No worries.

If gays want us heteros to stay out of their bedrooms, they need to keep their bedrooms out of our faces.

It's that "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. As long as gays keep their sexuality in the closet, do not let heteros know they are gay, then heteros can go around saying how tolerant they are. What freakin' hogwash. It's nothing but intolerant bullcrap. However, let us not forget that heteros can flaunt their sexuality ad nauseum, in sporting events, advertisments, in parks, out in the open, etc., but that's just hunky dory. What freakin' hypocrisy. Given the source of the above quote, I am not at all surprised.

"However, let us not forget that heteros can flaunt their sexuality ad nauseum, in sporting events, advertisments, in parks, out in the open, etc., but that's just hunky dory. What freakin' hypocrisy. Given the source of the above quote, I am not at all surprised."

Don't overlook the fact that the people who oppose this kind of thing for homosexuals would almost always oppose HETEROsexual displays of sexuality like you describe at sports event, etc. They weren't angry about Janet Jackson's boob because they thought she was a lesbian.

My fault entirely...does anyone actually know who said the thing about Spongebob?

Actually, nobody. The GAY community first presented Spongebob as a gay icon.

Saying that this is about implied inferiority is like saying the Negro Leagues irritate you because of the implied inferiority they feel towards Major League Baseball.

The Negro leagues existed because African Americans weren't ALLOWED in major league baseball. 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.

"Actually, nobody. The GAY community first presented Spongebob as a gay icon."

Very true. When I was writing my blog on it the searches turned up as many gay sites lauding the show. Now, though, all you get from google is pretty much "Fallwell said this" or "The AFA said that"...

Don't overlook the fact that the people who oppose this kind of thing for homosexuals would almost always oppose HETEROsexual displays of sexuality like you describe at sports event, etc. They weren't angry about Janet Jackson's boob because they thought she was a lesbian.

Thank you, once again, for misrepresenting and trivializing what I said. Baker, you are really good at that, if nothing else. Janet's sexuality was not the issue. Comparing that event to society at large is so freakin' specious and disengenuous, and you know that.

Fact is, we see heterosexual, via sexual innuendos everywhere in society, from selling cars, to jeans, to candy. We see baseball players grabbing their crotches, even if it is to adjust the cups, but it's considered macho. We see exploitation of little girls via beauty pagents. Teens predominantly, making out in public with no one batting an eye. Heteros hold hands. They kiss. They exchange little acts of affection all over the place, and everywhere in public.

But, if a gay person does it, we get this bigoted outcry that they are shoving thir bedrooms in our faces. All gays want is the same freedoms of expression that everyone else in society has, along with equal protections under the law, which is also very lacking. And yes, landlords and employers deny homes and jobs to gays all the time, without any consequences. In fact, these kinds of attitudes condone such discrimination. People want to just be who they are. They aren't hurting anyone. They just want equal rights, not special rights. EQUAL RIGHTS.

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.

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.

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

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

You are the king of idiotic responses. I guess ya gotta be good at something.

Falwell lost it long before the Spongebob thing!! ;~D

As for the Gay Games. Since there are no rules against Gay people participating in the Olympics, the "Gay Games" is at best, mediocre atheletes who aren't good enough for the Olympics. Why promote mediocrity?

The Negro leagues existed because African Americans weren't ALLOWED in major league baseball. 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.

I'd suggest you look at how many homosexual athletes have come out while actively participating in their respective sports. Once you do that, look at how many of them have been positively affected by that move.

Just because there's no law on the books doesn't mean there's not exclusion. Some of the most powerful rules in sports are the unwritten ones.

As for the Gay Games. Since there are no rules against Gay people participating in the Olympics, the "Gay Games" is at best, mediocre atheletes who aren't good enough for the Olympics. Why promote mediocrity?

How would you know? Maybe its athletes unwilling to hide who they are in order to compete in the mainstream of sports culture.

And I suppose you support abolishing the special olympics and paralympics too, right?

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

"Thank you, once again, for misrepresenting and trivializing what I said."

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 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.

"And I suppose you support abolishing the special olympics and paralympics too, right?"

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

How typical. You can't answer the question so you dance around it and make fun of it and the person asking. You are the king of idiotic responses. I guess ya gotta be good at something

Like I said! You CAN'T answer the question so you avoid it. Just for the record... I NEVER said your responce was idiotic, did I? "Can" you answer the question?

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

True. Some of the football players at my high school were messing with one of the male cheerleaders. He just looked back at them and said, "wait a minute, I hangout on the sidelines with the girls, you go out on the field and play with a bunch of guys... and you're calling ME a fairy?" ;~D

... To put their sexual habits in the face of those who are uncomfortable with it, thats all. Its not civil.

But, if a gay person does it, we get this bigoted outcry that they are shoving their bedrooms in our faces.

Let's be truthful here. Gay people are just as varied as straight people in politics, religious belief, personality etc etc. So the problem with talking about a gay agenda is that there isn't one. There are agendas.

One agenda - let's call it the 'angry agenda' - is based upon putting "their sexual habits in the face of those who are uncomfortable with it." And the reasons for this are easy to understand. Here's a group of people that has been shat on for centuries. In England 'sodomy' was a capital offence for over three hundred years. Although western nations no longer execute gays, the 'death sentence' is still sometimes carried out by private citizens (cf the case of Matthew Shepard). Murder and violence are only the most extreme form of a lot of crap that has been visited on gays down the years, and it takes only an ounce of compassion and a smidgeon of imagination to realise what a legacy of RAGE that must leave. Of course wanting to hit back at the people you believe have inflicted misery on you is not a great strategy to advance your cause, but it is an understandable human response.

Another agenda - let's call it the 'timid agenda' - is about keeping a low profile and hoping that those who hate you will eventually change their minds if you don't rock the boat too much.

There are lots of other 'agendas' too.

For me, the best agenda is Classical Liberalism: we have to learn to live side by side without agreeing. That means at least establishing a level playing field. The thing that strikes me most about this debate is that it is not, at bottom, a rational debate [cf. David Hume: "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions"]. Those in this thread who feel that homosexuality is wrong refuse to sympathise with a lot of genuine suffering and injustice, even to the point of denying it, because it doesn't personally affect them. Those who feel that it is not wrong cannot understand how anyone could feel otherwise. Whatever. Neither side is going to go away, so the (Classical) Liberal question still stands, "How can we live, relatively harmoniously, side by side without agreeing?"

I NEVER said your responce was idiotic, did I?

No, I didn't accuse you of saying that. But, I said YOUR response was.
And is.

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.

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