Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
73 online now:
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,342 Year: 11,090/23,288 Month: 342/1,763 Week: 309/390 Day: 30/99 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 193 of 313 (378764)
01-21-2007 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:58 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Because they start threads justifying human actions because animals engage in such activity.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:58 PM Rob has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 194 of 313 (378767)
01-21-2007 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Rob
01-21-2007 4:12 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
You guys are not only an extreme danger to yourselves, but to society at large. You are exactly as Paul described you all in romans 1.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 4:12 PM Rob has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 206 of 313 (378898)
01-22-2007 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Poor Rob
wonder if all you homos and homophiles are happy now that you forced poor Rob to take down his cross and go home. Just how politically correct is that?

You forgot "homophones".

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 7:22 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 11:17 AM docpotato has responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 210 of 313 (378919)
01-22-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 11:17 AM


Re: Poor Rob
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 11:17 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 12:40 PM docpotato has responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 212 of 313 (378924)
01-22-2007 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 12:40 PM


Re: "The whole gay thing"
Please educate me. When was it decided officially that gay rights = civil rights?

I thought gay rights referred to the civil rights of gay people?

Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 12:40 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 214 of 313 (378949)
01-22-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Taz
01-22-2007 1:15 PM


Re: "The whole gay thing"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Taz, posted 01-22-2007 1:15 PM Taz has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 219 of 313 (379016)
01-22-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 5:12 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Somewhere along the way the gays decided to claim their "civil rights" and demand equal access to straight culture. That's were I started to say: Hey, wait minute. First they don't want to be like the straights and then they do.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 5:12 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:29 PM docpotato has responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 222 of 313 (379020)
01-22-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Dan Carroll
01-22-2007 5:34 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Here's a red ball. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it in the corner while the grownups are talking.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 5:34 PM Dan Carroll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-22-2007 5:43 PM docpotato has not yet responded
 Message 248 by Larni, posted 01-23-2007 4:02 AM docpotato has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 234 of 313 (379075)
01-22-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 7:29 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
OK, maybe you're right. Maybe the gays have changed. Fine.

"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.

Fine. But I still don't know why I should change my mind and support the "marriage" between same sexes.

You should only change your mind if you wish to support equality.

Marriage is between opposite sexes. Let the fairies do it their own way.

Doubtless they will, as do most married couples. Some married people aren't even sexually monogomous, or so the legend goes.

Give them have whatever they want, but don't let them change the meaning of "marriage." Why? Because we don't need to if they have civil unions. That's my opinion, OK.

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?

(Lordie, Lordie, I tried to explain sincerely where I'm coming from and look at all the grief I got for it.)

I, for one, appreciate your sincerity. But I find where you're coming from rather appalling for reasons that others have already gone over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 7:29 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 8:03 PM docpotato has responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 239 of 313 (379083)
01-22-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 8:03 PM


Re: The definition of a word
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 8:03 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2007 9:25 PM docpotato has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 242 of 313 (379087)
01-22-2007 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Fosdick
01-22-2007 8:33 PM


Re: My excuse for being rational
Boys, boys. In the Land of Milk and Honey, just south of Canuckistan, the MAJORITY of people agree with me.

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?

We are dealing with opinions here, not facts of civil equality.

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.

And your opinions are not going anywhere important soon, because your opinions are basically not biological.

Dan was right: Your cat's breath DOES smell like cat food. This is pure nonsense, Ralph.

Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 8:33 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Fosdick, posted 01-22-2007 9:03 PM docpotato has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 270 of 313 (379225)
01-23-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Fosdick
01-23-2007 12:54 PM


Re: "Consummation"
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 12:54 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 294 of 313 (379314)
01-23-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by Fosdick
01-23-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Good question.
There must be some reason other than bigotry that prevents the gays from marrying each other.

Why? It seems to me that bigotry could be powerful enough. Did you have something else in mind?

It doesn't seem to me like the majority of OPINIONS expreessed here are very popular on the American stage.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 7:18 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 7:30 PM docpotato has responded

docpotato
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 299 of 313 (379329)
01-23-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Fosdick
01-23-2007 7:30 PM


Re: Good question.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 7:30 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2007 8:04 PM docpotato has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020