someone seeing american football for the first time might easily conclude it's a gay game.

God, you are such an ass. I didn't misrepresent anything you said. You said the people that are up in arms about homosexual public displays of sexuality are tolerant of such hetorosexual displays. That isn't true. The AFA is just as intolerant of hetorsexual sexually-themed entertainment.

You are right, and I'm sorry. I went back and re-read what you wrote. Clearly, I misunderstood. But, even if the AFA may be just as intolerant of hetero sexually oriented themes, are they making as big a fuss over it, by boycotting events, as they do about homosexual themes? I doubt it. If so, they are failing, and for that I am glad. I hate censorship.

Personaly, I find it rather discomforting to see two people making out in public, be they hetero of homo. But, the hetero is clearly accepted, and the homo couple could likely get beaten up. However, two people holding hands is different. If the couple is a man and women, no one bats an eye. If they happen to be two men or two women, then they could likely be beaten up. So, I'm not talking about porn here. I'm just talking about simple expressions of affection.

I guess that is why I jumped on the Jackson nipple thang you raised. It really was not an example of everday events or of simple acts of affection. Having said that, I find that the media, and the public at large, went way over the top in their reaction to it. Cripes, you'd think that someone was killed on stage for all the outrage it caused.

You need to stop playing the fragile flower, it doesn't serve you well. Whining about how I abuse you doesn't make your point for you, princess.

Two things I am not...... 1) a fragile flower, or 2) a princess.

........ so the (Classical) Liberal question still stands, "How can we live, relatively harmoniously, side by side without agreeing?"

That clearly is the "liberal question", isn't it. It's why I cannot, for the life of me, understand why conservatives refuse to accept homosexuality, to the point of either turning a blind eye to the very real discrimination, or to outright banning it, via supporting a gay marriage ban amendment. Fact is, what skin is it off their backs if two people who happen to be of the same sex love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together? What skin is it off their backs if they want equal rights as other couples, including married heterosexuals? Why can't conservatives just live and let live? That's the classic liberal question, too.

Why can't conservatives just live and let live?

Because they believe that 'giving in' to the 'gay agenda' will undermine the family and the 'free society' of which the family is the most important civil unit.

I think that they are wrong, because they are ludicrously pessimistic about the strength of (genuine) family values. However, I have to acknowledge that they have an argument, even if I suspect that it is a mere rationalisation of a 'distaste'.

That's why one side or the other cannot 'win' this argument, so we come once again full circle back to...

..."How can we live, relatively harmoniously, side by side without agreeing?"

zinkadoodle: No, I don't think the AFA calls boycotts much in terms of heterosexuality, but it isn't because they don't oppose them. They try and close adult bookstores, strip bars, etc. They're pretty much always boycotted. People would be like "When were we ever allowed to buy porn?"

The main difference here is that Gay/Lesbian organizations are focused interests with a mission, so they are a named target. I have no doubt if Ford donated money to some organization that supported, say, the rights of porn producers to open stores, the AFA would be right there on them in the same way.

Perhaps it is where I am from, but people scowl and cluck when heterosexuals are overly affectionate. I'm not going to say that a gay couple holding hands wouldn't get more stares, of course they would. There are places in the US where interracial couples still get stares and scowls.

BUT, the same could be said for many places around the world. I spoke with a skinner from Russia once that told me that girls there would never risk being seen on the street with a black man. I don't think that is Russia-wide, but it shows that this kind of moral bias isn't just a "Republican" or AFA thing, or even a Christian thing.

No worries. I think you'll find you read a lot more into what I say than is there. Usually if I insult people, they notice

P.S. Not to be overly harsh, but the gay marriage issue IS NOT LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE.

All you have to do is go look at the states that had a referendum on it during the last election. You'll find that the margins there were waaaaay too wide to be the way you are posing it. By your description, the gay marriage bans should have come in with similar results as the Presidential vote.

Even states where Kerry won, though, a sizable majority voted for gay marriage bans. You can't pretend that it is Democrat/Republican or even Liberal/COnservative. People obviously see this as a separate issue, and one more complex than you are giving them credit for.

You realize there were gay people intereviewed during the whole San Fransisco Mayor thing that opposed gay marriage. Are they what you imagine when you say "conservatives"?

How typical. You can't answer the question so you dance around it and make fun of it and the person asking.

I'm just curious drmiler...what did you contribute to this before other than jumping on zinkadoodle?

No, since they need their own events to play on a level field. Homosexuals aren't challenged in any special way, are they?

Actually, with certain new prosthetics, the field is pretty level nowadays. I was reading in Sports Illustrated that the reigning paralympic champion in the 200 meters could very well try his hand at the olympic games in 2008, if they let him.

And if he were to compete, sportscasters would be quick to praise his courage, which is one word that you would not hear if you tried if this was a gay athlete who had chosen to come out.

As for the question, there's nothing to answer. You were just, for whatever reason, I dunno...... you hate me because I'm a liberal ........, not happy with my reply to Gideon, so you made this rather meager attempt to challenge and denigrate me. And, as is so pathetically typical of you, you have absolutely nothing to say on the topic at hand. All you do is insult people. I have some questions for you, drmiler ...... Why don't you tell JU your thoughts on Philomedy's original topic? Do you have any thoughts on the topic? Are you actually capable of putting coherent thoughts together? Because, until you do, you have absolutely no business coming in here and berating those who actually have made a point, whether you like the point or not. How about actually debating a point? Wow! There's a novel concept....... I'm sorry Philo, to go so off topic, but this boy is getting way out of hand. May be closing in on needing to banish him to his own blog for a while, until he sobers up.

See that's the whole point. You never answered Gid's question all you did was berate him. See below.

I defy you to show me ONE homosexual athlete in this era who has been excluded from their sport because of their sexuality. There's NOT one. And, how would you really know that? I bet they are beaten out of the games at very young ages and in schools by their fellow age mates, who are just parrotting their parents' bigotry, so they never make it to the majors in the first place. Tell me, have you ever done any kind of research into this issue? Likely not, so your defy-ance is rather meaningless.

And as far as me getting confined to my blog? Doubtful, as I have not yet violated the TOS. And just an FYI... I'd lay off the personal attacks if I were you.

And back on topic. Falwell lost it and his credibility a long time ago. Only the extremeists pay any attention to him any more. After re-reading the article I would have to agree...the AFA seems to have lost it also.

After re-reading the article I would have to agree

while checking to see if the ambient temperature in hell was currently at 0° c, i was suddenly possessed with an irresistable compulsion to adapt a line from the film version of agatha christie's 'death on the nile': (sounding suprised to the point of bewilderment..and spoken with a cheesy indian accent) 'this is something i have never seen...a drmiler in a first-class cabin...i mean a cobra reversing its position. oh, for the love of shiva, i am so overwhelmed i don't know what i mean.'

Why can't conservatives just live and let live? Because they believe that 'giving in' to the 'gay agenda' will undermine the family and the 'free society' of which the family is the most important civil unit.

Chak,

Do not confuse a conservative with the religious right. They are different sects even if they vote for the same candidate most of the time.

WHat you describe is the RR, not conservatives.

WHat you describe is the RR, not conservatives.

Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference.

WHat you describe is the RR, not conservatives. Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference.

Then bend over and smile.

"Both the religious right and conservatives want to shove their agendas up our asses. To me, it's a distinction without a difference."

Which basically means that Atheists can shove any moral agenda they like up your ass, but people who function based upon their religious ideals are disqualified from persuing an agenda. You can take part in your nations government until you are blue in the face if you are a feminist, lesbian, pro-abortion Liberal activist, but pro-life Christians need not apply.

If the only permitted expression is secular expression, then they need to write that into the Constitution. Otherwise we need to stick to what we have, which permits people to do as they like as long as government doesn't compel people to a particular belief system.

When you start dealing with people of faith as though they are a threat, you are starting down the road China has paved, 're-educating' the Christians and rubber-hosing Falun Gong members to death.