Dem Parents

Sorry friend, allow me to explain: You're looking at this the wrong way. This is a comic, not a PSA. There are two jokes in here. The obvious and the indirect. The FATHER believes in gender sterotypes, the mother doesn't, the mother says nothing bad comes from playing with dolls, the father gives in, the kid "turns out" to be gay. The satire here is, the father blames himself for listening to the mother and now HE thinks his son is gay for playing with dolls.

TL;DR? 1st joke. Implication of breaking gender stereotypes makes you gay
2nd joke. Satirical towards people who BELIEVE this fact to be true. The father represents the part of society that rely so heavy on stereotypes.

Hope this cleared things up. :)

Yeah but his mother is in the corner with "Where did I go wrong"

Was that implied that his mother didn't want her son to be gay, or that she was wrong about dolls... or...?

Don't yell at me, but I kinda also got an "Anti-gay" vibe from this.

Hypocrisy and ignorance is what the mother represents. The reader would believe the mother is the protagonist in the story because she doesn't believe in gender stereotypes, leading you to believe she is more accepting to sexuality. Her part is important at the end because she's feels she failed at raising her son and can't pinpoint why. The father, already firm in his beliefs is recalled to that memory and he bases that off of why his son is gay.

I could've communicated all this better but the comic would've turned into a book. But I didnt expect everybody to pick up on the subtle humor underneath the direct humor because most people don't look that far in.

Looking from the normal user's standpoint, all I could see was the father's discontent because his son was gay, which led to the memory, which led to her mother thinking she fails at raising her son, both kind of anti-gay.

Don't get me wrong, I can see some humor in it, but the way it was communicated didn't allow the vast majority of the people on this site to actually see the humor.

It cleared things up, but that's not at all what I got from looking at it initially. You should try communicating the humor better next time.

You sir are correct
In ever way

well most men don't have a son and think "i hope he's gay!" Its the truth. Theres nothing wrong with having that mentality.

FYI your sexual preference can be tipped either way, and yes playing with dolls does tend to tip it more one way than the other. You can't honestly believe someone is born gay. That's like thinking someone is born a criminal. Being born black isn't a choice, but being gay is a choice.

well think about it though when you have a son you want to be able to do a bunch of manly fun things with him like play football go hunting and fishing and shit, and he turns out to be like a woman, i'm sure he doesn't hate his son, and he most likely accepts him it's just not what he expected.

1) I don't know too much about tax breaks for marriage and the like, but I assume that's if they have a child. They wouldn't get preemptive tax breaks because they might have a kid; that makes no sense. But I don't know much about special marriage finances.

2) Homosexuality is not a 'preference'. It is a genetic sexual orientation influenced heavily by the x28 gene. The others are considered learned behaviours and can be gotten around. And incest actually is legal. In 16 States, 2nd cousins can get married.

And in Virginia, First cousins can get marries :/

There's actually a good (depending on how you look at it) reason for it though

That has nothing to do with whether or not they are gay, just effeminate. If you look it up, you'll find that while other genetic factors come into play,X28 is among the biggest deciders of strait or gay.
Also, preference implies choice, and to a gay person, it can't be called preference because to them, being attracted to one of the opposite sex is such a foreign thought it can't be thrown in with 'preferring one thing over another', as the other option, opposite-sex partners, is a complete non-option.

Actually, it can't be a natural gene, since homosexuals do not have children (for obvious reasons). If any genetic factor plays in, it is a mutation similar to down syndrome... Or a hand-me-down from a bisexual parent or a parent that that had children of their own for whatever reason...
Also effeminacy can actually make one homosexual or bisexual, no biggy...

Not trying to say homosexuality is either good or bad, because I don't care... just pointing that out...

What? Like I said, other things come into play beside the X28, meaning that a woman (since traits like that cannot be passed on the Y chromosome) can be in effect a 'carrier' for homosexuality. Not saying it's a disease, but that someone can have X28 and not be gay, but if they have children with another person it is possible for them to then have a gay child. And not only that, but gay people can have legitimate children. Men can have a surrogate mother and women can have sperm donors.
And effeminacy can't make a child gay or bi. Just because some people can be effeminate and gay does not mean one is or can be dependent on the other. Many gay men are effeminate because that's how they like to be. Many lesbians are masculine because that how they like to be. Many people take after the opposite sex. It's a fact.
And though I have no statistics to throw about, isn't it possible that once a father discovers his child is gay, he might be a homophobe or some such and leaves, meaning the child is raised by the mother and so is effeminate?

1) Bisexuality is actually good for a species, male lions have sex with other members of the pride for bonding for example. But pure homosexuality is not built into animals naturally. So no, not a disease, but a mutation.
2) Homosexuality, if it is encoded into DNA, would be a mutation of the genes. Homosexuals have same-sex sex, and therefore cannot have children of their own. Therefore the amount of homosexuals now is impossible, especially the wide-spread diversity because of the simple fact that the gene wouldn't even have children 90% of the homosexuals, and another 5% would be killed for it (in older times). The growth of the homosexual population isn't even appropriate for this theory because now even less homosexuals are in the closet, and therefore don't need fake marriages, and therefore don't have kids, reducing the percentage of the chance of the gene to be passed. And the 28 chromosome is not the Y chromosome, it can't be carried by women. Therefore, the gene would have to be a mutation similar to down-syndrome if it were genetic.
3) Effeminacy will increase the chances of a child turning to homosexual behavior. Want proof (since I'm to lazy to actually get the research)? Just tell me how many gay males you see going around and acting super tough. And tell me how many lesbians you find acting super girly. The ratio is proportional to accurately say that tom-boy/effeminate behavior increases the chance of homosexuality.

1) and 2): Since other genes need to be present, the Xq28 marker (sorry I was wrong earlier. It's the Xq28 marker on the X Chromosome [that women carry]) can spread through a population for generations until the conditional genes appear, at which point the gene would make full manifest. Not everyone that has a marker at Xq28 is gay, which means it can in fact be passed along. And it can be called a mutation, I suppose, I just don't like saying that because of its negative connotation. Also, your argument seemed to make a point that society would kill of gays. Untrue, as many people would hide it in those eras and further still, since its on the X chromosome, men don't factor too well in Xq28's passage. Also, homosexuals still exist in non-human creatures as well.
3): Enough to know there's no correlation. Sounds like a sidestep answer but trust that it's truth.

1) No, bisexuality. Explicit homosexuality is human-only.
2) They would stone gays a thousand years ago, true story.
3) Too lazy to get research, so whatever, not like this is an important debate xD

1) Anyone could say 'that animal's not gay, just bi and is currently with a same-sex partner', so this point has quite obviously become moot and unable to be argued. Not saying I'm wrong, just acknowledging an impasse.
2) Yes, but my point is that in that time gay people would be wise enough to not act gay, or at least not gay enough to be stoned. Also, by the time people began to think that homosexuality was wrong, Xq28 likely was widespread by that time and thus even the gay ones that died weren't the end of those carrying Xq28.
3) True, this matter is far more trivial than if we were arguing if homosexuality is 'moral' or 'right' or not.

Though I don't support people thumbing you down. Yes, you think something different, but that doesn't mean that you should be red thumbed. I see no anti-LGBT content in your post, so I think an agreement of disagreal is in order.

Though I would like to say that if homosexuality was a choice and influenced by external factors (like family) I would be a gay man by now.

And thus the often. I don't understand why I get thumbed down for providing an educated argument, but regardless... I'm sorry to take so long, but I'm really busy. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no genes for being a christian, there's no genes for being straight, there's no genes for being bi, and so by logical reasoning and scientific research showing the fallacies in the connection between genetics and homosexuality one comes to the conclusion that being gay is as much a decision as a sane person has in committing a murder.

I would like to clarify that I personally support the rights of all peoples, and gays do indeed fall into the category of people. It's horrible the way our society treats homosexuals, and even bisexuals. A human is a human, and every human has unalienable rights which are, as Thomas Jefferson says it, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. HAPPINESS. If you're happy with marrying another gay man or woman than you cannot be denied that, especially in America because to do so would violate our very nature as a country and the values that we built ourselves upon.

With that said I do appreciate your understanding, and I would like to say that I do indeed respect you as an intellectual person, and I'm glad that it's possible for two intelligent people to have a reasonable conversation whether they actually know each other or not.

Then how can it possibly exist in animals? Also, you act as if external environmental factors can change genetics or determines traits as that, as if wearing a blue shirt all the time will turn your eyes blue.
As for studies, consider this: Scientists have literally mice display lesbian and masculine tenancies. by removing a particular gene, and mice without the gene removed continued to behave normally.

I thumbed you up because you know what you are talking about... I don't know why people thumb you down, I guess it's just because they just can't accept people who don't agree with every damned thing they do?

Incest leads to deformed offspring. Children under the age of 13 don't understand the consequences, and therefore are unable to consent to sex. Necrophelia isn't conseual. Polygamy cause many problems. That is, most people that support it are religious nutjobs, who aren't in a stable state of mind.

1) Completely agree. We can completely redo the system to allow marriage and not give the tax breaks until they HAVE children, but that would be a lot harder than saying, "okay homosexuals, you do your thing, we do ours, sorry we don't want to do all this work when the entire country is going to Hell, we'll get to it later. In the mean time, we don't mind you dating each other or nothing...?"

2) Okay that's just wrong. Homosexuality is NOT related in ANY way to necrophilia or rape or incest or any of that. Homosexuality is completely consensual.

**GoReMoTe rolled a random image posted in comment #151 at Oh they mad ** fuckin lol'd

There should be a new word for homophobic. I have never seen somebody shit their pants, hide behind a corner, and cower in fear and terror because somebody was gay.

I was just about to post a comment saying that when i was a kid i used to play with both Bratz and Hot Wheels cars....
And i turned out bi.
Oh. o.o.

I'm a gay guy. I Played with wrestlers.. and cars.. and all that boy stuff.. And my Parents are still acting like the wrestlers made me gay.... its just so.. ugg

Actually laughing my fucking ass of on that.

Thanks. Here's a video explaining my appreciation.

What you did there. I see it.

Damn I was hoping for the 'FABULOUS" seal.

Big Gay Phoque.

Wat.

If you don't want to get thumbed down i would suggest using better grammar. But anyway thank you :3

...cause that's what men do

Only if she turned your son gay.

i loled so hard i damn near shit my pants

i laughted harder than with the content, a thumb for you!

You love that gif don't you,

Yes.

I know but still. Not cool.

Not at all. But the idea is still a bit of a shock to society, especially to a parent I'd imagine.

Agreed.

I'm all for society accepting it, but to a parent who wants grandchildren you have to admit that'd be a bit of a shock.

That said, parents who don't accept it in the end or still say it's wrong are shit parents in that respect.

Exactly. Im not gay, but if i have a gay kid, i will encourage him, not discourage.

or maybe he is just trying to help him find a good man and doesn't know how to do it since he is not gay himself?

You know, not all gay people are like that?
I know a dude who's as manly as they get, yet he has a boyfriend.

Why does this always happen?

Somebody speaks their mind on Funnyjunk and gets assraped with red thumbs for it. If you're all for 'tolerance and acceptance', accept the fact that somebody doesn't agree with you, sheesh.

I don't really see a reason to be dissapointed.

He can still grow up, become a man, create his own family and stuff. Even if he's gay.

So you don't think you can love an adopted child just as much? It's a pretty guild-inducing question so you don't have to answer it. I just wanted to ask it so you could think about it, so you wouldn't be disappointed as much in case your future son or daughter turned out gay. I don't see you as a bad person or anything, I guess I just don't take genetics that seriously. An adopted child would just as much a part of the family as any other kind of child. He's my grandson/daughter no matter what and so is my gay son/daughter. As long as we make sure that gays can live a normal life without discrimination there shouldn't be a problem to or a major difference between gay living and straight living. To me it's all about loving your family no matter if they're gay or straight.

Well, that's just your oppinion and feelings about it. I think a lot of people feel that way. It does sound like you would accept your son still in contrast to others who might disown him or something, and I think that what's important.
I wish you and your son the best and that you're able to overcome any difficulties which you might encounter.

Well it's not exactly a choice, i'd much prefer actually leading anormal life than one full with bigots

Least i don't deal with this.

not gunna lie mine too

and pic is wat dad wants to use

he is friking amazing

and this is how OP was made.