I agree

Who are we talking about?

here, here.

Tough. Really. As brutal as that may sound, it's ridiculously patronizing to believe that our gay brothers and sisters need to be handled with kid gloves. Hell, my best friend is as gay as they come and he'd pity anyone so sensitive. If we can't joke about each others' sex, sexuality, race, religion, political orientation and all manner of other personal characteritics, that's a very sad state of affairs.

signed - proud to be a breeder........

But SevenT, didn't Piglet make that comment to you and others regarding the jokes about "Brendalana's Bits" etc. ?

That comment was made (I thought) because people were talking about someone who actually posts. I tried to find the original thread so I could look back myself but haven't been able too and I'm lacking on free time as well so whatevers.

I don't know... But if I as well as others can make jokes about Julian Hall being a cokehead and not too many people make a fuss about that... Why can't I say someone is a little light in the loafers?

Not to mention, isn't "putts from the rough" a pretty tame way of saying someone is gay anyway?? I mean if I was thinking of offensive words/phrases used to refer to homosexuals, none of the ones used so far would spring to mind... maybe that's just me though.

Then again, on the other side of it, it's just as wrong for a straight person to do it, so the person's orientation is really moot, no?

Or would it be better if they had a marriage of convenience to someone of the same gender...

Oh, wait.

I agree. Far more straight people marry for convenience in Bermuda than gays, so sexuality is pretty moot. It also raises the question of whether gay people should be barred from marrying straight people in the first place. Now, that sounds like a strange thing to say at first blush, but one has to look at it in context of the civil partnership laws in the UK: two people, regardless of sexual orientation, can enter into a civil partnership, which effectively gives the parties the rights of married partners. Platonic couples have made this choice, and have chosen to become civil partners for legal purposes. Should platonic friends be denied the legal rights afforded to straight and gay couples, merely because they are not romantically involved?

Hell, after a few years many straight, married couples are no longer romantically involved