Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, has a lot of explaining to do about his June arrest and guilty plea on charges of soliciting sex in an airport men’s restroom. Suspicions that Craig is gay have been following him for years, the Idaho Statesman reports today.
In May, the paper asked him in an interview if he was homosexual (he denied it) after a man claimed he had sex with Craig in a Washington, D.C., restroom, probably in 2004.
By the way, that’s the year Craig voted for the failed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The social conservative also has opposed allowing gays in the military and extending civil rights protections to gays in the workplace.
He’s up for re-election in 2008, and unless Craig has some really good explanations for his restroom foot-tapping — restless leg syndrome? — his seat could be wide open next year.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- BlueJay on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
379 Comments
HYPOCRITE!!!!
I just read in the WaPo that Craig was a charter member of the “Singing Senators.” You know, the family values group of Senators that included Ashcroft and Trent Lott, Republicans all.
Apparently the group was just out for a toe-tappin’ good time.
Ahem.
LOL
He’s already explained that he has a wide stance, on his seat!
Not since Dick Cheney shot his huntin’ buddy have been so convinced that The Daily Show is gonna be memorable tonight.
Stewart is going to rock tonight, I can just feel it.
Right down to my toes.
LOL
Finally, a Gay thread!
Where’s Chas?
“his seat could be wide open next year”
roflmao!
Wonder what the poles say about that wide open seat?
LOL
Well, upon further thought, I am pretty sure the Senator’s polls give him a pretty good indication of what his chances are of being re-erected for that wide open seat.
Woops. Did I say re-election? I sure meant to!
LOL
I think Stewart is on vacation
Gee KS, you’ve twice now asked for Chas. Is it hurting that he’s not here to pick on?
And ya’ll claim HE starts it.
Pedant, STOP IT!!
As, CF2k would, yer killing me, I tell yuh what!. . . :)
“would say”
I just miss his intellectual level-headed comments.
Chas, come back!
Alas, “Pedant,” –
“The Daily Show is on vacation this week. So there’ll be no Gonzo-Gone or Larry Craig’s wide-open stance stuff.
It’s been almost too easy to accuse people like Phred Felps, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, et al as self-loathing closeted gays. But after a while, the evidence becomes overwhelming.
We’ll probably one day learn Sam Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism simply for the altar boys. That George WMD Bush bought the Texas Rangers simply so he could watch the players shower after games.
Shakespeare wrote about the lady “who doth protest too much.” The GOP is sounding like the Gay Ol’ Party.
Closets are for clothes, household cleansers, and old abandoned sporting equipment.
Closets are not places for people to spend their lives. People who live in closets live in fear and shame of who they are. After a lifetime of lying to themselves, the closet-dwellers forget the difference between right and wrong, fair and unfair, charity and cruelty. Closet-dwellers act out their unhealthy life in ways that are illegal, and damaging and dangerous to others.
Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and others deserve to pay the price of willfully living in closets. They should know better.
Posted by: Tom | August 28, 2007 at 08:27 AM
I suspect in 2008 that he wont seek reelection
Hmmm. . .”KS” sounds a lot like “Original Steve” from about a year-and-a-half back. . .
Oh well. Who cares? That would be TRULY pathetic!
I think Stewart is on vacation.Posted by: political_mom | August 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Well, crap. Given that Craig had already been outed as a hypocritical gay basher, how do you rate the chances that Stewart already has the outline of a riff on Craig put together? Kinda like the NYT and other major news services keep obits up to date regularly?
I mean, this was predictable. GOP senator wins his red-state election in part by bashing gays, is subsequently outed as a cruising if closeted gay man, we all know what comes next, right?
After all, they say that once you go sack you never go back!
LOL
Is the point of this post by Randy is that gays are not qualified to hold public office?
Or that Craig is a hypocrite, and therefore not qualified to hold office?
Because if his being a hypocrite, that is saying one thing and then doing another, is what disqualifies him for office, then we must also disqualify many other officeholders. Almost all, I would say.
So I wonder what Randy meant in this post.
yes.out with thehypocrites
“Tom” wrote:
“Closets are for clothes, household cleansers, and old abandoned sporting equipment.”
Sounds to me like Larry Craig has been keeping his “sporting equipment” in the closet for years now.
There is nothing funny about allegations that a congressman is so perverted as to seek anonymous sodomy in public toilets. That is tragic.
Randy,
Are you that blind?
The article you link clearly says:
“Sen. Larry E. Craig pleaded guilty earlier this month to misdemeanor disorderly-conduct charges”
Yet you choose to say:
“and guilty plea on charges of soliciting sex in an airport men’s restroom.”
This is some pretty amature reporting on your part.
I have come to expect this kind of crap from the likes of the WE editors.
I noticed you didn’t even try to be fair and report what Senator Craig had to say:
“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct,” he said. “I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/
I am not making and defense of what the guy did, but you can at least be truthful about it without the exagerations.
Might as well let CapnAmerica be an editor and post threads at this rate.
Seriously Randy, whats the deal?
Well, Mr. Hewitt thinks Sen. Craig needs to resign immediately. Why? See last sentence in his post, something to do with can’t have someone who acts so impulsively in the U.S. Senate during time of war.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/ece30318-b490-486a-9747-97a4392cbe77
Here’s Craig on his impeachment vote of Clinton:”However, reluctant as I am to say it, I do not believe this sorry chapter in our history is closed. On the first day of this trial, as I watched the Chief Justice take the chair, I was angry–profoundly angry that this president had brought this nation to this point because of his own self-gratification, setting what was good for himself above what was good for the nation. It is unconscionable what the president has put the country through, continues to put the country through, and will continue to put the country through for his own personal and political ends. My differences with the president on this point transcend party or policy; I am saddened that this sorry chapter will continue, that the book will be open and the pages of this chapter will be turning as long as this president remains on office. Our young people, our citizens, our Constitution deserve a better end to a better story.”
AllPolitics’ in-depth look at the investigation into the president’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
HEADLINESStarr puts first lady on witness list for Hubbell trial (6-23-99)
Hatch demands conclusion to Justice probe of Starr (6-17-99)
Starr: Independent Counsel Act should not be renewed (4-14-99)
Clinton’s contempt citation not a surprise to many (4-13-99)
MORE HEADLINES and 1998 ARCHIVES
DOCUMENTSClosed-door statements of senators
Full text of the articles of impeachment
Starr report or use the interactive guide
INTERACTIVEAcquittal Reaction
Timeline
PLAYERS
Cast of characters
‘TOONS
Bill Mitchell: Thank you sir, may I have another? (8-20-99) more
More impeachment toons
DISCUSSIONMessage Board: Independent counsel
Voter’s voice
I think, anonymous, that Randy can see the good people of Idado, having elected what THEY thought was a reliable conservative suckup to the religious right, might be disinclined to reelect a closeted, two-faced gay man.
And those Idaho voters who don’t care about him being gay are unlikely to forgive and forget his official anti-gay stance.
This is just tooooooo funny – a gay hating Senator turns out to be gay.
Perhaps he just “chose” to be gay that particular day. If you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then apparently you would also believe that anyone could just “choose” that avenue on any given day.
As I said, tooooooo funny.
You’re so funny Parkay.
What is tragic is that he felt the need to go through all of this in the first place- because people like you try to shame them. It would have been so much easier on him to have been honest with himself and others.
Turns out, Larry Craig’s outrage at Bill Clinton was that he got a blowjob *FROM A GIRL!!!”
It offended his sensibilities.
Linked article contains excerpts from the arresting officer’s report, and a link to the PDF of the report itself.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/28/craig.arrest/index.html
On first take, sounds like the Senator made a deal on “disorderly conduct” to avoid a trial or any publicity on a “lewd and lascivious” charge; just my opinion.
Nathan, the disorderly conduct was soliciting sex in an a airport men’s room. Certainly sticking your hands and feet into someone’s stall while occupied is creepy
I’m sure somehow this must be all Clintons’ (and Monicas’) fault.
Maybe Craig was jealous of Monica…
That thought had crossed my mind, too.
The report quoted a plain clothes police officer as saying Craig was seated in a stall in the bathroom, and had made gestures consistent with someone “wishing to engage in lewd contact.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070827231816.yycq4nhy&show_article=1&catnum=0
Here’s my take. The report of the plains clothes officer seems to be NOTHING. I would think anyone who is doing NOTHING wrong would easily, and without panic, fight the charge. But considering that Craig didn’t try to fight this, that says to me he had a guilty conscience.
“On first take, sounds like the Senator made a deal on “disorderly conduct” to avoid a trial or any publicity on a ‘lewd and lascivious’ charge; just my opinion.
Sounds plausible to me. And if he did nothing illegal, he should have had to guts to fight it.
Just MY opinion.
“Randy,
“Are you that blind?
“The article you link clearly says:
“‘Sen. Larry E. Craig pleaded guilty earlier this month to misdemeanor disorderly-conduct charges’”.
Nathan,Two quetions, 1) what behavior was it that the disorderly conduct charge was filed for? 2) What is your definition of the word “is”?
When you guys are caught with shorts down metaphorically and literally – it is priceless entertainment for the rest of us. Please continue.
Nice to see the Cops are on the ball taking care of the most dangerous criminals first!
Republicans must rue the day they made a politicians sexcapades worth of national debate, and prosecution.Still waiting for the “at least Craid didn’t disrespect a govt. building, and went to a public restroom!”
KS – Since there had been numerous complaints of lewd behavior in that bathroom, wouldn’t we have been up in arms if there had been an assault before the police had gotten around to doing any investigating? I guess the Cops are damned if you do, damned if you don’t with some.
Steven,
No, I am simply reading what was written, not purposefully exagerating the facts.
Here you go:
“Minnesota law defines disorderly conduct as brawling, disturbing a meeting or engaging in “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy conduct.”
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/
This may have indeed been a plea from lewd conduct, but he only admitted to the above, not:
“guilty plea on charges of soliciting sex in an airport men’s restroom.”
The opposite can be true as well. If the DA knows they don’t have enough to move forward with charges they will often agree to a plea in the interest of the state as well.
A plea bargain can be a two way street.
Perhaps Senator Craig felt it would simply go away quitely if he took the plea instead of fighting the more serious charge which would have been a public humiliation beyond what it is now.
Once again, I am not making assumptions.
I am trying to look at this from both sides instead of making up crap and going to extremes like the rest of you.
Just back from reading the PDF of the complaint on the cnn.com website. It appears that there were two charges, “peeping” which was dropped, as nearly as I can ascertain; and “disorderly conduct” to which the guilty plea was made. Under the cited Minnesota statute, it (to me) clearly applies (disorderly conduct).
Why plead? Guess here; the Senator really didn’t want a trial, given the contents of the report of the arresting officer.
BTW, the reason the officer was in the restroom was due to the receipt of complaints concerning sexual activity in said restroom (per the report).
Or, Nathan, the DA just wanted it to go away as quickly and quietly as possible, and made the deal, given the defendant is a sitting U.S. Senator. Just my speculation.
Is there a fine line between a “sitting Senator”, and say a “Standing Senator”?What’s Ks. point? Cops should be getting dangerous criminals; and stay out of public restrooms trying to catch pervs.?
disorderly conduct – boisterous behavior?
Perhaps he was playing the re-fried bean Sonata just a bit too noisily.
If he had been a Democratic Senator, the Republicans would be SCREAMING for his resignation and execution.
And you know it.
Looking at the police report–and the arrest for “lewd conduct”–either the officer is an incredible liar, or Craig is. They both can’t be telling the truth.
Now, as it’s been mentioned, “Minnesota law defines disorderly conduct as brawling, disturbing a meeting or engaging in “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy conduct.”
Since he wasn’t brawling or disturbing a meeting, so what sort of “offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous or noisy conduct” is possible in the vicinity of a bathroom stall?
If there are unfavorable assumptions, Craig invited them by pleading guilty.
Sure, he would have been put thru the wringer if he fought it but–you know what?–that’s the way it goes. You get charged with a crime, you have to stand your ground, even at the risk of conviction.
It’s called “honor.”
When you say one thing and do another then you are a hypocrite.
When I say one thing and do another that is ironic.
Yeah, Rage, the discrepancies are remarkable. Someone in the case definitely lacks credibility, to be sure.
When I say one thing and do another///
sounds a lot like Tiller’s attorney’s strategy.
“his seat could be wide open next year.”
I must say, rather unfortunate phrasing.
LMAO
Welcome back fleet.
When I say one thing and do another///
sounds a lot like Tiller’s attorney’s strategy.
Posted by: Kansas | August 28, 2007 at 02:04 PM
Sorry Kansas, guess I’m not seeing the connection there. Care to elaborate?
Great! Clinton made God fearing Christians afraid their children were going to go to school and emulate Clinton. Now, Craig must make the same God fearing Christians afraid their children are going to go to school and emulate Craig!
I expect Craig will stick to his convictions and resign for the sake of our young people!
So, do you think the gay issue will be big in the Republican campaigns again this year?
Maybe they’ll go back to being mad because they can’t put the ten commandments in front of every government building.
They guy was tryin to get his freak on. Why y’all trippin?
Sol,
Because he’s an effin’ hypocrite who has used the lives of gay and lesbian Americans to keep himself in political power.
That’s why.
Maybe he wanted to see how the ‘other half’ live ;->
So Tom, how do you feel now with Craig’s tapping right foot off your neck?
Tom,
I am pretty sure in Idaho, that Craig didn’t need to use homosexuals to stay in office….
DO ANY OF YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF HYPOCRITE????
Nathan,
He used his votes, and his public statements, against fairness for gay and lesbian Americans to solidify his base and get continually reelected.
DO YOU KNOW THE MEANING OF HYPOCRITE?
hy•poc•ri•sy n., pl. -sies1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.
Tom,
Yes I do. Show me where Craig was saying he was against homosexuals hooking up in public restrooms?
That would make him a Hypocrite if that was what he was doing.
Nathan…are you flipping KIDDING me.
Defend, Deflect, Deny…..
Hank, please proceed to go and smack your boy upon the head for such a ridiculous comment.
Political Mom,
Once again, I have said that I am not defending the guy. I think he was probably up to no good.
I don’t really know though.
And neither do any of you.
We have the facts which do not nearly paint the extreme picture several of you are trying to paint.
Repubs. may just have to run on the “Christmas is under attack” platform, just about everything else has turned to mush under their feet.
I think the PUBLIC restroom is the whole problem! Don’t children use public restrooms? Innocent people of all ages should NEVER be subjected to people who think it’s acceptable to solicit sex in a public restroom! This isn’t a gay / straight issue – the man is a pervert!
I guess pervs. really do hang out at public restrooms.
Actually the solicitation of an act heterosexual or homosexual does not imply hypocrisy as a stance on the act itself for the purposes of sex is not the same as pursuing a status change in society in regards to equal treatment.
I would classify it as beguiling and the revealing of a moral deficit when it comes to sexual preference.
Again, sexual preference is not the same as pursuing rights for a lifestyle not currently part of a society.
One could be against multiple marriage of heterosexuals, but against the solicitation of sexual acts as declared illegal by law.
The motivation is different as are the end results.
er be for soliciting sexual acts as declared by law…
drugs are kicking in…
bah!I’m taking a nap…
bbl
Political disease take another victim. Republican Senator Larry Craigm has been found to have the disease found to common among all politicians
Hypocrititis. Characterized by pretending to be or for something you are not, or pretending to be against something you are living or for.Population group affectedPoliticians of all genders and political persuaasions.Onset is the moment they need money for a campaign, or whenever they seem to be “losing it”.
Treatment:
Removal from office
Normal people, whether gay or straight, male or female, don’t look for sex with strangers in public restrooms.
In fact I would wonder whether anyone outside perverts even know the foot-tapping, wide stance (?) signals!
fact I would wonder whether anyone outside perverts even know the foot-tapping, wide stance (?) signals!
Posted by: lindainks55 | August 28, 2007 at 03:01 PM
I certainly didn;t know. Guess I’ll know next time the guy next to me is not just listening to his mp3 player.
lol
We’ll all need to watch that keeping beat with the music …
“Tom,
Yes I do. Show me where Craig was saying he was against homosexuals hooking up in public restrooms?
That would make him a Hypocrite if that was what he was doing.”
OMG.OMG,OMG,OMG.
THAT is the damndest thing I have EVER read here. And I’ve read some crazy things.
THAT perfectly illustrates IOKIYAAR.
Nice gymnastics, but I hope no one was injured with all those mid air twists and turns.
I’m assuming no animals were harmed in those contortions….
As Steven Davis would say, PRICELESS entertainment.
“Normal people, whether gay or straight, male or female, don’t look for sex with strangers in public restrooms.”
You mean…
I’m not….
NORMAL?????
LOL Littlejohn!!! Very funny!
I’m off to a public restroom. Y’all be good.
Not all that long ago, any gay person caught outside his closet was for all practical purposes dead meat. Times are changing, but haven’t changed enough for some, particularly older gay men, to consider risking a trip outside.It used to be that a black person who looked “white enough” might pass as white and save himself the danger and pain of racism. What Craig did though, was analogous to a black man passing as white who becomes a klan leader! He’s hardly alone, being in the august company of Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover, not to mention a horde of other self-bigots. Hopefully, their time is passing, and they’ll become nothing more than a footnote in the history of hatred.
Sol, If the public restroom is in a bar and you’ve shared a dance or a look or a conversation they no longer count as strangers. So watch out! You may be behaving in a normal way when you really don’t want to.
Funny stuff, including the comments.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1682975
If he had been a Democratic Senator, the Republicans would be SCREAMING for his resignation and execution.
And you know it.
Posted by: WSClark | August 28, 2007 at 01:58 PM
It would be Business as Usual for the Democratic Party of Immorality. It would likely not make the news at all.
It’s only NEWS when a Republican turns out to be a sinner.
Blow it out your fleetwood, KS.
No, that would be more Up Your Alley, Clark.
So are you resorting to the usual “if you are for gay rights, you must be gay” horseshit?
Typical Republican apologist.
Blow it out your fleetwood, KS.
was the pun intentional? Come on Randy, fes.
Senator Craig says he isn’t gay, has never been gay, pleaded guilty so no one would know anything and besides that IT’S ALL THE FAULT OF THE NEWSPAPER! But he is sorry it did come out and people – his family, his staff, Idahowans — need to know.
Hmmm. Well I guess that’s all cleared up now.
Does he think there is another adult as stewpid as he is!?
Does he think there is another adult as stewpid as he is!?Posted by: lindainks55 | August 28, 2007 at 03:54 PM
Only the ones with “(R)” after their names.
Yes, Linda, the NEWSPAPER made him do it!
Yes, and Milli Vanilli is a great, great rock group.
KS,The problem isn’t whether he was a Democrat or Republican, it’s that he’s a gay person who engaged in anti-gay bigotry for political gain.
No Jed, you are wrong.
Had he been Democrat, there would be little or no news of this.
There ARE NO HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR DEMOCRATS!
There ARE NO HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR DEMOCRATS!
Posted by: KS | August 28, 2007 at 03:59 PM
KS=BS
“There ARE NO HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR DEMOCRATS!”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, it is just the hypocrisy that Craig displayed being high and mighty and moralistic.
Your argument is just bullshit, KS.
It’s only NEWS when a Republican turns out to be a sinner.
Posted by: KS | August 28, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Sure seems like a lot of holier than thou Republicans are turning out to be sinners.
Is the Democratic Party in danger of loosing Gay support?
Has there been an increase in Log Cabin Republicans?
If you’re a closet Gay, maybe the Republican party is for you.
Why is it that the Republicans who preach the loudest against homosexuality are the ones who turn out Gay?
Nathan, Fleet, Kansas, Outlander, Hank,Got any secrets you want to discuss?
KS,I honstly don’t care what party he belongs to. Engaging in anti-gay rhetoric while attempting to solicit gay sex in an airport restroom is just plain dishonest.
Ya know, hypocrisy and sickening abuse-of-power aside, this is indeed a tragedy. I’ll bet you Craig doesn’t think he’s gay–for real–but Satan just keeps leading him to that evillll choice!
Hence the public-restroom route, although that’s still bizarre to me, if you’re trying to be discreet. It seems to me a wig, fake beard and sunglasses, and a gay bar would be the better way to go. I’m mean, bugging total strangers at airports?Granted, most non-cops would just ignore the guy and move on.
But OF COURSE Craig isn’t gay. I can almost hear it: “I’M NOT GAY! I’M NOTTT GAYYYYm DAMMIT! I’m JUST weak. . . just one more time. . . ”
That’s just sad.
So the lure of political power was greater then the pleasure of Outing himself. Now he can come out and be the REAL Craig for a change. Pro gays should be reaching out and comforting one of their own. Aren’t all gays who stay in the closet hypocrites in some way?
He was just doing research for several family values organizations. He only wanted to confirm that gays really do hang out in public restrooms and offer sex to strangers. It was his own personal sting operation in the ongoing battle to protect society and marriage from the gay lifestyle. He is a great man with the courage to go deep undercover, learn the secret signals and perform the rituals practiced by gay men all over America. He has shown us the selfless devotion that it will take for every straight man in this country to learn firsthand the depths of the depravity of homosexuals. It takes the amazing courage of a brave soul like Senator Craig to engage in acts he personally finds deplorabe in order to protect you, your marriage and your children.
Yeah, thats the ticket.
Aren’t all gays who stay in the closet hypocrites in some way?Posted by: RFL | August 28, 2007 at 04:12 PM
People can’t live quietly and privately without being condemned for their desire to NOT be bashed by bigots like some of the posters here, apparently.
What Craig did IS hypocrisy, because he’s NOT quiet, especially on the issue of gay. He deserves all the public humiliation he gets.
Craig is an unequal opportunist. Bashing homosexuals to shield his own bisexual philandering tendencies.
It won’t be long until he too finds Jesus, a la Vick, Britney and other geniuses of the ilk. The radical right eats it up. He will be forgiven.
Hollywood can’t even dream this stuff up anymore.
Hilarious.
Senator Craig used to be heterosexual but apparently everything changed on 9/11. But can we really blame him for what he did? I mean, he’s just representing the voters in his party. So they want a sodomizing hypocrite who screws strangers in public restrooms, Craig was just appealing to the needs of the voters. They like Bush spying on Americans because they have voyeur fantasies. Heck, they voted for two guys named Dick and Bush, can we have expected less?
Republicans were upset because Clinton received a BJ from a woman. If it was a man then they would have said nothing was wrong with it because it’s merely Republican traditional family values.
Any anti-gay Republicans here that want to tell us something they’ve been hiding? Nathan, Econ101, anyone?
Doug,
I am not “anti-gay”
When you can stop from labeling people long enough to ask your questions, perhaps we’ll respond.
Gay’s really got their topic here today!
Eagle, please make sure to post a permanent Gay Republican Bashing thread daily!
Linda darling, you single?
“Eagle, please make sure to post a permanent Gay Republican Bashing thread daily!”
That would be wrong. We shouldn’t bash gays around here. R or D.
That would doing what the right does and like someone’s Momma probably said “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
The voters are not tired of gay people. We are tired of gay Republicans that hide their sexual deviant desires while bashing other gays. Anybody that bashes gays is suspect for being gay. And since most of the Republican party bash gays, that means they are all suspect. Keep your little boys away too because many of them are pedophiles too. I don’t know who is worse- the Catholic Church or the Republican Party!
Kev,
Thank you for a perfect example of another irrational, illogical, pile of unthoughtful crap.
Nathan,Let me see if I understand your point of view:Craig is not a hypocrite.He never said he was against gay sex, just that he is against gay marriage and equal rights protections for gays.
So if he went to Canada and married a guy he met in the bathroom then he would be a hypocrite. If he just gets buggered by some guy in the bathroom, he is not a hypocrite.
Do I understand you correctly?
“We are tired of gay Republicans that hide their sexual deviant desires while bashing other gays.”
Are you saying that gay sex is deviant? That’s what is looks like.
Fleettwood,
Anonymous sex in public bathrooms is deviant. The sexual orientation of the participants has nothing to do with it.
Brian,
I am saying that:
1. There is no solid evidence that Craig is gay.
2. A hypocrite is someone who pretends to have virtue, morals, or beliefs that he actually doesn’t possess.
If ( IF ) we assume that merely trying to live a virtuous life and then doing something bad makes you a hypocrite, then yeah, he is a hypocrite.
And so is everyone else in the world too under those broad standards.
I think Kansas summed it up best when he said Craig doesn’t support governmental policies for homosexuals which is completely different than whatever it is they do in a bathroom…
“2. A hypocrite is someone who pretends to have virtue, morals, or beliefs that he actually doesn’t possess.”
Nathan Nathan Nathan,You are wrong. A hypocrite is a person that says one thing and does another. Craig implicity said he did not support homosexuality by not supporting gay marriage or other equal rights protections. Then Craig attempted to initiate a homosexual encounter between himself and a stranger. By trying to have gay sex, Craig implied that he was gay. Therefore, Craig implied he did not support gays, then implied that he was one. H y p o c r i t e.
I just find it odd that a Gay person (albeit oddly enough rebuplican) would bash his own likeness. So in “defense” of gays you go ahead and bash him for being gay?
If he is truly gay and born that way, I guess some empathy would be in order for him to finally face who he really is. So if you truly supported the Gay ideal, your bashing towards Craig should be mitigated.
Is that so unreasonable? Or is this really a political debate?
“1. There is no solid evidence that Craig is gay.”
A plea of “guilty” to charges of disorderly conduct, the conduct being soliciting sex from another man in a public bathroom, tends to say otherwise.
Unless you’re saying that doesn’t make him gay. I’m okay with that position, actually, because I think anyone that has anonymous sex with strangers in public bathrooms has some SERIOUS issues going on. In that case, though, he should really seek help, and resign that Senate seat he’s holding.
What even the right wingnuts are beginning to understand is: there’s nothing deviant about sexual desires between two consenting adults.
It makes no difference to me what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms unless I happen to be in bed with them.
Demonizing gays is a false issue for “conservatives;” a cheap shot against people who are perceived to be different. “Conservatives” still have a field day attacking people who speak a language different from English. “Conservatives” miss the good old days when they could discriminate agaist people whose skin is dark. There’s a regular “conservative” poster to this forum whose entire mindset is focused on his imagined threats of the Jews.
It’s a slam-dunk election strategy to scare the ignorant over fantasized threats presented by people who might be “other than you.”
It’s a deperate effort of weakness when “conservatives” conjure up “others” to boost their own inadequacies.
“If ( IF ) we assume that merely trying to live a virtuous life and then doing something bad makes you a hypocrite, then yeah, he is a hypocrite.
And so is everyone else in the world too under those broad standards.
I think Kansas summed it up best when he said Craig doesn’t support governmental policies for homosexuals which is completely different than whatever it is they do in a bathroom…
Posted by: Nathan | August 28, 2007 at 05:27 PM”
I don’t assume that trying to live a virtuous life but doing something bad makes you a hypocrite, do you?
I do think that trying to live a virtuous life, doing things to make everyone think you are living a virtuous life, telling others they should live a virtuous life, and passing laws that would prohibit others from living their lives in a manner not consistent with your virtues then doing some thing bad that you have said others cannot do does make you a hypocrite.
Apparently, from cnn.com, the Senator’s conduct, statements, allegedly flashing his business card as a senator in front of the police officer, etc., have the Republican Senate leadership concerned enough to refer the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for investigation. An interesting reaction.
Hope he stays in the race. Looks like another Democratic pick up!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conservative“con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)adj.1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.4.a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.”
I believe without reservation that lying is wrong but sometimes I lie. I try to explain it with hypotheticals, but still a lie is a lie. therefore I should be willing to bear the consequences of my actions.
Should I then not believe that lying is wrong? No.
I assume this is the predicament that Craig is in at the moment.
I figure in a week he will enter “counseling”
SWEET!
Nathan,
Just to be clear, you claim that you are not anti-gay and yet many of your posts on this blog prove otherwise. Are you the type of “not anti-gay” that believes:
1. There is nothing inherently immoral about consensual sex between adults, including homosexuals2. That homosexuals should be given all of the same rights and privileges that are granted by the state to heterosexuals.3. That the private sexual activities of consenting homosexual adults is not a danger to you, your family, your marriage or your children.
Or are you the kind of “not anti gay” that believes
1. Engaging in homosexual activity is immoral according to your religious code2. That homosexuals should be discriminated against solely based on their sexual preference and that many governmental rights and privileges should be reserved for heterosexuals only.3. That homosexual activity is damaging to society, families and children and that gays deserve eternal punishment from a vengeful god
Which is it? I must have missed the nuances in all of your posts in which you felt it appropriate for gays to be denied civil rights and be thrown into the fiery pits of hell. If you are not anti gay, I would hate to see the rhetoric that you reserve for the people that you truly hold in contempt.
This is hilarious; We got a seriously conservative Senator getting caught with his pants down in a bathroom, pleads guilty, pays his fine, then says, “Well dang it, I should not never have pleaded guilty, ’cause them police just weren’t quite understanding what I was doin’!”.
Now THAT’S hypocrisy.
RFL, let me see if I read your post right:
‘I believe without reservation that homosexuality is wrong but sometimes I have gay sex. I try to explain it with hypotheticals, but still gay sex is gay sex. therefore I should be willing to bear the consequences of my actions.
Should I then not believe that gay sex is wrong? No.’
Scott,
I disagree with either of your two options.
I do not believe that homosexuals should be descriminated against simply for choosing to be gay.
I do not support a government recognition by endorsing homosexual marriage simply because people choose to be gay.
I do believe that acts of homosexuality are a sin.
I do not think it is my place or the governments to interfere in two consenting adults doing what it is they do.
I believe homosexuality is damaging to society.
I do not believe that homosexuals deserve eternal punishment. I believe they are sinners like all of us and can be forgiven and accept Christ and go to heaven because of a God that is full of grace.
“…people choose to be gay.”Posted by: Nathan | August 28, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Nathan,
When did you choose to be straight?
Do you really think gay and lesbian people wake up one morning, and out of the blue say to ourselves “I’m tired of the opposite sex. I think I’ll be a homo.”?
I do not support a government recognition by endorsing homosexual marriage simply because people choose to be gay.
Posted by: Nathan | August 28, 2007 at 06:02 PM
It’s a civil contract. On what defensible basis does the government have for sex discrimination?
Or is sex discrimination okay?
Tom,
Nope.
Rage,
What sex is being descriminated against?
So,
Being gay is a sin
If you are gay you should not have the full set of rights and privleges granted to other citizens
That simply by being gay, you are a danger to society
And that any gay person willing to abandon their homosexuality can escape eternal punishment
And you expect anyone to believe that you are not anti gay? Why are you ashamed to be the self righteous gay hating social conservative that you are?
If “nope,” why do you keep saying that?
Nevermind answering, though, because I have to leave. All you fabulous bloggers, have fun.
Nathan,Does the following accurately summarize your position on the issue?
I do believe that acts of homosexuality are a sin, but can be forgiven.
I believe homosexuality is damaging to society, but I do not think it is my place or the governments to interfere in two consenting adults doing what it is they do
I do not believe that homosexuals should be descriminated against, but I do not support a government recognition by endorsing homosexual marriage
J M Walker,
Why else would a gay senator vote repeatedly agains gays? And then, even after getting caught, vehemently denies being gay? He obviously feel deeply ashamed for being gay but just can’t help it.
You read it right.
Brian,
Yeah, pretty much, in the most basic sense.
Rage,
What sex is being descriminated against?
Posted by: Nathan | August 28, 2007 at 06:07 PM
Men: They are not allowed to marry men.
Women: They are not allowed to marry women.
Just because it cuts both ways doesn’t somehow remove the discrimination.
Do you think laws against mixed marriages were not racial discrimination?? Or Plessy v. Ferguson, i.e., “separate but equal”? But in this instance, no one is even PRETENDING to equality (well, except maybe politicians who pretend “civil unions”–as currently constructed–are the same thing!).
Scott,
I think anti-gay carries too many things to sum up my posistion accurately.
So, no I do not think I am “anti-gay”
I am not self rightous nor do I hate gays.
Yet again, you choose to call me names.
I was trying to be cooperative and explain myself in the interest of the discussion.
“Kev,
Thank you for a perfect example of another irrational, illogical, pile of unthoughtful crap.”
As always, you are welcome. Glad to be of service!
How can you claim to not support discrimination against gays and in the same breath state that they should not be allowed to get married based soley on the fact that they are gay? It is absurd to claim to support equal rights for everyone except for the exceptions.
It is like claiming to support equal rights for blacks, but not laws that allow them to eat lunch, ride the bus and obtain employment without regard to race.
Rage,
Both men and women have the same rights to marry the opposite sex. No discrimination.
The government makes several laws regarding marriage based on societal demands, not just those in opposition to homosexuals getting married.
I don’t think they are discriminative either.
That’s the argument that anti-gays use to feel good about their bigotry.
The Media made him cop a deal! I think Craig is parsing words, and should be directly asked if he is bi-sexual.Senator says not gay and wrong to plead guilty By Shea Anderson1 hour, 32 minutes ago
BOISE, Idaho (Reuters) – Republican Senator Larry Craig said on Tuesday he is not gay and had made a mistake in pleading guilty to disorderly conduct after he was arrested in a men’s toilet at a Minnesota airport in June.
ADVERTISEMENTFirst elected to the Senate in 1990, the Idaho senator was arrested by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in the men’s public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
“I am not gay, I never have been gay,” Craig told a news conference in Boise, Idaho, and apologized to the people of Idaho for what he said was a “cloud” over the state because of the incident. “I did nothing wrong,” he said.
The conservative Republican, who has spoken out against gay rights and same-sex marriage, said he would announce next month, as planned, whether to seek re-election next year.
He is a married father of three.
Republican leaders requested a Senate ethics panel investigation and said they were “examining other aspects of the case to determine if additional action is required.”
A grim-faced Craig, whose wife, Suzanne, stood silently by his side at the news conference, appeared defiant in the face of the furor over the incident.
“While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away,” he read from a prepared statement.
“I did not seek any counsel, either from an attorney, staff, friends, or family. That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it.”
BLAMES WITCH HUNT
In his August 8 plea, Craig said, “I am pleading guilty to the charge of disorderly conduct…specifically in the restroom of the North Star Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal. I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others.”
Craig said he had acted hastily in accepting the guilty plea because of what he called a “witch hunt” by the Idaho Statesman newspaper.
“In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis, because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman’s investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho. Again, that overreaction was a mistake, and I apologize for my misjudgment,” he said.
He declined to answer questions after his statement.
Kirk Sullivan, chairman of the Idaho Republican party who said he had known Craig since the mid 1970s, attended the announcement. “We’re going to support Sen. Craig to the best of our ability,” he said. “He knows he made an improper judgment. He is on the right course to correct it.”
But Bryan Fischer, executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, a conservative Christian group, called on Craig to step down. “I still believe it would be appropriate for him to resign,” he said.
Since details of Craig’s arrest emerged on Monday, the three-term senator has resigned as Idaho chairman of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign.
Craig is up for re-election next year. He is a former member of the Senate’s Republican leadership and played an active role in the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
Democrats currently have an effective a 51-49 majority in the Senate.
Email Story IM Story Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORYRecommend It:
Average (20 votes)» Recommended Stories
Something like: Blacks should not be discriminated against because they are black, but they should not be allowed to marry whites?
If you believe that gays are immoral, damaging to society and not worthy of the same rights as heterosexuals than you are anti gay. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
Scott,
I’m still waiting for you to take back your allegations that I hate gays or am self rightous.
“Mr Craig, have you ever willingly participated in any sexual activities with a member of the same sex?”
I do not hate murderers, but I think murder is a sin.
I guess it is possible to ‘hate the sin, not the sinner’.
Brian,
Not at all. Homsexuals can marry any person of the opposite sex they want.
Just like everyone else.
I support full rights for gays. The fact is that the government should recognize ONLY civil unions which are legal contracts between adults. I do not think the government has any business in the “marriage” debate. Marriage is a religious thing and belongs in a church. The government should not issue “marriage licenses” but only “Civil Union Contracts” that, once signed and witnessed, serve as a legally binding union between the parties. If the parties wish to participate in a “marriage” ceremony, they may find a church or chapel to host it but the government has no business in that part.
“Republicans must rue the day they made a politicians sexcapades worth of national debate, and prosecution.Still waiting for the “at least Craid didn’t disrespect a govt. building, and went to a public restroom!”
Awww yes… the party of “family values” strikes again!
Something like: Blacks should not be discriminated against because they are black, but they should not be allowed to marry whites?
Posted by: brian | August 28, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Exactly! But because we ALSO don’t allow white people to marry blacks, hey, who’s being discriminated against? It affect whites and blacks equally–right?
The fact that an arbitrary distinction is being made for unstated reasons is supposedly irrelevant.
Rage,
I don’t think marriage is a right.
Do I have a right to marry 5 wives?
Marriage is something I believe the government has the ability to regulate based on societial demands.
Rage,
Do I have a right to marry a 12 year old?
Rage,
Do I have a right to marry my sister?
Rage,
Do I have a right to marry my mother?
Its all political. Official sanction from the US Govt to recognize Gay marraiges is not going to change anything. It just defines where we are as a national culture. That is the real battle.
Gays have all the rights as single people do. we don’t feel sorry for single people so why all the pity for gays?
Nathan –
1) Issue? Maybe it SHOULD be legal. . .
2)Issue = consent.
3) Issue = genetic mutations.
4) Gay marriage, Issue = ??
5) See #3.
Rage,
The issues are atill based upon societial judgements.
1. Have fun figuring out the benifits on that one
2. In your opinion. In many countries they believe a girl/boy of yound age can consent just fine or the parents can for her/him. Why are we right?
3. If there is an agreement to not procreate, why not?
With some employers, gays actually have rights, such as insurance coverage, for their partner. But the same employer will deny coverage to an opposite sex partner to whom the employee is not married.
Well as I read this thread, I take it that if it had been an openly gay Democrat caught in this predicament, that he or she would also be called a pervert and a sexual deviant, by both the right and the left.
Maybe states should allow gays to marry. In America the most liberal states have the lowest divorce rates while states that are more Republican and have more fundy Christians have huge divorce rates. Not surprising where gays can get married there is a low divorce rate.
People like Senator Craig, Ted Haggard and other Grand Old Pflamer members can just be themselves and not live a life of lies pretending to be heterosexual.
I believe that to be a correct take away.
Nathan,”I think anti-gay carries too many things to sum up my posistion accurately.So, no I do not think I am “anti-gay”I am not self rightous nor do I hate gays.”
You’re either lying to yourself or us.
Tired of getting your a** handed to you on this thread Nathan?
Do yourself a favor and quietly withdraw.
You’re missing the point, Nathan.
In each of those instances, thoughtful reasons can be articulated, independent from religious scorn. In the Reynolds case ,the Supreme Court raised the very real patriachal situation in the polygamists of the time.
None of the objections to gay marriage are based on any established, objective body of fact. What I’m seeing are 2 peristent fallacies 1) the mere existence of gay marriage somehow threatens the concept of marriage and, 2)such persons who, in every other aspect but complementary sexual organs, qualify as married couples, are denied a basic civil contract, simply on the basis of their choice (hey, there’s that word!) of life partner.
I have yet to see a defensible secular basis for opposing gay marriage, and putting religious arguments into law (as has clearly occured) is a blatant attack on religious freedom.
I will reverse my statement that you are a self righteous gay hater when you recant your belief that being gay is a sin and damaging to society.
The ball is in your court.
2) above didn’t quite come out right, but I think folks will get the idea.
Maybe the solution would be something like “legally bonded” or “legally united”, and subject to the same treatment by law as someone that is “married”.
“The government should not issue “marriage licenses” but only “Civil Union Contracts” that, once signed and witnessed, serve as a legally binding union between the parties. If the parties wish to participate in a “marriage” ceremony, they may find a church or chapel to host it but the government has no business in that part.
Posted by: Kev | August 28, 2007 at 06:22 PM
The sensible, tolerant, and fair position has been endorsed by several WE Blog regulars.
Now just WHEN are our friggin’ politicians going to get a clue?
Gene,”Well as I read this thread, I take it that if it had been an openly gay Democrat caught in this predicament, that he or she would also be called a pervert and a sexual deviant, by both the right and the left.”
I would consider an openly gay man who attempted to solicit sex in an airport men’s room to be pretty much without class, end of story. Do I consider a closeted gay man who attempts to solicit sex in an airport men’s room while constantly attacking gay people on the floors of congress to be a pervert? You betcha!
there is plenty of secular basis for allowing people in a democratic society to choose their own culture and how they interpret the definition of a “family”.
Rage, good post.
The desperation move of erecting the trifecta of marriage strawmen is a sure sign that the anti gay marriage argument has no merit in the absence of a particular religious code.
Homosexuals are not asking for the right to marry multiple partners, minors or relatives. They are only asking for the same right already granted to heterosexuals to marry one, unrelated adult partner.
The fact is that majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage normalized. They think it is immoral. Whether or not that belief comes from religious belief or elsewhere is of no consequence.
There doesn’t need to be any other reason.
I do believe that where the nerve is hit, is with the terminology of marriage, which many people believe is to be the exclusive domain of a man and a woman, and for many a holy sacrament.I have to admit that I would probably be bothered by open displays of affection between two of the same sex. But, then again, I really don’t like seeing public displays of affection between the opposite sex. There is a time and place for everything.
When the Religious Right can prove that being gay is a “choice” then PERHAPS their position would be defensible, however, the medical community is nearly unanimous in stating that homosexuality is a born trait.
Like evolution and global warming, the fundamentalists choose to ignore scientific evidence that refutes their narrow, bigoted views of the world.
In 1850, society thought that slavery was just peachy-keen.
Just because “society” thinks that gays should not be allowed to marry does not make it right.
Personally, I do not think that fundamentalist Christians should be allowed to marry.
Just trying to keep the gene pool clean……
Outie,”The fact is that majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage normalized. They think it is immoral. Whether or not that belief comes from religious belief or elsewhere is of no consequence.There doesn’t need to be any other reason.”
Exactly the same rationale used for denying civil rights to black people 50 years ago. You cons really believe in recycling trash, don’t you?
Outlander, in many Arab/Muslim countries, being a Christian is considered to be immoral and is against the law.
That is their societies choice.
“Whether or not that belief comes from religious belief or elsewhere is of no consequence.
There doesn’t need to be any other reason.”
Does your logic in that regard make it appropriate in this regard?
“The fact is that majority of Americans don’t want gay marriage normalized. They think it is immoral. ”
Outie, legally, marriage is a civil contract. Period. Strictly speaking, there is no such as “gay marriage.” There is only marriage.
So what you’re saying, if I understand, is that we should deny this civil contract to these people, simply because a majority regards their relationships as immoral.
So, based on moral disapproval of what 2 people do in their own homes, we can put the legitimacy of their relationship up to a public vote.
Wow. That’s scary.
Who ELSE should we deny civil marriage to, based on moral disapproval?
Nice try WS, but easily distinguishable. It may be illegal to be Christian in those countries. But it isn’t illegal to be homosexual in ours.
“But it isn’t illegal to be homosexual in ours.”
If they do NOT have the same rights as the rest of us, it may as well be illegal.
Why should gays not have the same rights as us?
Rage,
So what you’re saying, if I understand, is that we should deny this civil contract to a man and a 12 year old, simply because a majority regards their relationships as immoral.
So, based on moral disapproval of what a man and a 12 year old do in their own homes, we can put the legitimacy of their relationship up to a public vote.
Wow. That’s scary.
Who ELSE should we deny civil marriage to, based on moral disapproval?
Well as I read this thread, I take it that if it had been an openly gay Democrat caught in this predicament, that he or she would also be called a pervert and a sexual deviant, by both the right and the left.
Posted by: Gene Raston | August 28, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Hey, Gene. I gotta deal for you.
I won’t post on WEBlogs in Albany, Oregon if you don’t post on our WEBlog in Wichita, Kansas.
WS Clark,
The only “right” homosexuals dont have is the ability to get married.
Same for a 12 year old, more than 2 people wanting to be together, and family members.
WS Clark,
What proof is there that homosexuality is not a choice?
LOL
So, if I told you I was gay how would you prove I am not?
If a gay person changed his mind what does that mean?
LOL
How do you show homosexuality in the hereditary chain?
Then we would have to exclude KFG and Ben who aren’t Wichita Residents.
I don’t think there is a residency requirement to post here.
Seems to me the only way you can tell if someone is gay is if they tell you.
The difference, obviously, between a twelve year old and an adult gay couple is the god damned AGE OF CONSENT.
The same goes for animals….. your next stupid argument and dead people, ….. your stupid argument after that.
If two CONSENTING adults want to marry, why would you deny them that right?
WS Clark,
In our society. There are many other cultures which think it is perfectly ok for kids that young to get married.
Why are we right?
“What proof is there that homosexuality is not a choice?”
Homosexuality is not hereditary, obviously, but there is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice.
By the way, Nathan, in a debate, a negative CANNOT be proven.
Perhaps you missed that when you were in school.
Dumbass.
“I don’t think there is a residency requirement to post here.”
Jeez, Kansas, I remember you slamming me because you thought I was lying about living in Wichita.
Change your tune?
And the personal insults begin from our resident specialist in being a rude foul mouthed person… WS CALRK.
What next? Going to start crying to the police that I am threatening you?
BOOGA BOOGA BOO!
“So, if I told you I was gay how would you prove I am not?”
Why would I care?
WS Clark,
I thought it was a scientific fact that people were born gay.
So how do you tell?
If you threaten me, Nathan, I will deal with it appropriately.
Otherwise, I could care less if you live or die.
But I certainly wouldn’t do anything to help you stay alive.
“So how do you tell?”
They know. The rest is none of your business.
“Then we would have to exclude KFG and Ben who aren’t Wichita Residents.”
See, pure distortion all the time.
KFG and Ben live and work in Kansas.
Duh.
Nathan asks how gays know that they are gay.
Gee, Nathan, how do you know that you are straight?
So Capn, if someone flew in from New York and did work in Kansas, that would qualify under your inclusion logic?
I choose to be that way.
Same as Homosexuals.
How do you know that you are straight?
Easy question.
Male and Female hormones.
The essential basic continuation of one’s genes that comes naturally. (which has been proven.)
All through natural methods, not through artificial methods.
You’ve posed a real stumper there, Kansas . . . How about if a space alien time-traveled to Lawrence before Quantrille’s raid and then posted from a fourth dimension.
Would it still be Kansas as we know it?
Hmmm . . . .
“So what you’re saying, if I understand, is that we should deny this civil contract to a man and a 12 year old, simply because a majority regards their relationships as immoral.”
Ya know, I’m finding THIS approach makes it a little easier to deal with such whack-a-mole arguments:http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/craig-another-g.html#comment-80917237
Saves repetivite typing.
Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was met. Rm 1:27
I believe it.
The Alien Space traveler couldn’t post because the Wichita Eagle would not exist in the cross dimensional space.
Kansas existed before the official designation of Quantrill raiders.
Societies always decide what is moral and what isn’t.
There is no such thing as amoral societies, only moral and immoral ones.
“Nice try WS, but easily distinguishable. It may be illegal to be Christian in those countries. But it isn’t illegal to be homosexual in ours.”
It was until recently. And the Republicans are working very hard to bring the “sodomy is a felony” laws back.
“Societies always decide what is moral and what isn’t.”
Most indstrialized nations do not try to regulate personal affairs between adults.
Well Kev, don’t know about not trying, but a large portion of Industrialized Nations have their own same sex union laws.
Nathan, you really are hopeless.
I’ve seen four year old kids that were obviously gay.
You think that was a choice? That when you were seven, you wanted to sneak a peek at Playboy magazine and the kid down the street wanted to pick out his mom’s new drapes?
Here’s how writer David Sedaris describes life for gay boys (himself) in the FIFTH GRADE:
“None of the [speech] therapy students were girls. They were all boys like me who kept movie star scrapbooks and made their own curtains. ‘You don’t want to be doing that,’ the men in our families would say. ‘That’s a girl thing.’ Baking scones and cupcakes for the school janitors, watching Guiding Light with our mothers, collecting rose petals for use in a fragrant potpourri: anything worth doing turned out to be a girl thing. In order to enjoy ourselves, we learned to be duplicitous. Our stacks of Cosmopolitan were topped with an unread issue of Boy’s Life or Sports Illustrated, and our decoupage projects were concealed beneath the sporting equipment we never asked for but always received. When asked what we wanted to be when we grew up, we hid the truth and listed who we wanted to sleep with when we grew up. ‘A policeman or a fireman or one of those guys who works with high-tension wires.’ Symptoms were feigned, and our mothers wrote notes excusing our absences on the day of the intramural softball tournament. Brian had a stomach virus or Ted suffered from that twenty-four-hour bug that seemed to be going around.”
You think 12 year old boys CHOOSE to bake scones instead of play football?
Unbelievable . . .
Mmmm… scones.
This tea shop on Central and Hillside makes has some really good ones.
“soliciting sex in an airport men’s restroom.”
That’s pretty gross behavior. I hope he is not gay. I’d hate to think that is considered normal.
Really . . . I always thought scones were kind of dry and tasteless.
For those that think homosexuality is a choice, I have to wonder how often they choose to be hetero and how often they choose to be homo.
Perhaps the “choice” folks change their choice several times a day.
Or not.
I’ve been having a ball reading some of the sleezy comments from Ks! His analogy of the seamy allegations against Larry Craig left me in tears from laughing so hard! To see this poor sap trying to undue what he had done was pathetic to watch! How many times do you get to use the phraze,”I am not gay!” So many I lost count! And Mitt Romney had to pull out the ole Bill Clinton card when asked if Larry Craig should resign! Yeah, Mittzy! When you don’t have a direct answer use the tried and tired! “Yes,It reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton!” Say WHAT? I didn’t know Clinton had been accused of having sex with a male! Really! Clue me in! In watching ole Craigy did you notice the beads of sweat popping out of his dome? Last I checked it was just 77 at 3pm! So it couldn’t have been the weather! You can’t fool us, Senator! We know why you were dripping sweat, Larry!!!!
When the scone is made with white chocolate chips, rasberries, and blueberries…
They are delicious and look good too.
“As Steven Davis would say, PRICELESS entertainment.”
You know KFG, I messed up my pun above. Stuff like ‘the not being a hypocrite because he did not advocate for gay sex in airport bathrooms’, is actually “PRICEY” entertainment – which we never tire of, even though we get large supplies on a daily basis. Even taking into account his usual standards, Nathan has been particularly amusing on this thread. An ideologically unsound mind should be wasted – to paraphrase Dan Quayle.
“I choose to be that way.”
When did you choose, Nathan?
Just before or just after the first time you had sex?
“”"Mmmm… scones.
This tea shop on Central and Hillside makes has some really good ones.”"”
There is a tea shop at Central and Hillside?? Didn’t the Crest Theatre used to around there as I recall?
It’s in their genes, not their heads. If this is true, they may have entitlements under the ADA:
Study of gay brothers may find clues about sexualityBy Robert Mitchum | Tribune staff reporterAugust 12, 2007
In Gregg Mierow’s family, there were six boys, brothers who grew into two groups as they reached maturity: Three are gay, and three are straight.
“It seems innate to me,” Mierow, who works in advertising and as a yoga teacher in Chicago, said of his homosexuality. “It doesn’t seem like there’s any choice involved, and it seemed very clear even when we were very young.”
Mierow stumbled upon a chance to help prove that hunch at the Northalsted Market Days festival four years ago. Spotting a banner reading, “Wanted! Gay Men with a Gay Brother,” he stopped by the booth and volunteered for what he thought would be little more than a survey.
Instead, Mierow found himself part of the Molecular Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation — the most extensive study yet to search for a genetic basis for homosexuality — embarked upon by a team of Chicago researchers from local universities.
The scientists hope that by gathering DNA samples from 1,000 sets of gay brothers like the Mierows they will be able to find genetic linkages smaller studies failed to detect. They’ll be recruiting brothers again at the Halsted Street festival this weekend.
The results may ignite controversy, the researchers acknowledge, both by providing ammunition in the raging cultural war over homosexuality and by raising fears about ethically questionable applications like genetic profiling and prenatal testing.
But, they argue, the research is essential to our biological understanding of sexual behavior.
“If there are genetic contributions to sexual orientation, they will not remain hidden forever — the march of genetic science can’t be stopped,” said Timothy F. Murphy, bioethicist adviser to the study. “It’s not a question of whether we should or should not do this research, it’s that we make sure we’re prepared to protect people from insidious uses of this science.”
Although the question of whether homosexuality is a choice remains a hot topic for pundits, scientists are largely in agreement that sexual orientation is at least partially determined by biology.
Studies that compare identical and fraternal twins for the frequency of a particular behavioral trait have consistently suggested there are both genetic and environmental causes of homosexuality. Identical twins, who share 100 percent of their genes, show a higher chance of both being gay compared with fraternal twins, who typically share the same family environment but only half their genetic code.
Researchers also have found physical traits that correlate with homosexuality, from the relative size of certain brain areas associated with sexual behavior to seemingly irrelevant characteristics like hair whorl direction and finger-length ratios.
Inspired by the accumulating circumstantial evidence of genetic factors, researchers in the early ’90s began trying to narrow down the wide expanse of DNA to a few promising regions. By comparing the genetic codes of gay brothers, who also share 50 percent of their genes, a “linkage study” tries to detect areas that show up in both men at a frequency higher than chance, suggesting one or more genes in that region might be linked to sexual orientation.
In 1993, geneticist Dean Hamer announced his group had found such a region on the X chromosome, which males inherit from their mothers. But the number of brother pairs used in the study was small and subsequent studies failed to replicate Hamer’s findings, throwing the result into question.
“In complex gene scenarios, people figured out that you need a larger sample size in order to get reasonable statistical power,” said Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and the leader of the current study.
To increase the chances of finding genetic areas associated with homosexuality, Sanders proposed assembling almost 10 times the sibling pairs of previous studies. The project received funding in 2001 and began recruiting subjects at gay pride festivals, through gay-oriented publications and on the Internet.
So far the Chicago researchers have obtained blood or saliva DNA samples and survey data from more than 600 brother sets, with several hundred other volunteers in the process of submitting one or the other. Sanders hopes to publish his findings from the first wave of DNA samples in a scientific journal sometime next year.
Sanders cautioned a linkage study can single out only regions of the genetic code, not individual genes.
“One of the advantages of linkage studies is that we don’t have to know those things ahead of time,” Sanders said. “It’s a big advantage here because we don’t know about the biology of sexual orientation yet, so we can find the genes first and then study the biology.”
At this point, the researchers do not know what types of genes they may find; they could be related to hormones, sexual development or a completely unexpected system.
“The genes would probably be doing their work by affecting sexual differentiation of the brain during prenatal life,” said J. Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychology professor involved with the project. “But what scientists are increasingly appreciating is that genes can affect a trait in ways you could never have guessed.”
There is scientific evidence that homosexuality is predisposed before birth. I’ve also known a young man who was obviously gay before he was 4, long before he knew anything about sexuality or sex. The ones who insist that it’s merely a choice hold onto that belief so they can judge and condemn, it would be so much harder to believe that homosexuals were going to hell if they couldn’t help or control how they feel. Just like those with epilepsy were thought to be poccessed by demons or that a disabled child was just the consequence of his parent’s past sins. Religion has always been the vehicle for condemning as evil what man can’t understand. It’s always based on ignorance..always.
Well for sure, if gay marriages had been allowed centuries before, the genetic line of some would have ended quite abruptly.
So was the good Senator convicted of being a homosexual? Or of having homosexual conduct?
Is it against the law to pick up a date in a restroom? But it is O.K., if he waited until he got to the bar?
I’m confused at the charges, and what he pled to.
P.S. Nathan, if a handsome man and a beautiful woman were sitting next to each other, what I hear you saying is that you could be sexually attracted to BOTH, but you would CHOOSE the woman because that would be what God would want you to do?
The fact that a boy might be interested in food prep does not mean the boy will be a homosexual. Did you watch Rock when he won “Hell’s Kitchen”? He said he has loved working in the kitchen since he was a boy and I do not think anybody is going to accuse Rock of being gay. At least not to his face!
“In our society. There are many other cultures which think it is perfectly ok for kids that young to get married.”
I might point out that in some of those other cultures, it is also perfectly ok for a surviving spouse, to throw herself on the funeral pyre of her departed husband. But not in ours.
Does that make them wrong? Does that make ours right?
I might also point out, that in some of those cultures, their Laws are based on their understandings of their Religion, and that all marriages in some sectors of society are planned between sets of parents, and NOT by the choice of the individual.
So, that kind of statement quoted here is actually a false comparison of two different cultures. Not acceptable at all.
Well for sure, if gay marriages had been allowed centuries before, the genetic line of some would have ended quite abruptly.
Posted by: Kansas
But they could adopt, and encourage their children to develop the tendency?
Man, is this guy twisting in the wind!
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/08/29/i_might_as_well_have_been_his_briefcase.html
Known he was gay before he was 4 Mary?
At age four, I wasn’t really sure what my penis was for other than just urinating.
Girls were to be taunted and harassed. Boys were friends that you could do the rough and tumble routines that most four year olds would do.
Then there was the universally accepted milk and cookie break presented always by someone’s mom.
I knew of no fathers that baked cookies for said events.
I probably told this before. My grandmother called the elderly females down the road “sisters.” It wasn’t until later that I found out they were lesbians.
I know when I went to their farm, they had little use for me, however were much kinder to my sisters.
The only contact I had with homosexuality growing up is when a neighbor kid tried to get me to do some oral sex on him. I refused and I asked how he learned about doing that as he was two years younger. He told me a neighborhood boy taught him and that boy was seventeen years of age. The boy that asked me was eight.
A lot wrong with that picture in my opinion.
But they could adopt, and encourage their children to develop the tendency?
Posted by: IGWT | August 28, 2007 at 08:37 PM
True, but it wouldn’t be their genetic line.
Then if they were taught, it would be learned behavior and not a genetic predisposition.
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. People do not choose to be homosexual anymore than regular people choose to be hetrosexual. I am not going to go as far as saying homosexuality is “normal” because I do not believe it is. It is something either genetic or psychological I think. We do not know what causes it and we need more research into it. But there are lots of things that are not “normal” that we do not discriminate against hopefully. It is not “normal” to have red hair or to be born without toes but we do not generally pick on such people. Homosexuality should be looked at the same way. It happens and the right wing will not be able to “cure” it. Homosexuals do not bother other people so why do Republicans feel it so necessary to pick on gay people? For that matter, all these gay bashing preachers should shut the hell up unless they are equally as hard on all the other sins of their flock.
At age four, I wasn’t really sure what my penis was for other than just urinating. Kansas
I wouldn’t worry about this one, Capt America was just sterotyping. Reminds me of Archie Bunker, “Those were the days!”
It is not “normal” to have red hair or to be born without toes but we do not generally pick on such people.
Just like being left handed Kev?
I wouldn’t worry about this one, Capt America was just sterotyping. Reminds me of Archie Bunker, “Those were the days!”Posted by: IGWT
Sorta like the Nazi defining what a jew looked like. Racial profiling?
“So what you’re saying, if I understand, is that we should deny this civil contract to a man and a 12 year old, simply because a majority regards their relationships as immoral.”
Now, that is plain stupidity. We all know that children under the age of legal consent cannot choose to be married, regardless of whether they are male, or female, or anything other delineation. It is not LEGAL for a child of 12 to be married to ANYbody.
To use that as some kind of “argument” on this subject, is sheer lunacy.
Let’s not cloud the subject by bringing children into it. Most gays are NOT pedophiles and most pedophiles are not gay (although most pedophiles ARE Republican). And children cannot enter into a civil union because it is a contract and children cannot sign a contract without a parent’s signature. And on that subject, the USA should set the Civil Union age at 18.
“It is not “normal” to have red hair or to be born without toes but we do not generally pick on such people.
Just like being left handed Kev?”
Being left handed is not “normal” either and they used to be widely discriminated against. Hopefully the dark days are behind us!
Kev, I know of no alleles that pass on homosexuality for either sex.
Alleles are what pass on physical characteristics such as hair color etc.
There may be some sort of gene frequency that is unknown that is passed down as a transposed mutation or altered gene at a given locus, but known that science has found yet.
I think that the way gays are raised, psychological influences and perhaps early exposure to homosexuality is responsible for most “choicers” to be homosexual.
Not that there is anything wrong with choice, but it is a far cry from claiming genetics as the root cause.
So, that kind of statement quoted here is actually a false comparison of two different cultures. Not acceptable at all.
Posted by: Das
That would be by choice, not a genetic thing. In our nation, we arrest people for soliciting sex from minors, having more than one wife, or having sex with a first cousin. Those are all choice. They have not found a genetic reason for any of these things. Sex with animals is deviant behavior, which will not have a gene to support it. Choice.
but known science = but none science
Just joining – rejoice in the continued demise of the GOP. You cannot legislate morality. Family values should include homosexuals and their families. This fumble fingered toe tapping loathsome prick senator will never ever get anyone to believe that he pled guilty by mistake.
So, Outlander, having sex with animals and being a homosexual are one and the same thing?
Are all genetic differences, “normal”? For instance, you can have genetic materiel which points to disease or abnormal physical ailments.
These would be abnormal genetic makeup, as opposed to normal?
Mr. Kansas, I would venture a guess that most 4 year old males only know that a penis is for urinating. Sexuality is rarely known, in practice, until puberty.
However, sexual preference, is not just knowing which body parts are used for what things, it is a total mindset. And this apparently can be known from an early age, if you would only take the time to actually listen to those who are homosexually predisposed.
When did you first understand that your own sexual functioning was for use with a female, and not a male?
Did somebody “teach” you what to do with the female? Or did you just “know” what to do?
KansasThe boy I know liked to collect Barbies, play dress up with the girls, and at the age of 6 he wanted to wear high heels everywhere. He came with his family to visit one time, and had snuck a dress with long gloves into his suitcase..when we were all eating dinner, he went missing, only to show up in full drag, announcing that he was going to “put on a show” and serenated us with the theme song to “The Little Mermaid”. His parents were embarrassed, but we all knew for a long time that he would most likely be gay when he grew up..which he was. BTW, he had a very involved father and two older brothers who were “all boy”. When his brothers were playing basketball in the driveway, he’d be out there too with all his Barbies in a stroller. He was like this since he could walk…as he became an adolescent, he tried to stay in the closet, but became very depressed trying to act like the kids who made fun of him all the time. He came out at the age of 17..when he told me he was gay, I told him that I wasn’t surprized and that it didn’t matter. He said “Yeah, I guess the high heels when I was 6 kinda gave it away”. He’s doing fine and is in college now. He has always been loved and accepted by his family and the rest of us who watched him grow up. He was born the way he is, and that’s OK.
“Let’s not cloud the subject by bringing children into it.”
Mr. Kev: Mr. Nathan first brought children into this, upthread, around 7:30 p.m.
Uhm, Clark, that’s “Outsider” not Outlander.
Do we believe in Matter or God?
Creationists beleive that God has always existed for ever. He just always was and has been. Not sure how God has been there forever – there is no prime cause for God. A simple man, in an enormous Universe cannot understand how we began. Or how God could have always have been there before all MATTER was created.
Evolutionists believe that Matter has always existed for ever. Matter always was and has been. Not sure how exactly matter has been there forever – there is no prime cause for matter. A very smart man who knows everything there is to know about the Universe knows exactly how everything began – a Big Bang!Somehow though, Matter has always been there.
That’s good Mary that things turned out alright.
I spent a lot of time in small tight knit communities. His behavior wouldn’t have been allowed or tolerated.
It makes one wonder if the toleration of the parents to allow him to play “dress up” led to his psychological disposition rather than some genetic code.
I played with my sisters barbies when they wanted to play “house.” However, when they weren’t around, the barbies usually ended up in some sort of dirt pit from my construction toys. :)
The hunt for specific genes that affect sexual orientation may take several years, but the implications of this eventual finding are being fiercely debated already.
“I think this kind of research receives a lot more criticism and attention because people often think it has profound implications for social and moral decisions,” Bailey said. “This is a controversial area. Even though it fascinates people, it scares people from the research end.”
Researchers involved with the project believe finding a genetic linkage will help settle arguments over whether homosexuality is a choice or an innate trait. “A lot of times people we talk to see this research as providing evidence for something they may [have] already had a notion for, that sexual orientation is influenced by pretty early events out of their control,” said Sanders.
Sanders also suggested that as proof of biological predisposition grows, so too does acceptance and tolerance of homosexuals. A Gallup poll conducted in May indicated 42 percent of the surveyed population believe homosexuality is biologically determined — the highest percentage witnessed in 30 years of polling.
Study volunteer Jason Palmer of Chicago said he hopes evidence of a biological source for homosexuality would change people’s opinions on sexual orientation.
“Our strongest opponents are the religious right, many of whom feel that God does not make mistakes,” Palmer said. “So if it’s a genetic factor and proven, perhaps many of them will find an acceptance for homosexuals.”
But some outside observers worry about how proof of a genetic component to homosexuality might be used politically and even medically.
“If you do research on any human behaviors that would allow us either to treat the behavior or to prevent it altogether by prenatal testing, you have got to ask yourself serious questions about societal context in which this type of research takes place,” said Udo Schuklenk, a professor of philosophy at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.
Critics fear identifying a biological component will lead to prenatal testing and perhaps even treatments for homosexuality. While both Sanders and Bailey expressed doubt about the scientific feasibility or public demand for such applications, Schuklenk suggested they were not considering the worldwide implications.
“I understand why U.S. gays want to know why gay people are gay and understand where they are coming from — there are legal reasons, and the agenda is progressive within the context of the U.S.,” said Schuklenk. “What worries me is that they show a complete disregard of repercussions of research on the international scale, for gay people in societies where civil rights are not as well-protected.”
Mierow said he considered the potential negative ramifications when he volunteered for the study but trusted that changing social views on homosexuality will intervene.
“I hope that by the time science gets to the point [of prenatal testing], society would have progressed enough to not have those feelings,” Mierow said. “I feel like I have more trust in science. It seems like a lot of the bigotry is coming out of religion.”
“People who say that, ‘We shouldn’t know X because knowing X is dangerous,’ to me those are the dangerous people,” Bailey added. “They have provided no good evidence that knowing things is risky; ignorance is what messes us up.”
For now, these discussions will remain largely theoretical until the results of Sanders’ study, as well as others in progress around the country, begin to be released.
As Bailey noted, the results won’t just add to knowledge about the roots of homosexuality, they may also answer more general questions about gender and sexuality.
“Knowing what causes sexual orientation is important scientifically,” he said. “It’s an important aspect of who we are and will provide knowledge about the development of gender, how men and women differ from each other.” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gaygene_bd12aug12,0,5101766.story?page=2
Are both beliefs, Creationist or Evolutionist a matter of faith?
Faith in Matter or faith in God?
The prime cause, oh, such a mystery.
Or does man know it all?
Or maybe just Democrats know it all?
He’s doing fine and is in college now. He has always been loved and accepted by his family and the rest of us who watched him grow up. He was born the way he is, and that’s OK.
Posted by: Mary Caruso
I cannot believe you people associate behavior with sexual tendency. Why not just label the kid a jew?
Homosexuals can be manly, rough, tough individuals who spit tobacco, guzzle down beer, burp, fart, and wear cowboy hats!
Just because a kid plays with barbies, you label him “gay”?
Wow. Hitler could have used you.
KS,
In the Bible God describes himself as “I AM.” Which to most Biblical scholars means He had no beginning nor has no end.
Energy is thought to be force that existed before matter.
One can look at elementary physics and realize that the elements are really composed of buzzing electrons with protons and neutrons providing the balancing energy force to keep them together.
The atomic number of an element is the number of protons found in the nucleus of an atom. The atomic number uniquely identifies a chemical element
The identity of a basic elements are often described as functions of quantum physics which interchanges energy and matter as every changing identities.
Matter is not a constituent of energy it is usually the other way around. Yet it exists and has properties.
Then we start getting into continuum’s which make my head hurt.
Now for Jews and Christians, is the Bible the true word of God or is it an Interpretation?
Do we take the Word literally or do we interpret the Word to whatever meaning We think is right?
Do we Modernize the Word to our current day?
I’ve heard some say that there is Flexibility in interpreting the Bible. Is this true?
Chas, you are the resident preacher. Maybe you can help.
How does a man with faith in God, justify himself? How can we be saved under the eyes of the Lord?
Through faith?
Through deeds?
How do we get faith to begin with?
Or do we just ignore it or consider it to be a collection of ancient myths from a groups of wandering nomads?
Actually, what they will probably find with genetics is that there will be certain inherited traits that determine personality adjustments.
And if outside influences have greater influences on these weaker or stronger traits, there will be a certain predisposition to homosexuality.
Which is still problematic because behavior is still the catalyst that causes the homosexual disposition.
The young lad exposed to barbies and later a liking for female clothing, may have just as well become an artist if his parents were artists. Perhaps if his attempt to compensate to his parents occupation to be more accepted, he thought that beauty rather than rough hewing ones way through life was more acceptable to his parents.
Therefore, he interpreted acceptance by his parents with his interaction with things feminine.
His parents being artist and more free form in their thinking had no objections and allowed it to develop.
These parent could have easily motivated him to use colors and other art medium to mold him in their own image so the young boy would pass down their craft via common genetic line.
It’s a matter of assignment.
IGWT…you know, I realize it is a stereotype, but my cousin, who also used to play with barbies and did their hair, all into drama and theatre,GQ, had a ton of girl FRIENDS…yep, gay today. He did tell me when I asked him why he didn’t tell anyone sooner as we already knew. He said HE totally ignored any thoughts of being gay, because it was just so unacceptable to even think about TO HIMSELF in his youth.
He’s very happy, has a great life, and his family is very supportive of him as well.
I’ve heard some say that there is Flexibility in interpreting the Bible. Is this true?
Posted by: KS
Not only do today’s Christians use many interpretations, they also republish the bible periodically to “make the meaning more clear”. In other words, theychange it.
“There is a tea shop at Central and Hillside?? Didn’t the Crest Theatre used to around there as I recall?”
The Crest Theatre used to be at Douglas and Oliver. There is Wesley Hospital at Cental and Hillside; across the street is a Walgreens and a couple of large strip malls. I don’t know if there are tea shops there-abouts, or not. Maybe there are such shops west or southwest of Wesley.
“Mr. Kansas, I would venture a guess that most 4 year old males only know that a penis is for urinating. Sexuality is rarely known, in practice, until puberty.”
Actually I dont believe that is true. At least, masturbation in very young children isn’t all that uncommon. I don’t think they REALIZE that is what they’re doing or that sex is what it is about.
When did you first understand that your own sexual functioning was for use with a female, and not a male?
Did somebody “teach” you what to do with the female? Or did you just “know” what to do?
Posted by: Das | August 28, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Probably when I started getting erections which was some time before puberty, don’t recall exactly.
My parents were very good about sex education and I learned early the sperm and the egg, the identity of male and female organs and etc.
And of course int he era of double knit pants I came to the conclusion that I was meant to be heterosexual as I only got “wood” around females.
Thusly, my learned ability to carry books in front of my crotch to cover up my biological fulcrum and inclined plane. :)
God will be the final judge of these Republican hypocrits that bash gays and then are found themselves to be lurking in the mens restrooms. I’m just glad this one was only into adult men and not searching the internet for young intern males.
I noticed how several Republican supporters regulars on this blog are trying to divert the attention away from the hypocrisy issue but just keep defending your losers and your beloved GOP party will be paying the price even bigger in 2008.
defending your losers and your beloved GOP party will be paying the price even bigger in 2008.
Posted by: maidmarion
260 posts above. I don’t see anyone defending him. Maybe I missed that one.
Not my experience PMom. There were no hands allowed in the pants nor in pockets for that matter. :)
Cold showers and the passage of time was the only thing that prevailed in the household I grew up in.
Playing with oneself was likened into too much self-preoccupation which in turn was selfish behavior.
Selfish behavior was not rewarded nor recognized to be acceptable.
maidmarion,
God will be the final judge of us all.
There will be no Political Party lines on judgment day.
Kansas, science still has a long way to go yet in determining what causes homosexuals, but we do know that our sex organs in the womb dont differentiate till later, that sexual preference doesn’t seem to always correlate with what body part is present…hormone theory in embryonic development. Studies on those born with both sex organs proves that.
IGWT- you’re not very bright, are you? Have you read any studies to support that gay parents raise their children to be gay? Because the evidence shows otherwise.
At least, masturbation in very young children isn’t all that uncommon.Posted by: political_mom |
You see a lot of that mom? I missed it with my kids, and thank goodness I didn’t see anyone else’s kids masturbating!
Did you notice if the child was using their left or right hand?
Could you also tell from their technique if they were homosexual’s thinking of adult men?
“It’s a matter of assignment.”
Posted by: Kansas
Oh no, now he is a genetics scientist! Does this man’s hubris know no bounds?? In answer to that rhetorical question: Obviously NOT.
Well, Kansas, that’s odd that you turned out so selfish then huh?
It was in a time when parents taught that all sexuality was dirty and bad- women should never enjoy sex but rather a duty to their husband for their pleasure and procreation. Man, I’m glad I don’t live in those days.
And even then, people still had sex outside of marriage. My grandmother was telling me when her and grandpa married, her sister accused her of being pregnant for marrying so fast. She said she absolutely was NOT and remained unpregnant for a year to prove it. LOL.
Mr. IG, I thought certainly Mr. Nathan was defending Mr. Craig earlier. I could be wrong.
IGWT- you’re not very bright, are you? Have you read any studies to support that gay parents raise their children to be gay? Because the evidence shows otherwise.
Posted by: political_mom
Actually I was asking a question. Only dumb people ask questions.
But I am smart enough not to look at a four year old and JUDGE whether or not he is gay because he is playing with Barbies!!!
Ms. Political, what you mentioned about early childhood masturbation is what I meant. I do not think they realize that what they are doing at those young ages, has anything to do with sex. I believe I read somewhere that it is done because of either itchin, or that it just feels good. :-)
Ah PMom, the sculpture theory.
I don’t hold much weight to that theory.
The theory goes that a raw mixture of chemicals can go one way or the other based on chance.
However, some genetic scientists have already proven that mathematical possibilities are truly limited because of certain chemical behaviors. The On/Off portion of chemical interactivity.
The sculpture theory basically states that a stone is randomly sculpted by the sculpture and there is no way the outcome will be known.
However, and this is where probabilities of environment come into play is that the sculpture will only sculpt what he or she knows as concrete.
Even abstract sculptures evolve from what is known (shapes, details, identification of patterns.)
I’m getting too philosophical here, sorry. :)
No, but I did study human sexuality in college.
Figures someone would come up with some bullshit response like that.
At least, masturbation in very young children isn’t all that uncommon.Posted by: political_mom |
Hey Pmom! Was the kid looking at a Playboy centerfold, or maybe reading the letters in Penthouse. If it’s the later, I’d put him in advance kindergarten. Or was he looking at a Playgirl?
It’s more than JUST one thing IG….a barbie in of itself..not a big deal. My son plays with necklaces. I don’t think he is going to be gay.
No Steven Davis, I’m well read and well educated. I’ve talked about many subjects from Wichita to Istanbul Turkey.
If you have disagreement with me, then by all means put your ideas here to be shared by all. That’s one good way how we all learn.
However, if you hold back your views on the matter then all we shall hear from you is the squeaky door as you leave the room.
Let me guess, a redneck? Probably dropped out of the 3rd grade.
It’s more than JUST one thing IG….a barbie in of itself..not a big deal. My son plays with necklaces. I don’t think he is going to be gay.
Posted by: political_mom
So if a four year old plays with a barbie, and prefers a pink shirt, you’d be able to make the sexual classification?
http://www.drgreene.com/21_606.html
Please, educate yourself. augh.
OH Ig, it’s more than TWO things. Get real. Sometimes the difference is quite apparent. It’s why kids tease each other because they pick up on it too.
Wow! Count them two Hundred and eighty-four posts on the gay guy thread.
Coupled with the daily grind of sexual orientation discussions, I would have to classify the WE BLOG as predominately a gay community forum.
Just passing through, nothing changed in this part of Kansas.
they pick up on it too.
Posted by: political_mom
REEEALLY? I guess I must have missed out on that as a kid. I never knew a gay person until adulthood. I knew male kids who were feminine, but they didn’t turn out gay.
It could be I was only exposed to the “butch” gay males PMom.
Not sure if you could easily have identified them when they were four any better than I could.
“Well, Kansas, that’s odd that you turned out so selfish then huh?”
Sorry you think of me in that way PMom.
If you met me, you would find me quite generous and giving.
I’m not going to toot my own horn on what I’ve done, but let’s say it is not classified as selfish.
Republican Repulsive Family Values Hypocrisy!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/08/memorable-quote-senator-larry-craig.html#links
Ugh JurisDoctor, what Blog Noob writes with white text on black background.
That type of web page presentation went away in the early 90s.
Gotta run. I was hoping someone could give me a checklist on how to identify gays. I see many thoughts on the subject. Another time maybe. Like the the Scot says, It’s not the gleam in me eye, but the tilt in me kilt!”
I cannot believe you people associate behavior with sexual tendency. Why not just label the kid a jew?
Homosexuals can be manly, rough, tough individuals who spit tobacco, guzzle down beer, burp, fart, and wear cowboy hats!
“Just because a kid plays with barbies, you label him “gay”?
Wow. Hitler could have used you.”
Posted by: IGWT
I’m just relating my experience, he did turn out to be gay. He wasn’t “labeled”, he came out on his own as a teenager. His parents never encouraged his feminine ways, they just ignored them, hoping they’d go away…they didn’t. I realize that many gays don’t act this way..he was always very feminine, still is. If you met him today, you would have no doubt to his sexual orientation.
Most of the self-professed gay men that I know appear to be no different than their heterosexual counterparts.
One restaurant owner I know is quite manly, a lover of sports and quite male. He also freely admits to his homosexuality.
I have also met the Hollywood style of gay men. I find these type of gays as funny as they always seem to be performing for everyone. (hand on hip, the exaggerated hand moves, the tsking, etc. etc.) Almost a caricature of a person. Nothing wrong with that, but I just find it personally amusing as it appears to me as they are perpetual entertainers advancing their own acts.
Well then, the Bible is:
1. The literal word of God.2. The word of God with mistakes.
So, we either follow it, or interpret the thing however we want?
Oh no, now he is a genetics scientist! Does this man’s hubris know no bounds?? In answer to that rhetorical question: Obviously NOT.
Posted by: Steven Davis | August 28, 2007 at 09:33 PM==========================
Steven Davis – From what I can see here, Mr. Kansas would seem to think himself an expert on almost every subject posted on the Blog on any given day. Amazing!
Is this true then?
Leviticus 18:22:
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
So man shall not lie with man? Or this is an error?
Well then, which verses of the bible are eroneous and which ones are correct?
Chas knows! Thank God!
Mr. KS – It would seem that you have pretty much hit on the way things go with most holy books, including the Bible.
For those who insist on the 100% literal interpretation of any Holy Book, they usually have an extremely narrow view of people who dont share their particular belifs.
That seems evident, in my opinion, all across this Blog.
No Das, I have my own opinion.
Show me where I claimed to be an expert.
If your opinion differ from mine, then so be it.
I find no purpose in Steven Davis and your assessments Das, other than to be disruptive and adding rancor to the discussion.
I knew I was a queer when I couldn’t get any girls to date me.
Actually Kansas, I felt bad after I typed that. I am sorry.
I do appreciate your more level headed posts since coming home from the hospital.
I think it’s the drugs PMom. :)heh heh
From what I have observed so far, I am afraid that those in what is called the GLBT community should be in fear of those who are called, or in fact, are, the Religious and Political Right.
Unless members of the GLBT can find some very strong Constitutional grounds for equality of treatment, they should be fearful of illegal amendments being proposed, and perhaps passed, by people who are thinking with only half of their brains.
The other half of their brains would appear to be tied behind their backs, with Mr. Limbaugh’s.
As one who observes such matters, I am very fearful of the power of the Right Wing, to exert bigoted pressure on any body who is seen to be a not-equal citizen, for whatever crazy reason they decide.
Leviticus 20:13:
13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Was Leviticus wrong? Is this not the word of God?
Which verses are and which ones are not?
Or do we just beleive in Matter. Things, stuff, atoms, is what we have faith in? Stuff has always been here. Don’t know what the prime mover is for all the stuff, but IT’s always been here?
Or did God create all this stuff, and God has always existed.
Maybe it’s easier to believe in Rocks instead of God, cause then we can do whatever we want to do.
Or, beleive in God and we interpret the Bible howevever we choose to. Some verses are wrong, some are right, WE choose which ones to beleive.
Ok, so we either have faith in God or faith in Matter.
How do we get faith in either?
Mr. Kansas, I merely said that you would seem to be an expert. I didnt say that you are an expert. But it is quite ironic that no matter what is posted here, you have such well-formed and definite ideas on each and every item you speak to. You very seldom if ever note that you are not sure of anything. You have definite ideas on every item I have observed since coming here.
Personally Das, I think the Gay community has it’s best bet with sexual discrimination statutes on their side.
They are already in place and “could” be applied to marriage laws. I’m not a legal scholar, but I think the attempt should and could be set forth.
The problem currently,that the gay community is having is that the issue usually comes up as a community vote which more often than not will be defeated in conservative states.
The better chance would be (1) through legislative action that passes as law without a referendum vote or (2) as legal argument based on sexual discrimination.
I don’t think ballot initiatives would be successful for obvious reasons.
Das, I often state where I’m unsure about something.
Perhaps that is often ignored. :)
How many queers are there in the world?
They all chose to be queer?
Lesbians, ok, ugly as heck. Can’t find a man.
Same excuse for men?
Oh, it’s genetic? Oh, then queers are genetically defective?
Or they choose? Confusing ain’t it?
Must be around 90% queers from the number of posts on this blog!
Should set up a queer dating service on this web site, the Eagle would get rich!
Romans 10:17:
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
So, we are back to the Word again.
There are some very beautiful women that are Lesbians. While walking through Paris, I happened on several quite lovely women who held hands, kissed and generally showed Lesbian typed behavior. I don’t really know, since I don’t know French very well and was too shy to ask. :)
So how do we hear the word and get faith?
Ephesians 2:8:
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God
A gift from God. I wonder how he chooses who to give this gift to? Or does he give it to us all? And we choose to either beleive the Word of God, or we beleive in Matter.
Ok, so we are back to faith in God or faith in Matter.
Right back where we started.
Is it easier to beleive in atoms/matter always existed or that God always existed and He created us and all this stuff?
No prime mover can be found, and even Clark isn’t smart enough to splain that one.
Mr KS – is this Bible Study time on the Blog? Are we advertising a new Bible translation tonite? I am not sure what it is you are attempting to accomplish.
Genesis 1:27-28:
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
-So Man And Woman were to populate the Earth
Genesis 2:23-24:
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
-Man and Woman were meant to live together.
And let’s not forget the story of The story of Sodom and Gomorra.
Root for the word Sodomy!
Wonderful word to the homos!
Gee, I go out of town for a couple of days, and when I get back, I find two threads of great concern for the gay community.
And I see the same old/same old of those against gay people. I have been on a retreat about the great necessity for people in all walks of life, and religion, and politics, to return to seeing Human Beings, rather than ideologies and “programs”.
I wish many of you could have been there. It was indeed eye-opening.
Who was hosting that retreat Chas?
LOL
No time to discuss it now… It was a wonderful retreat time! And much needed by everybody there!
Of course Chas you will refute the Bible passages above as being hateful attacks against gays.
Which verses of the Bible to you say are wrong? And which ones do you say are right?
Which bible passages are FOR the gay community?
And which Church is that again where you preach?
Which bible passages are FOR the gay community?
And which Church is that again where you preach?
Bible passages are for all people.
Tipical Republican. Do as I say not as I do.
On the first day, God created the dog and said:
“Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyoneWho comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a lifeSpan of twenty years.”
The dog said: “That’s a long time to be barking. How about only ten yearsand I’ll give you back the other ten?”
So God agreed.
On the second day, God created the monkey and said:
“Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I’ll give you atwenty-year life span.”
The monkey said: “Monkey tricks for twenty years? That’s a pretty long timeto perform. How about I give you back ten like the Dog did?”
And God agreed.
On the third day, God created the cow and said:
“You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer underthe sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer’s family. For this,I will give you a life span of sixty years.”
The cow said: “That’s kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixtyyears. How about twenty and I’ll give back the other forty?”
And God agreed again.
On the fourth day, God created man and said:
“Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. For this, I’ll give you twentyyears.”
But man said: “Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, theforty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back , and the ten the doggave back; that makes eighty, okay?”
“Okay,” said God, “You asked for it.”
So that is why for our first twenty years we eat, sleep, play and enjoyourselves. For the next forty years we slave in the sun to support ourfamily. For the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain thegrandchildren. And for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and barkat everyone.
Life has now been explained to you.
Good night… Good luck… And God bless… Whatever you conceive of God to be!!
well I heard that in the bible (I haven’t actually studied homosexual applications in the bible let me say right off), that gluttony is in the same passage as homosexuality. I guess every thanksgiving and Christmas, we all sin in the same manner as homosexuals do….gee I hope I don’t burn in hell for eating too much.
Not to mention that when we eat turkey, we get a good dose of a known controlled substance drug… tryptophan??? Wonder where that comes in on the Bible sin list??
Das – I dont believe that the Bible writers were aware of the controlled substance in turkey. But nice try! :-)
Gee, I go out of town for a couple of days, and when I get back, I find two threads of great concern for the gay community.
And I see the same old/same old of those against gay people. I have been on a retreat about the great necessity for people in all walks of life, and religion, and politics, to return to seeing Human Beings, rather than ideologies and “programs”.
I wish many of you could have been there. It was indeed eye-opening.
Posted by: Chas. | August 28, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Wish I could have been there too Chas. I was busy for a couple of days. Had a hot date. Sure missed you though.
and so it goes
“Or do we just ignore it or consider it to be a collection of ancient myths from a groups of wandering nomads?”
Heheheh Clark. Good one!!!
The answer?
yes
Sexual orientation is so *not* a political issue, except that it rouses the rabble and leads to emotional outrage that drives people who don’t think to the polls to vote for candidates who don’t think…such as George WMD Bush.
You got that right, LTP L-)
ooops :-)
Hilarious to watch various Fundo organizations toss Senator Craig under the bus now that they know he’s “one of them.”
Also hilarious to watch the backpedalling by various Wingnut media whores (Hugh Hewitt, Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg), who, back in November, claimed that EVEN IF Craig WAS gay, that what he does on his own time is his own business, and vilified those Dirty Liberals for opportunistically outing him and poisoning our national discourse.
Of course, now that the elections are over, the same Wingnuts throw Craig to the gay-man-eating-wolves.
But don’t believe CF2K: Glenn Greenwald has a nice “before-and-after” piece, in which he compares what these Wingnut eminences said them versus what they’re saying now. Here’s the link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/index.html
Also sounds like Craig’s claim not to have consulted a lawyer could be bogus, since in a follow-up visit ten days later to the same police station where he was booked, he said he needed the information for his lawyer.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com
Well, since this probably isn’t the first time his seat’s been wide open and he’s still in office who knows?
CF2K, I’d also point out the time passage between date of arrest and date of entry of the plea.
The way the Senate Republican leadership is reacting, I wonder what their position would be had Sen. Craig done as Sen. Vitter did, namely, coming to them for “advice and counsel” early on in the matter.
Finally, I’m beginning to speculate this isn’t so much a “gay” thing as a “pervert” thing, indicating some sort of psychological condition arising from the feeling of power resulting from his long term career. I’d better quit the arm chair psychology thing here, as I didn’t get to abnormal psych in my undergrad days.
And, irrespective of any pathology, seeking sexual gratification outside his marriage does seem to do damage to his public “family values” position.
What we are seeing here is his extreme self-loathing taking over. Craig is gay or, at least, bisexual. However, he has fallen in with the hate-crowd of far-right Republicans. So, in order to hate gays as he must he ends up hating himself.
If it were not for his hatefulness toward others he should be pitied.
Unfortunately he will get the wrong kind of counseling. He will receive more ’self hate’ indoctrination continuing in the vein ‘homosexuality is evil.’
What he sorely needs is counseling advising him to accept himself as he is. Unfortunately, in the circles in which he chooses to live, that is impossible.
I dunno “Shrink”. I guess you mean that in the leftist world of moral relativism, there is no real standard of right or wrong. Only how one feels, right?
And goodness no, you don’t fight those urges, even if you know they are wrong. You embrace them! Indulge your selfishness. Join a group! Or…better yet, pay a shrink by the hour to tell you it’s all OK.
Why do I sense so much anger? One certain way to not get things to work out for the best for all, is to have such deep seated anger among people of varied opinions.
That is something that the entire nation needs much work to accomplish.
people who oppose gay bashing are the ones who are bashing Craig. But they are not hypocrites because they are bashing a hypocrite? Is that right?
outlander,
As opposed to the psychotic Right-Wing world in which one denounces gay marriage on Monday while soliciting sex acts with men in public places on Tuesday.
Are there any bigger moral relativists than the Fundos and their ilk, who say one thing in public while doing another in not-so-private? They’ve cornered the market on hypocrisy and reality-denial.
The moral standard in the world of the Right Wing power elite seems to be “Can implies ought”–which is really the ultimate moral relativism. If one is the Decider, one’s word is law. And as President Caligula doeth, so also his minions.
rfl,
That’s ‘rfl’ as in ‘NRA’? Craig’s your guy.
show a little love for this guy perhaps? If Craig is a hopeless gay trapped in a psycho GOP shell, gays should recieve him with open arms as one of their own.
He’s gonna get dumped off the GOP turnip truck real fast.
If you really wanted to support gays, then support Craig, he needs it man.
Craig also needs some therapy and self-realization work.
rfl,
Gay folks generally give a cool reception to other gay folks who act out their denial by persecuting, you know, gay folks.
CF2K isn’t gay, so his views may not carry much weight. But he predicts open arms for Craig provided he renounces the whole gay-bashing thing, and stops giving men’s restrooms a bad name.
What would make this sweeter is if Craig were a Mormon; is he?
I wonder why Craig didn’t say “I’m not gay, but there for a moment I CHOSE to be gay.”
rfl,At another time, in another circumstance, maybe. Craig has already proven he can’t be trusted and to invite him into the community now would be to put the community at risk. He may have had no choice of orientation, but he did choose his own exile from the gay community.
Good point Jed.With all things that a person has no control over, it is the person’s reaction to those things not the things themselves that indicates what kind of person they are.
Craig has no control over his actions. He was born with it, he can’t even control the fact that he hates himself. he was born with that too.
So I guess we can’t fault him too much.
We’ll have to start a new psychological category something like a self-depricating gay. What a hard life huh?
door king,
No dice. Senator Craig is a Methodist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
Gosh. What must Hank Hill, Methodist, be thinking right about now?
http://www.geocities.com/arlen_texas/pimai.htm
I know and work with gays and lesbians. While their lifestyle is not what I choose I have never shied away from conversing or working with that sector of people. In fact, I’m often vilified for allegedly being too close to those who profess such sexual mores. In one instance, A friend, who happens to be gay and I were congratulating each other on making a big paycheck. We decided to drink a few bruskies at a local watering hole in Hutchinson after work. We arrived after work, sat down and talked over a couple of pitchers! My friend got up to use the restroom and soon afterward I was approached by two clowns who knew me. “Say Wood! Don’t you know that the guy you’re sitting with is gay?” I shot back,”You don’t say! Damn, I thought he was grumpy! Now, go away and leave me alone!” They left with a look of astonishment! If more would tell people where to get off you wouldn’t have near as much racial and sexual bigotry in this country. I won’t stand for some a-hole telling me how or who I should be friends with! They don’t like it—TOUGH! As far as how they got to be gay or lesbian doesn’t concern me in the my wildest dreams!!!!!
IGWT–
Sorry, just because some gay men are hyper-masculine (Rock Hudson) doesn’t mean that a kid who’d rather cook with mommie instead of hunt with daddy doesn’t show unmistakable signs of growing up to an alternative lifestyle.
It’s not stereotyping to see common behaviors associated with a predisposition.
Is is stereotyping to say that Americans eat hamburgers and drive big cars?
No, a popular food here is the hamburger and Americans do tend to drive bigger cars than the rest of the world.
What you call “stereotyping,” anthropologists and sociologist call field observations.
And while you’re calling people “Nazis,” IGWT, you might tell David Sedaris he’s a nazi for writing in his book about growing up gay in South Carolina.
I think that the way gays are raised, psychological influences and perhaps early exposure to homosexuality is responsible for most “choicers” to be homosexual. — Kansas
Which, of course, is proven when 1 out of 3 boys in the same family is gay.
Remind me to stop at two then.
“Who ELSE should we deny civil marriage to, based on moral disapproval?”
Those who have divorced. After all, Jesus preached against divorce, yet didn’t say a word about homosexuality.
And they call themselves CHRISTians. Go figure.
Nathan, stop at one. The odds of that one being gay might run in your favor.
Then again, the young son of a macho, gun-loving alpha male might choose the other option. ;)
It’s all in how they’re raised, right?
If there is a god or karma, than all of Nathan’s children will turn out to be gay. That would be the ultimate test of his faith. In order to please god, he would be forced to hate his own children.
A little grist for the mill. The site self-describes itself as being for the “gay conservative”.
http://gaypatriot.net/2007/08/29/senator-craig-for-the-love-of-god-shut-up
http://www.logcabin.org/Republican grassroots organization
Political pressure is building; Sens. McCain and Coleman, joined by Rep. Hoekstra, are urging Craig to resign. Meanwhile, no support from the White House.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/29/craig.arrest/index.html
Poor “Nathan.”
Poor, poor “Nathan.”
What difference does it make to you if your offspring get their sexual kicks with someone of the same gender?
Are you just as concerned if your daughter turns out to like it rough?
Just how are you planning to discover how your offspring might get their jollies in bed?
Might it occur to you that perhaps it’s none of your business? That, perhaps (just perhaps), someone’s other sexual attraction with people who can give their concent might not be any of your business.
Hey, “Nathan.” My religion says it’s okay to murder anyone who wipes his ass after a s#it with his right hand. Unless you wipe your ass with your left hand, I’ve got a religiously-moral justification to kill you. Do you really want to live in a society where a religion can dictate public policy? My Left-Hand-Only religion just might catch on.
We believe in the Hand
“Political pressure is building; Sens. McCain and Coleman, joined by Rep. Hoekstra, are urging Craig to resign.”
Has “Cold Cash” Jefferson ever been asked to resign?
Fleet, it was the REPUBLICANS that are demanding that Craig resign.
So ask them.
Yes actually Fleets. However it was the Republicans who came to his aid and said his house shouldn’t have been raided in the investigation in the first place.
I wonder if it was old Alaska Ted Stevens (R)who was first in line to protect houses from searches in investigations?
Kind of like a state legislator going after drunk drivers and and then getting a DUI himself.
Should Jim Ward resign?
To my knowlege gay sex never killed anyone, but drunks driving cars kill people all the time.
I think he has been setup, and thrown to the wolfs. Someone tell me what is illegal about accidentally touching feet with a stranger. He may be gay, he may not be.. who cares. Is it illegal for me to sit next to a woman in a bar and bump my leg against hers. Is it illegal for me to show possible sexual attraction to her. I am a straight, republican hating male. It would not be a stretch for me to jump on the “Senators a Fag, stone him” mentallity if I did not have a conscience and a desire to hear the full story before I find an opinion. I think this is a form of discrimination against homosexuals. Would it not be a worst crime, if he was not gay and wrongly proclaimed a homosexual pervert.
I think he has been setup, and thrown to the wolfs. Someone tell me what is illegal about accidentally touching feet with a stranger. He may be gay, he may not be.. who cares. Is it illegal for me to sit next to a woman in a bar and bump my leg against hers. Is it illegal for me to show possible sexual attraction to her. I am a straight, republican hating male. It would not be a stretch for me to jump on the “Senators a Fag, stone him” mentallity if I did not have a conscience and a desire to hear the full story before I find an opinion. I think this is a form of discrimination against homosexuals. Would it not be a worst crime, if he was not gay and wrongly proclaimed a homosexual pervert.
Hi[url=