Since the "culture warriors" hate American pop culture, does that mean that they hate America also? Under this definition it would.

chazzazz- I'm not trying to accuse all the people who watch this program of being blind Bushies, and I'm sure there are a lot of people on this thread who will also be watching. My point was that there are many people, given what is going on in the world right now, that will take the wrong message away from this. That is not Ken Burns fault by any means but it just seems like there are always going to be people who will look for any excuse to prop up Bushes failed policy as some great John Wayne movie and this looks exactly like the kind of fodder they are looking for.

I don't think PBS should pull the show just for that, but I can't help but think that cosmically this couldn't have happened at a worse time.

What is the most interesting about all this is the fact that even after all that has happened, there still seems to be no interest on the part of republicans, both running the party or voting for it, to explore the cause of homosexuality. How do the republican voters reconcile in their own minds what these men did? Do they wonder what was going through their minds and why they did it?

Publicly they have to play the "but...but Clinton and WAAH! WAAH! WAAH!" game, but privately, how much thought have they given to the motives of these men who they thought they knew?

Perhaps they do the same thing they did with the Iraq war, just don't think about what doesn't work. If this keeps happening, (which it no doubt will) how long can they keep it up?

Why are you defending Craig? Since your party hates gays you should be the first one calling for his severed head (literally). I would think you would want all these nancy boys out of your party so you can feel more comfortable when it comes time to ship all queers off to the death camps.

There is an argument that the democrats are also not very supportive of gay marraige and or rights. Fair enough, here's the real poop: the democrats are afraid to admit that they support gay marraige because if they did, the James Dobson zombies would come out of the woodwork in droves to keep them out of office. Probably more then they would to stop terrorists. For some odd reason, this issue has rallied many on the republican right more then any other.

It is not that the democrats don't support it, it's that if they admitted it, they would be out of a job next election. That is not the democratic voters doing that, that is the many republicans who seem to think this issue is more important then anything else.

If the cons want to get technical about traditional marraige then they would have to revoke legal benefits for straight couples as well because marraige was originally a religious ceremony with no legal benefits attached (of course if they really want to get "traditinal" they would also have to go back to women as property, good luck getting the rest of the country to sign on to that).

"Anybody who things you are controversial watches Lawrence Welk reruns on PBS and has a bookshelf full of Reader's Digests."

I think I've had this exact same conversation almost verbatim with conservative bloggers.

PS: It is okay for us to lump all republicans in with this guy because the cons called all of those of us who didn't support the war in Iraq traitors. That makes anything we do to them okay.

What concerns me is the questioners intent. "What should be societies position on deviancy" is a vague question at best. What should qualify as "deviancy" and who gets to decide it? More to the point: what would happen to those who commit these acts of "deviancy"? I have suspected for a long time that the rights obsession with gay marriage was never based on protecting anything and more about looking for a way to go after gays and possibly others who live outside "the norm". Gay marriage being the spring board for other things and other people. This is why I believe that those who oppose gay marriage hate gays in general because there is no practical reason to give this issue priority status.

If you were to sit down with this man who asked the question and ask him what he thinks should become of homosexuals, it might look a little like that internment camp in "V for Vendetta" and I suspect he is not alone in the crowd in that view. These people spend an unusual amount of time worrying about what gays do and who they do it with. You don't dedicate that much energy and time to making sure someone you don't even know gets portrayed as a "deviant" unless you want something done about them as a whole in the long run.

This is what the republican party has become, run by religious extremists who can't stand the idea of living with others who think differently then they do and want the federal government to legislate that those people are evil into law. I hope Thompson enjoys his fan base.