I basically agree with Rufus. Just don't imply anything about him. Don't say things like "I want you to know that I would love you the same if you are gay or straight" The last thing he wants to hear is that you suspect, but voicing your support for gay rights and letting him know you have gay friends that you respect is a good start.

the answer is that men and women see porn differently. The difference is so basic, almost a physical difference that I don't think either sex can understand the way the other reacts.

It seems to me this book is not so much about poverty as about misery. Beyond a very basic level of food, clothing and shelter, happiness can be achieved without more material possessions. The rich study philosophy or go to human enrichment seminars to learn this, the poor learn this from religion and from each other. I think it is a conceit of the priviledged to the think the poor are all miserable. In fact they could learn a lot from them.

So let me get this straight. You don't support new laws that will prevent the killing of innocent people because it may lose you votes. Isn't it about time the left started showing what true morality is about?

Ultimately a two state solution will never work if those states are divided from each other by a wall (literal or metaphorical) have little interaction and resent and fear each other. This film is not about how to solve the political problems, it is about creating a culture where that political solution can take root.

And as France deals with it's declining importance as a world power, perhaps it will serve as an example for the US to follow (or not follow) in the coming century.

BTW I think it needs to be said, the French did not help the US in the American Revolution for any love of democracy and liberty. King Louis simply wanted to stick it to the British in any way he could.

Yes, this wasn't the one with the tribes in four races, but if you looked at the roster, the players were evenly divided into Black, White, Asian and Latino.

I find I usually agree more with an atheist than a fundamnetalist Christian, but I have to say, many "avowed atheists" display an arrogance and attitude of superiority that is very distateful.

I don't think Wolpert has much of an understanding of what religion is about, probably because it's the fundamentalists that get all the press. People have and still rely on religion to explain natural events. In our times we have learned that science can do that better. The heart of religion, however, is not positing a "first cause". It is a personal relationship with some higher power, which can be anything from Jesus to the Universe. Religion at its heart is a subjective phenomenon and answers the kind of questions that science never can, because they have no objective answers. Meaning, for example, has no objective existance but it is immensely important to human beings. Is this some weirdness of our brains? Pehaps, but this is an inescapable fact of our existance and as important to pursue as a scientific understanding of the natural world. Wolpert acknowledges the power of faith to improve the quality of peoples lives, even to heal illnesses. Why does he poo-poo this? Isn't this at least as important as what elements are in sea water?

I'd like to say that people of a liberal bent, like most Salon readers may be turned off to religion because of the large role some religious groups have played in backing Bush's agenda. This is simply not the case with all groups and you should check them out before condemning all religions.

The man died. So what? People die every day and unless I knew the person or the bereaved, I don't care. But when someone in the public eye dies they get a lot of praise from people who they don't even know, so there is no reason people who were hurt by things they did should not show derision. Brother Jerry never pulled any punches so why should his victims? Besides, this article was cute and humerous in a gentle way. I don't see how anyone could be offended.

I have to agree with those who said this article really says nothing about stopping the AIDS epidemic that hasn't been said before. I guess I haven't read the book, but it seems to me that aside from advising monogamy it is nonetheless what us liberals want to hear. The problem is colonialism, it is the "fat AIDS", that is, the West that is at the heart of the problem and Africans could just solve the problem themselves if all these Americans and Europeans would get out of the way. Somehow that sounds like too easy an answer.

Such pronouncements make good headlines, but they do not intimidate well-educated Catholics. Increasingly, we know canon law as well as we know civil law.

Perhaps the Catholic Church's greatest contribution to civilization has been their promotion of education, originally for the clergy then for the wealthy and today for nearly everyone. This has turned around and bit them on the ass many times, most notably with a monk named Martin Luther.

Sgt Pepper was generation defining not because it expressed the social and political turbulance of the sixties, but because everyone who heard it was changed by it. It certainly changed rock music but for many it changed something more in the way they saw life, very hard to describe, but if you were alive then, you know what I mean. From a muscial critical standpoint perhaps it was not the best, but if you were young in 1967 you'd know why it is go great.