Are we talking about calling a person a cunt or refering to a vagina as a cunt? Just like the word "fat", there can be power in using the word to describe yourself but as far as anyone else, you need to be real careful. Now calling a vagina a cunt, if I were heterosexual, I don't see how I could get all horny about something called a pussy or twat, the word "cunt" sounds much sexier.

It's things like this that make people resent environmentalists. They use guilt more than a Jewish mother. As someone who has lived without a car for over a year I can tell you it is no easy change, grocery shopping is a major hassle if you have to depend on a bus and there are many places you simply cannot get to unless you have a friend drive you there (and by so doing, rape the environment). I do live in a city, but unless you live in Midtown Manhattan or Downtown Boston, there are many things you cannot walk to, and public transportation is not very adequate, and very rarely designed for people carrying large packages.

So a boy who touches his own penis is involved in a homosexual act? That is offensive in so many levels.

First, it has been the policy of the federal government to encourage home ownership for the past fifty years, if not more. I suppose she thinks all politicians of any political stripes are wrong, except her.

Second, and what exactly did the government do? They gave the lenders free rein to give mortgages on whatever terms they want. Ultimately, the government's fault is not regulation, but lack of regulation.

This whole issue of male sexuality being a threat to female rights grows out of the inferior status of women in society. In a society where men and women were truly equal, male sexual fantasies, pornography, prostitution and sado masochism, would not be viewed as demeaning, just as a way of satisfying sexual desire. I can say this because as I gay man, I know those things are not a problem between people of the same sex. Despite what bizarre sex goes on between two or more men, after it is over they will revert back to whatever power relationship existed in the first place (usually equality)

Why is it when we are involved in two wars with no end in sight they decided it is time to change this policy?

On another issue, the fact is that there are many gay soldiers who are out to their fellow soldiers and often to their COs and it causes no problem unless orders come from above to get them out.

Why this obsession with other people's sex lives? I guess that's a question that has been around for centuries. As long as it was consensual, I don't see that it is the public's business. We don't know what kind of relationship he has with his wife, she may have known and not much cared, she may have even approved of it or she may have been hurt by it, probably hurt a lot more because it became public. The point is it only concerns the people involved, not the public.

When a magazine, or a tv network, turns its attention from home cooking to reviewing restaurants it loses me and is surely on the road to elitism. Even a person of modest means can cook gourmet food if they have time and patience and a willingness to learn. Depite what people want you to believe, the fact is that the best restaurant food comes with a hefty price tag.

The whole issue of marriage equality is about legal rights. When I married my partner, after nearly 30 years, it changed nothing about our relationship, which was something we worked out between ourselves, the rules of which do not resemble traditional heterosexual marriage. What it did change was our relationship to the state, and before the law.

I really doubt GK spends much time among the young. While the old fret about the economy, something that materially affects them and others, the young are often preoccupied with their own insecurities and bad self image. (that's what the hair gel if for) The reason older people have less sex is because they are mostly married. I dare say a single fortysomething gets more than a single twentysomething since they have learned to overcome their insecurities and neuroses and can act confident and desirable.

I think the point here is that now, for the first time in history we can manipulate genes directly instead of relying on breeding. No doubt techology is going to become more and more sophisticated so that we can "design" our children, or rather, the mega-wealthy will able to do it. First will be the technology to prevent genetic diseases, and no one will object to that, but then we will have the ability to make children smarter, stronger or even better looking. The techology descibed in Brave New World is no longer inconcievable. How people will use it is yet to be seen.

Political strategy here, it is the centerist Democrats who are the enemy, not the right-wing Republicans. In order to get the backing of progressive thinking people you have to make the alternative to the right wing be real liberals. Don't be afraid to undermine the appeasers, even if it means giving the other side power. Maybe health care has to fail now and then when people are picking up the pieces they will see that appeasement didn't work.

This article makes a clear and logical argument. And it ain't gonna happen because people's attachment to the Pledge of Alligiance is emotional, not logical. I mean, I was an adult before I realized what Witchit Stands means.

And for the person that said idolotry, indeed! I went to a Cathoic school, and we said the Lord's Prayer and the Pledge. They felt like the same sort of thing.