Here's a funny bit from a discussion on Slate.

 

Jack Shafer: I'm all for sex. Straight. Gay. Solo outings. Orgies. But I can understand why there are laws against "lewd conduct" in public places such as bathrooms and why they're enforced. I'm not going to stick up for Craig.

 

Plotz, my cubicle-mate, asked why Craig would want to have sex in an airport. Then, channeling Saletan, he said, "Oh, it was a layover."

blue eyes and red hair are natural genetic variations that stand little in the way of evolution. Homosexuality is an aberration that is a period at the end of a genetic sentence, as is any genetic aberration that might limit the evolution and/or continuation of genetic code.

 

This subtle difference is the unfortunate postering of an agenda, just like the hesitancy to call morbidly obese kids exactly that, but instead health professionals are forced to classify all kids over their estimated weight as"over-weight".

 

Obviously no one likes to feel that the way they are is some how weaker than the next person, and I would never discriminate on those grounds and find it wrong that this guy would discriminate based on any genetic differences, aberration or otherwise.

 

Discrimination is discrimination and shouldn't stand. How one arrives at the point where one is the subject of discrimination is a whole different argument.

 

--------------------------------------------

 

ok, now here's where I talk like a human being and remove myself from the conversation. One of Mrs PA's friends recently came out and I totally ok with his lifestyle and find him to be a joy to be around. However he got to feel and be the way he is doesn't really matter to me. I would defend him against the staunchest objector to his lifestyle and hopefully will engage in some interesting conversations about his life in the future. Whether genetics are the lone culprit or nuturing and social settings had a part as well, the friendship is not defined by the fact that I like women and he likes men. Ok, back to my regularly scheduled mouth-breathing.

 

I think there's a big difference between being a fat ass and being queer. You can change your behavior to not be fat. You can not stop being queer. Even if you stop having any sexual contact, it doesn't suddenly make you heterosexual. Even if you never have that contact to begin with. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with being queer. Is it abnormal? Yeah, absolutely, but fairly common in the population too. Being a red head is abnormal, there are lots of differences that people have that make them abnormal. It is what it is.

 

What makes someone queer doesn't matter. Treating them with respect does. It's pretty clear that the Senator from Idaho didn't see fit to treat queer people with respect. It's pretty clear that the Senator engages in behavior that makes me think he doesn't respect himself either. It's both kinda sad.

 

"but homosexuality is a genetic issue"... so is being overweight, but there are plenty of people with responsible grips on their lives to overcome a propensity for certain ways of life.

 

PA, until you get past the mindset that homosexuality is a way of life that needs to be overcome, these dialogues are doomed to all go the same way. It behooves individuals and society to overcome morbid obesity, but it there is no benefit to an individual or to society when someone feels forced to try to "overcome" their gayness.

 

blue eyes and red hair are natural genetic variations that stand little in the way of evolution. Homosexuality is an aberration that is a period at the end of a genetic sentence, as is any genetic aberration that might limit the evolution and/or continuation of genetic code.

 

This subtle difference is the unfortunate postering of an agenda, just like the hesitancy to call morbidly obese kids exactly that, but instead health professionals are forced to classify all kids over their estimated weight as"over-weight".

 

I'm not going to dwell on the connotations of the term aberration, rather I'll accept it here as the label for the relatively rare homosexual trait relative to the dominant heterosexual wild type trait. By definition, however, homosexuality is insignificant to gene flow in human populations. If gay individuals tend not to reproduce and certain familial genetic lines end as a result, of what consequence is that to the survival of a species that is already overpopulating the planet to the point of near-catastrophe? If anything, humanity can do with a couple billion less breeders if we're hoping to survive for the long haul.

 

What makes someone queer doesn't matter. Treating them with respect does. It's pretty clear that the Senator from Idaho didn't see fit to treat queer people with respect. It's pretty clear that the Senator engages in behavior that makes me think he doesn't respect himself either. It's both kinda sad.

Perfect, right there.

 

I wonder what was so disorderly about waving his hand under a stall that got him arrested? Yes, we all know what it 'means', but even in prostitution stings, there has to be an explicit offer of money for sex made before the john can be busted. Merely waving the hooker over doesn't quallify. While I think this guy is a joke, I don't really understand why he was arrested, unless even more went on that what has been posted.

 

Is it abnormal? Yeah, absolutely, but fairly common in the population too.

 

Eh. I think that's a stretch. 5% of the population (if that) isn't "common." It's become "common" because mainstream pop culture has accepted, or more often promoted the practice. But regardless...

 

What makes someone queer doesn't matter. Treating them with respect does. It's pretty clear that the Senator from Idaho didn't see fit to treat queer people with respect. It's pretty clear that the Senator engages in behavior that makes me think he doesn't respect himself either. It's both kinda sad.

 

...this is spot on and I agree completely.

I think there's a big difference between being a fat ass and being queer. You can change your behavior to not be fat. You can not stop being queer. Even if you stop having any sexual contact, it doesn't suddenly make you heterosexual. Even if you never have that contact to begin with. And that's fine. There's nothing wrong with being queer. Is it abnormal? Yeah, absolutely, but fairly common in the population too. Being a red head is abnormal, there are lots of differences that people have that make them abnormal. It is what it is.

Your definition is that people are either 100% heterosexual or 100% gay, which is 100% incorrect and short sighted. That's my point. I think people can have gay desires and be happy as a heterosexual or vice versa.

 

 

What makes someone queer doesn't matter. Treating them with respect does. It's pretty clear that the Senator from Idaho didn't see fit to treat queer people with respect. It's pretty clear that the Senator engages in behavior that makes me think he doesn't respect himself either. It's both kinda sad.

 

We agree on the end point, it's just how we get there that's different.

PA, until you get past the mindset that homosexuality is a way of life that needs to be overcome, these dialogues are doomed to all go the same way. It behooves individuals and society to overcome morbid obesity, but it there is no benefit to an individual or to society when someone feels forced to try to "overcome" their gayness.

Until you understand that there are people with degrees (not PhD's ) of homosexual behavior (and no it's not as ridiculous as he's 50% homosexual or she's 33.43% lesbian) then we won't see eye to eye. Your line of logic would mean that anyone that's ever had a homosexual thought or desire and dismissed it would suppressing a small portion of who they are for the benefit of the greater part of themselves. For the benefit of the greater part of the individual we make dececisions that override the smaller desires in ourselves everyday.

 

I'm not going to dwell on the connotations of the term aberration, rather I'll accept it here as the label for the relatively rare homosexual trait relative to the dominant heterosexual wild type trait. By definition, however, homosexuality is insignificant to gene flow in human populations. If gay individuals tend not to reproduce and certain familial genetic lines end as a result, of what consequence is that to the survival of a species that is already overpopulating the planet to the point of near-catastrophe? If anything, humanity can do with a couple billion less breeders if we're hoping to survive for the long haul.

 

I would agree that it's a relatively rare trait and further agree that socially that trait can either be suppressed or developed; some people respond in extreme ways, i.e. embracing the lifestyle or fighting it with zeal. For instance someone who is immersed in theater culture is more prone to develop and explore their gay tendencies or someone that is an avid church goer at a misinformed church might become zealous against their latent desires. And then, there are some people who simply dismiss the curiosity of homosexual behavior when it enters their mind. Genetics -> Social -> Personal Choice.

 

As for over-breeding, we can probably start with K-Fed.

The Idaho Statesman has published a transcript of an interview with a man who says he engaged in sexual activities with the Senator in a Men's room in Washington's Union Station.

I think "come to peace with himself" is actually a very good phrase. If you are constantly voting and campaigning against something that you yourself do... clearly, you are internally conflicted.

 

Wait a sec here. He was voting against gay marriage, something he isn't doing.

He voted against making homosexuality a protected area in hate crimes, something he isn't doing.

 

Why would we say he is conflicted just because he doesn't believe it is good policy for the United States or his state? Put another way, are all minorities that are against quotas automatically internally conflicted? If they personally believe that all crimes are hate crimes and there should not be a further classification, internally conflicted?

 

I think we are asking too much for an entire group of people to always vote the same way.

 

 

Neighbors weigh in

 

Last fall, Craig's neighbors at a Washington marina expressed disbelief at Rogers' attempt to out him. Ed Johnson is an openly gay man, former local elected official and has been an acquaintance and neighbor of Craig's off and on for 15 years. He is president of the Gangplank Slipholders Association, a neighbor to the smaller Capital Yacht Club, where Craig lives.

 

A Democrat, Johnson works for the American Humanists Association, which he describes as "the godless, liberal, left-wing atheists."

 

"If I thought there was truth to the rumor, I'd be first in line to out him," said Johnson, who agrees hypocritical public officials should be exposed.

 

"But after 15 years in a close-knit community where everybody knows everybody's business, to be that clandestine and never have anything said — it's just hard to imagine. I mean, if somebody has a fight and breaks up with their boyfriend or girlfriend, you know it the next day."

 

I'm not certain which makes me sadder for him,

 

he may have been inaccuratly portrayed as gay all these years and, like Jim's cartoon, repeating a lie over and over again somehbow makes it true

 

or

 

anyone gives a rip that he's gay or not

 

I am also with Alpha, I still don't see what was illegal in reaching under a stall and tapping a foot.

 

 

 

I am also with Alpha, I still don't see what was illegal in reaching under a stall and tapping a foot.

Gay sex in airport bathrooms is on the rise. I recently read an article about a big sting operation in Atlanta's Hartsfield airport regarding this. Lots of men post ads in craigslist to make sure they can get a quick fix in the men's room while they are making quick stops between airports. There's a certain protocol that goes on for this and Senator Craig followed it. I find it hard to believe that he plead guilty if all he did was accidentally tap a guy's foot with his. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...indecency_N.htm

Gay sex in airport bathrooms is on the rise. I recently read an article about a big sting operation in Atlanta's Hartsfield airport regarding this. Lots of men post ads in craigslist to make sure they can get a quick fix in the men's room while they are making quick stops between airports. There's a certain protocol that goes on for this and Senator Craig followed it. I find it hard to believe that he plead guilty if all he did was accidentally tap a guy's foot with his. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...indecency_N.htm

 

 

remind me not to listen to my mp3 player in the bathroom at the airport...all that toe tapping might land you in an awkward situation.

Gay sex in airport bathrooms is on the rise. I recently read an article about a big sting operation in Atlanta's Hartsfield airport regarding this. Lots of men post ads in craigslist to make sure they can get a quick fix in the men's room while they are making quick stops between airports. There's a certain protocol that goes on for this and Senator Craig followed it. I find it hard to believe that he plead guilty if all he did was accidentally tap a guy's foot with his. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/200...indecency_N.htm

I agree. You don't plead guilty to something like this "to make it go away"... the dude did it, now it's time for him to go.

 

I'm not certain which makes me sadder for him,

 

he may have been inaccuratly portrayed as gay all these years and, like Jim's cartoon, repeating a lie over and over again somehbow makes it true

 

or

 

anyone gives a rip that he's gay or not

 

I am also with Alpha, I still don't see what was illegal in reaching under a stall and tapping a foot.

 

 

Ed Johnson is an openly gay man, former local elected official and has been an acquaintance and neighbor of Craig's off and on for 15 years. He is president of the Gangplank Slipholders Association, a neighbor to the smaller Capital Yacht Club, where Craig lives.

 

Wow. Gangplank Slipholders. SSensational name.

 

The story gets stranger.

 

 

 

 

Wow. Gangplank Slipholders. SSensational name.

 

The story gets stranger.

 

It sounds TOO fabulous. Made up even.

"The Benefit of the Doubt" is crazy. Clearly he was looking for sex. Clearly he was looking for gay sex, with another man. Clearly he is a hypocrite and a scumbag. Was what he did illegal? Seems like sexual harassment to me and harassment as well, looking through the crack. Was what he did humiliating? Absolutely. Was what he did worthy of expulsion from the United States Senate? I think so. Why would anyone bother to defend this guy? He's clearly not worthy of defense. But then again, the human willingness to defend someone for the indefensible never ceases to amaze me.

"The Benefit of the Doubt" is crazy. Clearly he was looking for sex. Clearly he was looking for gay sex, with another man. Clearly he is a hypocrite and a scumbag. Was what he did illegal? Seems like sexual harassment to me and harassment as well, looking through the crack. Was what he did humiliating? Absolutely. Was what he did worthy of expulsion from the United States Senate? I think so. Why would anyone bother to defend this guy? He's clearly not worthy of defense. But then again, the human willingness to defend someone for the indefensible never ceases to amaze me.

I haven't heard ANYONE defending this guy. NO ONE. So what's your point?

I haven't heard ANYONE defending this guy. NO ONE. So what's your point?

 

 

precisely. his story merely led to discussion.

Why would anyone bother to defend this guy? He's clearly not worthy of defense. But then again, the human willingness to defend someone for the indefensible never ceases to amaze me.

 

This is stated in general terms, y'all.

This is stated in general terms, y'all.

 

 

It doesn't seem to fit the flow of conversation if it were.

This is stated in general terms, y'all.

It was a nonsequitor. What level of detail it was at doesn't much matter when its incongruous to the thread. Seemed like he posted without reading the thread. I think thats why people reacted the way they did.

 

I still don't hear people defending him. I hear people questioning why he was arrested for waving his hand under a stall and tapping his foot (since that is all the stories, so far, say happened), but i don't think I have heard anyone saying he was setup, or innocent, etc. In fact, the Repubs stripped him of committee posts and forwarded it off to the ethics committee. A few have also called for his resignation, but they can't actually force him out, just like the Dems couldn't force out the crook in new orleans. But they can make it hard for him to stay, which they are starting to do.

So...here's a question for folks on a slightly different topic.

 

Why is this arrest a bigger deal than the Senator who was caught on the list of the DC Madam and essentially admitted having visited prostitutes (which I think is probably a much bigger deal in the eyes of the law than the small fine Sen. Craig got)?