Not so fast labeling Eastwood "openly conservative." Big deal, he claims he votes Republican in presidential races. I can believe he is a fiscal conservative on some issues, such as keeping more of his millions instead of paying more taxes. Culturally he is a plain old Hollywood liberal like his pals Sean Penn and Tim Robbins. Did you see "Flags of our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima?" Eastwood is on the wrong side of WWII. As the son of an Iwo Jima veteran I will never see another Eastwood movie. I don't know why anyone would expect Hoover to get fair treatment from Hollywood or Eastwood. Eastwood is almost as bad as that lunatic moron Oliver Stone.

Does anyone know whether rape-a-gnu is real or a bot?

You know, this "animal kingdom" illustration comes up a lot. If homosexual behavior was a dominant trait in the animal kingdom we wouldn't have any animals. I can tell you're not a farm boy because you obviously haven't seen how homosexual "passes" between animals are commonly treated by unreceptive animals.

So there you go Sarzak. You got me. Nonny nonny boo-boo. Your turn.

Another name you can call me is "judgmental" because I adjudge that sexual promiscuity is immoral. Note that I have not said that I am without moral flaws. I am trying to make objective observations about what is best for a society. So in a sense you are correct to call me judgmental, if by that you mean that I evaluate people based on what they do, that is, on their conduct. I believe that a society has a perfect right to judge what conduct it will permit, based on the value that conduct has to the society as a whole, and form its laws and social mores accordingly.

I believe that sexual license and promiscuity of any kind, heterosexual, homosexual, whatever, is immoral and ultimately damaging to society. Historical examples support my view. There are other views to be sure including those of some psychologists and psychiatrists who believe that it is unhealthy to suppress any sexual urge. But millions of people believe the way I do and the reasons we believe as we do are sound and supported by reason I have a right to my belief, and it deserves to be considered and discussed in the public square. If you or others simply dismiss me as a hater and a bigot you are not only mistaken, but you weaken the validity of your own position by refusing to consider other viewpoints.

Note that I said homosexuality, not sexual orientation or sexual preference. Others have posted here, sexual orientation is not well understood. Perhaps we cannot choose or control our orientation but we can, and all of us must to some degree, control our conduct including our sexual conduct. What gay activists want to avoid discussing at all costs is what homosexuals actually prefer to do sexually, and what the preferred lifestyle of male homosexuals, particularly in urban areas, actually is.

Mike, and you and some of the others posting here want to equate opposition to gay marriage and gay rights to racism. That is a false comparison, but it is politically very savvy to demonize and denigrate your opponents, and it is very easy to do when virtually all the public media is helping. The point I was trying to make with Mike, and the point gay activists won't discuss, is that race is a characteristic but homosexuality is conduct.

I personally believe relaxing sexual mores so that promiscuity and lascivious conduct increases, damages and corrodes society and damages the family structure by destabilizing marriage. My belief is not the only view, but there are statistics and studies to support it. The fewer stable marriages a society has the more single parenthood, along with higher percentages of crime, etc.

OK, I'll rise to your bait and play for a few minutes. What I've read of yours indicates that you truly are impervious to reason, but you like to argue and taunt. In short you're a troll. To start see my reply to Mike below. The "gay-marriage/gay rights" discussion inevitably breaks down at the same place every time. The facts are the same for everybody, what we disagree on is right and wrong, what benefits society as opposed to what damages it