That's a pretty tired old argument from fresh-faced Ryan Anderson.

If only people would apply some of their never-ending angst over freshness dating to the truly stale and rotten products of conservative social theorists.

Which is it? "O'Brian" or "O'Brien"? You seem to be using each spelling in turn.

Ryan T. Anderson's atrocious history of anti-LGBT hate speech needs to be impressed on broadcasters who have taken to inviting him on their shows. Chris Cuomo had him on to talk about Bruce Jenner -- why? Would he invite David Duke on to talk about Jews?

I think you meant "we're not going back" to be the last line.

Actually. I have a suggestion:

If you lose in the SCOTUS, make it a right of passage for every gay male to marry a woman, father 2 or 3 children as fast as possible, then come out of the closet and abandon them

If they want you to enter sham marriages to have sex, do it.

The more heterosexual lives you ruin the better. Eventually, the hetero-supremacist bigots will be begging you to marry each other instead of marrying them.

By the way, just be sure to tell your wife as you walk out the door, "It's all your fault. You made me queer!?

1) What @5 said.

2) The world has enough bigots already. I hope Breda isn't going to breed any more.

Fixed! Thanks!

Two horrible ideas from two horrible people.

The real question to ask is, what if a gay guy wanted children so married YOUR daughter? Would you be so flippant then you stupid pieces of shit?

#9 I've asked that question of Seattleblues on more than one occasion, and he has always avoided answering it.

I asked the question in the NYT a decade ago...

Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?

Still waiting on an answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinio…

If being gay was a choice, wouldn't all men in prison be gay?

That's my question. I mean, they don't care about morals, they are in prison. And there are no women. So they get to choose either no sex or sex with men, and a remarkable majority just do without. Huh. How about that.

But the "it's equality because both gay and straight people an marry the opposite sex" argument is one I've done before. It's kind of like calling it freedom of religion to allow everyone to be Christian. They do that too.

My argument in the end is that sexual orientation isn't a choice, but religion is, and they should choose to better one (usually I inject some data about how homophobia harms LGBT people, but LGBT people don't harm anybody, so they are the evil ones).

And I always ask them in the meantime whether the people who burned witches at the stake went to heaven for it, because it was in the Bible. I'm still waiting for my answer too.

I don't even think the attitude of these bigots is about saying gay people should play make believe and marry straights. I think they are saying when they change into the 'correct' human form, they can join the rest of the right-wing nutjob approved gang (an act they know is not possible). This attitude is on par with saying to a black American in the 50's "Sure, little lady, you can ride on the front of the bus. Just as soon as you are white!" They can then figuratively wipe their hands, confident that they did indeed give people an option, but those pesky sinners in question just refuse to take it.

Knock the Bachmanns for their individual deeds, but don't knock their continued marriage, the one thing which makes it impossible (at least for now) for either of them to marry anybody else.

@6:

Unfortunately, that would only result in a whole lot more slut-shaming by religious bigots, who would simply accuse those women of making "poor life choices" by marrying gay men in the first place. No matter how it goes down, they'll always find someone besides themselves to blame; I seriously think that's one of the main reasons they chose the religion they did, because it allows them to view themselves as perpetually blameless - they're the GOOD ones, the TRUE BELIEVERS, after all - while maintaining the fallacy that everyone else around them is responsible for all the wrong in the world.