They Blame Gay Marriage

Sens. Larry "Wide Stance" Craig and David "Diaper Boy"* Vitter have signed on to co-sponsor yet another federal bill that would amend the Constitution define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  Dan Sweeney at the Huffington Post thinks this is hypocrisy.  I disagree.  Vitter and Craig are clearly victims, here.  As National Review's Stanley Kurtz has warned us, once the gays start marrying, it will set off a tidal wave of temptation, causing even the most robustly heterosexual men to consider cheating on their wives. 

Craig and Vitter are clearly victims of Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage several years ago.  We can't expect them to take personal responsibility for what they did.  Society made them do it.  In sponsoring this bill, they're merely trying to spare other straight, conservative politicians from falling victim to the chain-reaction of debauchery set off by allowing, for example, these two sinners to exchange vows.  Craig and Vitter are heroes, not hypocrites.

(*allegedly!)

Comments

Shem | June 30, 2008, 9:55am | #

once the gays start marrying, it will set off a tidal wave of temptation, causing even the most robustly heterosexual men to consider cheating on their wives.

Not just cheat on their wives, cheat on their wives with icky queers! Ew!

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 9:56am | #

This is clearly not a federal issue and the Congress needs to stay out of it.

It is not a State issue either, but that is a whole different thread.

Jaybird | June 30, 2008, 10:03am | #

Is it necessarily hypocrisy?

I mean, they're supposed to represent their constituencies, are they not?

I know how they *SHOULD* be legislating, but I'm pretty sure that a legislator who did such things would be out on his butt in one term.

So you're stuck with representatives who accurately represent the interests of their constituents.

What we need to do is elect a new People.

Taktix® | June 30, 2008, 10:10am | #

I mean, they're supposed to represent their constituencies, are they not?

This is true, but I'd think, at least in the case of Craig (R-Weirdoville), one would want to recuse one's self for conflict of interest.

joe | June 30, 2008, 10:11am | #

Seeing more people getting married, and seeing marriage held up as the ideal/norm for an even larger percentage of the population, will discourage people from taking marriage seriously.

Sure. That makes sense.

Francis (a.k.a. Psycho) | June 30, 2008, 10:11am | #

If any of you homos, you know, touch me, I'll kill you.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 10:15am | #

Lighten up francis

J | June 30, 2008, 10:24am | #

Larry Craig is probably just worried that if gay marriage is legalized everywhere, he'll have made a big mistake by not marrying someone he was actually attracted to.

madmikefisk | June 30, 2008, 10:24am | #

If the religious conservatives are right in that marriage is a religious institution, then what is the government doing recognizing it in the first place? That's what I can't figure out. We don't recognize bar mitzvahs, first communions, ordinations, missions calls, so why this?

How's that for solving the gay marriage debate and clearing up a separation of church and state issue in one fell swoop?

NP | June 30, 2008, 10:24am | #

Radley, you're a good reporter. Just don't dream too much about becoming another Mencken and you'll be fine.

Reinmoose | June 30, 2008, 10:25am | #

If they're self-loathing, I don't see it as hypocrisy.

joe | June 30, 2008, 10:27am | #

madmikefisk,

As, but we're talking about religious conservatives here.

The people saying "OMG teh gays!" are not the people saying "the government shouldn't recognize religion."

madmikefisk | June 30, 2008, 10:30am | #

Well, it's about the only way their side gets what they want in this case... sometimes you can't win by co-opting government, but rather divorcing yourself from it.

And the use of the word "divorcing" in the context of the marriage debate never ceases to amuse me.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 10:30am | #

Larry Craig needs for gay sex to be dirty, wrong and risky. That's how he likes it. So if gay marriage is legal, there might be fewer studs trolling the bathrooms of America for a quick ding dong. The Larry's of the world wouldn't get their fix, would start taking it out on their wives, and eventually divorce. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see how this is the end of marriage in the USA. From Larry Craig's point of view, everybody is a closeted gay man who gets off being a bad boy who needs to be punished with a good drilling.

Episiarch | June 30, 2008, 10:30am | #

Why don't all the closeted gay Republican politicians just hump each other? No worries about secrets getting out, and they have something common to talk about afterward.

Why Certainly! | June 30, 2008, 10:31am | #

We should moon the members of the legislative branch any time they attempt to legislate "morality". If they see an a-hole, maybe they'll remember who they are, then correlate it--ironically--to our current problem: the more our government exercises behavior control, the more they screw us up the butt. "You know how I know your gay?"--You legislate . . . ;)

Andrew | June 30, 2008, 10:34am | #

Look what already happened in Massachusetts....

I mean, that's what's gonna happen to the rest of us once gay marriage is legalized in the rest of the country, right?

Mike Volpe | June 30, 2008, 10:34am | #

I won't defend Vitter and Craig here and they are likely not the best ambassadors of keeping marriage as one man and one woman, however this snickering piece doesn't address the fundamental problems of gay marriage. Furthermore, if flawed individuals aren't allowed to introduce bills in Congress of course we would have no bills introduced ever since the entire body is terribly flawed. Here are the common misconceptions that liberals have about gay marriage...

http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/06/liberal-lies-misunderstandings-and_28.html

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 10:38am | #

Those website notices with the terms for posting or downloading normally specify which state any disagreements would be resovled in. Lets just pass a federal law that says any custody or divorce proceedings should follow the laws of the state where the marriage took place. Criminal proceedings between couples would still follow the laws of the state where the crime occurred. Then we can let the people of each state decide. NH became much more tolerant of gay marriage once the people there saw that MA did not implode.

tim | June 30, 2008, 10:43am | #

[touches Francis]

Shawn | June 30, 2008, 10:45am | #

Furthermore, if flawed individuals aren't allowed to introduce bills in Congress of course we would have no bills introduced ever...

I like your plan, can we make it retroactive?

Ravac | June 30, 2008, 10:46am | #

the fundamental problems of gay marriage.

The only problem I see with gay marriage is that it will lead to gay divorce(e)

Y'know, singin' & dancin'.

mantooth | June 30, 2008, 10:47am | #

Volpe,

I followed your link - "I don't want to tell anyone how to spend the rest of their lives however marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman."

Check your Bible, son.

J. P. Carlo | June 30, 2008, 10:49am | #

Perhaps they weren't completely off track with the (2nd) "original" 13th amendment, which stated that the federal government had no power to intervene in the domestic affairs of any state.

Of course that amendment was in the works to prevent an anticipated abolition of slavery - it was sent out to the states just before the Civil War started, pre-empting the whole thing.

But perhaps it could see new life, as a way to keep the feds out of the marriage business.

J sub D | June 30, 2008, 10:50am | #

As I was trolling the barnyard this past weekend it occured to me that I would never have become a zoophile without the gay marriage proponents showing me the way.

Lambchop and I send our thanks.

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 10:51am | #

Why don't all the closeted gay Republican politicians just hump each other?

Because, in addition to being gay, they have eyes.

Ravac | June 30, 2008, 10:52am | #

Dammit, try again.


the fundamental problems of gay marriage.

The only problem I see with gay marriage is that it will lead to gay divorce(e)

Y'know, singin' & dancin'.

Episiarch | June 30, 2008, 10:54am | #

Because, in addition to being gay, they have eyes.

But I thought they found power irresistible.

J sub D | June 30, 2008, 10:56am | #

If any of you homos, you know, touch me, I'll kill you.

Methinks Francis (girlie name!) is overcompensating lust a little bit.

dhex | June 30, 2008, 11:00am | #

"I don't want to tell anyone how to spend the rest of their lives however marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman."

so what?

J sub D | June 30, 2008, 11:03am | #

the fundamental problems of gay marriage.

I didn't pay much attention in Catechism class. Please enlighten me what these "fundamental" problems are.

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 11:03am | #

People who appeal to tradition should have a tub of leeches dumped on them the next time they go to the emergency room.

Pig Mannix | June 30, 2008, 11:06am | #

Is it necessarily hypocrisy?

Well, not unless you expect all Catholic politicians to be pro-life, and all ex-military candidates to be pro-war. Is it hypocrisy for a politician to make a distinction between his personal interests and public ones? I wish more of them would!

I like to drink, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think being an alcoholic qualifies you for a Congressional Medal of Honor...

ktc2 | June 30, 2008, 11:06am | #

Uh . . . actually polygamy is the norm historically, even biblically.

Episiarch | June 30, 2008, 11:07am | #

If any of you homos, you know, touch me, I'll kill you.

Methinks Francis (girlie name!) is overcompensating lust a little bit.

Jsub:

Psycho: My name's Francis Sawyer... but everyone calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis... I'll kill ya.

Leon: Ooooooh.

Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. Also, I don't like no one touching my stuff. So just keep your meathooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff... I'll kill ya. And I don't like nobody touching me. Any of you homos touch me... I'll kill ya.

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 11:10am | #

"I didn't pay much attention in Catechism class. Please enlighten me what these "fundamental" problems are."

Don't bother. Volpe is one of these d-bags that not only thinks people who don't have children are second class citizens, he actually thinks the government should deny the childless the same rights as everybody else.

Ken | June 30, 2008, 11:10am | #

Surely this will lead to abominations like the Edward Kennedy Transportation Safety Act.

And then the Quantum Irony Singularity will kill us all.

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 11:12am | #

Shawn | June 30, 2008, 10:45am | #

Furthermore, if flawed individuals aren't allowed to introduce bills in Congress of course we would have no bills introduced ever...
I like your plan, can we make it retroactive?

Shawn, your plan is tempting, but I still think libertarianism is better than no government at all. I kind of like having that law against murder on the books. Besides, we should be able to debate the merits of a bill independent of who wrote it, since bad people sometimes have good ideas and vice versa. Give me some time to read the bills, and I'll post a more thorough response to them.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 11:16am | #

"Give me some time to read the bills, and I'll post a more thorough response to them."

Uh, these aren't serious bills. They're rabble rousing fair to rile up the redneck wing of the Gay Old Party.

parse | June 30, 2008, 11:17am | #

Larry Craig needs for gay sex to be dirty, wrong and risky. That's how he likes it. So if gay marriage is legal, there might be fewer studs trolling the bathrooms of America for a quick ding dong.

Lamar, if marriage hasn't stopped straight men from trolling the bathrooms of America for a quick ding dong--and believe me, it hasn't--what makes you think it will have that effect on gay men?

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 11:17am | #

People who appeal to tradition should have a tub of leeches dumped on them the next time they go to the emergency room.

Stop turning me on. I am at work.

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 11:18am | #

and all ex-military candidates to be pro-war.

Whoa, whoa, why would being in the military make someone pro-war? Regardless, I'd think (hope?) Larry Craig would experience cognitive dissonance.

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 11:18am | #

What if the leeches all had little arc welders?

J sub D | June 30, 2008, 11:18am | #

Psycho: My name's Francis Sawyer... but everyone calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis... I'll kill ya.

Francis aka Episiarch -
I've got a brother named Francis via Grandpa's middle name. You have likely read what I say to folks who can't take a joke.
;-)

tim | June 30, 2008, 11:19am | #

"I don't want to tell anyone how to spend the rest of their lives however marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman."

always? are you suuuuure? "marriage" has been defined as all sorts of different arrangements depending on culture and historical period. Those that say "always" don't know their history.

Episiarch | June 30, 2008, 11:21am | #

I must be utterly failing to understand you, Jsub, because I don't get what you're saying. I was merely pointing out that the poster you responded to was quoting the movie Stripes.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 11:21am | #

"Lamar, if marriage hasn't stopped straight men from trolling the bathrooms of America for a quick ding dong--and believe me, it hasn't--what makes you think it will have that effect on gay men?"

Are you saying that there will be straight men who claim to be gay to get married, then troll the ladies bathrooms for straight sex?

J sub D | June 30, 2008, 11:22am | #

Epi,
My bad.

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 11:23am | #

For those who want to check the bill on tomas.loc.gov, there are a couple of similar bills. Senators Craig and Vitter co-signed Senator Wicker's bill (S.J.RES.43), as did 7 other Senators. Wicker introduced his bill three days after Senator Broun introduced (S.J.RES.89)to ammend the counstitution. Broun's bill has 89 cosponsors, so I have a feeling it will pass the Senate.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 11:24am | #

What if the leeches all had little arc welders?

Now I have to go home and change my pants. Hope you are happy.

Episiarch | June 30, 2008, 11:25am | #

Are you saying that there will be straight men who claim to be gay to get married, then troll the ladies bathrooms for straight sex?

Why does this make me think of Tom Cruise?

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 11:27am | #

"Senator Broun"

Who's that? Rep. Paul Broun?

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 11:30am | #

Correction: Senator Rep Broun introduced H.J.Res.89, in the senate house. With 89 co-sponsors, it might pass.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 11:32am | #

"Why does this make me think of Tom Cruise?"

Because it's both "cock" and "tail"? (remember to tip your waiter)

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 11:35am | #

Hope you are happy.

I am a sworn enemy of work-place productivity.

J sub D | June 30, 2008, 11:37am | #

Are you saying that there will be straight men who claim to be gay to get married, then troll the ladies bathrooms for straight sex?

Why does this make me think of Tom Cruise?

It made me think of Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari.

Pig Mannix | June 30, 2008, 11:37am | #

Whoa, whoa, why would being in the military make someone pro-war?

Um, that was my entire point....

parse | June 30, 2008, 11:38am | #

Are you saying that there will be straight men who claim to be gay to get married, then troll the ladies bathrooms for straight sex?

No, I'm saying that straight married men cruise bathrooms for gay sex, so I imagine gay married men will do the same.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 11:42am | #

No, I'm saying that straight married men cruise bathrooms for gay sex, so I imagine gay married men will do the same.

You mean after cruising art galleries for a sugar daddy?

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 11:43am | #

"I'm saying that straight married men cruise bathrooms for gay sex, so I imagine gay married men will do the same."

Gay men married to women troll for gay sex. Gay men married to gay men wouldn't have that disconnect.

joe | June 30, 2008, 11:44am | #

parse,

Gay married men (or rather, gay-married gay men) can get what they're looking for at home.

As opposed to straight-married gay men.

Episiarch | June 30, 2008, 11:50am | #

This is all rather confusing. Who is trolling what for whom, and when?

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 11:50am | #

Wow, those are the shortest bills I have ever read. Balko, when you said the bills define marriage, I didn't realize that was all they do. HJ89 and SJ43 are the house and senate versions of each other. They are also pointless. State legislators typically define any ambiguous terms at the start of their bills anyway, so they could easily work arround HJ89 and SJ43 by defining a widget as "the union of two consenting adults regardless of sex" and replacing the world marriage with the word widget in all their bills.

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 12:02pm | #

I wish congress would just let the states adapt to changing marriage norms. Unless al-qaeda is planning a massive group homosexual marriage so its members don't have to testify against each other, this is not a federal concern.

parse | June 30, 2008, 12:06pm | #

Lamar, this may be news to you, but straight men married to women troll for gay sex, too!

joe, I wouldn't be too sure you know what gay men who have sex in restrooms are looking for. Some of us find that anonymous sex actually does have an appeal that sex with someone you know doesn't have. Hard to imagine, i know, but we like cruising. We're not just doing it because we couldn't have sex otherwise.

liberty mike | June 30, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Lamar- 11:32 am

What if the Shue were on the other foot?

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 12:11pm | #

"Lamar, this may be news to you, but straight men married to women troll for gay sex, too!"

So you are saying that there are gay men who are straight and married to women?

Are you a "straight" male who likes sex with men? Is that what we're talking about here? I mean, sure pal, you're still straight even though you like sex with men.

T | June 30, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Damn. And here I was asked to officiate at a gay wedding just last week. I suppose I'll have to tell the boys that whatever we call it, we can't call it a marriage because the gummint said so.

Oh, wait, the ceremony has no legal force since Texas won't recognize it anyway. Fuck it, we'll call it whatever we want.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 12:15pm | #

I think Parse is defining "straight men" as "men who will have sex with other men as well as women, and possibly the hole in the fence."

jtuf | June 30, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Senator Craig gets involved with more than just marriage definitions. When I was looking for the bill he co-sponsored, I saw that he introduced S. 2582. It would grant US political asylum to the Bregaj family. I guess he has a habit of overstepping his authority.

joe | June 30, 2008, 12:21pm | #

Lamar, this may come as a surprise to you, but there are some vegetarians who eat Big Macs, too!

Yup, parse, "straight men." Straight, dammit! 100% man!

That's because I was afraid he was going to fall down and hurt himself. The man's pants were around his ankles for Christ's sake!

parse | June 30, 2008, 12:25pm | #

Are you a "straight" male who likes sex with men? Is that what we're talking about here? I mean, sure pal, you're still straight even though you like sex with men.

No, Lamar, I'm a gay man who's had sex with plenty of straight men. They had no interest in forging an emotional relationship with another man that included sex, and given the option they would, 100% of the time, choose sex with a woman over sex with a man. But when the options were (a) sex with a man or (b) no sex whatsoever, they were happy to take a blowjob from a willing queer. Your definition ""men who will have sex with other men as well as women, and possibly the hole in the fence" is probably not true for all straight men, but it's certainly true for some of them.

And please, don't tell me that such men are bisexual. I've had sex with women before, I'm not straight or bi in any sense that wouldn't reduce those labels into complete incomprehensibility. (I've had sex with bisexual men, too, and there's a difference.)

parse | June 30, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Lamar, this may come as a surprise to you, but there are some vegetarians who eat Big Macs, too!

Interesting, joe, because from the time I graudated college until I started eating fish a few years ago, a period of more than 30 years, I was a vegetarian. And I got arrested once on a Friday--this was in New York City, during an era when if you got arrested on a Friday, you weren't going to see a judge for at least 72 hours, maybe longer.

When we got fed in the holding cell, the only thing they offered were baloney sandwiches on stale bread. And for more than two and a half days, all I had to each was 8 slices of stale bread.

On the evening of the third day, with the hope I'd soon see a judge but no guarantee of it, one of the guards bought a bucket of fried chicken for the guys in the cell. I took a drumstick and ate it, and I cracked the bone and sucked out the marrow.

I guess technically, I wasn't a vegetarian anymore. But I still considered myself one.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 12:32pm | #

Damn. And here I was asked to officiate at a gay wedding just last week.

Who won?

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 12:40pm | #

I'm a gay man who's had sex with plenty of straight men.

No you haven't. You've had sex with men who won't admit they are gay or bi. Opening the definition of "straight" out to including any number of male lovers is just a way to to deny the existence of men who do not want to have sex with other men. Closeted gay men can call themselves whatever they feel like, but it doesn't change the definition of the word.

If you have the right to own your sexuality, I have the right to own my too.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 12:44pm | #

SugarFree,

Does this make me a weldosexual?

BTW, all of you folks with these sloppy sexual identification rules, what about those of us who have not had sex with males and do not want to at all?*

*But do think it would be cool to live with a lifelong partner with mechanical skills, a sense of distance, seperate bedrooms and lots of fun sex with each other?

joe | June 30, 2008, 12:44pm | #

So, in other words parse, your fascinating anecdote about being forced to eat meat because you had no other options is wholly distinct from the subject of men who actively go out and look for other men, and not women, to have sex with.

You like to tell youself that the men you are having sex with are straight. Fine. On more than one occasion, I've told myself the women I've had sex with are one of a number of famous actresses.

Guess what? They weren't.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 12:45pm | #

"And please, don't tell me that such men are bisexual. I've had sex with women before, I'm not straight or bi in any sense that wouldn't reduce those labels into complete incomprehensibility."

At some point we stopped talking about the real world and started focusing on rare and minute exceptions to the rule, and then, for whatever reason, we started to assume that those exceptions were the norm. We'll, at least you did.

If a man is sexually attracted to a man, that's a gay man. If he is NOT sexually attracted, yet forced by some circumstance to do a man, then maybe he isn't gay. Or where there is no sexual attraction, but sticking another man proclaims dominance.

See the common thread here? The men are not sexually attracted to men. Whereas the guy trolling for gay sex in the bathroom is 9 times out of 9 attracted to your queer rim jobs. And that is gay.

parse | June 30, 2008, 12:52pm | #

Sugar Free, I'm not denying that there are straight men who don't want to have sex with other men and who wouldn't do so, regardless of the circumstances. But if you define "straight" to include only those men, I think you might end up with more men who are not straight then men who are. And I don't think it actually reflects the way the word is commonly used.

Many of these labels used to identify people have a less than perfect fit, but that doesn't mean they are completely without meaning. As I've said before, it's technically true that Barack Obama is of mixed-race. But I think you can call him "black," and people know what you are talking about. Using the kind of strict definition joe wants to insist on, you would be equally correct in calling him "white". But that wouldn't make sense to most people.

I think the same is true for straight--most people use the term to describe a sexual identity, even one that doesn't conform absolutely and unequivocably to sexual practice. That's why it makes sense for me to say I'm gay, even thought I have had sex with women.

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 1:00pm | #

I think you might end up with more men who are not straight then men who are.

I'm fine with that.

The Obama analogy is flawed. Calling a mixed-race man with African features black doesn't destroy the notion of black. If "straight" includes sex with men, the word is then meaningless.

Maybe we need a new word. How about "poonhound"?

parse | June 30, 2008, 1:02pm | #

So, in other words parse, your fascinating anecdote about being forced to eat meat because you had no other options is wholly distinct from the subject of men who actively go out and look for other men, and not women, to have sex with.

joe, you are the one who suggested that "vegitarian" had an same absolute definitionm just like "straight". Now, apparently, the defintion isn't so absolute after all. Now a straight man can have sex with other men--just as long as he doesn't actively go out and look for other men.

Listen, if that definition works for you, I think that's fine. And I don't think it's so terrible as a definition. But it shares with my defintion that "straight" has more to do with the preferred object of attraction than an absolute record of one's sexual practice.

You like to tell youself that the men you are having sex with are straight. Fine. On more than one occasion, I've told myself the women I've had sex with are one of a number of famous actresses.

It's not a matter of me telling myself that the men I have sex with are straight. I have a partner that I've been in a relationship with for 10 years. He's not straight--he's bissexual. I have sex with men sometimes who aren't bisexual--they are gay. And I have sex sometimes with men who are straight. These guys, at least for me, have sexual identities that differ in noticeable ways, and it makes sense for me to use these words to differentiate between them. If it threatens you to think of straight men who might have sex with other men, my rough sorting of partners probably wouldn't be useful to you. So be it.

joe | June 30, 2008, 1:13pm | #

parse,

Not being sexually attracted to men IS an absolute definition.

If I eat a handful of grass, it doesn't make me a sheep. It doesn't even make me an herbibore. People in Ireland during the farmine did exactly that. People can make themselves do all kinds of things, especially when they are in extremis.

But it shares with my defintion that "straight" has more to do with the preferred object of attraction than an absolute record of one's sexual practice. That is not your definition, at leat not the one you started out, as your original definitin included men who choose to cruise for gay sex in bathrooms, who seek it out when other options are available.

You can keep telling yourself I'm feeing threatened, just as you can keep telling yourself that men who come onto you because they want to have gay sex are straight. Whatever gets you through the night.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 1:16pm | #

Oh parse. joe is right. Being forced to do something is not the same as doing it of your own free will, and it is even further away from actively desiring something.

Regardless of whether it happens or not, straight men do not desire sex with other men, by definition.

Why Certainly | June 30, 2008, 1:23pm | #

Quick! Someone notify Noah Webster! Geez . . . People: Grab a dictionary. Some of you are behaving as if human sexuality has never been studied. Heck, grab a human sexuality textbook. For example: ". . . and possibly the hole in the fence"; this person is eloquently regarded as a "fence-f*cker" in "Our Sexuality," it of course being the 69th edition. Question: Does one homosexual experience equate to a person being a homosexual? Not in my book. You can keep asking what about the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., but then if you counter this point, then the argument is reduced to a slippery slope. And what does this have to do with this article? We aren't defining homosexuality. We're talking about gay men and women getting married and whether it should be legal. Keep your eye on his balls . . . Ah-hem . . . just the ball, thanks.

J | June 30, 2008, 1:23pm | #

Definitions are silly things aren't they? I am willing to call a man who has had sex (without any attraction) with another man once to try it straight, maybe. But, realistically, straight means only sexually interested in the opposite gender. There may be men that you've met that strongly prefer women, but occasionally are interested in gay sex: I would call those bisexual that strongly prefer women. They are more similar to bisexual men who like both equally than straight men who are not at all interested in men, in terms of sexual preference. Straight and gay are not "big tent" definitions - if anything is, bisexual is.

thoreau | June 30, 2008, 1:35pm | #

How about we just agree that there is a spectrum of orientations, and that there are people who are pretty close to one edge of the spectrum but not 100% at that edge?

ellipsis | June 30, 2008, 1:39pm | #

I don't know if has anything to do with the subject at hand, but lots of straight men cheat on their wives/girlfriends with other women. A certain percentage of the population, in both genders, has a psychological leaning towards cheat. I would think that would extend to gay/lesbian relationships too. Gay marriage should be allowed because it's about freedom, not because it might hypothetically cure somebody's problems.

I realize Radley posted this thread as a satirical look at some clowns in Congress, and so I digress.

As you were.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 1:48pm | #

"How about we just agree that there is a spectrum of orientations, and that there are people who are pretty close to one edge of the spectrum but not 100% at that edge?"

According to John Hall, there are things that are gay and not gay, with nothing in between. For example, watching straight porn with other guys is gay, yet having a woman peg you while calling you a queer is straight.

I'm not sure who the tranny is lip syncing, but that's the John Hall version.

parse | June 30, 2008, 1:49pm | #

joe

maybe we aren't so far apart.

Not being sexually attracted to men IS an absolute definition.

I know this isn't immediately apparent--and I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm talking about practices you haven't participated in and haven't had any reason to think in detail about--but there are men who go cruising for sex in toilets who aren't sexually attracted to men. In many of these "tearooms" there are "glory holes" fashioned so that when a guy sticks his dick through to get it sucked, he can't even see who it is on the other end. And for some of the guys getting a blow job, this isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's very much a feature.

And maybe you'll say--but there are other options. If they weren't attracted to men at all, they'd employ the other options. But I think for a significant number of straight men, the options for getting an immediate, no strings attached, no emotional involvement blow job, absent a willing gay man ready to provide the service, are few and far between. so if you really, really like getting blow jobs and have no sexual attraction to men--but no antipathy for gay sex either--cruising toilets is a perfectly sensible solution.

If you still think it makes more sense to you to define these guys as gay or bisexual, even guys who would lose their hard on if they let themselves focus on the fact that the mouth on the other side of the whole almost certainly is attached to a male body, then go right ahead and do it. I was out of line to suggest that the only motivation for making such a definition was feeling your own sexual identity threatened. I apologize for that.

But for me, that kind of definition wouldn't make sense. Because then I might expect the guy to react to me the way a gay guy, or a bisexual guy (gay or bisexual the way I define it) would react to me. And my expectations would be continually confounded.

I have some interest in having an operational definition that wouldn't be useful at all for you, because you aren't using it the way I need to use it. Not surprising, then, you should have a defintion that's different from mine.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 1:54pm | #

So, what do you call those guys who are really dramatic, flail their hands about and speak all lispy?

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 2:11pm | #

Theater majors.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 2:14pm | #

SF,

I was thinking enterprise engineers, but sometimes that line is blurred.

T | June 30, 2008, 2:17pm | #

Damn. And here I was asked to officiate at a gay wedding just last week.

Who won?

Apparently if the ceremony goes off without a hitch, we all lose, according to Senators Craig and Vitter.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 2:18pm | #

Apparently if the ceremony goes off without a hitch, we all lose, according to Senators Craig and Vitter.

A dramatic couple they are. Going off a week before and all.

Are they both enterprise engineers or is one a theater major?

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Um, that was my entire point....

I would affirm that being in the military but anti-war is far less convoluted than being a "straight man" who seeks blowjobs from anonymous strangers in the Men's restroom and passes bills seeking to block gay marriage, apparently on the basis that it's "unnatural".

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 2:21pm | #

GM,

If Enterprise engineers are so queeny, so you think anything ever happen between Scotty and Sulu?

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 2:23pm | #

If you still think it makes more sense to you to define these guys as gay or bisexual, even guys who would lose their hard on if they let themselves focus on the fact that the mouth on the other side of the whole almost certainly is attached to a male body, then go right ahead and do it. I was out of line to suggest that the only motivation for making such a definition was feeling your own sexual identity threatened. I apologize for that.

I grant you such a guy would have serious issues that might not be repressed homosexuality.*

*But in fact probably is. I mean, you gotta be pretty hypersexual and deviant to do something like that.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 2:24pm | #

SF,

Icky visual.

BTW, soon after I posted I saw the inadvertant opening for Star Trek stuff.

I was thinking more those Ent. Eng. folk who act like Dr. Smith from Lost in Space.

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 2:29pm | #

I mean, sexuality is based mostly on feedback between state of mind and behavior, so how can (yes I know there's a continuum, but) a person identify as straight (not bisexual) when gettin' mustachioed BJs through glory holes?

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 2:30pm | #

I think I put my "Gay Robot" link in the wrong thread.

SugarFree | June 30, 2008, 2:37pm | #

Art-P.O.G.,

Gay robot links are always welcome in any thread.

Guy Montag | June 30, 2008, 2:40pm | #

Gay robots? You mean actual gay ones and not C3P0? Are the lesbian ones hot?

Reminds me of whales for some reason.

joe | June 30, 2008, 2:42pm | #

thoreau,

I can buy the "spectrum" theory. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but it's certainly internally logical.

What isn't internally logical is to define categories "gay" "bisecxual" and "straight," and then include men who are sexually attracted to other men in the "straight" category.

parse,

If they consider the fact that they can't tell who'se on the other side of the hole a "feature," that's because knowing that it is a man would ruin the experience. That's because they are not gay, and for someone who is not gay, the vision of having sex with a guy is distinctly unappealing.

I understand what you're saying about the "straight" guys responding differently to you than gay or bisexual guys. I think you are using "straight" as a shorthand for "closeted gay" here. An actual straight guy would respond in yet a different manner - by either not getting that you're hitting on him, or not being interested at all.

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 2:54pm | #

Gay Robot here.

parse | June 30, 2008, 2:56pm | #

So folks, when people say "Larry Craig is a closeted gay man," do you think you should correct them, and say, "No, he's bisexual because he has sex with women. You can't be gay if you have sex with women"?

joe, I'm just not getting through to you. I've known closeted gay men as well, and that's not what on talking about. If you expected that a closeted gay man might experience a particular kind of emotional attraction to another man, whether he was willing to act on it or not, your expectations would often be correct. If you expected that of the "straight men who have gay sex" that I'm talking about, you will almost certainly be wrong.

If they consider the fact that they can't tell who'se on the other side of the hole a "feature," that's because knowing that it is a man would ruin the experience. That's because they are not gay, and for someone who is not gay, the vision of having sex with a guy is distinctly unappealing.

This is close, and what I've been trying to say. I guess now the challenge is to get you to understand that it's not all that uncommon. And to understand that, you'd have to understand that for some guys who are not gay, the vision of having sex with a guy isn't appealing, but it isn't particularly unappealing, either. Listen, I'm not attracted at all to women, but I don't think they're gross.

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 3:36pm | #

Listen, I'm not attracted at all to women, but I don't think they're gross.

Did you have sex with women just to confirm to yourself that you were gay?

Also, the ability to have hardcore anal with another dude without the emotional attachments could be a sign of a lot of things, but not necessarily heterosexuality.

parse | June 30, 2008, 3:59pm | #

Did you have sex with women just to confirm to yourself that you were gay?

No, I had sex with women because I was horny. And the first time I had sex with a woman (which was the first time I had sex with anybody), part of the reason was to reassure myself that I wasn't gay. And I really enjoyed the sex. But I still had a pretty good idea I was gay, which was confirmed for me a couple of months later when I had sex with a guy.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 4:09pm | #

"So folks, when people say "Larry Craig is a closeted gay man," do you think you should correct them, and say, "No, he's bisexual because he has sex with women. You can't be gay if you have sex with women"?"

One more time for the boys in the back row: It isn't whether a gay man has sex with a woman. It is about what he is sexually attracted to. It isn't about any kind of emotional bonding or weepy bed time stories. If he is turned on by men, then he is gay. If he is turned on by men, women and glory holes, then he is bi. His marital status or who he has slept with is not a part of the definition. It is evidence, perhaps, that the definition is misapplied, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

parse | June 30, 2008, 4:37pm | #

So, Lamar, in the case like Larry Craig, do you think it's possible for a man to have sex, perhaps even routinely, with women, even though he's not sexually attracted to them?

Do you suppose it might be possible for a man to have sex, perhaps even routinely, with men, even though he's not sexually attracted to them?

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 4:43pm | #

Yeah, parse, but there's a clear social advantage to be gained by one scenario that's pretty much absent from the others.

Lamar | June 30, 2008, 4:44pm | #

Parse: Show me where the society pressure is to conform to a "married but trolling for gay sex" standard, and maybe I'll give some credence to that argument. You, by contrast, have to admit that the societal "norm" is to marry a woman, have children, etc. So it is much more likely that a gay man will continue to have sex with a woman than it is for a straight man to go against societal norms for gay sex.

Art-P.O.G. | June 30, 2008, 4:45pm | #

In fact, I know several straight guys who use fat girls in a similar way to the way you claim "straight men who have sex with men" use gay men.

Happy Jack | June 30, 2008, 5:08pm | #

On more than one occasion, I've told myself the women I've had sex with are one of a number of famous actresses.

Rosie O'Donnell ?

parse | June 30, 2008, 5:36pm | #

Yeah, Lamar and Art-P.O.G., I do admit the reason a man not sexually attracted to men would have sex with a man is completely different from the reason a gay man would have sex with a woman. And Art-P.O.G. figured out pretty quickly what the reason is--it's an available body. I don't know if any fat women would be pleased to be called a "cum dump," but since there are gay men who don't mind that at all, at least in the bathroom trolling scenario, both participants are getting what they want.

Douglas Fletcher | June 30, 2008, 8:16pm | #

Isn't linking to the Huffington Post a form of encouraging insanity?

Sister DinahMight | June 30, 2008, 8:58pm | #

however this snickering piece doesn't address the fundamental problems of gay marriage.

which are?

No, I'm saying that straight married men cruise bathrooms for gay sex, so I imagine gay married men will do the same.

cruising bathrooms for straight men that want gay sex is useless. straight men do not want gay sex. they are bisexual (or polysexual) men.

just 'cause they have your c**k in their mouth doesn't make them gay. it makes them bi.

mWAH
Sr. DinahMight

Sister DinahMight | June 30, 2008, 9:05pm | #

How about we just agree that there is a spectrum of orientations, and that there are people who are pretty close to one edge of the spectrum but not 100% at that edge?

We have The Kinsey Report on this, which details the sexual attraction "spectrum" from 0 (pure heterosexual) to 6 (pure homosexual).

mWAH
Sr. DinahMight, A Kinsey 5.9

REGGIN | June 30, 2008, 10:48pm | #

Sorry, but I just don't see how this is "hypocrisy."

What does a heterosexual male cheating on his wife with a female prostitute have to do with homosexual marriage?

What does a man wanting to have homosexual sex in a bathroom have to do with homosexual marriage?

Is it possible that they are merely doing their jobs? That is to say, that the citizens of both Louisiana and Idaho strongly support a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage, and so they are properly representing them?

Nolanimrod | June 30, 2008, 10:52pm | #

Dear Sister,

Ain't nuthin pure about it.

Bob | July 1, 2008, 12:05am | #

Someone asked, "Who's trolling for what?"

I'd like to troll for walleyes, but it's getting a little late for them and there aren't many around anyway.

Trolling for salmon is fun but they're deep now and my downriggers won't go down that far.

I'll probably end up trolling for bass and pike and not getting much action unless the sheepshead are hitting and then all hell will break loose.

For a fishing blog, there sure are a lot of OT posters here.

Sgt. Hulka | July 1, 2008, 6:21am | #

It is a sad indictment on contemporary America that some folks had to be instructed on the origins of:
"If any of you homos, you know, touch me, I'll kill you.

Lighten up francis."

Cultural philisitines!

Art-P.O.G. | July 1, 2008, 6:41am | #

What does a man wanting to have homosexual sex in a bathroom have to do with homosexual marriage?

Really? Sexual politics too opaque?

MJ | July 1, 2008, 7:18am | #

"At some point we stopped talking about the real world and started focusing on rare and minute exceptions to the rule, and then, for whatever reason, we started to assume that those exceptions were the norm."-Lamar

Which happens to be a big part of most of the arguments here for homosexual marriage being some kind of right.

Whatever Craig and Vitter's actual sexuality is, unless they are for a homsexual marriage for themselves, they are not hypocrites. Saying that a homosexual must be for homosexual marrige is rather like saying that a black person must be for affirmative action.

Lamar | July 1, 2008, 9:53am | #

"Which happens to be a big part of most of the arguments here for homosexual marriage being some kind of right."

I think its more about the rights that go with being married rather than the term "marriage" itself, though you'll find plenty of folks who will disagree with that sentiment and cry "separate but equal" when such a distinction is made.

"Whatever Craig's or Vitter's actual sexuality is, unless they are for a homosexual marriage for themselves, they are not hypocrites. Saying that a homosexual must be for homosexual marriage is rather like saying that a black person must be for affirmative action."

The only instances of the word "hypocrite" I could find anywhere are (1) the sarcasm at the end of the article, and (2) your post. Instead of calling them hypocrites, I would call them opportunistic self-loathing gays who periodically introduce worthless legislation in the name of needlessly dividing the country. Their own gay exploits call into question their motives and veracity, not hypocrisy.

bubba | July 1, 2008, 4:19pm | #

The "hypocrisy" argument is a non-sequitor. One can be a flaming queen and still believe that society is better served by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

What if you simply don't want your boyfriend nagging you about marriage?

MJ | July 1, 2008, 7:50pm | #

"I think its more about the rights that go with being married rather than the term "marriage" itself,..."

Lamar, that may be your personal viewpoint on this issue, but it is not how gay activists are generally engaging it. The recent CA Supreme Court ruling was specifically on the use of the term "marriage". All other rights and privileges associated were already available to homosexual couples under CA's civil union law. If it's only about the "the rights that go with being married" and not the term itself, then why bother?

"Dan Sweeney at the Huffington Post thinks this is hypocrisy. I disagree."

Lamar, if you accuse someone of being engaged in hypocrisy you are calling them a hypocrite. It's what the word means, you know. The only way to read Balko's post as being sarcastic is if he actually does agree with Sweeney.

BG | July 2, 2008, 12:20am | #

Lamar, that may be your personal viewpoint on this issue, but it is not how gay activists are generally engaging it. The recent CA Supreme Court ruling was specifically on the use of the term "marriage". All other rights and privileges associated were already available to homosexual couples under CA's civil union law. If it's only about the "the rights that go with being married" and not the term itself, then why bother?

Well, they might have had access to all the same state-level rights and benefits. But no same-sex couple (not even those legally called "marriages" which exist in a few states) has access to the federal rights and benefits because of the "Defense of Marriage act".

I don't think the name difference is a big deal, as long as the legal rights and benefits are equal. However, one possible motive for people caring what the relationship is officially called (aside from the symbolic significance) is so the federal benefits will be granted to them by default if and when DOMA is repealed.

BG | July 2, 2008, 12:42am | #

Also, this is a bit late, but I want to respond to Mike Volpe's link.

The canard: "Nearly all heterosexual marriages produce children, which benefits society.", or some version of it, gets thrown around a lot.

1 - It must be asked: Doesn't reproduction only benefit society up to a certain point? In a country (and a world) where overpopulation looms as a potential problem on the horizon; don't we need to re-examine the idea that we should provide public rewards for producing offspring? After all, people are already inclined to engage to do so often enough, and too many offspring could be problematic. And if it is desirable to have a greater number of people in the country, (if not on the planet), couldn't that be largely taken care of by a more open immigration policy?

2 - Lets say it is desirable to reward increasing the population, and that is the reason for extending legal benefits to straight married couples. Why extend those benefits to infertile couples, or those that chose not to reproduce? And why not allow same-sex couples those benefits if they intend to adopt a child from a third-world country, or an overburdened state foster care system? These acts don't increase the number of people in the world. But the former increases the number of people in the country, and the latter reduces the obligations of the state. Also these acts of adoption are generally recognized laudable when performed by married straight couples. So why not allow gay couples to marry - and receive the same legal treatment for performing the same actions?

3 - If the reason for extending benefits to straight couples is not about bearing or raising children, but instead it is some other reason, why not allow gay couples to have access to the same benefits? As a matter of equal legal rights, they should be allowed to marry and be treated the same.

GS | July 2, 2008, 2:01pm | #

We can't expect them to take personal responsibility for what they did. Society made them do it.

You've got to be kidding me. If that's the case, open up the doors to every prison and let them go cause... "society made them do it".

Every one who has ever cheated, lied, killed, mamed, abused, committed adultery... it's ok... "society" made you do it.

Uh... wake up people.. there is nothing wrong with gay people or gay marriage. Quit being scared little lemmings.

Prox | July 2, 2008, 2:36pm | #

Insofar as being Gay is a cultural construct defined by a person with an openly same-sex attraction, (Openly being the key word, or the part that is constructed, if you like,) Parse is right. People are what they define themselves as. There are gays, bi's, and then there are closet cases. People in the closet are not Gay, no matter how convenient of a word it is to use. They have homosexual tendencies or whatever you like, but they are not Gay. You aren't Gay until you tell people you are. Until then, you're just a loser. Or Straight. That's why laws on the subject don't ever use the word "gay".

Nothing would make gay politics easier to understand that clarifying this distinction of esteem in the public mind. Every nasty thing Fundies accuse gays of doing are actually committed by closet cases most of the time. They're speaking from experience, see? While "Gays" are likely to date and try to settle down someday, no closet case will be doing that with another man. Not successfully anyway.

Legitimate (non-Christian-funded) studies show that of men who molest boys, only 1 in 50 define themselves as Gay. Good news for closet cases joining the Scouts. But people looking from the outside tend to define all same-sex touching as Gay, and that just isn't accurate. That's how all this propaganda gets started. Most of those chesters don't care what sex the kid is. Paul Cameron (Christian) studies say all 50 guys are gay because it was a boy. See how this works?

In other illogic, Fundies call Gays promiscuous, for having sex outside of marriage, and then want to deny them legal recognition for partnerships. Sure, men by themselves are sluts, but maybe they'd be less so, and spread less disease, if there was another much more acceptable option.

What a nice world it would be if they reserved all of their hatred for just closet cases instead; if that was the horrible thing to be. So many problems would go away, after Parse got done complaining that his bathhouse/park sex culture was evaporating, that is. (Which it already is anyway.)