Free Republic

They clearly hate social conservatives, whic ARE the core of the conservative movement..

Social "conservativism"=Hyperreligious liberalism, and is not the "core" of anything other than making all of us (the REAL conservatives) look foolish.

and even though the gay characters are routinely mocked, my impression is that homosexuality itself is more or less accepted/endorsed

Yes. It is nice to know the future of conservatism is starting to shed the neurotic/superstitious sexual hangups of the dark past.

Homosexuals are free to have whatever sex partners

Thanks to our wonderful supreme court. Thank you, Justice O'Connor! God bless America!

The tyranny of the majority is NEVER a basis for law, and should be guarded against. Thomas Jefferson said so, and I'll take his word over... well... the current leadership, if you will. Nor is the tyranny of the majority a basis for mutilating our precious Constitution. That's where the "7/10 oppose it" argument falls down.

So does the "it's an ancient institution" argument. Guess what? So was slavery. So is murder and torture. Next argument? Oh, you don't have anymore?

Basically, all that's left is that heterosexuals won't feel as "Special" ad they did before. Guess what? Feeeeeeeeelings don't dictate public policy, nor should they. If you want special rights, move to a commie country and make friends with the "Generalissimo". I'm sure you'd like it better there.

Hammond has been on the last couple of weeks only as Clinton in guest appearances and they didn't even give him a thank you at the end of either show.

Hammond is still a full-time member of the cast. Check the opening credits.

I vowed to never again watch that POS show in the 70's, when they poked fun at Betty Ford's breast cancer. NEVER AGAIN.

That was Betty Rollin. The sketch was "First, He Cries", a parody of "First, You Cry" and it was poking fun at male insensitivy about breast cancer... NOT the disease itself!

The author herself wrote in to PRAISE the sketch.

(A friendly reminder to know your subject first before posting.)

Will They Pull The PLUG on or even level a Fine on NBC and Saturday Night Live?

God never said it would be easy for you. Your love and worship of the Christ should bring you through the hardships (which Chrstians have faced for over 2000 years).

In short, you don't need a gpovernment agency to make you feel "Comfortable" or to "get back at" your detractors. You have something much better.

There are no contradictions, only apparent contradictions for which you have not learned the truth.

So basically, there are no contradictions except for the ones actually there in the text. That changes things... not.

Beastiality? Death to both participants? What about a rape victim? Should she be burned too? Probably, according to Leviticus. And did you know that someone in an accident whose genitals are crushed will NOT be allowed in heaven? How is this "just" or any basis for modern law? I'm not saying there aren't good points in these "laws"... but how much of it should be taken literally? That's all I'm asking.

My quibble is not with Sunday sabbath or eating pork (though I love to point this out to people who say "There are no contradictions!" or "God never changes his mind!" Au contaire). My quibble is with saying that one type of sin is worse than another when there is no Biblical basis for it.

So, who are we to believe? Christ or his father? One says one thing about pork, the other the opposite. Or does Christ have the power to "revoke" old laws that his dad made? Really, just curious.

You're right, I suppose. I just thought the "What hath (blank) wrought?" thing was a bit cliched and over-used. As far as refuting every one of her claims, I don't see what would be the point. My reaction to most of them is, "So what? That's politics." I don't support everything any gay group does. I agree that some of them want to stifle free speech on the grounds that it is "hate". I abhor people who do that. However, to blame the "gay agenda" for the cancellation of Dr. Laura's TV show is being a bit naive. The show was terrible, and this is coming from someone who is actually a FAN of her radio show. She should have stuck to what she does best, lambasting people and giving them life-changing (sometimes for the worse) advice after listening to them for less than 30 seconds. On radio, she's an icon. On TV she was shrill, her topics were unoriginal, her "audience members" obviously planted and their questions scripted. In short, it was dreadfully tedious and had none of the "edge" her radio show had. It was like being in a dentist's office for four hours listening to a drill. At first, the sound is painful, but after a while it lulls you to sleep.

I don't know what is supposed to mean other than, "I have no way to refute what you said so I'll slink away defeated."

I asked a specific question which you could not answer. What you "want" to "play" doesn't enter into it. Maybe you should lurk awhile and learn the definition of "debate" before you impulsively throw yourself into these things.

Was talking specifically about gay marriage there, so your example is moot. Besides maybe if Bonzo's daddy had done something about it maybe your premiums wouldn't be so high. Instead it was blamed on "poppers and cat hair" and allowed to florish uncontrolled until it reached the straight community as well. (Though, I'm certainly not denying that sexual behavior is a cause of the spread of HIV and that many gays are extremely stupid about who they sleep with.)

Maybe there would be reasoned response if the article were written well enough to merit it. Using words like "hath"? Please. That's not even correct anymore. And the dramatic ending where she magically predicts the future. Wow. If I were her I would submit this to the school newspaper ASAP! The staff advisor probably needs to edit/correct it heavilly before it could be worthy of the "Gerber High Gazette".

So how is fornication different to eating pork in the eyes of God? Both are prohibited. As far as I know, there is not a "Top 40" of sins ranking them in order of nastiness. What makes you feel you are doing "rightly" by reading into the Bible things that aren't there? Sin is sin. Apart from the Ten Commandments there is no such ranking of varying degrees of sinfulness. I'm wondering, which version of the Bible you have read. Casey Kasem's translation?

As if that princess Margaret wouldn't and doesn't use these same tactics herself. Yes, it's called learning to play political hardball. If you didn't want the gays emulating your political behavior you should have kept it a secret. The same people whining and moaning about "Too much gay in the media" are the same ones who do ENTIRE PROGRAMS about it EVERYNIGHT! Rush, O'Reilly, etc.... they are all obsessed with it, yet continue to insist it is "insignificant". As far as gay marriage, we have a representative democracy that is supposed to ensure protection from the tyranny of the majority! Just because 60% of people polled think something is "icky" because of some fairy tale they read doesn't mean it is a basis for law.

It's as ridiculous as the people whinging about loss of civil rights due to the post-9/11 crackdown. I mean, how exactly will it affect you? Give me one example. I'm still waiting. And don't give me some rambling BS about "It affects me and every American because the very moral fibre of this great nation blah blah blah..." Concrete examples only, please.

Good, I hope the judges keep on refusing to do the Feds dirty work for them. Like the recent decision where a judge ordered the cops to give back the medical marijuana they had seized illegally, fine judges like these know when the power hungry socialists like Ashcroft have gone too far and have a power to correct that problem. Ashcroft's whining about it seems just like that: whining. Why isn't he out fighting terrorists instead of wetting his pants worrying about whether Johnny Potseed got the "recommended" 10 years for smoking a joint? Doesn't he have a REAL JOB he should be doing?

He doesn't seem to say anything about "historic Christian faith." Unless you take onjection to the comment about most Christians selectively ignoring Biblical restrictions, in which case, look around you!

Welcome to you too, even-newer member!

But the point is, they can claim anything and everyone "is" gay. Doesn't mean they are This is true, and I do see the silliness of the whole issue. I actually know someone who thinks that EVERY celebrity is gay (not really, but almost). I have absolutely no opinion of Clay, since I haven't seen episode ONE of American Idol or any related shows. The fact that he didn't say "No!" when asked will however lead to speculation, as evidenced by this article/thread.