Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
More Larry Craig
The irony award in all of this goes to the Idaho Values Alliance, for this page, which contains an item praising Larry Craig for his vote on a abortion bill then, just below, includes a "Bonus Byte" warning about homosexual men looking for trysts in airport bathrooms. The site warns that the gays even advertise their cravings on, wait for it, Craigslist.
The group is now calling for Craig's resignation. So is Hugh Hewitt, though he himself admits he made no such call for Sen. David Vitter. Guess there's some sort moral distinction between cheating on your wife via anonymous gay sex and cheating on your wife by paying for hetero sex with a prostitute.
Finally, any sympathy I might have felt for Craig evaporated when I read in the police report that he played the ol' "do you know who I am" game, by giving the cop his U.S. senator business card and asking, "What do you think of that?"
|8.28.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Didn't we just talk about sitting Congresspeople having immunity
from being detained while performing the duties of a
Congressperson?
Puts new/old meaning to the term "congress", doesn't it?
CB
|8.28.07 @ 10:36AM|#
I really don't think police fear washington politicians. The guy is obviously a moron.
|8.28.07 @ 10:40AM|#
I can still feel sorry for him. It must be hell to live in a
closet like that. Think of how terrified he must have been when he
knew he was going to be arrested.
The Closet is evil. It - not being gay, being in the closet -
destroys lives, destroys families, destroys good people. The
Closet, as an institution, needs to be torn down, and gay people
accepted as full members of society.
|8.28.07 @ 10:42AM|#
...includes a "Bonus Byte" warning about homosexual men
looking for trysts in airport bathrooms.
Bonus Byte. LOL!
|8.28.07 @ 10:45AM|#
The Closet, as an institution, needs to be torn down, and
gay people accepted as full members of society.
How do you propose this "closet" is destroyed?
I agree, his attempt to use his position in an effort to get out of
being outted was likely a reaction of desperation.
He should go to that same rehab place that Ted Haggard went to,
where he was cured after all of what, 3 days?
|8.28.07 @ 10:45AM|#
joe,
We all have our personal struggles. Some of us choose not to make
it everyone else's hell like these homo bashing homos do. No
sympathy, no remorse for the guy. May he die forgotten and
ignobly.
|8.28.07 @ 10:46AM|#
The Closet, as an institution, needs to be torn down, and
gay people accepted as full members of society.
I agree...and what's even worse is someone like Craig who has the
power to advocate against the closet standing in front of people
and, instead, legislating for it...or maybe he doesn't really think
he's gay...or in a closet.
SPD|8.28.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Senator Craig is holding out hope that this matter can be
resolved with a series of blowjobs.
Here's a topic: If embryonic stem cell research discovered a "cure"
for homosexuality, what then would the Idaho Values Alliance
support? Discuss.
|8.28.07 @ 10:49AM|#
Poor guy... and to think that mayor from Spokane was nearby all that time and they could have hooked up.
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 10:54AM|#
I can still feel sorry for him. It must be hell to live in a
closet like that. Think of how terrified he must have been when he
knew he was going to be arrested.
So he shouldn't have used his legal authority as a member of
Congress to pass legislation encouraging folks to stay in said
closet. I agree with the previous posters who have noo sympathy at
all for the bastard. It's like feeing sorry for an
arch-segregationist who kept hidden the fact that he had a black
grandparent.
|8.28.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Reinmoose,
How do you propose this "closet" is destroyed?
Through the public acceptance of gay people, treating them and
their families and lives as equal to those of straight people, and
denouncing homophobia, homophobes, and the political stunts they
pull.
|8.28.07 @ 10:57AM|#
If you go to Hugh Hewitt's site, you find out that Hugh thinks Larry has to go because we can't afford having a senator who solicits sex in a men's room "in a time of war." I guess once the shooting stops, we can party.
|8.28.07 @ 11:00AM|#
joe,
The Closet, as an institution, needs to be torn down, and gay
people accepted as full members of society.
I think that this is a generational matter, not a closet matter.
For older folks like Sen. Craig living openly as himself was not
really an option when he came of age. That's not the case
anymore.
Most people below the age of forty don't give a rat's ass who you
want to sleep with (as long he/she is an adult and consents). That
figure prolly goes up to 70% or more for people below the age of
thirty. The need for the closet is dying.
|8.28.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Jennifer, gaijin, L.I.T.,
Have a little sympathy. He's a wounded, damaged person - you'd have
to be to live like that. Of course he did hypocritical and
reprehensible things. To him, it was a matter of survival.
Poor, deluded bastard, he probably thought his political activity
was a way of protecting people from falling into the same
trap.
I'm not defending what he's done, but try to put yourself in the
other guy's shoes for once.
|8.28.07 @ 11:01AM|#
How do you propose this "closet" is destroyed?
Through the public acceptance of gay people, treating them and
their families and lives as equal to those of straight people, and
denouncing homophobia, homophobes, and the political stunts they
pull.
Ok. Sounds good.
I didn't think anyone here thought there was a silver bullet
solution for this, but I just wanted to check.
Alice Bowie|8.28.07 @ 11:02AM|#
I think that there should be a NATION-WIDE intervension into
this...having sex in the bathroom thing.
We should have undercovers in every public bathroom. Just to show
the world how many Bathroom homos there are out
there.
We should put it on TV....Like that Catch a
Preditor show they have. Yea...we can setup a fake public
bathroom with cameras in it.
I'd luv 2 c who we'd catch.
|8.28.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Yes, de stijle, we're winning.
But that staffer who got outed just before the elections last year
- what was he, 32?
Like polygamy, the closet is alive and well in certain
communities.
|8.28.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Reinmoose,
BTW, that's why the "purely symbolic" matter of calling gay
people's marriages by the correct name matters.
|8.28.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Poor, deluded bastard, he probably thought his political
activity was a way of protecting people from falling into the same
trap.
Or it was a case of "if I vote for this, nobody will accuse me of
being gay."
|8.28.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Say what's with H&R's obsession over the Craig scandal? Are any of the Reason staff out homos? I'd speculate, but got bitch slapped for that before.
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 11:05AM|#
I'm not defending what he's done, but try to put yourself in
the other guy's shoes for once.
I can't, because for all my faults I can honestly say I've never
been a hypocrite who publicly denounces people who do the very same
things I myself do--or at least fantasize about doing--in private.
And while I've never had actual political power over people (and
have no desire to seek any), if I did, I wouldn't use that power to
encode such hypocrisy into law.
Have a little sympathy. He's a wounded, damaged person - you'd
have to be to live like that. Of course he did hypocritical and
reprehensible things. To him, it was a matter of
survival.
You can say the same about a segregationist politician hiding his
mulatto heritage while continuing to push legislation forcing
second-class status on anyone who isn't lily-white. The excuse "I
only did what I needed to survive" DOES NOT garner sympathy for
actions that harm innocents.
|8.28.07 @ 11:07AM|#
I think it's awfully strange of you, joe, to assume the guy was
gay.
It is cute, though, how everyone is talking about "gay" and
"straight", as if these terms have some sort of meaning that isn't
an arbitrary line drawn on a spectrum.
I also don't understand the whole crowing about the guy being a
hypocrite; having sex with men and being gay is not the same
thing.
Oh, yah, and who was that ultraconservative bastard who signed DoMA
again? Oh yah, Clinton, that Pres. that reason gets all nostalgic
about who, really, wasn't that great of a guy either.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 11:07AM|#
joe and Jennifer-
Understanding and condemnation are not our only options here.
Laughing out asses off while the circus unfolds is also an
option.
Besides, isn't it sad when a Senator, supposedly a person with
money and charisma, can't come up with a better seduction move?
Come on, man, get a room!
|8.28.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Through the public acceptance of gay people, treating them
and their families and lives as equal to those of straight people,
and denouncing homophobia, homophobes, and the political stunts
they pull.
joe--Shouldn't you be telling Larry Craig this, and not us?
Well sure, you can tell us, but you're most likely preaching to a
very small choir.
Alice Bowie|8.28.07 @ 11:10AM|#
If I was this guy...I'd move to San Fransico, wear my pants a little tighter, and quit congress.
|8.28.07 @ 11:10AM|#
joe,
Ahhh, I see. Instead of being disgusted and repulsed by such a
hypocritical hate mongering man, I should be condescendingly
sympathic and patronizing for such a confused lost soul. I guess
that's the difference between agressively hateful and passive
agressively hateful. Sorry for the confusion.
Alice Bowie|8.28.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Is it right to accept gay people...and denounce "Beef-jerkie" in public restrooms ?
|8.28.07 @ 11:12AM|#
It is cute, though, how everyone is talking about "gay" and
"straight", as if these terms have some sort of meaning that isn't
an arbitrary line drawn on a spectrum.
The distribution of the population is skewed very heavily, with a
huge portion tight to one end and a small bump near the other. The
number of people spread out in the middle is only a tiny percentage
of the population. Gay and straight are useful categories.
|8.28.07 @ 11:13AM|#
joe, I hope my post didn't seem biting to you; I actually agree
with you on this.
LIT - I ask again, where is hypocrisy? He never made a move to
outlaw gay sex (which is what he wanted); he made a move to outlaw
homosexual marriage (and gave no indication he wanted one)...you're
getting wrapped up in identity politics (you too, Jennifer) where
you assume that if a man likes the cock once in while, that means
he has to jump on board a whole hose of issues with you.
Not so.
|8.28.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Is it right to accept gay people...and denounce
"Beef-jerkie" in public restrooms ?
Yes. Because accepting gay people and accepting creepy creepy
people are not the same thing.
Disclaimer: It has been my (very unfortunate) experience
that men who attempt to solicit sex in public restrooms are, in
fact, creepy as hell! However, my sample size is 1. Can anyone
provide any examples where it is not creepy?
|8.28.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Or it was a case of "if I vote for this, nobody will accuse
me of being gay."
Yeah, I can see that.
My State Rep was the only one in my city's legislative delegation
to vote against the anti-gay-marriage amendment when it first came
out. The St. Patrick's Day roast was a couple weeks later, and not
only was it full of jokes about him being gay, but about his entire
district being gay.
Forty years ago, if you fought for civil rights, they couldn't
actually call you a n*gger, so they'd call you a n*gger-lover.
Those same people sure as heck can call a civil-rights supporter
gay, though.
Jennifer,
Do you do anything that would cause your family, friends, and
entire professional network to shun you if you were open about it?
This guy was a 60-year-old conservative Republican from Idaho.
Don't assume you know what he was faced with.
You can say the same about a segregationist politician hiding
his mulatto heritage while continuing to push legislation forcing
second-class status on anyone who isn't lily-white.
I think it would take a great deal of courage for a person in that
situation to come out, and it's not as if Larry Craig stirred up
the homoophobic politics of the modern Republican Party on his own.
He was getting by.
SPD|8.28.07 @ 11:16AM|#
I'm with thoreau on this one. What good is having all of that prestige and power if it doesn't give you the ability to score high-quality manpoon in the privacy of some no-tell motel?
|8.28.07 @ 11:17AM|#
To him, it was a matter of survival.
Or, he could stand up for what is right and decent, rather than for
what is politically expedient or popular.
Nah.
|8.28.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Ayn,
I'm sure he could have justified to himself that he wasn't against
gays and that he found the institution of marraige to be between
merely a man and a woman, but the fact was, he was acting against
gay's freedom to associate and enter contracts (because that's how
the government currently views marraige, divest the two and you've
got an argument) and yet he still wanted to covertly engage in
homosexual activity with the same group he was oppressing. If
that's not hypocrisy, its merely reprehensible if you like.
|8.28.07 @ 11:19AM|#
I think it's awfully strange of you, joe, to assume the guy
was gay. You do? That's odd. He tried to have sex with another
man.
It is cute, though, how everyone is talking about "gay" and
"straight", as if these terms have some sort of meaning that isn't
an arbitrary line drawn on a spectrum. Um...
I also don't understand the whole crowing about the guy being a
hypocrite; having sex with men and being gay is not the same
thing.
Whoa. OK, Ayn Randian. Whatever you say.
|8.28.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Just pickin' at ya' joe...
"This guy was a 60-year-old conservative Republican from Idaho.
Don't assume you know what he was faced with."
Since I don't think you are a 60 year old conservative from Idaho,
isn't that exactly what you are doing? Assuming that YOU know what
he's faced with, that is. (" It must be hell to live in a closet
like that. Think of how terrified he must have been")
Just givin' ya' a hard time. Well, not THAT kind of hard... you
know. The okay kind.
CB
|8.28.07 @ 11:22AM|#
why does joe desperately want people to feel sympathetic to this
guy?
Craig a relative of his?
To be fair, I feel that as soon as someone is elected to position
in Washington, they've lost their right to be given leeway of
mitigating factors. I hold every politician accountable to what
they say and do and reserve the right to spit diatribe at any of
them for any reason at any time.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 11:22AM|#
joe-
I think that AR was trying to say that the guy might be bi. In that
case, his marriage and relationship with his wife are not a
"disguise" or whatever, but honestly part of who he is, and the
problem is that he has been trying to keep the other part of his
identity hidden.
The Glory Hole|8.28.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Is it right to accept gay people...and denounce
"Beef-jerkie" in public restrooms ?
sounds like experience talking
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Do you do anything that would cause your family, friends,
and entire professional network to shun you if you were open about
it?
Most likely, but I'm not pushing for legislation to punish those
people who did the exact same thing as me. That's why I'm
criticizing Craig; not because he felt he needed to hide his
proclivities, but because he used his power to hurt others who
shared them.
So do you think the sympathy you're giving to Craig should have
been equally applied to an old South segregationist hiding the fact
that he had black ancestry?
|8.28.07 @ 11:28AM|#
"The Closet, as an institution, needs to be torn down, and
gay people accepted as full members of society."
Wow, talk about a loathesome, self-hating man. At least he didn't
blame blacks, Cubans or lighting bolts for his homosexuality.
|8.28.07 @ 11:28AM|#
LIT,
I guess if empathy wasn't so alien to you, you'd adhere to a
different philosophy.
JW,
Describing the fears of old-school conservatives at being
discovered to be homosexual as "political expedience" is extremely
glib. You really think the thing he was most worried about was
losing an election? Try, having his house vandalized, the police
refusing to look into it, and his friends never speaking to him
again. Not everyone is as fortunate to be raised with tolerant
values, and live in a community with like-minded people.
Alice Bowie|8.28.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Joe...
The entire Premise behind the CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT is to keep
things in the closet.
No conservative would admint to
- racism
- homo acts in bathrooms
- smoking pot
- infidelity
- extortion
- tax evasion
- money landering
It's only those damn liberals that want everyone 2 b honest....
|8.28.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Reinmoose,
I actually had a guy try to pick me up in an adult bookstore once.
Creepiest fucking thing ever.
Now, if I was at a gay bar, I'd probably be flattered, not creeped
out, but it's all about the situation.
|8.28.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Alice,
What liberal has ever come out in favor of:
- racism
- homo acts in bathrooms
- smoking pot
- infidelity
- extortion
- tax evasion
- money landering
Episiarch|8.28.07 @ 11:32AM|#
I also don't understand the whole crowing about the guy
being a hypocrite; having sex with men and being gay is not the
same thing.
Whoa. OK, Ayn Randian. Whatever you say.
Craig's situation is stupid, hypocritical, and boring.
Now, the above exchange between Ayn_Randian and joe is much more
interesting. More please.
Seitz|8.28.07 @ 11:33AM|#
So is Hugh Hewitt, though he himself admits he made no such
call for Sen. David Vitter. Guess there's some sort moral
distinction between cheating on your wife via anonymous gay sex and
cheating on your wife by paying for hetero sex with a
prostitute.
There is. It's the distinction between Craig's immorality screwing
up Romney's chances (Hewitt is a Romney backer), and Vitter's
immorality screwing up Giuliani's chances. Man-boobs Hewitt is
nothing if not principled.
So I guess that means he's nothing.
SPD|8.28.07 @ 11:36AM|#
de stijl,
If I'm not mistaken, a few conservatives have at least advocated
decriminalizing it, if not using it (Buckley, etc.).
|8.28.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Johnny D.
We'll put it this way...
I was thankful to walk out of there unscathed.
|8.28.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Cracker's Boy,
Maybe. Maybe I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, because I've
seen homophobia and what it can do to people. Maybe he's living in
a very gay-tolerant, open-minded area of Idaho, and his political
supporters and allies host Oscar parties every year. But I'd be
willing to bet not.
Jennifer,
Craig's political behavior is inexcusable, but it's understandable
to me. Anti-gay politics is not something a politician can avoid
dealing in today's Republican Party. He either had to be a hero, or
go along. He's not a hero - he's a damaged person trying to keep
his life together.
As for the mixed-race segregationist, having a black grandparent is
not the same thing as having to actively work to hide and deny your
sexual orientation like that. Having a black grandparent is
something that happens to you, that you need not ever think about
again. Being a closeted gay man is something you need to work at
every single day, and it will screw you up.
Lamar,
I think we talking about a pathetic, self-hating man. To be honest,
this makes him a little less loathesome to me, and a little more
sad.
|8.28.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Why does joe keep forgetting that he's dealing with perfect
people here at H&R?
Not only that, but when will he realize that the only people who
deserve sympathy are those who are screwed over by the government?
Good folks like Jack McClellan, for example.
|8.28.07 @ 11:41AM|#
I think it's awfully strange of you, joe, to assume the guy
was gay.
You do? That's odd. He tried to have sex with another
man.
I've had sex with women before, and I'm not straight or even
bi-sexual by any definition that would be remotely useful. And I
have sex with straight men all the time. There are plenty of
straight men who don't care, particularly, who sucks their dick, so
long as the cocksucker knows what he's doing. Guess what--you can
frequently meet them in public restrooms!
|8.28.07 @ 11:44AM|#
parse,
If you are actually straight, you care quite a bit about who gives
you a blowjob.
edna|8.28.07 @ 11:45AM|#
i'm with joe on this one. i mean, really, who among us, stone in hand ready to cast, hasn't ever sucked the cock of some stranger in a men's room? next thing you know, there will be a big hoo-hah because some senator was clocked doing 56mph on the 495.
edna|8.28.07 @ 11:47AM|#
If you are actually straight, you care quite a bit about who
gives you a blowjob.
that would be true of someone actually gay, too, n'est ce pas?
Episiarch|8.28.07 @ 11:47AM|#
If you are actually straight, you care quite a bit about who
gives you a blowjob.
Gotta go with joe on this one.
Parse, just because somebody says they are straight doesn't mean
they are.
For instance, Larry Craig.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 11:49AM|#
joe-
Again, the point that parse is joining Ayn Randian in making is
that the guy is not necessarily "gay", if "gay" is used only to
refer to one extreme of behavior (exclusive interest in the same
sex). You seem to be implying that "straight" refers to the other
extreme (exclusive interest in the opposite sex) while applying the
word "gay" to a guy who may not fit the other extreme either. He
could, for all we know, be somewhere in between. In which case his
heterosexual marriage is an authentic part of his identity, it just
isn't the entirety of his identity.
Honestly, though, trying to figure out where along the continuum
this guy fits is not terribly interesting to me. More interesting
is the many, many jokes that can be told about this.
dhex|8.28.07 @ 11:49AM|#
where you assume that if a man likes the cock once in while,
that means he has to jump on board a whole hose of issues with
you.
best. typo. ever.
man i'd like to jump on board and hose his issues!
|8.28.07 @ 11:50AM|#
It's almost like joe thinks this guy is a local carpenter
struggling with his sexuality in an intolerant society. He is not.
He is a politician that went out of his way to agree with his
constituents and promise them to promote Christian values that he
would have professed to follow himself. That he does not does not
surprise me, but does not garner any sympathy for what will be done
with him. I'm not saying that he should be jailed or even removed
from congress joe, but I don't have sympathy that would make me
feel like he is being wronged in any way by anyone currently and
while I hope his constiuents are civilized enough not to burn down
his house and kill his family, that they would want him removed
from congress is not something I disagree with.
So I guess I would say I don't feel sympathy for his current
situation, but if he were to suffer violence from this, I
definitely wouldn't be cheering on the perpetrators.
|8.28.07 @ 11:51AM|#
well-played parse. that's one of the things I was driving
at.
I think the Kinsey Scale is a far more useful tool for
understanding how sexuality works. Again, this man and his somewhat
reprehensible oppression of freedom would not have even been on
anyone's radar screen if he had been caught with a woman.
People are complicated: the chairman of the Franklin County (Ohio)
Republicans, Doug Preisse, is (was?) gay. He didn't let one face of
his being (that he was gay) drive his entire political philosophy.
But now, we seem to think because the guy wanted some man-sex on
the side, well, "what a hypocrite! he likes gay sex and he won't
let the gays get married!"
Folks, identity politics is identity politics. Just because someone
likes sexual encounters with men doesn't mean they fit neatly into
some little category we've contrived (i.e, gay, straight or bi).
Also, just because this Senator likes sex with men doesn't mean he
has to, again, jump on board with the homosexual rights
movement.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 11:52AM|#
joe-
Don't tell me that the token liberal needs to have a bunch of
libertarians explain that sexual identity ranges along a continuum,
and that not everybody fits into the extreme categories that
traditional cultural norms have defined.
You should be the one explaining this to us, not vice versa. Having
to explain it to you makes me feel weird. I need an organic soy
brownie, I think.
|8.28.07 @ 11:53AM|#
as to the above: I meant that I am not sure if Doug Preisse is still the chair of the Repubs in Columbus...
|8.28.07 @ 11:56AM|#
I remember Larry Craig from when he first ran, presenting
himself as a libertarian style Republican.
Turns out, he's more libertine than libertarian.
|8.28.07 @ 11:56AM|#
To be clear to everyone here, words are not stones. Just because
some of us think the guy was stupid for what he did and snarking
about his actions versus his words (whether or not they're
hypocritical, I don't care), doesn't mean we're bloodthirsty people
out for his head. I really don't care about this guy's political
future one way or another.
I think joe takes internet comments way too seriously.
|8.28.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Describing the fears of old-school conservatives at being
discovered to be homosexual as "political expedience" is extremely
glib.
Promoting potentially self-hating and just plain wrong legislation
with the power of the state and police behind it is somewhat less
glib, somewhere around zero.
You really think the thing he was most worried about was losing
an election?
On some level, yes. He's a politician. Of course, he's worried
about his job. I have zero doubt that he's worried about his family
too. Then again, I'd suggest that he get a real job and then these
worries aren't as large. At least he wouldn't be savaged in the
media were he caught like this.
Try, having his house vandalized, the police refusing to look
into it, and his friends never speaking to him again.
Nothing I can do about that except not participate in the
hatred.
He's a flaming (no pun, really) hypocryte who used his position to
support oppressive legislation aimed at a group he is member of in
some way.
He's solidly in the "just desserts" category now. He's about to
reap what he sowed in no small way.
|8.28.07 @ 11:58AM|#
If you are actually straight, you care quite a bit about who
gives you a blowjob.
Unless you are in prison.
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 12:00PM|#
As for the mixed-race segregationist, having a black
grandparent is not the same thing as having to actively work to
hide and deny your sexual orientation like that. Having a black
grandparent is something that happens to you, that you need not
ever think about again. Being a closeted gay man is something you
need to work at every single day, and it will screw you
up.
Actually, if the law says that having a black grandparent is all it
takes for you to lose many civil rights, and move out of your white
neighborhood into a black one, and send your kid to a different
school, then you DO have to actively work every single day to hide
this.
|8.28.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Finally, any sympathy I might have felt for Craig evaporated
when I read in the police report that he played the ol' "do you
know who I am" game, by giving the cop his U.S. senator business
card and asking, "What do you think of that?"
Radley of all people, you shouldn't take police reports entirely at
face value.
Actually, if it indeed happened at all, it is also possible he
might have not been saying it as a way to pull rank, but simply in
anticipation of a surprise reaction, or an attempt to convince him
that a Senator wouldn't do such a thing.
|8.28.07 @ 12:03PM|#
an attempt to convince him that a Senator wouldn't do such a
thing.
That boat sailed a long time ago.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Radley of all people, you shouldn't take police reports
entirely at face value.
OK, that's a good point.
|8.28.07 @ 12:05PM|#
That boat sailed a long time ago.
I believe it was the the good ship USS Manhandler.
|8.28.07 @ 12:06PM|#
Good catch, matthew hogan.
What libertarians should really be up in arms about are:
A) Why do we have public restrooms in the first place? If they were
private, then it's up to the owners to decide if gay sex goes on in
there and
B) What kind of bullshit charge is "felony disturbing the peace"
anyway? What did Larry Craig do to disturb the peace? Tapped a
guy's foot with his? In no commonsense idea of the "the peace"
would I consider what Larry Craig did disturbing said peace.
dhex|8.28.07 @ 12:08PM|#
But now, we seem to think because the guy wanted some
man-sex on the side, well, "what a hypocrite! he likes gay sex and
he won't let the gays get married!"
right, it just makes him a cunting fuckhead.
Sandy|8.28.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Not all liberals are sufficiently conscious of gender and sexual identity issues. joe might need some awareness-raising on that score.
|8.28.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Ayn,
In case you might have noticed, alot of us are not good, pure
libertarians, but let's not turn this into an argument about the
extistence or not of public restrooms and what should or should not
have societal acceptance.
|8.28.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
Interesting about Preisse, because there are strong indications
that the current Republican chief in Summit County, Alex
Arshinkoff,
has issues in that way as well.
|8.28.07 @ 12:10PM|#
"Why do we have public restrooms in the first place?"
I'm assuming that it's a private restroom, open to the public. But
that's splitting hairs. I know what you meant. And I completely
agree with B). Activity between consenting adults, etc etc.
CB
Russ 2000|8.28.07 @ 12:14PM|#
any sympathy I might have felt for Craig evaporated when I
read in the police report that he played the ol' "do you know who I
am" game,
The cop did the exact same thing. Any non-LEO would have said "Stop
it, I'm not interested," but cops play the "do you know who I am"
game by arresting people for "sending signals".
|8.28.07 @ 12:14PM|#
dhex - no argument.
But everyone thinks this is a "gotcha!" moment when it really
isn't, if you stop viewing people in one-dimension. Any magazine
called reason (Drink one for me!; no alcohol here)
should shy away from identity politics.
|8.28.07 @ 12:18PM|#
or better yet...
"Why do we have public restrooms in the first place?"
Where else can you take your child when they need to do Number
2!
THEY'RE FOR THE CHILDREN!!! THE CHILDREN!
CB
|8.28.07 @ 12:18PM|#
edna,
I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. You aren't
with me on anything.
thoreau,
I don't think we need to agonize over precision here. If you hit on
other men in the hopes that you will get to have sex with them,
that's close enough to "gay" for our purposes here. If we round
this decimal to a whole number, is it going to change the
answer?
LIT,
Ah, but Craig didn't start his political career six years ago. When
he set out on his course in life, homophobia was pretty much
universal, and allowing gay men to avoid the boot of the state only
if they stayed in the closet was the progressive position! I'm not
excusing Craign of all wrongdoing here, but I can sympathize, to
the extent that he found himself in this position.
BTW, it's not snarky libertarians who engage in anti-gay violence
and shunning. It's very, very earnest right-wingers, and there are
more than a few of them in Idaho.
A.R.,
Again, this man and his somewhat reprehensible oppression of
freedom would not have even been on anyone's radar screen if he had
been caught with a woman. It would if he, and his party, had
been howling about the evil adulterers the way they've howling
about the evil, dangerous homosexuals.
Jennifer,
Actually, if the law says that having a black grandparent is
all it takes for you to lose many civil rights, and move out of
your white neighborhood into a black one, and send your kid to a
different school, then you DO have to actively work every single
day to hide this.
No, you don't, because nothing that will happen on an everyday
basis is going to give you away, or even bring up the issue at all.
I'm not drawing a distinction based on the seriousness of being
found out, but on the effort required not to be found out.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Yeah, Russ 2000 makes a good point. Just say "Leave me
alone."
Sandy-
Maybe joe should attend some seminars on sexual and gender
identity.
As to public restrooms, yeah, privatize them and let the market
decide whether there will be a special "Senator gets to fondle your
foot" restroom. If there isn't, then the market has spoke. DEMAND
KURVE!
:)
SPD|8.28.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Is it behavior that defines sexual identity? If I can tie knots and go camping, does that makes me a Boy Scout? Society has a labeling fetish, because without labeling we don't know which tribe to align with.
|8.28.07 @ 12:23PM|#
...or maybe, just maybe, the self-serving caricatures of liberal beliefs that libertarians convince themselves liberals actually believe aren't terribly accurate stand-ins for the real thing?
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 12:23PM|#
because nothing that will happen on an everyday basis is
going to give you away, or even bring up the issue at all. I'm not
drawing a distinction based on the seriousness of being found out,
but on the effort required not to be found out.
How much effort does it take to NOT go trolling for gay
one-nighters? Or, more importantly, how much effort does it take to
NOT push for legislation marginalizing those who share your (not
you personally, Joe) fondness for hot, sweaty, passionate
man-on-man sex?
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 12:24PM|#
joe-
If you want to restrict your attention to the incident in question
then, yeah, we can call it a "gay incident" or "gay act" or
whatever you like. The precision isn't terribly important. But if
you want to start making inferences about his entire life, and the
extent to which he's keeping his true identity and preferences
secret, well, that depends on the extent to which this is
representative of his full of identity. Yes, it's a part of his
identity, and it's wrong that he no doubt has had reason to fear it
being exposed, but beyond that there isn't much we can say. We
don't know whether this is an occasional interest of his or his
main interest or whatever else.
And, to be honest, I don't want to know.
Anyway, you tried to imply that he is definitely at one end of the
spectrum, when in reality we don't know. And I don't want to
know.
|8.28.07 @ 12:24PM|#
SPD,
No, it is not behavior, it is desires, feelings, reflexes, and
proclivities. It is entirely possible to be gay and celebate, or
straight and celebate.
That does not eliminate the existence of the categories.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 12:26PM|#
...or maybe, just maybe, the self-serving caricatures of
liberal beliefs that libertarians convince themselves liberals
actually believe aren't terribly accurate stand-ins for the real
thing?
I'm sure it isn't. But you can't claim to be the guy who's
sensitive on these issues and then get clumsy about whether there's
a spectrum of identities.
Or is it your argument that you guys aren't as sensitive as we
thought when it comes to these nuances?
|8.28.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Jennifer,
For a man not to have any expression of his sexual identity is
extremely, extremely hard.
And for a Republican to dissent from the Party on gay-bashing is
also extremely hard. For a closeted gay man living in terror being
found out, to dissent from the Party on its gay-bashing bills must
be incredibly hard.
|8.28.07 @ 12:27PM|#
argh! joe! are you not hearing me?
Craig isn't necessarily gay!
If you hit on other men in the hopes that you will get to have
sex with them, that's close enough to "gay" for our purposes
here.
So, I suppose I can safely label all those young girls who make out
with each other for attention (at the bars) as "lesbians"? Or do
you think there might be another dynamic at work there?
what thoreau and I are trying to get across to you is that the guy
might not have been in the proverbial "Closet" at all. He just
might have liked to see what the other side was like once in a
while. The same game is afoot here that declares people who
smoke cigarettes socially or on occasion as "smokers". That
either/or thinking, with absolutely no room for context, has got to
fucking go.
|8.28.07 @ 12:29PM|#
thoreau,
It is my argument that the point about a spectrum of identities is
irrelevant to this conversation. Craig was no less "in the closet"
about his sexuality if this was an occasional sideline than if his
marriage was a sham.
So spare me the lecture about sensitivity.
|8.28.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Just stop. Smoking a cigarette? Are you kidding?
We're talking about someone who knows the code to ask a guy in the
next stall in a men's room to have sex with him. Deciding to "try"
such a thing, repeatedly, is not comparable to smoking a cigarette
once in a while.
Straight guys do not want to have sex with other men. Not once in a
while. Not enough to go out seeking it in known picko-up joints.
Straight men find the idea of having sexual contact with another
man repugnant.
If you want to quibble about how broadly the term "gay" can be
applied to bisexuals, have at it. I don't think it's terribly
relevant.
|8.28.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Whoa whoa whoa. I feel icky agreeing with joe. If a many repeatedly seeks out other men for oral sex, then he's gay. It may be useful to examine the nuance or subspecies of gay he is. But to say that he isn't gay is just a semantic game.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Fair enough, joe.
Now, let's get back to what really matters: The jokes!
If you ask me, stroking a guy's foot in a bathroom stall is a
crappy way to flirt. You're just going to piss him off.
Thank you, I'm here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress! But
don't tip the guy who offers to help you in the bathroom. He isn't
the bathroom attendant, and giving him money is a regulated
campaign contribution under McCain-Feingold!
|8.28.07 @ 12:37PM|#
SPD,
What about the "curious" sub-category?
It pretty excludes people who have sex in public bathrooms enough
to know the signaling code.
|8.28.07 @ 12:42PM|#
If a many repeatedly seeks out other men for oral sex, then
he's gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. I hope the people in
Idaho can come to realize that Larry Craig is exactly the same
civic-minded, God-fearing, tight-assed family man they always knew
and voted for.
thoreau,
I'm not just a liberal, but a super-liberal. Anyone can hold two
contradictory ideas in their head, but I, I can hold three. I can
despise Craig, feel sympathy for him, AND find the situation
hilarious.
If Clemenza had hidden the gun right, Craig would have just killed
cop AND the Turk, and be well on his way to Sicily by now.
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Joe, at heart your argument defending Craig seems no more than a variant of "he was only doing his job." That defense went out at Nuremberg. (Fuck Godwin.)
|8.28.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Well, I admit to being a bigot. I hold U.S. Senators in contempt
as a group, and it takes quite a bit of evidence for me to concede
that any member of that group should be afforded any sympathy.
Also, I can't empathize with a U.S. Senator, because I've never had
any desire to get in front of a t.v. camera and pretend to know
something regarding topics about which I am utterly ignorant, while
smugly preening about the moral superiority I imagine I possess,
while forcing my fellow citizens to submit to my will on all manner
of areas that are not legitimately within my sphere of official
influence.
I suppose I may feel bad for Craig's family, the way I do when any
spouse or children are made to feel bad by infidelity, but the
Honorable Senator Craig is just another dirtbag member of a
thoroughly corrupt institution. To hell with him.
|8.28.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Ayn,
Whether or not we label this man "gay" or "straight" doesn't really
matter with respect to the hypocrisy charge. Support for the FMA
(which Craig voted for) was largely based on moral condemnation of
homosexual behavior -- not identity. Biblical verse allegedly
supporting the Christian right's stance against homosexuality,
including gay marriage, targets behavior (lying with a man) not
homosexual preference. This is how the anti-gay Christian justify
their stance on this issue: God doesn't judge you for your innate
preference but for you actions. This incident unquestionable
involves homosexual behavior, whether or not you
subscribe to gay identity politics.
While supporting the Christian right's condemnation of homosexual
behavior, Craig has engaged in homosexual behavior. Why isn't this
hypocrisy? Alternatively, why isn't proposing sex with another man
homosexual behavior according to the Christian right's
definition?
|8.28.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Jennifer,
You picked one of my pet peeves. The "just following orders"
defense was not rejected wholesale by the Nuremberg tribunal.
Indeed some defendants were found not guilty. It was when the
people issuing the orders tried to invoke it that it was
dismissed.
|8.28.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Straight guys do not want to have sex with other men. Not
once in a while. Not enough to go out seeking it in known picko-up
joints. Straight men find the idea of having sexual contact with
another man repugnant.
Straight guys say this all the time. (Lots of gay guys say it as
well.) My experience suggests that it just isn't true. There are
plenty of guys who have no desire whatever to be involved in an
emotionally intimate relationship with other men--they are
attracted to emotional intimacy with women--but routinely enjoy
physical intimacy with men. If you want to claim that it's somehow
useful to label those men "gay," have at it. I suppose you could
call them bisexual,, but I find that more useful to describe people
who might be emotionally satisfied by a partner of either gender.
"Horndog" is the only scientific term I can think of that gives
much useful inight into the men I'm describing.
joe, what makes you so sure you know what other "straight" men like
to do sexually? I assume you own experience is this area is fairly
limited.
|8.28.07 @ 1:05PM|#
There are plenty of guys who have no desire whatever to be
involved in an emotionally intimate relationship with other
men--they are attracted to emotional intimacy with women--but
routinely enjoy physical intimacy with men.
In a world of six billion people there may indeed be "plenty", but
such men are rare as coelocanths. How do I know? I once took a
course in Human Sexuality. The text was written by Masters and
Johnson.
|8.28.07 @ 1:09PM|#
parse,
Would you give credence to anyone who said, "I've never met a gay
parson, so they must not exist." Back off the solipsism a bit and
maybe an argument will emerge.
Straight guys exist, you just don't have sex with them.
ed|8.28.07 @ 1:28PM|#
It seems only Republicans get in trouble for gayness. If it were Barney Frank in the stall we would yawn and move on. Or is it simply the hypocrisy that ruffles anti-Rebublican feathers? Enough to destroy a man? Really?
|8.28.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Can we please either agree on a universal definition of straight, gay, bisexual, and all other like-terms, or stop squabbling about it?
|8.28.07 @ 1:33PM|#
Jennifer,
Joe, at heart your argument defending Craig seems no more than
a variant of "he was only doing his job."
Nope. Not even close.
That you can't follow my reasoning and substituted a self-serving
statement wholly unrelated to it is about as surprising as finding
out that a Republican Senator is a hypocrite.
Buh bye.
|8.28.07 @ 1:33PM|#
It seems only Republicans get in trouble for
gayness.
Tell it to ex-New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey.
|8.28.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Reinmoose,
Neither will ever happen. It's the nature of identity politics. As
long as hypocrisy is possible and victim status grants power, then
the rejecting / acceptance of any non-normative label or grouping
will be contested to the advantage of someone.
|8.28.07 @ 1:39PM|#
parse,
First of all, your handle has never been so appropriate.
Second, I agree with you that there are many variations of human
sexuality, and we could come up with all sorts of names and labels.
But just as we can label all sorts of different political
ideologies as "the right" or "the left," without assuming that all
of those varieties are the same, I'm perfectly comfortable using
the word "gay" to describe any man who desires to make nookie with
another man. If we happen into a subject where such distinctions
are important, then by all means, we should draw those fine
distinctions.
In this case, the situation, the moral reasoning, and the political
implications are exactly the same whether Craig wished his
dalliances extended to emotional intimacy or not. Do you think the
homophobes he has been pandering to with his anti-gay votes care
about those distinctions?
|8.28.07 @ 1:42PM|#
ed,
Only Republicans get in trouble for being gay, because homophobia
is only an important part of one party's political identity.
Barney Frank's supporters don't care if he's gay. Craig's
supporters do.
Barney Frank hasn't made the bashing of gay people part of his
political profile; Craig has.
|8.28.07 @ 1:45PM|#
SugarFree, I'm not trying to claim that straight guys don't exist, or that there aren't straight guys who never do and never would have sex with another man. I'm just saying that there are some men who do have sex with other men, and if you had to label them "straight," "gay" or "bisexual," it seems to me that the most accurate of those three admittedly imprecise designations would be "straight." As I mentioned before, I've had sex with women, but if anyone were to describe me as "straight" or "bisexual," I'd really feel like they were missing the mark.
M|8.28.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Did I overlook some part of the story, or is it possible that he
was just tapping his foot, or is this not the H&R I know and
love?
Setting aside for a moment whether he's a good man or a bad man,
whether the law and/or its enforcement method here are good things
or bad things, could he in fact have been not
soliciting sex?
What did I miss?
|8.28.07 @ 1:48PM|#
"Did I overlook some part of the story, or is it possible
that he was just tapping his foot, or is this not the H&R I
know and love?"
Yes. You overlooked the part where he pleaded guilty.
|8.28.07 @ 1:50PM|#
People can do all sorts of things, if they put their mind to it.
Situational homosexuality is common throughout history in the
military and in prison. No, those people are not gay.
If you go out looking for it, if you specifically desire sex with
someone of the same sex, you are gay.
I have no idea how attracted you are to women, parse. If you look
at a woman from the back and get that "Ooh, yeah!" sensation, then
you are at least somewhat bisexual. If you just did it on a bet or
something, and have no attrarction to women at all, then you are a
gay man who had sex with a woman. If you want to have sex with
people of both sexes, but can only develop emotional, romantic
bonds with one or the other, I would still count that as
bisexual.
|8.28.07 @ 1:52PM|#
M,
...and the part where he reached his foot over to rub it against
the cop's foot, in the next stall.
And the part where he reached his hand under the stall and waved it
around a few times.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I'm not just a liberal, but a super-liberal. Anyone can hold two contradictory ideas in their head, but I, I can hold three. I can despise Craig, feel sympathy for him, AND find the situation hilarious.
joe laughed at it before admonished us against it.
In his own nuanced way. Which is perfectly consistent with previous
nuanced statements.
:)
M|8.28.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Okay, the accounts I'd read earlier didn't contain those details, which if true make it a sad story for many reasons. I would like to hear his side if there's more to it. Meanwhile I wave my hand, joe (in a most fraternal way).
|8.28.07 @ 2:00PM|#
have to agree with joe on this one. If you are a guy who enjoys
any kind of sex with another guy (even phone sex), however
occasionally, you are at least bisexual.
Off the topic a bit, does anyone else feel like they're the last
fully heterosexual man in the world?
|8.28.07 @ 2:01PM|#
parse,
joe : Straight men find the idea of having sexual contact with
another man repugnant.
parse: Straight guys say this all the time. (Lots of gay guys say
it as well.) My experience suggests that it just isn't
true.
This exchange reads to me like you are denying the possibility of
men who in no way desire to have sex with other men, whatsoever the
situation based on the fact you haven't met any. (But I accept you
aren't saying that.)
I just think it's a fairly simple matter to define "straight" as
having no desire for homosexual contact. It's fine and dandy if men
who occasionally have sex with other men want to call themselves
straight, but they aren't. They are, at a bare minimum, bisexual.
If culture wants to parse (sorry) "bisexual" along a spectrum, I'm
fine with that as well.
(None of this is to suggest that I find anything distasteful with
homosexuality. I've just been frustrated with the argument I have
encountered many times that "all men are gay, some just haven't
admitted it yet." I understand where the argument comes from, a
community "normalizing" themselves into the mainstream, but it is a
facile move. If it is wrong for a straight person to deny the
existence of homosexuality (or writes it off as a deviance to be
eradicated), then the opposite should be true as well.)
|8.28.07 @ 2:06PM|#
A manly, fraternal waive back at you, M.
You know, the kind of waive a man might give to his buddies. After
shooting a moose. During halftime. You know, that kind of
waive.
See how my hand doesn't wobble? It's like I don't even HAVE a
wrist. You know, one of those kind of waives.
grizzly|8.28.07 @ 2:14PM|#
I'm amazed that on the supposedly libertarian forum people are
preoccupied about whether Craig was gay or not.
In my opinion the really outrageous thing in this story is that the
police were using my tax dollars for something that people can do
without the government. Just kick an old man's hand in your stall
if you're so offended. Aren't there more serious crimes for the
police to prevent?
Another point. If you're a policeman sent to catch men looking for
sex in an airport bathroom and you see a man clearly interested in
sex, will you ignore him or rather go along pretending that you're
interested? The answer is obvious.
NP|8.28.07 @ 2:17PM|#
I find it rather interesting that the same Radley Balko who went
apoplectic over Dateline's To Catch a Predator
series--which, let's not forget, was initiated by a private
party--does not criticize similar tactics by the undercover
cops--who are, of course, government officials--but is only too
happy to express his glee over the irony of this case.
And yes, I do understand that the Predator segments are
taped in a private residence while this case took place in a public
environment, but that does not change the fact that both are
intrusions into the privacy of citizens. In fact Balko should be
more disturbed by the latter because, again, it involves the
government's meddling in our affairs. Finally one more reason for
my criticism: the Craig brouhaha concerns merely a fling between
consenting adults, whereas the Predator episode bares (no
pun intended) a sick practice that is indeed a genuine threat to
society.
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 2:22PM|#
the Craig brouhaha concerns merely a fling between
consenting adults
One of whom goes out of his way to use his political authority to
make life miserable for consenting adults who do exactly what Craig
wanted to do. So to hell with him. Feeling sorry for him because
"poor schmuck must have been conflicted" is like feeling sorry for
a thug criminal because "poor dear, he had an unhappy childhood."
So what. In Craig's case, I'm concerned with the people being
actively victimized by the state, not with members of the state
neurotically victimizing themselves because they dared not admit to
their sexual urges.
|8.28.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Nobody reads.
It was an airport cop working undercover due to complaints about
this type of behavior.
Documents here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html
And Craig knew he was busted as soon as the cop showed him his
ID.
|8.28.07 @ 2:23PM|#
What did Larry Craig do to disturb the peace?
IANAL, but I think it was playing peek-a-boo outside the door that
got him pinched.
M|8.28.07 @ 2:27PM|#
joe, I have a strong feeling that "shooting the moose" is an
expression I'm best not understanding.
This story seems like another instance of the tragedy of the
commons, the tragedy of which is that there's a commons. Just my
opinion.
dhex|8.28.07 @ 2:29PM|#
But everyone thinks this is a "gotcha!" moment when it
really isn't
no it really is. whether or not he was self-identified as gay (in
the privacy of his own head) or only engaged with sex with men on
occasion is immaterial.
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 2:31PM|#
This story seems like another instance of the tragedy of the
commons, the tragedy of which is that there's a commons. Just my
opinion.
Yes, clearly the root of the problem here is the existence of
bathrooms on public property. What else could possibly be worthy of
comment?
thoreau|8.28.07 @ 2:40PM|#
M, if the airport were privatized a person could still get in
trouble with the property owner for violating rules on flirting in
bathrooms, and that situation could still make for funny news that
everybody wants to talk about.
I dare say that even in Libertopia there would still be sex
scandals. Yes, yes, the scandals would involve "Private Association
Board Members" rather than "Senators" and they would take place in
"Company-Owned Air Transit bathrooms" rather than "City-Owned [or
whatever] Airport bathrooms" but still.
NP|8.28.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Jennifer,
Just to be clear, I was not trying to defend Craig, only
criticizing Balko for a missed opportunity to point out the
absurdity of the government's undercover tactics in cases of sexual
"misbehavior."
That said, I don't think your analogy is fair. One may indeed
believe in a standard of behavior but not live up to it, just as we
all do. Craig may in fact be a hypocrite and have comitted the
minor offense of lewd public behavior, but no objective person
could say that he is a "thug criminal."
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.28.07 @ 3:11PM|#
In the spirit of the earlier Onion and Youtube links, and always
apropos for these stories...
Show me your
weenis!
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 3:14PM|#
That said, I don't think your analogy is fair. One may
indeed believe in a standard of behavior but not live up to it,
just as we all do.
My beef with Craig is not his "belief in a standard of behavior he
doesn't live up to," but his use of the government to go against
the same behaviors he himself indulges in.
M|8.28.07 @ 3:18PM|#
thoreau, that's what just what the self-irony of the term libertopia, on my understanding, serves to highlight - that we can realistically aim only for what's optimal, rather than for what's perfect, and that government control of property goes in the opposite direction.
NP|8.28.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Jennifer,
Excuse me for my ignorance, but when has Craig tried to make
homosexual behavior a crime? You mean the Federal Marriage
Amendment? If you did, do I really need to make the distiction
between natural rights and government sponsorship?
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 3:37PM|#
Excuse me for my ignorance, but when has Craig tried to make
homosexual behavior a crime?
Excuse me for my ignorance, but when did I say he did?
NP|8.28.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Ok Jennifer, then let me rephrase using your own words: when has Craig used "the government to go against the same behaviors he himself indulges in"?
|8.28.07 @ 3:53PM|#
I dare say that even in Libertopia there would still be sex
scandals. Yes, yes, the scandals would involve "Private Association
Board Members" rather than "Senators" and they would take place in
"Company-Owned Air Transit bathrooms" rather than "City-Owned [or
whatever] Airport bathrooms" but still.
And this why libertarianism will never catch on, too many
syllables.
edna|8.28.07 @ 3:55PM|#
I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about. You
aren't with me on anything.
that time of the month again?
AngryOne|8.28.07 @ 4:18PM|#
What's behind the right's different response to David Vitter's
call girls and Larry Craig's boy trouble? In a nutshell, the
boys.
As the old expression goes, you are what you eat. And that imagery,
apparently, is behind the growing conservative chorus calling for
the resignation of disgraced Idaho Republican Senator Larry
Craig.
For the details, see:
"Behind the
Right's Double Standard on Craig and
Vitter."
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 4:46PM|#
when has Craig used "the government to go against the same
behaviors he himself indulges in"?
You don't consider DOMA to be against homosexuality?
Well, I suppose technically DOMA doesn't go against Craig's
behavior. He doesn't want to marry a man; he just wants to fuck one
in a toilet stall.
Jennifer|8.28.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Just so I understand Craig's mentality here, let me spell it
out:
Men marrying men: ZOMFG it is immoral it will destroy the sanctity
of marriage we need to outlaw it or else bad things will
happen!
Men having anonymous sex with men in toilet stalls: Eh, it's all
good.
NP|8.28.07 @ 5:50PM|#
Jennifer,
I actually didn't mean to imply that you were claiming Craig
advocated outlawing homosexual behavior, but I purposely played
dumb to see what you'd say in response (and also to give you the
benefit of the doubt). And voilà, you gave the exact type of
response I was expecting.
As you reluctantly concede, one does not have to be necessarily
antigay to oppose gay marriage (regardless of Nick Gillespie's
rather thoughtless remark in his earlier post today). I know at
least one or two people who do not mind homosexual behavior but
still have their reservations about same-sex marriage. Most
fair-minded same-sex marriage advocates--myself included--will
admit that opposite-sex partners in general probably provide a more
diverse mix of parenting for their kids than their same-sex
counterparts. Say what you will about the "It's for the children"
bromide, but this is one rare case where that claim should be taken
seriously.
As far as I know, the only significant "antigay" measure Craig
voted for was the DOMA, which, again, one can support without being
against homosexuality. So unless Craig had actually advocated
making homosexual activity a crime (which is why I used these
express terms) or used taxpayers' money to push other legislation
that would have specifically harmed homosexuals, I think you owe
Craig a little more than a personal condemnation on his own
personal beliefs.
|8.28.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Poor, deluded bastard, he probably thought his political
activity was a way of protecting people from falling into the same
trap.
Nah, try the obvious: "If I don't vote for this Defense of Marriage
thing, the Idaho Republican base will boot me out of a job at the
next election, guaranteed."
|8.28.07 @ 6:30PM|#
i'm with joe on this one. i mean, really, who among us,
stone in hand ready to cast, hasn't ever sucked the cock of some
stranger in a men's room? next thing you know, there will be a big
hoo-hah because some senator was clocked doing 56mph on the
495.
I agree with joe for once, too. Idaho is about 1/4 Mormon, so being
pro-gay at all is not only political suicide regardless of party,
but likely to get you shunned if not harassed bigtime unless you
live in a non-LDS university town. But are you seriously suggesting
that virtually all gay-bashers have sucked a stranger's cock in a
men's room? Or are you even just suggesting that virtually all men
have done so? Can you cite a reference? Seems a little hard to
believe (pun intended).
edna|8.28.07 @ 7:39PM|#
no, i was engaging in what passes for humor in my
household.
i lived in slc for 6 or 7 years, so am pretty familiar with the
mormon attitudes. there did seem to be a greater-than-normal
proportion of really in-your-face gays there, something i never
experienced again until moving to the sf bay area. not that this
affected my life in any way; my problems among the mormons had more
to do with my attraction toward wine than my attraction (or lack
thereof) toward people of my own gender.
i don't recall any sort of gay crackdown during my sojourn in zion.
there seemed to be much more concern about dirty pictures, beer,
and whether or not the mormon-owned hotel would serve coffee.
Steve in Clearwater|8.28.07 @ 9:25PM|#
"So, I suppose I can safely label all those young girls who make
out with each other for attention (at the bars) as
"lesbians"?"
SH: YES....for at least a few glorious and coming of age
moments....YES.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245