Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century

This is docpotato's dog. Can someone let me out? I have to urinate and, if possible, fornicate with something.

Am I the only one here who wishes my life was this exciting?

You forgot "homophones".And no one forced him to do anything. It's clear that he was not ready for prime time.

The term "POLITICALLY CORRECT" is not something I really understand (or really care about) and, thus, I can't answer your question.If Rob found the withdrawal embarassing, there's not a lot I can do about it (as no one forced him to withdraw).I don't know what you mean by "the whole gay thing". Are you referring to civil rights?

I thought gay rights referred to the civil rights of gay people?Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

Nicely put. But, oh man, I hope Hoot doesn't start asking why his boat can't have the same civil rights as everyone else.

Even if we accept, for argument's sake, that your limited experience with gay culture (I use limited in the sense that everyone's experience is, by the fact that it's not the totality of all experience, limited) can stand for the whole of gay culture... how on earth is it hypocritical for people to change?I said a lot of things when I was 18.

That line was said to Lisa, not Ralph. Don't be unfair to Lisa.

"The gays" have only changed if we accept that the viewpoint of the gay people you knew was the viewpoint of all gay people. Of course they weren't. And, anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not they've changed. You should only change your mind if you wish to support equality. Doubtless they will, as do most married couples. Some married people aren't even sexually monogomous, or so the legend goes. Yeah, I get that it's your opinion. So, basically, you want to give them whatever they want up until the word "marriage" is threatened? I understand that with civil unions you feel we won't have to change the meaning of marriage. But why is it your opinion that we need to preserve this word? What good does it do anyone to preserve the definition of a word? I, for one, appreciate your sincerity. But I find where you're coming from rather appalling for reasons that others have already gone over.

Hmm. I don't see that something is being destroyed, only expanded upon.Changing "Marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman." to "Marriage is sometimes between a man and a woman, two men, or two women". (for simplicity's sake I've left out the polygamous marriages out there in the real world)Oh wait, I do see something being destroyed: exclusivity.

You should start a club. You know you'll have plenty of members and you can charge dues, so you would make a lot of money.Otherwise, who cares? Oh yeah, you should tell that to a friend of mine. He's gay, from England, has been in a relationship with his partner for 10 years. The partner was transferred to America. My friend doesn't have a job that will sponsor his visa. So, he can't stay in the country with his partner because no one is willing to recognize that these two are, for all intents and purposes, married. Just an opinion. Dan was right: Your cat's breath DOES smell like cat food. This is pure nonsense, Ralph.Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

That sounds like as good a reason for an anullment as any.Have you given any thought as to why you feel you've got to protect the definition of the word "marriage"... or are you now completely shifting your argument to tell us why you think being gay is bio-illogical?

Why? It seems to me that bigotry could be powerful enough. Did you have something else in mind? For the record: This is noted. It has been refuted. Please stop pointing at the bigotry of the majority as if it somehow excuses your own.

I think it's undoubtable that the United States has bigots within its population. Which makes it a nation at least partially comprised of bigots. Do you disagree with this?