posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
08.30.07 (8:48 am)
Hey, when you go around for 30 years telling everyone you're the party of morality, you're gonna get knocked on the head when someone slips up.
Democrats, while the party of "tolerance and compassion," never really cornered the market on morality (see Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds), so they get a pass. It's only fair.
posted by:
squirrelzone (
reply)
post date:
08.30.07 (9:17 am)
You see the same thing on Date Line during "To catch a predator" series. The people getting caught say, "Oh I was just talking to the 13 year old I wasn't going to do anything." I think it's time for the public to take a stand against behavior like this and make them accountable. Not all that long ago here in America people were afraid of public ridicule but thanks to diversity it is killing us. We need to stop teaching that the sinner and the saint are on equal grounds. If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything...an old say that means so much more today as ever. Plus, it's not about being democrat, conservative or a liberal. It's about doing what's right and getting your jollies off in a public restroom is not right.
posted by:
IntricateGirl (
reply)
post date:
08.30.07 (9:48 am)
Several thoughts from a liberal...
1) I know a fair number of gay males. They are ALL outraged that people now think they have sex in bathroom stalls, OR that they would even pick up people in a bathroom for sex elsewhere. Just as you find it disgusting, so do they.
2) On a similar thought, I once had a friend (female) who met her boyfriend in an airport bathroom for sex. I found it morally weak, and it had nothing to do with homosexual behavior. But if she had been caught, the police would have laughed it off. Maybe even winked at the guy. After all, he's just a good, red-blooded American getting some tail. I can (NOT would) walk up to any man and offer him sex, and as long as he's not paying for it, I'm in the clear. If a gay person does this, they are arrested. I'm sorry, but I definitely see this as a problem. It's not about ME saying whether it's wrong or not. It's that I don't feel that our Senators and Presidents are in any position to legislate morality, and I'd prefer they keep themselves out of my bedroom.
3) I watched a video this morning. In recent history, Republicans have actually had far more sex scandals than Democrats, at a rate of 10 to 5. These are issues where the public has been made aware of sexual misconduct. So the idea that Republicans hold a lock on being the party of upstanding morality is a load of bull-hockey in my opinion.
4) I am not taking joy in this as a liberal. Obviously, he is facing some deep problems over this. If it's an innocent mistake, he should have shown a stronger character and fought against it. If it is not an innocent mistake, he should work out his issues privately, rather than having it worked out for him on the front page of a newspaper. I've made my own mistakes, but I am extremely lucky to be allowed to deal with my shame privately. This man is not that fortunate.
5) You wrote, "If he is truly not guilty, then he needs to make his case, verbally and clearly." The truth is, legally, it's too late. He IS guilty, because that's how he plead. As far as real guilt or innocence, it's not mine to determine, but your boss's.
6) I don't know what newspapers you're reading, but I haven't seen one yet that's "quick to forgive the sins of a liberal". Clinton's actions were a mistake, but he was, and still IS, dragged over the coals for it.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
08.30.07 (12:16 pm)
Conservatives love to promote themselves as superior because of the emphasis they place on family values and moral conduct. So when one is revealed as a hypocrite, he deserves to be ridiculed.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
08.30.07 (6:09 pm)
I feel sorry for the guy. He's obviously gay but his upbringing has taught him his sexuality is wrong, so instead of living his life proudly as who he is, he's forced by the silliness he's come to believe to fake his way through life, and ends up stooping to this sort of disgusting behavior.
As to why this sort of thing is seen as worse in people who have taken the sort of public stands he's taken for the past twenty-five years? Well, if you don't get it, it's simply because you don't want to.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (6:16 am)
Reply to: heavyarms
Fair enough. So, where's the tolerance and compassion for this man? I listened to a bit of the recorded conversation between Craig & the arresting officer. Craig seemed adamant that he was innocent, and badgered by the officer. Perhaps he was browbeat and deceived into pleading guilty? Where's the compassion?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (6:23 am)
Reply to: squirrelzone
Help me with the "fine line" here. The new morality says it is o.k. for two men to engage in anal sex. The response is, "Who are you to judge?" Conventional wisdom tells us that a man can participate in such a lifestyle and still be an upstanding citizen and a highly moral person. So, two quality men find a place of privacy- a bathroom stall is pretty much a sealed booth- and choose to do mutually acceptable things to one another. They do it quietly. Thus, according to the morality of man people, surely they have done nothing wrong- nothing deserving arrest, ridicule, and resignation. Please, someone, tell me what is wrong with this picture.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (6:27 am)
Reply to: bawdy
I agree. And so it is politically most expedient to be publicly agnostic concerning family values and moral conduct, yet always poised to stamp a scarlet H upon the forehead of any who proclaim otherwise. This seems to me a cowardly way to go through life.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (6:33 am)
Reply to: surrogate
Let's see if he is obviously gay. Even now, zealous investigators hell-bent upon his destruction are sifting through every moment of his life, praying for some semi-evidence that he indeed is gay. For some I guess it is not really a matter of morality, just a quest to destroy another politician.
I understand Craig has taken some conservative stands on moral issues. I'm not agreeing, at this point, that he is either guilty or gay.
But I've a question: Can a man be gay, and a person of integrity, and yet opposed to the gay political agenda of the American left? I'm interested in your thoughts.
posted by:
heavyarms (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (6:39 am)
PDave: well, I did forget to type the unspoken liberal caveat that is tacked on after "compassion" that states "except for conservatives because they like to go around pretending they're better than everone else."
Conservatives love to promote themselves as superior because of the emphasis they place on family values and moral conduct. So when one is revealed as a hypocrite, he deserves to be ridiculed.
See?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (6:50 am)
Reply to: IntricateGirl
The public seemed to have no problem forgiving Bill Clinton for the Lewinski scandal and lying under oath. He was easily re-elected, and remains very popular. I think the average American saw through the rhetoric, and knew this was an attempt at political crucifixion for a moral failure. Most people do not require their political representatives to be morally outstanding. Of course, there is a block of Republicans who will disagree.
So, what is different about Craig? Clinton did a stupid thing with a woman. Craig did a REALLY stupid thing, with a MAN. I think you are right about the double-standard. America is not as forgiving of gay miscreants. But aren't you a bit disappointed with how the Democrats, supposedly advocates of gay Americans, are so quick to seize these kinds of opportunities for political gain? By playing the morality card when it gets people fired or elected, yet generally being against any kind of definitive moral stance, it seems hypocritical to me.
One more thing: I try not to throw out these terms "liberal" and "conservative" too much. I realize that most of us who try to think and have genuine convictions fall between the terms in a variety of issues. They are unfair labels. Still, in Washington, every Representative falls somewhere in one camp or the other.
I do appreciate that you point out that your friends, who are gay, are upset about this unfair portrayal of the gay lifestyle. I agree that most gay persons would not participate in such disgusting behaviour. It has come to the point, though, for me that I avoid highway rest stops while traveling because of the gay men who tend to lurk there. I've never had a problem at airport restrooms, although there was recently a big bust at our local airport.
posted by:
IntricateGirl (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (8:16 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
To be honest, I didn't have a problem forgiving Clinton. The person he needed to apologize to the most was his wife, and to a lesser degree, Monica Lewinsky. I don't care for Hillary, and I won't vote for her even if she's the only one on the ballot. But I've got to give the woman credit. She went through a very difficult time in her marriage, and however she got through it, she managed to make it work. The press, however, was much less forgiving.
I am disappointed in the Democrats, but not EXACTLY for the reason you said. Yes, I am frustrated that they are using opportunities such as this for political gain. But the Republicans also engage in this. And if that's the face of politics, I suppose they'd better perfect their game. The thing that disappoints me in Democrats is the same thing that disappoints me in Republicans. When are they going to all stop being childish and actually do their jobs? It's truly time for a third (fourth, and fifth) party, but I don't see it happening. Both groups need to remember that they serve at MY leisure, and when I disapprove, I can and will replace them.
Don't worry about conservative and liberal labels with me. I AM a liberal, and I'm more comfortable with that term than with Democrat. I'm not a registered Democrat, but I am a liberal. I see the system as being broken. I want change. I do not want mindless change, but I want an elected leader who carefully considers their options, and moves the country forward. I'm still looking for that particular candidate.
Fair point on the bathrooms. There are certain parks I avoid because of the rumored activities. Often times, the people you find in those parks are having a deep struggle within themselves. They often have wives and children at home, and are worried about losing everything. I'm not half smart enough to end the debate on nature vs. nurture and answer whether they are gay, straight, or even bisexual. But that aside, gay men who are comfortable with being gay don't usually feel the need to hide in bathrooms and solicit sex from strangers.
And finally, though I think we probably stand at opposite sides on this issue, your points are well thought out and clearly articulated. I'm not writing any of this in anger or frustration, because it's simply differing viewpoints, and I can deal with that. In other words, you're a great person to argue politics with. :D :)
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (9:45 am)
Reply to: IntricateGirl
You are awfully smart. Would you consider expanding the subject matters of your personal blog?
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (11:22 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
It is politically expedient to practice what you preach.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (1:44 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
"the gay political agenda of the American left"
You mean the one where gay people don't want to be discrimnated against? I guess he could. Hell, a lot of brainwashed poor people vote Republican, and that's kind of goofy too, so anything's possible.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
08.31.07 (1:54 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
By the way, I don't know if he's guilty, though God knows he sure sounded like guilty guy during that audio interview I heard four or five times last night with the cop who busted him, but if he's not gay, I'd be shocked. I guessed Mark Foley was gay years ago long before I'd ever heard anything about him being so, but the mannerisms, speech patterns and body language fairly shouted - just like Craigs.
posted by:
kurtmaddox (
reply)
post date:
09.01.07 (8:06 pm)
Well, one of the issues that men who are likely genetically predisposed to desiring the same sex often fight a lifelong battle with these urges. Many of them seek the solace of religion as they internalize their strugge as one of ridding themseleves of Satan's influence of their corrupt nature. Like most repressed desires, the attraction for the same sex manifests itself in secret behaviors even as these men sometimes live otherwise traditional lives. Their internal battle with their "demon" becomes increasingly externalized in the bizzarely hypocritical ways. The drug addict that hates drugs, the porn addict that rants against pornography, the alcoholic that fights against making his county wet to protect others from the evil that's ensnared hit, etc.
The Larry Craig and Mark Foley archetype has become so well known in our society that it has been appearing in our movies and our novels on a regular basis. Remember the homophobic father in what I believe is one of the best American movies of all time -- American Beauty?
In an ironic twist, you'll also find a good number of church folks, priests, choir directors, church muscians and the like harbor homosexual urges. This isn't really that hard to understand if you get that America is a homophobic culture that's been teaching a good number of homosexuals that grow up in their churches to see their genetically given natural desires as such a heinous sin that's hated like almost no other sin on the list of big no-nos!
It's too bad really that in an age when the church long ago stopped telling the parents of epaleptic children that their children were likely posessed by demons and victimizing those children with emotionally and psychologically devastating excorcisms that religious folks continue to deny the clear scientific case for a genetic basis for homosexuality and an historical reality that a certain small percentage of human beings are always going to be gay and that their desire to make romatic connections with the same sex is just as normal as a heterosexual person's desire for a partner of the opposite sex.
We don't CHOOSE these kind of things anymore than a bird chooses to fly south for the winter. Our sexual preference is innate to our being and is determined by biology.
Do some biological heterosexuals choose against their nature and live as homosexuals? Sure they do, just as some homosexuals choose to live their lives as heterosexuals!
In another very ironic twist, the fact that our culture represses homosexuals and influences them to deny their nature actually insures that the genetic markers for homosexuality are preserved and passed down to future generations in greater numbers than would otherwise be the case or that would occur spontaneously in the gene pool.
So, if anyone's really genuinely interested to reduce the homosexual population (I'm not, of course!), then they should immediately give gays free reign to marry or whatever else helps them live happy and fulfilling gay lives without propogating their DNA.
From an evolutionary perspective, having a percentage of men NOT competing with the other alpha males in their clan in their quest to inpregnate every nubile female within grunting distance was a very healthy thing for the clan.
After all, someones gotta help the women decorate the cave and come up with tasty new ways to serve up the nightly roots and berries with mastadon stew!
posted by:
fractalmom (
reply)
post date:
09.03.07 (4:46 pm)
having watched this story from its inception i am a bit confused over it.
on the face of it, and listening to the tape, it seemed to me the senator was caught in entrapment, and never during the interrogation did he admit to anything at all.
the cop was berating him, obnoxious and loud, and was never wanting to hear what the senator had to say.
i think the senator plead guilty to shut the whole thing up. bad move.
i think he just wanted it to go away, and i cannot blame him for that.
i know many good people who have been innocent, but caught in compromising positions.
yes, it was a 'known' pick up anonymous sex place. that does not imply that the senator knew that.
on the other hand, there is past evidence and behavior to suggest that the senator does go both ways.
so, i am chalking it up to bad choices, and now, as of sept 3rd, he is no longer a senator.
posted by:
fwkabv hjyd (
reply)
post date:
09.11.07 (11:11 pm)
zsmr vzutg wptf yicmgo ckwhb nxfdc gpejot
posted by:
Robin (
reply)
post date:
09.14.07 (12:22 am)
I am SO SICK of homosexuals using "we are born like this", even supposing it is true, as an excuse for immoral, and YES, sinful, behavior.
We are ALL born with a sin nature. We are ALL predisposed to sin in one way or another. Yet God does not give us a pass and allow us to endulge in our besetting sin because we were "born that way", with a sin nature!
Heck, EVERY MAN born has a Y chromosome which produces testosterone. This hormone makes him want to sleep with every woman he meets. He fantasizes sex with everything that moves and some things that don't. So WHY is he not allowed to indulge in this behavior? After all, he was BORN that way! This is his nature! Why do we insist that he go against his nature? Oh, let him be free to experience "love" as he sees fit! Does anyone but me see the ridiculous nature of this argument?
What about pedophiles? They claim that it is their nature to desire sex with children. They can't help it either. ANd I think that the angry would be allowed to murder at will ...
Please GOD, save us from those who would exalt their sin nature over all reason and Your Word.
