality is the opposite of what Prager asserts, and nowhere is this more evident than the topic of same-sex marriage.
WRH Bill Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 12:22 PM
Sorry, Science Avenger, but in my opinion at least, the notion that liberal Democrats are the "reality-based" party while conservative Republicans deny science, is just as unbalanced and self-serving as the opposite view expressed by Prager. Liberals are also willing to ignore science and objective reality when their pet views are threatened.
rmccarthy Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 12:24 PM
You are dancing all around the truth...the arts and sciences are full of emotion and "facts" but little wisdom.
goldilocks Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:41 PM
goldilocks Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:41 PM
what do you mean by truth?
The Original King Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:36 PM
Science........ I generally agree with you. There are some topics such as specific economic issues, where the two sides can make their arguments on very factual levels, stating specific stats, etc. For most hot button issues, however, including SSM, gun control, abortion, death penalty,etc it is absurd and intellectually dishonest for Prager to claim that one side's arguments are rational while the other side's are strictly emotional. ..cont....
The Original King Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 4:38 PM
...cont....regarding the topic at hand. IMHO, gay citizens should have all the same rights and benefits that I have, including the right to marry. So, how is that stance any more "emotional" than some of the other posts in this forum regarding what God wants, how Gays are sinners, how SSM will cause a "disaster", etc etc etc?
WRH Bill Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 12:30 PM
Gun control is one issue where, in my opinion, the liberals depend mostly on emotion, while the conservatives have a better grasp of factual evidence regarding the actual uses and misuses of guns and the effectiveness (or lack of it) of proposed gun controls.
The Original King Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 11:16 AM
WRH.................absolutely spot on. Prager never adds any value or intelligence to the discussion when he begins from the point that HIS views are well thought out and based solely on reason, while any opposing views are based purely on emotion. And this is not the only area where he does this. The issues that HE is concerned about are vitally important and, if you don't agree 100% you are a naive fool. While, at the same time, the issues that YOU'RE concerned about are simply the result of ill placed panic.
The Original King Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 11:20 AM
I would also add that IMHO, Prgaer does fit the definition of a homophobe...... literally........not that he hates them but that he fears them. I think he'd be the first to admit that he is of the belief that, if this very small % of Americans is afforded the same rights as the rest of us, it would somehow have a devestating affect on society. There's the "phobe" part right there.
goldilocks Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 11:47 AM
ok, perhaps we need a new word to describe prager?

how about anthrophobe?
goldilocks Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 10:30 AM
wrh, every family has a gay relative!
goldilocks Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 11:45 AM
c, certainly you do!

you just don't know who.
WRH Bill Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 12:24 PM
OK, agitator, I'm not sure you're right that gayness is so widespread that *every* family includes a gay person... but perhaps I should have added "as far as I know" to my statement, since if I do have gay relatives none of them have "come out of the closet".
goldilocks Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:40 PM
w, if they know your attitude, then do not expect them to come out!
rmccarthy Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 6:38 PM
People who are persecuted for whatever reason tend not to want to be recognized...gays, pedophiles, murderers, illegal aliens or especially gay, pedophile, illegal alien murderers.
WRH Bill Wrote: Mar 22, 2013 12:33 PM
a, what attitude would that be? Questioning your estimate of how common secret homosexuality is (ie, so common that "every family has one") is not synonymous with having a negative attitude toward persons who are in fact gay.

Last week, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio announced that he had reversed his position on same-sex marriage. The reason was that his son had come out to him and his wife as gay.

This is not the first such instance. Periodically, we hear about Republican politicians whose child announces that he or she is gay, prompting the parent to change his mind about the man-woman definition of marriage.

As a parent, I understand these parents. We love our children, and we want them to love us.

Nevertheless I differ with their decisions to support the redefinition...