Frankly, I am concerned when someone is critical of some aspect of homosexual lifestyle, they are normally labelled “homophobic”.

Or if someone is critical of some aspect of feminism, they are normally labelled “misogynist”.

Or if someone wants children to have an actual father, they are normally labelled “fundamentalist” etc.

I think that these terms are applied so as to avoid real issues.

I know what you mean. I'm not impressed by the cliche "politically correct" which raises its stale old head on a regular basis - let alone "abnormal" (I think the guy meant to use "faggot") which I saw on one posting.

I'm not sure I quite understand either of your posts, given that this story is about the consequences of the rising influence of fundmentalism in US society. And as alarming as this "battle for America's soul" is to my small "l" liberal sensibilities, particularly having spent many of my early adult years in that country, I've actually used none of the labels you've each cited, ie homophobic, nor mysoginist, in this essay. Surely you can accept the principle arguements on the increasing need for tolerence and diversity to be defended in the US education system without seizing the opportunity to launch a withering attack at the slightest sign of so called political correctness? There's a big difference I believe. Think big boys, there's a bit more to this issue than protecting yourselves from the harmful rays of gender politics.

I am thinking big “girl” Jane.

I agree with the following “Tolerance gives the public schools an avenue to literally brainwash our kids that every lifestyle is OK.”

Why do I agree? Because if the opposite was true then children could be taught that Pol Pot did great things for the people of Cambodia, or Stalin was one of the great statesmen in modern history, or Germaine Greer’s texts are totally rational.

Not everything can be believed, and not all lifestyles are positive for people. That is fact. Complete tolerance or un-questioning acceptance can lead people up a dry creek very quickly, as there are people of all cultures, religions, politics and gender who do like to manipulate, deceive and brainwash others.

But within the article, there is no real definition of what is meant by terms such as “tolerance”, or “fundamentalism” or “evolution” etc. So it becomes a little difficult to debate much in the article.

However there are people who do begin to label others with generalised names, if those others disagree with their point of view, even when they do present considerable evidence that they are correct

Nice piece Jane.

Buster has done in the kids TV industry what is now known as 'doing a Playschool'...

: )

Dear Jane,

You observe that: "Regional commentators have used the story to point out the hypocrisies of Secretary Spellings and Reverend Dobson’s intolerant views on the acceptability of homosexuality in our communities, so that their specious bigotry can be openly countenanced."

So, you and these commentators object to Spellings and James Dobson because they have made a negative moral judgment about homosexuality. Thus, you appear to be saying that they have no right to make such a moral judgment, because that makes them intolerant and intolerance is wrong.

Jane, let me ask you:
1. How do you know intolerance is wrong?
2. How do you know tolerance is right?
3. What is the standard for assessing "right" and "wrong"?
4. If Dobson and Spellings have no right to make moral judgments about homosexuality then what makes you think you have the right to make moral judgments about Dobson and Spellings? ie. you refer to them as "hypocritical", "intolerant" and guilty of "specious bigotry" which are all moral judgments!

You're cheating Jane. You are not playing by your own rules - which means that it is actually you who, by your own words, are the hypocrite and the intolerant bigot.

And BTW, it's James Dobson - NOT "Dodson" (as you repeatedly refer to him ealier in your article), and he is from "Focus on the Family" not "Forum of the Family".

Not only do you talk a whole lot of incoherent nonsense, you can't even get basic facts right!

AK