Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

NFL player: I have gay relatives, but am ‘not with’ those who support equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There those who “are not with” equality for many different groups. That’s why we have the laws we have.Laws which many “are not with” but have to abide by.

    Once again, no one is being forced to have a “gay marriage”, so it won’t effect anyone not involved. Sorry for stating the obvious.

  2. “But I have relatives that are gay. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same.”

    He treats them the same, he just doesn’t think they should have the same rights as him.
    Isn’t it amazing that African Americans are the only ethnic group that is still opposed to marriage equality? One would think they should know what discrimination feels like, Apparently not.

    1. David Waite 27 May 2013, 5:58pm

      Making untrue extrapolations about a group, tenuously based on the statement of an individual member of that 35M-large group is the quintessence of bigotry.

    2. Midnighter 27 May 2013, 7:10pm

      Thats a false generalisation. A year old story from this very site:

      US black civil rights group, NAACP, endorses equal marriage
      http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/20/us-black-civil-rights-group-naacp-endorses-equal-marriage/

      Then you have Jesse Jackson who has stated he would happily marry same sex couples, Kelvin Atkinson, the POTUS himself … plenty of high profile black advocates actually. There was some statistics showing the African American has shifted considerably in favour over the last year or so. As soon as Obama came out in support of it their suport was 54% in favour (according to the Washington Post). According to Wikipedia currently that figure was 59% this time last year.

      1. Quite true, unfortunately one gets the impression that there is a preponderance of black guys, particularly in the sports and music world, who happen to have done alright for themselves and who then proceed to swagger about casually spouting their dimwit anti-gay prejudices in an attempt to gain
        further popularity by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

        1. If one gets that impression, one should possibly ask oneself if one is not swaggering about spouting one’s own prejudices in order to gain popularity for oneself by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

          1. Oh…STFU.

        2. Midnighter 28 May 2013, 9:29am

          Honestly it sounds like your experience of black guys is limited to tv drama. It isn’t entirely innacurate – idiots exist – but nor is it representative of the spectrum of the population.

          How many of the politicians standing up talking filth about LGBTs are black? What colour is Bryan Fischer? Do they not make an impression?

          Sports and music do indeed seem to be particularly homophobic but attitudes from those industries isn’t limited by skin colour. It may be there are more black guys drawn to those industries, so there may be a statistic to explain your perception. It is worth noting however that prominent black artists and players have come out to support gays and equal marriage in recent times.

          I suggest that the thing influencing their views is not skin colour, and to single that out as a factor is to neglect the real root causes and annoy potential allies.

          1. Except that the article we are discussing here concerns a black man who has done alright for himself and is swaggering about casually spouting his ill-thought through anti-eqaulity notions.

          2. Yes … but you are extrapolating to make a generalistion – at times about an entire race – from a premise that is statisically provable as false.

            If you limited your statements to the relevant industries you might be closer to a truthful statement, however you need to be careful that you support such an argument by accounting for non-black homophobes and black supporers or you will – as you have been here – find that your argument is not considered logically valid on general principle (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization).

            In essence I believe that you are reinforcing your own cognitive bias by noticing black guys saying homophobic things, but not being objective about the incidence of black guys saying supportive things, or considering the whole population.

  3. Obviously I don’t believe what’s below, but it shows how ignorant of his prejudice he is….

    “Black people should not be able to marry. To each his own. I’m not with it. But I have relatives and friends who are Black. I’m not biased towards them. I still treat them the same. I love ‘em. But again, I’m not with that. That’s not something I believe in. But to each his own. “

    1. An utterly moronic argument. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, irrespective of skin colour. Allowing blacks to marry whites in the US in 1967 involved a change in the law, but not a change in marriage itself. What you’re asking for is for marriage to be fundamentally altered, not just a change in the law. I’m for SSM btw, I’m pointing out your gaping fallacy. Try harder.

      1. “Marriage has always been between a man and a woman”

        1) are you quite certain about that?
        2) in civil marriage, the definition in law IS the definition of marriage
        3) chill

        1. Dennis,
          2 points:

          Marriage is not fundamental – meaning foundation or base – ; love is the fundamental to marriage. Marriage is a structure built – ideologically- on love. Changing the structure of marriage does not make any fundamental change anymore than a pre-nuptial agreement would change the law.

          Love and marriage has been between same-sex since biblical beginning, most likely evidence by the fact Adams existed for days before any Eves. Now, in the absence of Eves and as evidenced by the willingness of today’s male jail population to play with each other in the absence Eves, we can be quite sure Adams of old, who most likely had lower IQs than the Adams of today- would gleeful and without judgement have a good rug against each other to get their rocks off. Thus we can conclude, same-sex love and marriage was most likely the norm before any m-to-f sex change, through the transformation of a rib and their subsequent man-to-woman marriages. – revelations interpreted

      2. We don’t have to try Dennis. The law is changing to allow us to marry. YOU try to understand now. The reason “marriage has always been between a man a a woman” as you so brilliantly put it, is because heterosexuals are the majority. Get it? I like to think that if homosexuals were in the majority, that we wouldn’t try and stop heteros from marrying…no matter how lousy a job they made of marriage (51% failure rate in the United States!). Stop bullying gay people with your weary time-worn arguments and make better use of your time.

    2. And you conveniently fail to realise that the most gay-friendly President the U.S has ever seen is half black?

  4. Adrian Peterson looks totally gay to me, I imagine he’s trying to hide something.

    1. a big old bottom from cocohoes……………………… I have African American friends, but I am “not with” those who support their equality.

  5. “He treats them the same, he just doesn’t think they should have the same rights as him.”

    But they do all have the same rights. Heterosexuals are also barred from marrying anybody of the same sex. It is irrelevant that they do not wish to, the point is they are not allowed. Therefore, the law does not discriminate on account of sexual orientation.
    The deviant brigade cannot get this point through their thick skulls, including Thatchell who speaks in eloquent tones but has the intellect of Forrest Gump!

    1. Midnighter 27 May 2013, 7:30pm

      And that one is known as the masked man fallacy, since you have substituted a second premise for the first, thus your argument does not logically support your conclusion that we have the same rights already.

      If you need any more help thinking rationally, I’ll be here to help.

      1. Please ignore the troll. It has serious psychological problems and the intelligence of an amoeba.

    2. Christopher in Canada 27 May 2013, 9:06pm

      Keith, your opinion is bound only by geopolitical lines on a map – none of which can be seen from space.

    3. Therapy can help you see the difference in colour. You poor sad person. I sincerely beg you for the sake of the children of today and tomorrow, please get some help. Good change of thought can help you do good and make the world a better place.

  6. Some times it not a good idea to voice the unthought through beliefs you have about other peoples rights, especially as in this case they do not impact the speaker in any way whatsoever.
    Wonder what his reported gay relative thinks of his discriminatory attitude and professed lack of bias?
    Tool.

  7. So unnecessary. I’m utterly offended by this. Choccos?? Maybe that’s what you think in whatever backward country you come from, but don’t try and dress this up as something else.

    I’m truly sick of the racism on these boards – thumbing you up reinforces this.

    1. You surely understand why I referred to him thus, if he wants to have my respect he will need to earn it from me from now on, good day!

      1. Bob totally misunderstood the point I was making, either because of my lack of clarity or his poor powers of comprehension, he then had my comment removed and commenced to slander me while I am left defenceless as the evidence has been removed.
        I’ll leave it there.

    2. I agree Bob. I understand the apathy and anger caused by Peterson but if people reply with racial slurs, it only serves to create more division and deter straight friends in minority ethnic communities. We have to stand against prejudice in all its forms.

      1. How dare you misinterpret what I wrote as prejudiced when the whole point of what I wrote was to illlustrate why Adrian Peterson’s prejudice is wrong.

        The problem with idiots like you is that you misinterpret and censor what others write because you are entirely too daft to comprehend irony.

        1. I wasn’t calling you prejudice Pavlos, I don’t know you well enough to qualify a statement like that – and quite frankly it flies in the face of other comments of yours that I’ve read.

          I just felt, like Bob, that if we use terms like Chocco’s, even in reference to people like Adrian Peterson; even in jest or with irony, then it debases our whole argument for equality as it can be interpreted by some to suggest that we don’t practice what we preach.

          We have to be above all that – because we’re better – or at least that’s what I believe. Maybe I am too daft.

          No offence intended.

          1. Thanks for explaining Gareth.

            Unfortunately all that is left of my original comment (that Bob had removed) is the word “chocco” now out of the context of what I had written and subjected to Bob’s misinterpretation and distortion of my intention.

            In fact the only time I’ve ever heard anyone actually use the term “chocco” was in a gay club when a stranger standing next to me said about a black guy dancing ” just look at the chocco go”, it wasn’t said maliciously but with a sense of awe.

          2. Yes, we gay men are always expected to be the best little boys in the world at all times, especially when we attempt to address the casual everyday anti-gay remarks and prejudiced attitudes expressed by people like Adrian Peterson.

          3. And black gay men who read gay news sites are expected to put up with offensive language?

        2. Getting annoyed only illustrates my point – and yes, I had your comment removed – it’s offensive. Surely, as a gay man you understand discrimination and how certain words cause offence?

          1. How dare you misinterpret what I wrote as prejudiced when the whole point of what I wrote was to illlustrate why Adrian Peterson’s prejudice is wrong.

            As you’ve erased the evidence of your misunderstanding you are free to slander me now and so distract from the true issue here of the comments of yet another homophobic black sports celebrity.

            Comment on that!

          2. This has nothing to do with slander. I don’t know you.

            Sure, there are homophobic black sports men. That’s not my point. I have an issue with you using the word ‘chocco’ regardless of the context. I’m baffled as to how you can’t understand my objection to you using that word. And then to further explain yourself by detailing a story of how someone used the word in a nightclub, but not in a supposedly malicious way is irrelevant. As a gay man, surely you should ‘get’ this??

            By subsribing to this ‘yet another black man..’ way of thinking only serves to alienate certain people within our already small community.

          3. I get that you didn’t read my original comment properly before you reacted and had it removed otherwise you would not have thought It was making a deliberate racial slur rather than making a point about why prejudice is wrong.

            I even prefaced the comment with a paragraph stating that beliefs are just thoughts that we keep repeating and that we can change prejudiced beliefs/thoughts if we make an effort.

            Anyway I’m sorry we had a misunderstanding, let’s leave it there, I’ve nothing more to add.

        3. It has nothing to do with being daft – it’s FEELING OFFENDED BY PEOPLE USING RACIST LANGUAGE IN ALL CONTEXTS!!

          I understand and appreciate irony when its used well, but certainly not in this case.

          1. Is that so, will you now please stop slandering me?

    3. ” Maybe that’s what you think in whatever backward country you come from,”….directed at someone called Pavlos….who is being racist now !!!!!
      FOOL

  8. I also do not believe in granting blacks equal rights. I’ll still treat them the same, but they shouldn’t get married, vote, or even drink from the same fountain as me.

    And thats just how idiotic Adrian sounds.

    1. That is a false argument since the law on marriage applies to everyone whatever their sexual orientation. Your argument would be true only if gays were barred from marriage because they are gay, but that is not the case. Gays can get married under the same laws as straights. That is equality. The laws is disinterested in your sexual preferences and no laws bar anyone from anything on the grounds of their sexual preferences.
      Do you think barring consenting adult fathers and sons from having sex is the same as racism because that is where your argument leads, fool?

      1. Midnighter 27 May 2013, 9:08pm

        I remind you that the purpose of Justice, which the law serves, is to balance the wishes of conflicting factions within society. Gays wish to marry the person they love, which is ostensibly the reason most straight people get married.

        The law is a tool of justice and is susceptible of change. Quoting the current law as you keep doing is thus not a means to define justice or advance your argument. Tell us instead why you believe the current situation is sufficiently just, and you might make some sense.

        1. Where did you get that nonsense? Are you therefore arguing that the needs of the consenting adult incestuous should also be considered or do you not accept that the law is there to prevent moral decay as well as preventing harm loss or injury?
          Prostitution (soliciting), consensual adult incest, polygamy and gay marriage are all barred under law yat all those groups could claim they love each other and are being discriminated against. Out of those groups, why should homosexuals be considered an exception?
          PS I have already explained that the law applies to all equally regardless of their sexual preferences which is why I believe the law is just with regard to marriage.

          1. Plato’s Republic for starters. But if you think its nonsense perhaps you could explain why. It could be amusing.

            I suggest you actually read what I said again – I didn’t say everyone gets there own way automatically, and I didn’t say egalitarianism is the only form of justice.

            PS – your explanation of the law is irrelevant. Again, explained above. Do you need me to use shorter words?

          2. Just to note, many laws are based on false justice, thus as society progresses toward actual justice the laws must change, which is why it is now permissible for two different raced people to legally marry. Your reasoning and interpretation is ignorant, and only a means to remain in your comfort zone.

            As for such thing as incestuous relationships, which you are using just to reinforce the ignorance of your argument, you are misunderstanding and misbranding justice, because real justice already incorporates a discriminating thought process to keep the human gene pool healthy and pure as we progress to higher and higher intelligence.

      2. So by your reasoning keith, it follows that if we changed marriage law so that whoever you are you can only marry a person of the same sex then that would be equality for all too because it was the same for everybody and as you say, the law is disinterested in your sexual preference. It’s your “argument” that is false keith and clearly you haven’t thought it through logically.

        1. Yes. That is true. If marriage laws were changed so that you could only marry the same sex that would be equality as long as the law applied equally to all. At last, someone understands the point!
          It is like the smoking ban, some think it is fair (non smokers usually) others do not(smokers usually) yet the law applies equally to all, not just smokers. Of course it will impact smokers more and they may feel discriminated against as a group but impact and fairness are not equality issues.
          In marriage , nobody is barred because they are gay. You are not even asked about your sexual preferences when registering a marriage.

          1. It isn’t that we don’t get it keith, we just think your argument is stupid.

            You contiually support your argument by “the law is right because it is the law”. This is patently a case of begging the question and thus logically fallacious (i.e. a rubbish argument).

            The law now is not what the law will be tomorrow.

            Your argument relies on ignoring a groups’ wishes, and I’ve explained to you a primary function of justice is accomodating the spectrum of wishes (needs, demands) in society.

          2. But keith if the law required everybody to marry only a same sex partner then the law would be an equally unjust law as it is in the present situation and it would cause as much suffering to heterosexual persons as the present legal requirement does to homosexual persons.
            Bad laws require amending.

      3. Michaelandfred 28 May 2013, 3:25am

        Idiotic argument. Like suggestion the laws forbidding interracial marriage were not discriminatory, all one had to do was change their color or ethnicity. How sad that at this point in history, when all of human knowledge, science, medicine, history and psychology is available in the palm if your hand, you willfully choose to remain ignorant on the history of marriage, the legality of marriage and even the biblical definition.

        I feel sorry for you. Like those throughout history fighting progress tooth and nail.

        1. What are you on about? That is a completely false argument, comparing the ban on interracial marriage to the ban on same sex marriage since there is no ban on gays marrying as there was on interracial marriage. If you are gay you are allowed to marry in the opposite sex just as interracial marriage is only allowed in the opposite sex. You see, the rules are the same for all!
          It is right to impose restrictions on marriage for moral reasons. That is why a father cannot marry his son . If you are saying that marriage should be available to all consenting adults regardless of gender, then a theoretical whole new argument opens up to the rights of fathers and sons marrying, polygamy etc etc.
          Are you saying that all consenting adults should be allowed to marry regardless of gender?

          1. I think you have WAY too much time on your hands Keith. Go find yourself a hobby. Stamps or cross word puzzles work for me.

    2. Pointless and racist.

  9. Saw this on Twitter:

    “Unmarried Adrian Peterson, father of two, engaged to a Playmate, disapproves of Gay Marriage. Presumably because of his exceptional values”

    Made me laugh

    1. Yes, if the hypocrisy revealed there didn’t make you laugh there’d be something wrong with you.

  10. Pavlos said”But keith if the law required everybody to marry only a same sex partner then the law would be an equally unjust law as it is in the present situation and it would cause as much suffering to heterosexual persons as the present legal requirement does to homosexual persons.
    Bad laws require amending.”

    My reply…
    I do not believe the law is bad or needs amending since I see the ban on same sex marriage in the same light as the ban on father and son marriage or polygamous marriage. In a word, immoral.

    1. Your reply is that you believe the bans on same sex marriage, polygamy and incest are immoral? I don’t think that is what you meant to say, Keith. It is no surprise to me that you are getting tripped up in your own illogic.

      1. I am saying that incest, polygamy and same sex marriage are immoral and therefore banned.
        I have been consistent in that assertionhave to explain why if you allow one you have to allow them all or explain the inconsistency.

        1. Midnighter 28 May 2013, 2:31pm

          The flaw with that argument is that morality and taboo aren’t fixed and absolute things around the world and over time.

          What is moral to one Christian may be immoral to someone from a different denomination, let alone from another religion. Society’s modern views on morality differ from the predominantly Christian teachings that dictated morality in the past. Christianity’s own views have changed on these matters.

          Much like any social freedom, you should be entitled to abide by your own personal morality so long as it doesn’t impinge of the rights of the rest of society to live by their own moral codes.

          Secondly, you are conflating three separate things and hoping that because some people may agree with the relative morality on one, that you might sell them a philosophical two-for-one. Logically this is fallacious, of course. If morality were absolute, you would still need to demonstrate that it applied equally to each of those things.

    2. Yes, you believe that because you are a persistent troll and closet case who can’t stay away from gay discussion boards in your zeal to impose your personal and distorted moral tyranny upon others.

      1. Why not try to explain why a father and consensual adult son should not be allowed to marry if same sex marriage passes (doubtful)?
        I thought your brigade believed that what happens with consenting adults is their own business or do you now discriminate?

        1. Easy, as a father and an adult son already are in a familial relationship called father and son, it is not necessary for them to get married to form a familial relationship.

  11. Every straight person has a relative of whom is gay. So what’s his point?

  12. Patriarchy in action again as per usual.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all