I'd like to take a moment to thank those of you who gave me you input via email, instant messaging, personal entries, and guestbook signings. Somehow, I knew I had a lot of wonderfully opinionated friends willing to share their experiences and insights. In that I was not disappointed. I actually found the distinction between general Public Displays of Affection (PDA) and Same Sex Public Displays of Affection (SS-PDA) to be quite helpful in understanding the uncomfortable feeling I'd have addressing it to my son. Probably the ones related to SS-PDA that stick closest are Genie and An Interested Lurker's simple but effective, "There are a few men/women who feel the same way about another man/woman that I feel about your mother." Simple enough without going into detail. Thanks!

I am disappointed in some of the comments though. Indeed, some of them seemed calculated just to piss me off. I am, however, moving forward assuming you meant only the best. Let's look at a couple

a) Reacting negatively to PDA/SS-PDA is considered "intolerant"
Granted, this is an extrapolation of a number of different comments (direct and indirect) but this opinion kind of lingered in the air like 3 week old fish. Tolerance is one of those words it is hard to argue against because no one wants to be labeled "intolerant." Problem is that intolerance is always decried in the second and third person...not the first. And for the most part, only items championed by the "liberal" or "enlightened" require universal "tolerance." Minority communities in general benefit most from this positioning. After all, when was the last time an American Atheist was required to be tolerant of a Christian or a Jew? (find a resent court case, I dare you). Of course, the majority is not universally subjugated by the minority. Just asked those rich fur wearing left-handed smokers how tolerant people are of their peccadilloes.

b) "[S]hielding a child from death, homelessness, guns ... body piercing, tattoos, or vegans" is somehow bad.
First off, remember that I didn't say it was uncomfortable for me witnessing SS-PDA, but it would be if my son(s) took note as it would be taking the control of the time and place to provide a little data out of my hands. Thus someone else gets to make this decision for me. Of COURSE this makes me uncomfortable. It is no different than when my friends use profanity around my kids. I won't correct you when you are not around them but be damn sure I'd correct you if you are. It is a protective reflex that I don't believe I ever thought would be this strong prior to having children. And yes, as this type of conversation would make me uncomfortable, so would conversations surrounding death, drugs, and driving but that does NOT make the concern any less reasonable. Do I dwell on it or lose sleep? No, not even a little. Those type of things fall into the category Donald Rumsfeld calls "Known Unknowns" (also called "risks" by PMs). Things you know could happen or are going to happen at some point but you can't control the time, place, or impact. The more you practice in you mind how you would handle the situation, the less uncomfortable you become. Practice leads to proficiency. The POINT is that we have a social obligation to not engage in activities, have open discussions, or otherwise force our belief structure on someone else's children. Unlike Muirgheal's situation, I don't think this situation was in blatant disregard for their surroundings. I'd like to think (and I do in hindsight) that those two gentlemen would have exercise Frank's "manners and wisdom" demonstrating an "awareness of what others are comfortable with and an interest in the concerns of the range of people around" had there been kids present.

c) If I don't enjoy watching PDA, I probably do enjoy watching "a married couple obviously fighting."
Okay, this is a complete non-starter as a counter argument because it falls into the category of "duh!" It also juxtaposes two events that are only related by the fact that they are dynamics that one shouldn't encounter in a public place. No one would bless the concept of two people fighting in private either. This type of polemical tactic is the exact type designed to put someone with an opposing view in a no win situation. "When did you stop beating your wife?" I realize this is a popular technique as it requires little intellectual honestly and an even smaller amount of relevance. But boy doesn't sound politically correct and progressive? Don't get me wrong, it is a great technique that I've used before and will use again but the truth is that it really adds almost zero value to the conversation.

As I said...thanks for your advice. Understand that your opinions were well received and respected...no...I mean they were "accepted" as valid if not correct. :-)

Anyway, for them what care...