[Sabertooth]

"So it simply isn't worth it to even bring the topic of sexuality into an argument about press bias."

I'm not sure you understand the L.A. Times. It's promotion of homosexuality is so brazen it's impossible to ignore. It's part and parcel of their bias. You actually can't leave the paper around children.

I'd love to go back to that brief period, between about 1975 and 1985, when a person's homosexuality was none of my business. Then there would be no reason to talk about it.

But that's no longer the homosexuals' agenda.

If they continue to rub people's faces in a lifestyle that most find to be unnatural and immoral, but would otherwise look the other way from, there is bound to be a backlash.

[Timesink]

I'm not sure you understand the L.A. Times. It's promotion of homosexuality is so brazen it's impossible to ignore. It's part and parcel of their bias. You actually can't leave the paper around children.

Well, I have to admit, being an East Coaster, that I can count the number of times I've ever held an actual paper edition of the LA Times on both hands.