Depends on the nature of the forum. The man is a medical genius, regardless of his opinion on civil rights. If he's speaking on medicine, then he absolutely deserves a public forum. However unpleasant his opinions may be, dragging that into his professional career is an unfair tactic. Just because he's being unjust doesn't mean that people should lower themselves to his level to punish him.

Interesting. So, what do you make of the fact that there isn't a single actual page in the bible that condemns homosexuality?
The quote in Leviticus specifically refers to a man lying with a man as he would lie with a woman. It says nothing about women lying with women, nor about men lying with men in a way that they wouldn't lie with a woman. And no, you can't assume that a statement against lesbianism was implied in that text, considering that every single other passage referring to a sex act in Leviticus is overwhelmingly specific, to the point of even making different statements for men and women.
Sodom and Gomorrah was speaking about the act of rape, not homosexuality.
Finally, the apostle Paul made several statements about sins in regards to sexual conduct. They were about prostitutes.
Of course, this all depends on which version of the bible you're reading. But I'm sure you have the edition that already says what you want to believe, instead of something translated with the intent to be as accurate as possible.

This is actually a good idea, and has use beyond the unlikely event of a school shooting. Retrofitting a panic room into various areas of public schools could make an area where students would be safer during extreme weather as well. The only worry is that I don't think this is something that has been tried before, so their might not be any statistics to support or condemn it. However, were the legislation worded the right way, it'd be hard to justify opposing this.

They are indeed looking to make amends, so long as it doesn't require effort or a changing of behavior.

Really now? This verbal comparison of homosexuality to other things, monstrous as they may be in theory, is the equivalent of actual medical experimentation that resulted in real, physical suffering of the victims?
Leave the exaggerations at the door. This man's record shows nothing of medical malpractice, nor that he ever inflicted true physical pain on anyone intentionally. Whatever he's done, he is not and will likely never be a Nazi. By making that comparison you diminish the suffering of the actual victims.

"Common sense" is very different from scientifically based fact. While it's true that the GOP opposes pretty much everything the left puts forward, (A statement that is equally true the other way around.) in this instance, they are not making an illogical move.
How many studies have shown that the gun control measures being pushed by the left will have a noticeable effect on the rates of violent crime and homicide? What justification is there to take this action beyond "common sense?" When it comes to political action, you cannot simply say that it sounded like a good idea at the time. And in this instance, the left has very little to support their actions. In fact, the majority of the evidence goes against the measures they propose.
In America, locales with the strictest gun control measures have seen no significant drop in the amount of crime seen in those districts. More so, they don't even see a drop in gun crime. Even in countries outside of America, the countries with the lowest crime ratings are not places like the U.K., where citizens are prohibited from owning any sort of firearm. They're places Sweden, where every citizen possesses a firearm, and substantial military training.
While there may be a very loud group of ignorant minorities opposing Obama on gun control based purely on a knee jerk reaction, not to mention the firearms industry itself looking to protect it's profits, in this case, that doesn't matter. If you're coming to a debate like this, bring facts. Don't rely on your own fear of other people and supposed "common sense."

That depends. Would you be okay with someone calling you all that based solely on where you live, and a political opinion that says very little about your character?
Really, why are you defending this man? The opinion expressed in his letter is vile, racist, and unprovoked. This is not a matter of a politically incorrect slip of the tongue. This is a matter of a legislator holding true hatred for other human beings based solely on their race. Why is hard and fast wrong when so many others do it, and now such a small matter when it comes to this man? Because he's a democrat? Because he's black? Either way, you're applying a different standard to him then you do everyone else. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

The problem with most of the treaties proposed by the U.N. is that they're immensely difficult for the layperson to research, given that information on the specifics is rarely made available. The U.N.'s own website rarely offers specific wording, which is incredibly important in all litigation. Stack that with politicians habit of wording things vaguely for their own ends, and you've got a bill that could absolutely be intrusive to the idea of national sovereignty on multiple grounds.
There's no reason to pass something through on ideological terms alone, especially when the actual effects have not been properly explained. The attempt to do something good is no excuse for doing it badly.

Wait a minute. You mean he spotlighted a practice he deemed harmful and unfair to gain profit from people viewing his show on the subject? Well that's just awful.
It sounds like every show and journalistic publication in existence.

Just because he decided to use the "unbiased third party" perspective doesn't make him any different than anyone else who speaks on these subjects from a platform that gains them profit by people viewing it. The only reason you're spotlighting him at all is because he presented the argument that the opposing side might have some sort of substance, even if he later said that he doesn't believe it himself.
And you know what? He's probably done more good with that show than any publication that simply denigrated ex-gay therapy will ever do. Because by giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if only to make them tune in, he at least got them to listen. How many people who believe that ex-gay therapy works do you think the NCRM has won over by calling them vulnerable people brain-washed by religious fanatics?
The only thing he did wrong was let what he actually felt slip before hand, which will make it easier for proponents of ex-gay theory to discredit him as a biased source later. Which this site will help by making the references readily available.

There are areas in that region of Europe that are seeking to eliminate gendered pronouns, mostly in situations around children. There are several preschools that no longer allow the words "wife" or "husband" to appear in materials for the class. To suggest that it's gone so far as to pervade every day speech as a federal offense is a bit to much.