The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

The Senator Larry Craig's Guide to Bathroom Erotica

135

Posts

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?
    Not to mention that could fall under the umbrella of sexual harassment, particularly if you were making those propositions in a public restroom.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    But from the article it appears he didn't specifically say "hey I'll pay you to fuck me". Unless there is something hidden here, I mean just because it's "code" for supposed gay activity, what if you are a shy shitter and just wanted the guy in the next stall to leave?

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?

    You realize there's a difference between getting arrested for lewd conduct and getting arrested for solicitation, right?

    Tach on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm well aware of all that. Mind pointing out the parts that should be considered illegal? The only thing even close to it would be looking into the other guy's stall being something reminiscent of peeping tom/anti-voyuer laws.

    It's not that the things he was doing on their own were illegal. It's not illegal to put your foot near another stall. The problem is that he was doing what people do to solicit sexual encounters in bathroom airports.

    It's the combination of those things done with intent to fuck another man that makes it legally problematic.

    Nothing in the police report demonstrates he wanted to get the man-lovin' on inside of that bathroom stall. It may very well have been his intention, but that is impossible to glean from what the cop saw before deciding to arrest him. Again, Lawrence v Texas makes gay sex a'ok in the states. So all this law has going for it is the claim that using some freaky code language communicating that you want some dick constitutes lewd acts.

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?

    Where did the exchange of money get involved or even mentioned?

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?
    Not to mention that could fall under the umbrella of sexual harassment, particularly if you were making those propositions in a public restroom.

    This I can see, but it would seem to be one hell of a long stretch of the term sexual harassment.

    moniker on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quadruple post?

    Quadruple post.

    moniker on
  • namelessnameless Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm well aware of all that. Mind pointing out the parts that should be considered illegal? The only thing even close to it would be looking into the other guy's stall being something reminiscent of peeping tom/anti-voyuer laws.

    Sorry, I edited my post kind of late:
    nameless wrote:
    You can certainly argue that the law here is unethical or applied overwhelmingly towards gay people; all I have to go on here is this one case. But I don't think the arresting officer was that far off base when he called Craig's conduct "lewd."

    I'm virtually certain that Craig could have fought this and won. And I'm equally certain Craig was soliciting sex, which he possibly intended to have in that stall (as evidenced by his blocking the view to his stall with his bag). Craig also has a history of these sort of allegations, I believe (not that those would necessarily be admissible). The officer was, I believe, factually correct. He probably had insufficient evidence to convict Craig and may have been hoping Craig would, under the pressure of interrogation, confess to the crime that the officer was looking to make an arrest on.

    nameless on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?

    Where did the exchange of money get involved or even mentioned?

    Exactly! I mean he could have just been looking for a fuck buddy? Or hell where was the mention of sex? All I saw was that he made movements that were considered an implication of impropriety. I thought you had to vocally ask the hooker/undercover to preform a sex act for cash before they could arrest you.

    Using the logic here, if you stopped near a hooker on the street, and asked her for directions, the police could arrest you.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Senjutsu wrote: »
    Man, what bet did that cop lose to get recruited for that sting operation? Listening to (and smelling) people shit all day while waiting for a perv to show up?
    He started a riot when he tried to arrest some fat prevert in front of D.H. Holmes. Then he arrested somebody's grandpa for calling him a communiss.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • namelessnameless Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Quadruple post?

    [NBA Jam]HE'S HEATING UP![NBA Jam]

    nameless on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TachTach Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    nameless wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Quadruple post?

    [NBA Jam]HE'S HEATING UP![NBA Jam]

    <3

    Tach on
  • edited August 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?
    Not to mention that could fall under the umbrella of sexual harassment, particularly if you were making those propositions in a public restroom.

    This I can see, but it would seem to be one hell of a long stretch of the term sexual harassment.
    I'm just working off the hypothetical "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consensual mansex?" Since that is, in the context of a public restroom, at least a way to get your ass kicked, the cottage community has invented a series of signals and codes which amount to the same thing. Obviously these "codes" are being prosecuted on largely homophobic terms, but there still is the thorny truth where the codes being engaged in by Sen. Craig amount to saying "do you want consensual mansex?" to the guy in the stall next to him.

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    nameless wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm well aware of all that. Mind pointing out the parts that should be considered illegal? The only thing even close to it would be looking into the other guy's stall being something reminiscent of peeping tom/anti-voyuer laws.

    Sorry, I edited my post kind of late:
    nameless wrote:
    You can certainly argue that the law here is unethical or applied overwhelmingly towards gay people; all I have to go on here is this one case. But I don't think the arresting officer was that far off base when he called Craig's conduct "lewd."

    I'm virtually certain that Craig could have fought this and won. And I'm equally certain Craig was soliciting sex, which he possibly intended to have in that stall (as evidenced by his blocking the view to his stall with his bag). Craig also has a history of these sort of allegations, I believe (not that those would necessarily be admissible). The officer was, I believe, factually correct. He probably had insufficient evidence to convict Craig and may have been hoping Craig would, under the pressure of interrogation, confess to the crime that the officer was looking to make an arrest on.

    I wouldn't be shocked. I mean, he was definitely trying to get some ass in that stall, but the cop didn't have any real proof of it and no crime was committed to justify Craig's arrest. It's too bad he plead guilty, I'm sure the ACLU would have been interested in this case and filed an Amicus brief on his behalf.

    moniker on
  • namelessnameless Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Craig's sexual history is on wikipedia--
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Craig is married with three adopted children, but as early as 1982 the mainstream media reported claims that he had had sex with men. In 1982, Craig appeared on NBC News to deny rumors about cocaine use and sex with male teenage congressional pages (the next year, the 1983 congressional page sex scandal broke, but Craig was not implicated).[24]

    In October 2006, gay activist blogger Mike Rogers, who has earned a controversial reputation for outing political conservatives, alleged on his blog that Craig was gay. Craig called the claim "completely ridiculous."[25]

    On August 28, 2007 the Idaho Statesman published a series of allegations about Craig's sexual activities, and his responses to them, that it had withheld until his conviction came to light:

    * A college student who was considering pledging at Craig's fraternity at the University of Idaho in 1967 told a reporter for the Idaho Statesman that Craig led the student to his bedroom and "made what the man said he took to be an invitation to sex." Craig responded: "I don't hit on any men."[26]
    * A gay man told a reporter for the Idaho Statesman that, in November 1994, Craig cruised him at the R.E.I. store in Boise, following him around the store for half an hour. Craig responded: "I'm not gay, and I don't cruise, and I don't hit on men. I have no idea how he drew that conclusion. A smile? Here is one thing I do out in public: I make eye contact, I smile at people, they recognize me, they say, 'Oh, hi, Senator.' Or, 'Do I know you?' I've been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"[26]
    * A professional 40-year-old man with close ties to Republican officials "reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004." Craig responded: "I am not gay and I have never been in a restroom in Union Station having sex with anybody."[26]

    nameless on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Well, at least he didn't do it in Boise, there, Jiminy.

    moniker on
  • The SaviorThe Savior Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    To those who are saying that he might have wanted to head back to his place for sex, that simply isn't how it works. The bathrooms in MSP (and from what I hear, that one in particular) have a huge reputation as places to go for an anonymous gay fling. It would be the same thing if he was trying to buy pot from an undercover cop and asked for some herb. Though he could have just run out of parsley, it is obvious that there is a deeper meaning behind it. If he wanted to go somewhere more private for sex, Minneapolis has a number of gay bars and an active craigslist message board to meet people; that excuse simply doesn't work for trolling the bathrooms.

    The Savior on
  • edited August 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Yes, but it's all supposition; and I was never informed that cops can arrest you for assuming you might be about to break a law in the immediate future.

    As far as I'm concerned, touching the foot of the guy in the stall next to you (and staring into his stall) should be illegal. As should any sort of hand signalling. Your freedom of speech ends at the bathroom door...fuck, you're lucky we allow any talking whatsoever in there. And actually, that's heavily discouraged too.

    Yes, I was kidding on the second half of that.

    Seriously, if I had been in the cop's stall I'd have been worried that I was about to be sexually assaulted.
    Nothing in the police report demonstrates he wanted to get the man-lovin' on inside of that bathroom stall. It may very well have been his intention, but that is impossible to glean from what the cop saw before deciding to arrest him. Again, Lawrence v Texas makes gay sex a'ok in the states. So all this law has going for it is the claim that using some freaky code language communicating that you want some dick constitutes lewd acts.

    Where are you suggesting he wanted to make this happen? I doubt he would have had time during his layover to go anywhere where sex of any kind would have been legal. Especially given he'd have had to go back through security.

    I think there is definitely a preponderance of evidence that A) he was soliciting sex (which, provided he wasn't doing so for money, probably wasn't necessarily a crime) and that B) he intended to have that sex in a public place (if not that bathroom stall, then elsewhere within the airport). Which is a crime.

    Yes, but the layover situation is basically the only thing which acts as evidence for the latter and would likely have been unknown to the cop at the time. (I don't know how the Minneapolis Airport is laid out and where bathrooms are in comparison to luggage, exists, etc.) It is only clear what the intention would have had to of been after the arrest occured, which doesn't give justification for the arrest.

    moniker on
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    How exactly do you get to be a professional 40-year-old?

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    So, that "Butch" Otter will probably appoint another Republican. (Seriously, I just want the Governor's name on every page)

    Fencingsax on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    How exactly do you get to be a professional 40-year-old?
    It takes decades of hard work.

    Fencingsax on
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Man, I don't think anybody got my clever reference about the cop.

    Phillistines

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • edited August 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    celery77 wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    What I don't get though, where did the senator ask for or engage in man sex in the bathroom? I mean what if he just asked the officer "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consentual mansex?" Would that be against the law?

    ...

    You realize how prostitution laws work, right? And how laws for soliciting prostitution work?
    Not to mention that could fall under the umbrella of sexual harassment, particularly if you were making those propositions in a public restroom.

    This I can see, but it would seem to be one hell of a long stretch of the term sexual harassment.
    I'm just working off the hypothetical "Hey you're cute you want to go back to my place for consensual mansex?" Since that is, in the context of a public restroom, at least a way to get your ass kicked, the cottage community has invented a series of signals and codes which amount to the same thing. Obviously these "codes" are being prosecuted on largely homophobic terms, but there still is the thorny truth where the codes being engaged in by Sen. Craig amount to saying "do you want consensual mansex?" to the guy in the stall next to him.

    Anyone know what the sodomy laws are for Idaho?

    _J_ on
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Anyone know what the sodomy laws are for Idaho?
    Supreme Court made sodomy legal everywhere in the US in that case that Moniker keeps citing (right?).

    The Green Eyed Monster on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2007
    celery77 wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Anyone know what the sodomy laws are for Idaho?
    Supreme Court made sodomy legal everywhere in the US in that case that Moniker keeps citing (right?).

    Could be.

    _J_ on
  • edited August 2007
    This content has been removed.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Drez, step up your devil's advocating... you're falling behind.

    My supervisor came over to my desk and then I left. Sorry.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?

    That's a pretty complex sexual/psychological question and the only possible answer is "maybe."

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    mrflippy on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    So you are saying that gay people need to suck cock? Masturbation is a man's best friend.

    Couscous on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    Well, being gay doesn't necessarily equal engaging in homosexual sex. You can be a gay virgin, for instance.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    Well, being gay doesn't necessarily equal engaging in homosexual sex. You can be a gay virgin, for instance.
    Oh, ok. I thought you were talking about homosexuals railing against homosexuality in general, not just homosexual sex.

    mrflippy on
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    Oh for fuck's sake, don't put words in my mouth.

    What I'm saying is that semen isn't a fucking narcotic. A guy on coke got himself into the mess (unless of course somebody shot him up in his sleep or something), but it's hard to blame him if he keeps taking it. He has a chemical addiction.

    Gay or not, nothing's forcing Senator Spud to fuck dudes. There's such a thing as self-control; inless you want to take the tack that he suffers from some form of sexual addiction. In any case it's the height of hypocrisy for him to sign same-sex marriage bans with one hand and jerk the pool boy off with the other.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    Oh for fuck's sake, don't put words in my mouth.

    What I'm saying is that semen isn't a fucking narcotic. A guy on coke got himself into the mess (unless of course somebody shot him up in his sleep or something), but it's hard to blame him if he keeps taking it. He has a chemical addiction.

    Gay or not, nothing's forcing Senator Spud to fuck dudes. There's such a thing as self-control; inless you want to take the tack that he suffers from some form of sexual addiction. In any case it's the height of hypocrisy for him to sign same-sex marriage bans with one hand and jerk the pool boy off with the other.

    This doesn't really follow. Not all gay people support "same sex marriage." The institution of marriage and sexuality don't necessarily HAVE to go hand in hand. There is no hypocrisy in that specific example at all.

    I say this knowing a gay guy that was very vocally against same sex marriages. I didn't understand him, really, and I was a straight guy in support of it, but someone's stance on marriage and his sexual orientation don't necessarily have to coincide.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    This doesn't really follow. Not all gay people support "same sex marriage." The institution of marriage and sexuality don't necessarily HAVE to go hand in hand. There is no hypocrisy in that specific example at all.

    I say this knowing a gay guy that was very vocally against same sex marriages. I didn't understand him, really, and I was a straight guy in support of it, but someone's stance on marriage and his sexual orientation don't necessarily have to coincide.

    Forests have trees in them.

    Target Practice on
    sig.gif
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mrflippy wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Counterpoint to all of this: is it really hypocrisy to publicly rail against something you are? What if you secretly hate what you are?

    He apparently doesn't hate it enough not to solicit anonymous gay sex in a public restroom.

    Gay shit happens.

    ^ puns intended


    Seriously, though, I mean...I dunno. I see this two ways. On one hand I suppose hypocrisy is doing what you say you hate doing. On the other hand, if a drug junkee gets up and starts bashing drugs because he genuinely HATES them including his own drug abus, is that bad?

    Note: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality, so maybe this is an unfair/incorrect analogy and tangential. I'm just trying to get at the crux of what constitutes hypocrisy. Personally, I'd say that trying to legislate anti-gay stuff is bad enough. The fact that he is gay doesn't really affect my opinion one way or the other.
    Are you seriously suggesting that sucking cock is as addictive as snorting coke?
    So he could just stop being gay, or what are you saying?

    Oh for fuck's sake, don't put words in my mouth.

    What I'm saying is that semen isn't a fucking narcotic. A guy on coke got himself into the mess (unless of course somebody shot him up in his sleep or something), but it's hard to blame him if he keeps taking it. He has a chemical addiction.

    Gay or not, nothing's forcing Senator Spud to fuck dudes. There's such a thing as self-control; inless you want to take the tack that he suffers from some form of sexual addiction. In any case it's the height of hypocrisy for him to sign same-sex marriage bans with one hand and jerk the pool boy off with the other.
    Eventually inane dichotomies of the mind do break down, hence the being caught for sex in public thing.
    Isn't this like the third case in a year?
    Also, basic psychology sometimes dictates that people lash out against what is inside themselves.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    This doesn't really follow. Not all gay people support "same sex marriage." The institution of marriage and sexuality don't necessarily HAVE to go hand in hand. There is no hypocrisy in that specific example at all.

    I say this knowing a gay guy that was very vocally against same sex marriages. I didn't understand him, really, and I was a straight guy in support of it, but someone's stance on marriage and his sexual orientation don't necessarily have to coincide.

    Forests have trees in them.

    Not necessarily. And sometimes they are invisible.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
Sign In or Register to comment.