This needs to stop. No one is wishing this on anybody’s campaign teams, and it is an unwanted distraction. This is obviously not the candidate’s fault, but by actions such as these, it seriously hurts the candidate, and in the end, hurts the Republican Party. It just proves that, in some instances, the democrats are right, and those looking for change are right. The biggest question is… how many times will it take for it to sink in the DC leadership.
When I recieve letters asking for money to defeat the democrats and take back the senate, things like this make me hesitate. From here on out, I refuse to give the GOP leadership in congress a penny until they clean up their own act, and stop being hypocrites.
Update: Apparently, this has been known about for a while: more from the youtube link of a 1982 news report investigating Craig:
It’s not the homosexuality that bothers me, as it is hiding under the “family values.” Leadership knew about the innuendo, and I’m not naive enough to think they didn’t investigate this thoroughly. Cocaine and male pages… that sounds familiar.
UPDATE #2: If Senate leadership weren’t aware of this behavior, they must’ve been the only ones (besides apparently myself).
Andrew Sullivan mentions his own feelings on this matter, as one who understands the pressures of living a closeted lifestyle:
But my sympathy vanishes when it comes to people who support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, as Craig did. There are limits to what you get to do to protect your own secrets, and being willing to permanently destroy gay men and lesbians’ chances to marry the people they love, and with whom they have found happiness, is way, way outside them.
Craig seems to have made a habit of voting against laws that would secure the rights of gay men and lesbians. In addition to supporting the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, he voted against a bill that would have banned job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, against expanding the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, and was rated zero by the Human Rights Campaign in each of the last three Congresses. I truly can’t imagine what it would be like — how little self-respect a person would have to have — to amass that sort of voting record while cruising for gay sex in airport restrooms.
You can agree or disagree with Sullivan’s lifestyle or beliefs, but he has a point.
UPDATE #3: This just keeps getting worse. According to this rollcall:
After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states.
So let me get this straight, this guy gets busted, and then tries to force his way out of it by his position in the senate? If I break the “thou shalt not hate” thing, I have to admit, I don’t shed many tears for blatant hypocrits.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
This seriously hurts the candidate Tommy?
I doubt it. Nice try though.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I didn’t take this as a slam against any candidate, Jason. This, on Tommy’s part, was a respectable plea for the people who claim to be pro-family and pro-marriage to start acting like it. No more, no less.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Jason,
No, I didn’t name names because I don’t want to make this a candidate issue. Using something like this is below any level I would go. It hurts the party, and is an embarassment for Romney, regardless. If he tries to hide it (liek wishing it away), then I will be upset.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
[...] post by Tommy Oliver and software by Elliott [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Don’t be a prick, Tommy. Don’t blame the others in Congress for one hypocrite’s actions. If you don’t like what Craig did, then don’t give Craig money. But don’t blame McConnell for the fact that Craig was soliciting sex.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
TLG,
Read the above update.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
*deleted by request of poster*
August 27th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Oops, misread that, delete post 7, please. A new response is on the way.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
TLG,
You know these guys have professional dirt diggers, some probably on payroll. This guy had to go on network news and basically deny that he Mark Foley’d some male pages. Are you saying that Dennis Hastert didn’t know about this either. I’ll give money to candidates I think are worthy, but I’m not giving money to leadership caucuses.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Tommy,
I don’t buy it. You put it up and linked to it. I have no problem with that. And I would have no problem with you saying Romney should be in hot water, fair game IMO. But I do think you are being rather dubious to say you were trying to save Romney some face and just talking about how this hurts the party and then say it seriously hurts Romney and he shouldn’t wish it away. Which one is it?
What do you propose he do if you indeed say it isn’t his fault? Saying we shouldn’t tie Romney down with this, then implying we should kind of disingenuous. If you really just want to talk about the problems of corruption in congress then why bring Romney in this and say he can’t wish this away. Let’s talk about the senators who are causing the problems and the lobbyist who fees on the system of corruption.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I’ve written my own reaction to these stories and I do not think highly of people using this for guilt-by-association political purposes.
Tommy’s on thin ice on this one. There are plenty of Craig stories out there that don’t mention Gov. Romney at all which would have made his original point just as well without dragging Romney’s name through the mud along with it.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I’m not punishing Romney Jason. It hurts every candidate and the party. This is the kind of crap I’m sick of from gopers.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Um — anyway –
1) Leadership in 1982? OK, post 5 still holds true.
2) This kind of goes to confirm what I know — most of the people who wave the “family values” flag are just doing it to cover up some shortcoming of theirs. People who have strong families don’t feel the need to impose their view of life on other people. People who can raise strong families don’t need the government to stop two men from getting married so they can pretend that they’re doing something for their kids. I’ve been raised by a loving mother who does all that she can to care for me — and never once and she felt the need to blame any of her shortcomings on anyone else, unlike these self-righteous so-cons. Only because the South — the home of social conservatism and the only reason it thrives — is such a miserable failure in family values does it feel the need to attack gays. The South has the highest abortion rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest murder rates, the highest divorce rates, the highest obesity rates … overall, it’s just a LOT MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL than socially liberal areas. But they don’t blame that on their own asinine redneck culture! No, blame the gays! It’s their fault! I’d call them assholes, but I don’t want to insult assholes like that. Want REAL family values and social progress? LEGALIZE gay marriage, STOP imposing your PERSONAL views on other people, and STOP pretending that “one size fits all.” If you let people MANAGE THEIR OWN LIVES instead of TRYING TO RUN THEM FOR THEM, then things will work out socially.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
I said he can’t wish this away only after you accused me of using it. That was an angry comeback.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Tommy,
Fine, then why make the insinuations and link to a story connecting Romney? I think everything I said in #10 is correct and Thomas in #11 has some great points as well.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“TLG,
You know these guys have professional dirt diggers, some probably on payroll. This guy had to go on network news and basically deny that he Mark Foley’d some male pages. Are you saying that Dennis Hastert didn’t know about this either. I’ll give money to candidates I think are worthy, but I’m not giving money to leadership caucuses.”
THAT LEADERSHIP IS GONE.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons not to contribute, but don’t use this one prick dirtbag as an excuse because you want to be in denial about the fact that our party’s not doing so hotly right now — I want to believe they’re doing better, too. But they aren’t. Don’t contribute because they’re not governing properly, not because of some lame-ass prick Senator.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Yea, I think it hurts Romney, just like Vitter hurt Rudy, just like I’m sure we’ll have some jackass come out and embarress Thompson at some point. That’s beside the point of who he represents. He embarresses ALL OF US.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
No, he EMBARRASSES HIMSELF. If people want to misconstrue it, that’s their own shortcoming. It hurts us as a party, but it does not EMBARRASS US AS A PARTY — it embarrasses SENATOR CRAIG. NO ONE ELSE has done anything wrong as far as we know.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Jason, I linked the story because it was the first one that came up under relevent links on Google. To be honest, who he supported is beside the point to me. He could’ve been Thompson’s chief errand boy, he needs to go.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
TLG,
Sorry your point holds no water. Only 2-4% of the population is gay. How could people against gay marriage all be gay? I know it makes your position easier to defend in your mind if you can just conclude every one is gay deep down, but that is not the case. I am 100% against gay marriage and 100% for women.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
TLG,
That’s a good point you make. However, after the Foley debacle when they knew (and not all of that leadership is gone), I’m skeptical of the current bunch. I’ll give to certain candidates (and senate candidates), but how else do you punish them? If you don’t vote for them, they lose their job. By not contributing to the leadership caucuses, you let them know you’re not happy with them.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Tommy,
If Romney new Craig’s problems than he has some answering to do, but beyond that scenario your posting and comments up until #17 kind of miss the mark of the point I think you are actually trying to make.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
It hurts us because now the DNC has more of this crap to push on voters, TLG. It hurts the party.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
What criteria did you use for the google search? I just did a Google news search on Craig and the politico article is nowhere to be found.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“Sorry your point holds no water. Only 2-4% of the population is gay. How could people against gay marriage all be gay? I know it makes your position easier to defend in your mind if you can just conclude every one is gay deep down, but that is not the case. I am 100% against gay marriage and 100% for women.”
Where did I say that they’re all gay!?
I just meant that we seldom really see a family values candidate who has really practiced what they preach! In other words, they aren’t even doing themselves what they’d seek to impose on others.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
23 — Right, but that doesn’t EMBARRASS US. That embarrasses Senator Craig. He’ll be used at our expense. It’s a little psychological trick, but if anyone else in the GOP feels embarrassed over it, then that guilt and embarrassment isn’t justified.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Maybe a couple of my comments were over the top (that was bcause I got pissed at your first one), but I don’t see where the post did. In my opinion, it is not good for any of us to this guy to go out there and apparently take to coke and male pages. Yea, it’s a headache that no candidate should have to deal with, and I don’t wish this on anybody. Remember though, some here (I don’t remember, but I don’t think it was you) had a field day with Vitter and the SC chair for rudy, and it wasn’t me then either.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Is everyone here absolutely certain that this is true? Regardless of veracity, the damage is done just by the report.
Liberals (and now some anti-Romney folks) can cheer! Hurray! Score another one for the ________ (fill in the blank here), those Conservatives are such damn hypocrites! Woohoo!
Seriously, this is probably all just a drive-by MSM setup. Vitter did not hurt Rudy, Craig won’t hurt Romney - even if this is all true. Fact of the matter is if Craig is guilty, Craig has hurt Craig. Same applies to Vitter or any other person.
Also, supporters will give the benefit of the doubt. Seems like the liberals and those who don’t support will have Craig (and Romney by association) strung up & disemboweled.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Thomas Alan,
The politico article wasn’t in the original post. I added that one in the update when I checked on the 1982 thing which was mentioned in the Boston article.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
.. which was the most recent one I came across when looking it up.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
and the second most relevent story up is on the politico video itself, TA -from cbs news.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I did not want to read the links, looks like Craig did plead guilty. So string him up! Have at him! Tare him to shreds!
August 27th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Jason,
I’ll change that link to directly connect it to the youtube site, itself, so those don’t have to go through the politico article.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Tommy:
The Politico article was in the topic well before the “Update” where you talk about 1982. And the Boston Globe article makes no mention of the 1982 section. Heck, you even say in the update that it’s “more” from the politico article. Furthermore, in the article you insinuate that Gov. Romney’s taking down Craig’s endorsement was an untowards action.
Would you like to apologize for making a thinly disguised hit piece now?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Thomas Alan-
The politico piece was directly mentioned in both the Boston article and the next article by CBS news under relevent pieces at the time. The politico article directly linked to this action, which I changed for Jason, and is now posted via youtube above. I think you need to quit thinking everything is used for personal gain around here.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Go to relevent news regarding Senator Craig under google. First is the Boston article, which directly metntions Jonathan Martin and politico. Second is the cbs news blog post, which also is about the Politico article.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,861 for Larry Craig. (0.12 seconds)
Browse Top Stories
« View all web results for Larry Craig
KTVU.com Republican Larry Craig was arrested at Minneapolis airport in June
CNN - 21 minutes ago
Larry Craig of Idaho was arrested in June at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Roll Call newspaper reported Monday that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho …
Senator Craig withdraws from Romney campaign role Boston Globe
Sen. Craig arrested in airport men’s room; admits to disorderly … USA Today
Idaho Sen. Craig pleads in airport arrest USA Today
Arizona Republic - New York Times
all 366 news articles »
Sen. Craig’s 1982 Denial Of Improper Dealings With Congressional …
CBS News, NY - 2 hours ago
Larry Craig’s 1982 denial that he was involved in homosexual activity with teenage pages: “When I have people telling me that a whole series of false …
August 27th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Right now, the cnn article has taken over for the boston one, which was first linked when I searched. Directly below it is the CBS News.
How about an apology for me by accusing me of lying?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
TLG, has the weird view that politicians want to “impose family values”. I’d like tyo hear what he’s talking about. If he’s talking about politicians who speak in favor of families than is he opposed to people speaking in favor of the family?
I’ve really got no idea what this “imposing family values” means.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Yes you do. “pro-family” politicians tend to want to “clear up the muck” in the airwaves, “protect marriage” by banning gay marriage, and impose religious values.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
AS the cbs news article WAS DIRECTLY ABOUT THE POLITICO ARTICLE, POSTED BY THE POLITICO CRYPT ON CBS’ SITE.
Sen. Craig’s 1982 Denial Of Improper Dealings With Congressional Pages (!!)
By Josephine Hearn
(The Politico) Okay, people, some GREAT video off of YouTube. Sen. Larry Craig’s 1982 denial that he was involved in homosexual activity with teenage pages: “When I have people telling me that a whole series of false accusations are being made against my character, frankly, it makes me made as hell.”
Bonus feature: The NBC reporter for this piece was a very cute early-’80s Lisa Myers.
(Thank you to Crypt colleagues Jonathan Martin and Josh Kraushaar for help on this story.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3210187.shtml
August 27th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
And I have no problem if all politicians did was to just speak in favor of the family. But they want to use guns to impose their will on others.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
PS — From the other thread — something I posted that I want to bring here –
“Well, then! But do you see what your hatred of homosexuals, you so-cons, does to people? It compels them to degrade themselves like Sen. Craig did. Ugh. Disgusting — Craig, yes, but so-cons, too.”
Your disgusting ideology forces gay people into the closet and instead of being able to express their sexuality in a healthy way — ie; a loving relationship and potentially marriage — even prominent figures resort to heading to a restroom for sex.
It doesn’t justify the act. I think it’s disgusting. But don’t try to pretend, so-cons, that it isn’t partially your fault that some gay people act this way. You treat them like they’re sub-human and they’ll reply by doing things that aren’t so savory, because you won’t allow them to live normal lives like everyone else.
Do you even WANT them to live normal lives? Is there some secret agenda — do you think they should be “punished” for some sin against your god or whatnot?
This is an outrage. Social conservatism is a national outrage. The mainstream of this party — the mainstream of AMERICA — people who have respect for others — has got to revolt.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
You’re changing your story. A minute ago the politico story wasn’t even in your topic until you found the 1982 story. Now you’re spinning.
Yes, I think your reporting on this was a smear at Romney. The very article itself is of only mild concern for a 2008 blog (I notice the Gonzales story never merited its own post). Your grasping at excuses for your choice of articles proves it for me.
Posting this for the good of the party. Yeah right.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Nusrat, what do you mean by “impose religious values”?
As far as the government controlling what it owns (the public airwaves) and not creating new institutions (gay marriage), is that it?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
[...] Watch as I catch one of these rumor-mongering filth peddlers (a Thompson supporter) in their own web of lies. Sphere: Related Content [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Thomas Alan,
I said the politico story was mentioned in the boston article, and was directly linked to it by the cbs news article which was next in relevence.
When I looked it up, Boston.com was #1 and cbsnews was #2, and the boston article mentioned it, while the CBS ARTICLE DIRECTLY DISCUSSED IT.
No, what you are doing is looking for any reason to attack someone.
“posting this is good for the party. yea right.”
For those of us in reality, you call out the party when it fails you. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
“TLG, has the weird view that politicians want to “impose family valuesâ€?. I’d like tyo hear what he’s talking about. If he’s talking about politicians who speak in favor of families than is he opposed to people speaking in favor of the family?
I’ve really got no idea what this “imposing family valuesâ€? means.”
It’s part of this BS “traditional values” campaign. The campaign against gays is most important.
Telling gay people that they’re not legitimate as couples.
Telling them that they don’t deserve marriage or any other form of equal rights.
Telling them their sexuality is a “choice” or a “sin.”
Trying to ban gay adoption.
Telling gays that their relationships contribute to the decline of civilization.
Forcing schools to recognize bogus creationist “science.”
Funneling federal tax dollars to fund religious charities, violating the 1st Amendment.
Campaigning against judges that respect the 1st Amendment — ie; 10 Commandments in the courts.
It’s subtle, too –
Oh, vote for Romney, he’s got such an amazing wife! It’s so #*$!ing nostalgic for a time that never really existed except in the minds of so-cons, right? A perfect wife who raises perfect little boys and doesn’t try to overshadow her man. Bash Thompson’s wife because she’s younger and ambitious. Bash Giuliani because he’s had rocky marriages. But Ann Romney? A 1950’s Goddess. A perfect little housewife. She’s better. She’s superior. The self-righteousness is amazing from you so-cons.
And … can someone explain to me why abortion and divorce rates are highest in the South and lowest in the Northeast — those godless fag lovers seem to be doing alright by your terms.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
THE POLITICO STORY WAS MENTIONED IN THE BOSTON STORY, and directly below the boston link was the cbs news link, which mentioned the 1982 story. Some of you are ridiculous.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
“Nusrat, what do you mean by “impose religious valuesâ€??
As far as the government controlling what it owns (the public airwaves) and not creating new institutions (gay marriage), is that it?”
We’re not “creating a new institution.” We’re simply including people who deserve to be included.
You and I both know that the government regulates far more than just the public airwaves and you’re a liar if you say that it’s not true. Unless you consider CBS, NBC, ABC “the public airwaves.”
August 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Check this out: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/craig-regrets-guilty-plea-involving-bathroom-incident-2007-08-27.html
Interesting twist in this story. Sen. Craig apparently is saying he’s actually NOT guilty.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Thomas Alan,
Now I see that you’re a blogger on committed to romney, which has taken many cheap shots at Thompson. Do wyou want me to point them out?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“..able to express their sexuality in a healthy way.”
Healthy Homosexuality? Have not heard that one yet. Is that like a healthy poison?
How do you reconcile your disgust for Craig’s solicitation as a “Libertarian”?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“watch as I catch one of these poor souls in a lie”
from your site.
I changed the above link because Jason said it appeared bad, and I did that for him out of respect. It seems you have no respect by accusing me of lying on your site. Of course, this was the same site that once had posters and commenters wanting to look into the history of Thompson’s first marriage, and has made fun of Thompson’s wife’s appearence.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
The politico article wasn’t in the original post. I added that one in the update when I checked on the 1982 thing which was mentioned in the Boston article.
What I said. The youtube was mentioned in the bostonglobe article. The next article in relevence was the cbsnews article, which directly mentioned the 1982 story. So I checked the politico article.
No spin here.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
cwpete, maybe you don’t understand what a libertarian is.
Libertarianism is a political ideology professing the belief that one does not have the right to impose force against anyone else. It’s rather shocking that you’re in disbelief that I don’t have any personal opinions about anything or that I don’t want the government to ban it or whatnot.
IT’S UP TO HIM AS TO WHAT HE DOES WITH HIS SEX LIFE. But I think it’s disgusting to engage in sexual relations with someone you don’t know, could (and likely does) have a sexually transmitted disease, and you don’t know if you share common morals and values with. Relationships, to me, are mostly about intellectual compatibility.
Thanks for admitting that you believe homosexuality is “poison.”
Out of curiosity, can you tell me your opinions on homosexuality? Do you think it’s a choice? Why would a person choose to be homosexual? Is homosexuality a sin against your god? Do you think they want to indoctrinate, recruit, or hurt children? What is the mindset of homosexuals? These answers should be telling.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
More on the case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/AR2007082701305.html
Apparently, Craig’s “lewd misconduct” amounted to “tapping his foot” while he was in a bathroom stall, which is supposedly a “universal signal” that you want to engage in lewd misconduct with the person in the stall next to you. I’ve never heard of such a universal signal, and (especially if the Senator from Idaho was pushing out a real big potato) tapping of the foot might be perfectly acceptable.
I suggest suspending judgment until the full story comes out.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
TLG, I’ve not seen any creationist education policies in any of the South. It’s all happened in Pennsylvania and Kansas.
If that’s all you’ve got than the word “impose” must mean “speak in favor of” in your language.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I was so happy to read about how the Democrats were fighting in FL over the DNC yanking their delegates.
Now they must be happy over this.. The worst political mistake is to be a hypocrite to family values.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Maybe Sen. Craig was tapping his foot in Morse Code…
tap tap tap…L-E-T-S-E-N-G-A-G-E-I-N-L-E-W-D-M-I-S-C-O-N-D-U-C-T…
August 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
cwpete,
My thoughts exactly. This makes me furious.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
econ grad stud, are you really going to sit there at your computer and type out to me now that you don’t believe at all that there’s any “intelligent design” being taught in southern schools?
No, impose does not mean “SPEAK IN FAVOR OF,” though that contributes to it because politicians can greatly change the mood of the country. But when gays cannot adopt in some places, when they cannot openly serve in the military EVEN AS TRANSLATORS without being kicked out, when they cannot get married, when they have to worry about whether their orientation might cost them their job (even in some PUBLIC jobs) — THAT IS A PROBLEM. It doesn’t help to have people like you saying that their relationships are illegitimate or disgusting hacks like cwpete say that homosexuality is like poison.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
JS,
They have similar signals that were reported on the news here one night, something like dropping your keys in a mall bathroom is a signal that you are looking for sex.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
It’s a low blow and every wretched rumor-mongering filth peddler who tries to exploit it should be condemned accordingly.
Thanks Thomas. I now know who I respect. I respect most Romney supporters here, and most know that I try and be fair, for the most part with them. But apparently not you. Backtrack all my posts and see where I’ve tried to smear any candidate.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
The above is from Thomas Alan’s blog:
blog.electromneyin2008.com/
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Tommy,
Oh come on, that’s ridiculous. I’m sure people accidentally drop their keys in mall bathrooms all the time. If there really was an uber-secret signal to initiate “lewd misconduct,” I’m sure it’d be a little more uncommon than that. Local news stories are notorious for giving weight to stupid stories during slow news weeks.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
As far as Criag, it appears he was a mercenary. He said what his constituents wanted to hear and showed them what they wanted to see but lived his life as the immoral man he is.
Apparently there are indications he did what Mark Foley did. He also has been keeping up this betrayal of his wife for years. He’s been illegally engaging in public lewd behavior before he’s got caught.
It says nothing about liberalism, conservatism, or even “family values”. What it demonstrates is that most politicians are lying chameleons who will do _anything_ to be elected.
We already knew that so I guess we’ll try to pretend there’s something else here besides another worthless politician.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
TLG,
Wanna re-hash our homosexuality debate all over again? You should know what my positions are regarding homosexuality by now. Out of respect to other readers & posters, let’s not threadjack this to a homosexuality debate again.
I welcome guys like you who shove homosexuality down our faces. This only serves to energize the so-con vote. So keep it up.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
JS,
It’s the truth. They had a sting operation at Northgate mall in Chattanooga when an undercover cop got picked up by one looking, and he ratted it out.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
all over local news at the time
August 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
If all this arrest amounted to was the tapping of one’s foot in a bathroom stall, I highly doubt that a senator would have pleaded guilty to the charge at hand just for the sake of not causing a fuss. Especially in light of 1982. That just seems crazy.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Craig was a known homosexual, going back a while, as Tommy pointed out in his post. It was even posted on a gay blog that he was involved with someone in the bathroom of Union Station.
If I knew it, you have to know that the GOP Senate knew it, not mention the dems and a whole bunch of other people inside the beltway.
Now he’s trying to back away when he was caught red handed? Please.
It’s also ironic that he was one of Mitt Romney’s biggest Senate backers and organizers in the West. What with Romney being the family candidate and all. Can’t have someone who propositions guys for oral sex in bathrooms as one of your campaign leaders. Although, if I recall one of McCain’s guys got caught doing the same thing not too long ago so I guess him and Mitt are even now.
All in all this isn’t that big of a dealm but it is a huge embarassment for the GOP. Fortunately it happened now and not 2008 and no one cares about Idaho.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
cwpete…
how are we shoving homosexuality down your faces? Just ignore it if you don’t like it, but don’t you dare hold a gun to someone’s head saying, “You cannot adopt a kid” for no reason other than arbitrary ones.
It’s amazing that you think we are the ones forcing it down your faces. Astounding.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
And when I say “hold a gun,” I also mean using the gun of the government.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Nusrat no one is holding a gun to your head telling you, you can’t adopt because you’re an active homosexual.
It’s not a federal issue anyway. States decide these things. Constitution doesn’t give the federal govt the authority to regulate adoption. In Massachusetts you can adopt a kid if you’re a practicing homosexual. In other states you can’t.
It’s really easy: Want to adopt?
Move to Massachusetts.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
“TLG,
Wanna re-hash our homosexuality debate all over again? You should know what my positions are regarding homosexuality by now. Out of respect to other readers & posters, let’s not threadjack this to a homosexuality debate again.
I welcome guys like you who shove homosexuality down our faces. This only serves to energize the so-con vote. So keep it up.”
Yes, I do want to re-hash it because you remind the non-homophobic people as to why they shouldn’t vote for the same person you would.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
That’s not a moral argument. “Don’t want me to hold a gun to your head telling you not to do X? Move to another neighborhood.”
That’s bullying, plain and simple. Try again.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“A practicing homosexual.”
Would you ever refer to someone as a “practicing heterosexual”? Like it’s some craft? It’s a goddamn sexuality.
econ grad stud, since when have you been concerned about the Constitution not authorizing this or that?
And the debate isn’t this, either, which is a cop-out: “WANT TO ADOPT? MOVE TO MASSACHUSETTS.” THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OTHER STATES SHOULD LEGALIZE IT, TOO.
Strawman alert, anyone?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Nusrat,
Yes, just ignore and be passive? Typical libertarianism. If I adopted that attitude I’d be nothing. I’m supposed to just standby idle while something harmful goes on? Works for abortions right?
“how are we shoving homosexuality down your faces?”
By TLG comments such as this one:
“We’re not “creating a new institution.â€? We’re simply including people who deserve to be included.”
I guess when you lose the argument, you can always attempt to re-write the rules so you can then win.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Nusrat, so-cons were the bullies in school. I should know; I was mercilessly teased in middle school by undoubtedly future so-cons about my sexuality.
Kind of funny how the so-cons have the same mindset as twelve-year-olds about homosexuality: “EW GROSS FAGGOT.” I heard the same shit throughout middle school and even a little bit of high school: “That’s against what God wants!” “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” “That’s gross!” Blah, blah, blah…
So-cons just never decided to grow up.
Maybe it’s more fun to live that way?
August 27th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“I guess when you lose the argument, you can always attempt to re-write the rules so you can then win.”
Huh? The argument is over whether the rules should be re-written. I say they should, you say they shouldn’t.
Does the fact that I want the rules (laws) of marriage to be changed mean I lose?
You’re a fool!
“Typical libertarianism. If I adopted that attitude I’d be nothing. I’m supposed to just standby idle while something harmful goes on? Works for abortions right?”
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFUL (and also answer my other 8340 questions that you’re ignoring. Typical so-con).
Just call me a faggot or something, please; drop the pretense and act out on what you’re feeling and believe. It’s more honest that way.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Nusrat,
You would prefer the “gun” of the government to force the legalization of gay marriage over the will of the majority of the country including the top dem. candidates. Yours is not an argument over the government per say but who holds the “gun”. And it’s a little ironic that you have referred to our country’s military on this site as hired killers while it is you who wishes to use the metaphorical “gun” so much.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Absolutely not. I wish there to be no gun.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I’d like you to find any post from me that can be considered a cheap-shot at Thompson. I’m confident I’ve always treated him fairly. But you’re changhing the subject.
Since I’m in the position of proving myself, here goes:
Original post: You claim that the Martin article sites actions “such as these” as hurting a candidate. The actions mentioned there is mainly Romney taking down the Craig endorsement.
Post 3: You claim that Romney wants to “hide it (liek wishing it away)” which would be a follow-up to the original post.
Post 14: You deny there being any connection between the two.
Post 19: You claim that both showed up first in google.
Post 29: After I confront you with the politico article not being on google you state that the politico article was not in the original post. Furthermore, you state that you only put it up afterwards because of the 1982 story.
Post 31: You immediately contradict yourself and state that the next most important article is about the politico article. You then cover up post 29 with an avalance of posts trying to prove that you got the politico article from a CBS sourse.
In any case my “update” at the electromneyin2008 site was too harsh (using symetry from earlier in the post). I apologize for that. However, I do stand by the statement that you have been caught in a web of lies.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“You would prefer the “gunâ€? of the government to force the legalization of gay marriage over the will of the majority of the country including the top dem. candidates. Yours is not an argument over the government per say but who holds the “gunâ€?. And it’s a little ironic that you have referred to our country’s military on this site as hired killers while it is you who wishes to use the metaphorical “gunâ€? so much.”
No, Nusrat and I would prefer that there be no state-sponsored marriage. But as long as they’re doing it, they shouldn’t discriminate.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Scott, btw.
if you actually knew my view on marriage, you’d be apologizing for misrepresenting me. The government, state or federal, should have absolutely no job in defining or subsidizing anything to do with marriage.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
TLG,
Grow up man. Lose the four letter words & the F_G word. I may disagree with homosexuality, but I’d never degrade them in that way. Just because you are one or just because you are arguing for them, should not give you reign to say those things. The rules should apply fairly & equally to all. Agreed?
You seem capable of intelligent expression without having to resort to those words.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
The cbs news article is the politico article,
and I admitted to Jason that yes, I got carried away after he accused me of it. I said that a long time ago.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Think, IT DID FIRST SHOW UP IN GOOGLE. I posted the page in Comment 37. and then I posted the cbs link which is to politico, discussing the 1982 case.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I said in 14 or 17 that yes, it hurts Romney, just like it people talked about Rudy and Vitter. It hurts all the candidates. Because I said that it hurts to have something like this doesn’t make it go away.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Why did you state it was not in the original article?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
TLG, you have this view we’re afraid of you or hateful towards you. In fact I’m glad you’re here. You present your philosophy (libertarianism) well. We don’t agree on what it means but that’s to be expected.
At one time we had a liberal Democrat on the site and that added to the diverse opinions. In the same way your philosophical group’s opinions add to what is already here.
As far as hashing out homosexuality, I don’t see what the point is. We have different understandings of:
1) Morality
2) Human Nature
3) Society
Without a common view on those three I don’t see how we can avoid speaking past each other?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Exactly, econ grad stud. To you, a gun is a perfectly morally acceptable means of imposing morality. TLG and I are against violence. Is that a radical position to take at all? Violence is wrong.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
post 3 was the one where I got mad and said that after Jason said I was using it. Eventually, he understood the point I was making, which I acknowledged.
I’m not accusing you specifically. Your blog that you contribute to, however, has taken Thompson to task on his wife, and commenters there were openly talking about trying to find out the details of his first divorce. I don’t fault you for it personally, but don’t play the “high and mighty” game, and then link over here.
By the way, it seemed you changed your post around after the fact as well on your site.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“TLG,
Grow up man. Lose the four letter words & the F_G word. I may disagree with homosexuality, but I’d never degrade them in that way. Just because you are one or just because you are arguing for them, should not give you reign to say those things. The rules should apply fairly & equally to all. Agreed?
You seem capable of intelligent expression without having to resort to those words.”
OK, now answer my original questions, okay? Thanks. Bye.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
TLG:
“CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS HARMFUL”?
Laws are on my side here TLG. How about you convincing me of the “joys” & benefits of homosexuality.
Tell me why you think society’s most important institution should be re-written to suit the whims of 2% of the population?
Tell me what is to prevent any other group such as polygamist from doing the same thing? Do you favor polygamy? Would you be against multiple “consenting” adults forming such a relationship?
This is a Pandora’s box.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I’m not “arguing for them,” I’m one of them. I am bisexual — so if you’re going to tell me that my natural attractions are “poisonous,” I’d like to know why.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
because the original link to the politico article was a screwup, so I changed it directly to the video to be more fair, as Jason was correct when I looked back. What I was saying (even if you took it differently) was that the youtube was mentioned in the original article, and then I linked to it when I read the article.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I think government is a more important institution than marriage, thank you.
Gay marriage should be on the same plane as heterosexual marriage because the government shouldn’t be discriminating. Unless you’re going to say marriage is about child-rearing, and then I’d want to know if infertile couples (straight!) should be allowed to get married?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
I’ll tell you my opinions on polygamy later when you won’t use them as strawman arguments.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Nusrat, I’ve said nothing about guns.
As far as violence being wrong?
Sure. However there are things worse than violence. Or do you feel it was wrong for Americans to violently revolt in 1775?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The politico article was directly referencing the youtube, which is what i used in the language.
#2- I added the politico article originally in an update, not my original post.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
TLG:
I want to second what EGS posted in #92. Despite our many many differences, I do enjoy our conversations very much.
I thind that when your brain catches up with your heart, you’ll be far more socially conservative..
August 27th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
You have said something about guns. You think that using a gun to force people not to adopt because of their homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.
Are you implying that homosexuality is worse than violence?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
It worried me more then a little when Romney gave Craig such a prominent role in his campaign. I’m about as far from “connected” as anyone can imagine, but even I’d heard more then a few seemingly credible rumors about Craig. His “problems”, from what I’d read, seemed to be a fairly well-known “secret” in Washington.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Nusrat,
I stand corrected for an earlier post with regard to your views. However, your belief to live and let live falls into the sin of omission which is not caring enough for your fellow man to oppose that which is wrong.
Are you a total pacifist? If someone were trying to kill a family member of yours, would you become violent in defense? Was our entrance into WWII justified after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just trying to get a sense of where you’re coming from.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Self defense is obviously OK.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“Gay marriage should be on the same plane as heterosexual marriage because the government shouldn’t be discriminating.”
That is just it. Couldn’t polygamist use the same argument? TLG, I think I’ve answered your question very clearly here. Again, how is this not a Pandora’s box?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Nusrat, I’ve never mentioned using guns on anyone.
As far as adoptions. Most adoption agencies decide for themselves who they will adopt to. Only a few states have decided to not allow practicing homosexuals to adopt. There’s no use of guns involved in this process of trying to adopt.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
“TLG:
I want to second what EGS posted in #92. Despite our many many differences, I do enjoy our conversations very much.
I thind that when your brain catches up with your heart, you’ll be far more socially conservative..”
Now that you’re done your arrogant bromide-fest, can you please answer the questions I asked you about half an hour ago?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
You haven’t mentioned them, but in wanting there to be laws, you are implying that guns would be the reason to comply. Unless, of course, these laws would be voluntary.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
econ grad stud — Jesus Christ, the gun is a metaphor!
cwpete — Yes, I believe that polygamy should be on the same plane, but then I’d argue that STATE-SPONSORED **STRAIGHT** marriage opened the Pandora’s Box because it was sanctioning relationships in the first place.
So what you’re saying is: yes, the state should discriminate. Okay, fair enough, now defend that, please. Better?
Also, answer my original questions.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Jason, I linked the story because it was the first one that came up under relevent links on Google. To be honest, who he supported is beside the point to me. He could’ve been Thompson’s chief errand boy, he needs to go.
Thomas Alan,
You took me completely out of context. I said it was the first one I searched for. I never said it was the politico article. I was talking about the boston globe article, which titled “Senator Craig Withdraws from Romney Campaign Role”. Instead of forming your own conclusions, make sure you got the facts correct.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
As a bit of fun:
See what a culturally, ethnically, religiously, and politically correct cartoon looks like-
http://www.iranian.com/Satire/Cartoon/2006/March/Images/pc.jpg
August 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
You still haven’t answered why it is you claimed in #29 that the politico article wasn’t in your original post. You claimed that you hadn’t put it in until you decided to post the 1982 accussations.
By the way, it seemed you changed your post around after the fact as well on your site.
Yes. I already apologized for the original post. I mimicked a phrase I had used earlier in the post. It was changed within seconds and I changed it again a while later to make it less personal.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I did the exact same thing. The politico article was in my UPDATE OF THE ORIGINAL POST.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
When I put it up, I put the quote directly under Update, and then I changed it to the youtube
August 27th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Heh, I like 114.
DO NOT OFFEND MOHAMMAD.
When’s the last time you saw an atheist or gay “death-to-x” rally? Shouldn’t we all be focused on DEFEATING MUSLIM TERRORISM?
(Nope, gotta defeat the fags at home first!)
August 27th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
and placed it under “update from the above linked politico article”
August 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
This doesn’t make any sense. Now you’re saying that you originally put up the Martin article to show the 1982 accussation?
Well they why did you need to update it as some sort of revelation 20 minutes later?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Because I looked into the 1982 accusation after I saw the martin article mentioned in the original boston globe article, which mentioned the politico article with the ABOVE YOU TUBE. Jason said it sounded like I was going after Romney, so I switched from using the quote of the youtube to using the youtube directly, to make it more fair.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
TLG:
What question would that be? The dangers of homosexuality? How it can be poisonous? You should know this,
-They often engage in risky sexual behavior.
-Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime
-Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of “committed” typically means something radically different from marriage.
-STD spread more frequently by way of homosexual sex verses heterosexual sex.
-Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
-Can lend itself to a higher degree of compulsive behaviors.
-Violence, In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.
-Greater Risk for Suicide.
-High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians
-Reduced Life Span.
TLG, if even half of this stuff is true - then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice. Sounds poisonous to me. I’ll avoid it like I would a rattle snake.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Enemies foreign and domestic ought to have a subheading for hippies. Or I’ve always thought so TLG.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
My original post only had the boston globe article, I went back and updated it after I looked into the Martin politico blog while rereading the article. The next article under relevence was the cbs news article which paraphrased the politico article, and I used the original article instead of the cbs one.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
The Boston Globe article doesn’t mention 1982. It’s mentioning of the politico article is all about Romney:
After reports of Craig’s arrest, the Romney campaign made private a YouTube video in which Craig also praised Romney. That move was first reported by The Politico website.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Everything in 122 is correct.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE TO MAINSTREAM HOMOSEXUALITY INSTEAD OF PRESSURING HOMOSEXUALS TO STAY CLOSETED AND LIVE SOME CLANDESTINE LIFESTYLE.
Homosexuality in and of itself does NOT mean that ANY of those things you listed will happen.
That is BEHAVIOR of many HOMOSEXUALS. That is NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“-Greater Risk for Suicide.” “-High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians” Really? Oh wow. I wonder why.
“-They often engage in risky sexual behavior.” “-Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime”
And you don’t think that if you banned heterosexual marriage and adoption that there’d be rampant heterosexual “risky sexual behavior”? Certainly if they had the opportunity to marry, they’d be more apt to settle down with a monogamous partner. Cause and effect.
“then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice.”
August 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
TLG, we were thinking the same thing.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
That’s right. I checked out the article and there was the 1982 story, which was THE ONLY THING I mentioned. I didnot mention the other part until Jason made it an issue.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“TLG, if even half of this stuff is true - then in no way whatsoever is homosexuality a healthy choice. Sounds poisonous to me. I’ll avoid it like I would a rattle snake.”
IT’S NOT A CHOICE.
WHY WOULD SOMEONE CHOOSE TO BE A HOMOSEXUAL, GIVEN THE STATS YOU JUST GAVE?
Can you please answer the questions I asked you almost an hour ago?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
and even then, I never mentioned it (Romney connection) in the original post, only in the comments when Jason said “I doubt it”.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
TLG: #112,
“Yes, I believe that polygamy should be on the same plane,”
Well at least you are consistent. Let everybody do whatever they want and don’t ask any questions at all ugh? The chicken in every pot sort of a thing never works. Leads to total anarchy. This is why I can never accept the philosophies of social liberalism.
“So what you’re saying is: yes, the state should discriminate. Okay, fair enough, now defend that, please. Better?
Any state has a right to govern themselves. They have to impose & force some law & order or the state will implode on itself. It is not discrimination when the requirements are not met. The requirements I’m referring to here are one man & one woman. What you are asking for is special treatment since you don’t meet the requirements. Since you refuse to meet the requirements, you are attempting to re-define the institution of marriage, which imposes homosexuality.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
cwpete,
I’ve gone through those points with TLG before only to be accused not looking of homosexuals as individuals therefore he disregards the facts of the group to which those individuals belong.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The Martin article was in the post well before the update.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
cwpete, think of TLG as a mathematical function.
TLG = 1/(x-1)
Now when we try to insert 1 into x (ei discuss moral issues), we got nonsense responses.
I simply don’t think there’s a rational (to us) answer that can come from TLG concerning moral issues.
That’s not to say he’s irrational. It’s just that he exists in a belief system that we do not. We can’t discuss matter unless our belief system overlap with his. Here our belief systems are a disjointed set.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
TLG:
“That is BEHAVIOR of many HOMOSEXUALS. That is NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.”
“Everything in 122 is correct.”
Fine, would you agree with the statement that homosexual behavior is poisonous?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“Since you refuse to meet the requirements, you are attempting to re-define the institution of marriage, which imposes homosexuality.”
That’s a circumstantial ad hominum attack.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
No it wasn’t. I updated and added the Martin post, which I directly quoted in an UPDATE. It is in the exact same place where I link to the youtube. Jason was the only comment before the update.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Scott,
Yes, I know. I’ve been through my own rounds with TLG in the past. I just have not learned as quickly as you & EGS.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
and I used it to quote Martin about the 1982 story, not about specific connection to any candidate.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
In fact, the post is exactly the same as it was before, only in place of Martin’s quote is the youtube video itself.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Scott, don’t you dare! Don’t you dare!
“I’ve gone through those points with TLG before only to be accused not looking of homosexuals as individuals therefore he disregards the facts of the group to which those individuals belong.”
I DO NOT BELONG TO THE GROUP OF MEN WITH SAME-SEX ATTRACTIONS THAT HAVE PROMISCUOUS SEX. THEIR BEHAVIOR DOES NOT DICTATE MINE.
Am I angry? Like hell I’m angry — because I’m being told that I’m a poisonous, promiscuous person for having same-sex attractions.
“Any state has a right to govern themselves. They have to impose & force some law & order or the state will implode on itself.”
History shows the opposite — the more power a state gets, the more likely it is to fail.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“Fine, would you agree with the statement that homosexual behavior is poisonous?”
NO. If two men are in a loving relationship, IT IS NOT POISONOUS.
Why can’t we say that PROMISCUOUS BEHAVIOR is poisonous?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
EGS:
“We can’t discuss matter unless our belief system overlap with his.”
Yes, you are absolutely right on with that one. Different worlds, different perspectives, and in some cases - different realities.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
TLG,
“Why can’t we say that PROMISCUOUS BEHAVIOR is poisonous?”
For once, you & I are in agreement here. I think I’ll retire on this high note.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I’ve also stated in the past that same-sex attracted people are to be afforded compassion and that there is no sin in the attraction itself but only in acting out on the temptation much as it is with those heterosexuals outside of marriage. If there is no understanding on the virtue of chastity the conversation becomes pretty fruitless.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“I simply don’t think there’s a rational (to us) answer that can come from TLG concerning moral issues.”
No, it’s because I am a moral person and you are not. You think it’s okay to force other people to do what you want (but never the other way around, conveniently enough — notice that you never want force to imposed on you. As long as you’re okay with things, there’s no problem) and I don’t. This is more or less objective — you cannot prove that you have the right to impose force on someone else.
You set arbitrary guidelines for morals and basically dictate that whatever irritates you or isn’t mainstream should be banned or controlled. You want the state to shape society to your liking. Times are changing and you don’t like it. People of my generation - and most of yours, for that matter - are tolerant of homosexuality and you don’t like it. Therefore, you want the government to step in.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“EGS:
“We can’t discuss matter unless our belief system overlap with his.�
Yes, you are absolutely right on with that one. Different worlds, different perspectives, and in some cases - different realities.”
No, I’m living in relaity — one in which homosexuality isn’t a choice — and you’re not.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Scott,
Not to open a new can of worms, but as devil’s advocate, are you saying that they are allowed to feel that way, but have to repress their feelings?
August 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
That undoubtedly lead to high shrink bills, if nothing else.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
R