When Threatened by Black Men, Offer Oral Sex: State Rep Allen's (R) Lesson

The GOP "Family Values" train rolls one. Next stop Idaho!

http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html

Sen. Larry Craig, who in May told the Idaho Statesman he had never engaged in homosexual acts, was arrested less than a month later by an undercover police officer who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him in an airport men's room.
The arrest at a Minnesota airport prompted Craig to plead guilty to disorderly conduct earlier this month. His June 11 encounter with the officer was similar to an incident in a men's room in a Washington, D.C., rail station described by a Washington-area man to the Idaho Statesman. In that case, the man said he and Craig had sexual contact.
Click to expand...

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/19763-1.html

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Wow. Did anyone watch his press conference?

Let me sum it up for you: he said variations of "I'm totally not gay" with the vim, vigor, and frequency that Gonzales drops "I don't recall"s. In addition, although he didn't go the "black man threatened me, so I thought I'd offer to blow him" route, he did claim that he admitted to a misdemeanor offense, not because he did anything wrong, but because he didn't want the public to find out he'd been arrested.

Chalk one up for the GOP! This leads to the question that makes bmugs bristle: how many individuals does it take to make a pattern?
 
So I was taking a dump in a truckstop last night, and some man in a bear costume enters the stall next to me and says "The brown bear flies south at dawn." So I did the only reasonable thing, and tapped on the stall like so.. rat a tat tat....tat tat. The bear man then reaches under the stall and velcros my unvelcroed shoe strap (laces are too complicated for me). Lukily, soon after that a forest ranger came in and busted the bear man for soliciting gay sex.

Seriously though, some one said about republicans "every one of them is a jackboot-clad party-line swilling hatemonger who only know what to think because Darth Rove told them to." QFT! (and yes i realize they were saying it sarcastically).

This whole Sen. Craig thing really does not help the people arguing in support of republicans here. These sexually deviate republicans are making it hard for you guys (pun intended). I don't understand how its the conservative republicans who are constantly the ones doing these things? Is it that thier own feelings make them lash out at others who have the same ones? That it is soooo draining being a conservative republican that it drives them to soliciting gay sex in restrooms? The fear of getting caught gives them a thrill becasue of what they have to lose?? I dont get it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Chalk one up for the GOP! This leads to the question that makes bmugs bristle: how many individuals does it take to make a pattern?[/QUOTE]

Do you really want to start this again? I'll just concede to your argument that all Republicans must be dick sucking homosexuals becuase some are, in fact, dick sucking homosexuals.

Why you have such a fascination with dick sucking is a question to which I really don't want an answer. Your business is your business. Don't ask, don't tell and all that.

Now, if we could only get a Democratic candidate to admit they're actually FOR gay marriage...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Why you have such a fascination with dick sucking is a question to which I really don't want an answer. Your business is your business. Don't ask, don't tell and all that.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you're confusing him with your beloved republican senators representing the values that stand against the abomination of homosexuality and injustice of gay marriage.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Now, if we could only get a Democratic candidate to admit they're actually FOR gay marriage...[/QUOTE]

Well, you have Dennis Kucinich for starters - he's been pretty unabashed about his claims. So, you're either (1) not paying attention to candidate's platforms (pretty bloody likely) or (2) you mean candidates that stand a chance in hell of winning (also bloody likely). If you imply the latter, then I'll concede you that, but also point out that, politically, we're entering a time where almost two dozen states just passed constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage (so it is an unfortunate reality that politicians must be tactful about combating that, lest they want to help hand the presidency to whatever dumbass crossdressing more-marriages-than-Tammy-Faye-Bakker Republican comes down the aisle (not that I'm singling anyone out).

Also, if you want to limit it to "viable" candidates, then you must also acknowledge that you can't ever let the name "Ron Paul" cross your lips ever again. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, you have Dennis Kucinich for starters - he's been pretty unabashed about his claims. So, you're either (1) not paying attention to candidate's platforms (pretty bloody likely) or (2) you mean candidates that stand a chance in hell of winning (also bloody likely). If you imply the latter, then I'll concede you that, but also point out that, politically, we're entering a time where almost two dozen states just passed constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage (so it is an unfortunate reality that politicians must be tactful about combating that, lest they want to help hand the presidency to whatever dumbass crossdressing more-marriages-than-Tammy-Faye-Bakker Republican comes down the aisle (not that I'm singling anyone out).

Also, if you want to limit it to "viable" candidates, then you must also acknowledge that you can't ever let the name "Ron Paul" cross your lips ever again. ;)[/QUOTE]

Kuchinich, that's one. Keep going. Anyone can find one or two deviants from the party line.

Tactfulness is an unclever euphemism for pandering. Actually, it's pandering by absence of principle - reaching out for conservative leaning voters by ignoring the gay marriage issue. Is this how you choose your politicians to represent you, by ignoring your interests for their own want for power? No wonder politicians are unscrupulous, they know you'll vote for them no matter what the case as long as you assume they are representative of your liberal cause.

Kucinch is principled. I can respect that even though I don't agree with many of his leftist positions. I vote on principle, and I expect my candidates to stand on theirs. I may also be able to say I'm the only one here at CAG who has voted for Ron Paul in previous presidential elections- but I'd love to know this isn't the case.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Why you have such a fascination with dick sucking is a question to which I really don't want an answer. Your business is your business. Don't ask, don't tell and all that.[/quote]

Seventh grade called. They want their "you're gay" jokes back.
 
[quote name='camoor']Seventh grade called. They want their "you're gay" jokes back.[/QUOTE]

Great, one of you is fascinated by it and the other is offended.

I have no problem with dick sucking. I don't care who is doing it to whom. I also don't ridicule people for their sexual preferences based upon their political affiliations. Frankly, these "scandalous republicans" deserve your pity and empathy more than a political opportunity to claim hypocrisy. It defeats your whole position to be accepting of homosexuals and their choice of lifestyle. These people have obviously been suffering in an alien world for a long time and deserve sympathy - something your party types seem to have in short supply - although you claim to be the more compassionate. I guess hypocrisy runs down both aisles.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It defeats your whole position to be accepting of homosexuals and their choice of lifestyle.[/QUOTE]

Suck my dick.

This is such nonsense I shouldn't even bother.

*ahem*

THE REASON THAT LIBERALS AND OTHERS CALL THESE fuckERS OUT AS LIARS, HYPOCRITES, AND HEATHEN WORTHLESS SONS OF BITCHES IS BECAUSE THEIR POLITICAL CAREER HAS BEEN BUILT, IN PART OR IN WHOLE, ON A FOUNDATION OF FALSE FAMILY VALUES THAT IS (1) INCOMPLETE, (2) HETERONORMATIVE, (3) EXCLUSIONARY, (4) HATEFUL OF OTHERS, (5) ENCOURAGES AN "US VERSUS THEM" MENTALITY THAT FOSTERS A SILLY AND DANGEROUS FEAR OF ALL THINGS NOT GOD-FEARING AND HETEROSEXUAL AMONG THEIR CONSTITUENTS, AND (6) HAS RESULTED IN THE LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUALS AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS.

They are preaching anti-homosexual fervor out of one side of their mouth and taking a cock in the other side. What's so fucking hard to understand about this? It isn't that they perform gay acts, it's that they perform gay acts while portraying a kind of public character that benefits from being anti-gay. THAT is the problem.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'] These people have obviously been suffering in an alien world for a long time and deserve sympathy - something your party types seem to have in short supply - although you claim to be the more compassionate. I guess hypocrisy runs down both aisles.[/QUOTE]


First off, you aren't paying attention or aren't honest enough to admit you are. I've numerous blogs, talking heads (no pun intended) etc. proclaim the empathy you say is lacking.

BUT...

Pity is generally reserved for those who find themselves is desperate situation not of their own doing. The politics these fuckers have played for decades negates the "not of their own doing" clause. And before you start, I'm not talking about the wrong place /wrong time pity.

I wonder if your sympathy extends to liberal homosexuals who were also affected by these Republicans fear mongering?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
They are preaching anti-homosexual fervor out of one side of their mouth and taking a cock in the other side. What's so fucking hard to understand about this? It isn't that they perform gay acts, it's that they perform gay acts while portraying a kind of public character that benefits from being anti-gay. THAT is the problem.[/quote]

QFT, I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Frankly, these "scandalous republicans" deserve your pity and empathy more than a political opportunity to claim hypocrisy. It defeats your whole position to be accepting of homosexuals and their choice of lifestyle. These people have obviously been suffering in an alien world for a long time and deserve sympathy - something your party types seem to have in short supply - although you claim to be the more compassionate. I guess hypocrisy runs down both aisles.[/quote]
First off, I'm supposed to be sympathetic of members of the political party that's done more to erode my fucking rights? Are you fucking kidding me? That's frankly rather insulting. They don't deserve a motherfucking lick of pity because- need I remind you- they're the ones who've propegated this mindset of us fags are the worst thing since communism (along with the bullshit that we "choose" to have this lifestyle [who would choose to be part of one of the most hated groups in the world?] and that we should be cured through the lawd jeesus christ). They're the ones who've trumpeted how horrible we are, and yet they turn out to be the same way behind closed doors. My sympathy is that they can shove it up their asses.

Secondly, they again deserve zero sympathy because once it's found out that they love the very cock that they supposedly despise in the name of morality, they end up going to some Christian therapist and being "cured"- this "curing" of homosexuality bullshit is as big a goddamn scam as the Brooklyn bridge and again doing more harm to homsexuals in general. They're just trying to save face for themselves and their party, and for that too they can just fuck miles of off.

There's no hypocrisy on my part. Why should I be sympathetic of these people who want to harm me? You just don't understand, but whatever, I guess wouldn't expect you to. After all, it's a non-issue for most of the straight population. Enjoy your hetero freedoms. :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']THE REASON THAT LIBERALS AND OTHERS CALL THESE fuckERS OUT AS LIARS, HYPOCRITES, AND HEATHEN WORTHLESS SONS OF BITCHES [/quote]

Hey wait a minute.

No way is this guy a heathen. Don't throw this fucker into the religious catagory formerly known as "other"!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Suck my dick.

This is such nonsense I shouldn't even bother.

*ahem*

THE REASON THAT LIBERALS AND OTHERS CALL THESE fuckERS OUT AS LIARS, HYPOCRITES, AND HEATHEN WORTHLESS SONS OF BITCHES IS BECAUSE THEIR POLITICAL CAREER HAS BEEN BUILT, IN PART OR IN WHOLE, ON A FOUNDATION OF FALSE FAMILY VALUES THAT IS (1) INCOMPLETE, (2) HETERONORMATIVE, (3) EXCLUSIONARY, (4) HATEFUL OF OTHERS, (5) ENCOURAGES AN "US VERSUS THEM" MENTALITY THAT FOSTERS A SILLY AND DANGEROUS FEAR OF ALL THINGS NOT GOD-FEARING AND HETEROSEXUAL AMONG THEIR CONSTITUENTS, AND (6) HAS RESULTED IN THE LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUALS AS SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS.

They are preaching anti-homosexual fervor out of one side of their mouth and taking a cock in the other side. What's so fucking hard to understand about this? It isn't that they perform gay acts, it's that they perform gay acts while portraying a kind of public character that benefits from being anti-gay. THAT is the problem.[/quote]

I'm still amazed these people get involved in these scandals. They should know that because they take a stand on these issues, that their ass will be grilled if they get caught doing what they say is immoral. They should be on their tippy toes to make sure they don't slip up on anything (gay relationship, cheating on their wife, not taking care of family, or whatever else).

I don't know if fags are worse than commies (I've personally never heard anyone say that but it's an interesting point, totally dumb for whoever says it). I'm not gay so I don't know about the rights situation and I can't comment on that. I believe in God but I guess what you would call the "religous right" does piss me off in a lot of aspects. They make everyone look like a bunch of idiots (media helps too but these people throw them the bone) so people who aren't dicks about certain aspects are lumped in together with everyone else. It's supposed to be about freedom of choice but apparently people feel compelled to think otherwise.

I don't buy into the whole notion that deep down every Republican wants to suck a man's cock though. I could say every Democrat is a God hater with no morals and are little pussies that don't want to defend America, bla bla bla bla. Generalizations don't help.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']
I don't know if fags are worse than commies (I've personally never heard anyone say that but it's an interesting point, totally dumb for whoever says it). [/quote]

Are you kidding? We're destroying good ol' Amerurican moral christian family values with our evil, bible-destroying buttsex black magic and desire to be treated like everyone else. Commies only wanna take away your money and freedom. ;)
 
[quote name='Hex']Are you kidding? We're destroying good ol' Amerurican moral christian family values with our evil, bible-destroying buttsex black magic and desire to be treated like everyone else. Commies only wanna take away your money and freedom. ;)[/QUOTE]

Then you have a problem with christians, not Republicans. As Myke likes to believe, a politician has to use tact in order not to offend potential voters. It's perfectly acceptable behavior for a democrat, but when it's a republican it's suddenly hypocrisy. I'll say again that the democrats are not professing any love for the homosexual agenda. At best they get a lipservice from Kucinich, and the rest are conspicuously silent.

The best you can expect from a new democratic administration - after they have used you to become elected - is another round of don't ask, don't tell and the promise of a reacharound in another 4 years.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Then you have a problem with christians, not Republicans. As Myke likes to believe, a politician has to use tact in order not to offend potential voters. It's perfectly acceptable behavior for a democrat, but when it's a republican it's suddenly hypocrisy. I'll say again that the democrats are not professing any love for the homosexual agenda. At best they get a lipservice from Kucinich, and the rest are conspicuously silent.

The best you can expect from a new democratic administration - after they have used you to become elected - is another round of don't ask, don't tell and the promise of a reacharound in another 4 years.[/quote]
That was me being facetious.

As for the Democrats, with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, they're hardly anti gay, or even neutral- As much as I think Obama is a pussy, he's still for civil unions. While I will most certainly concede that those are an equal-but-different approach, it's still better than any Republican's stance.

As an aside, believe me when I say how dissapointed I am in the frontrunners on the democrat side- Obama openly said he's not going to allow gay marriage because he likes sucking the religious cock and thinks that somehow allowing us to have equal rights is going to somehow cause Christianity to rot from the inside out. Hillary as I recall just beat about the bush, as did Edwards, and Richardson managed to alienate everyone at the HRC meeting with rather unfavourable remarks. But i stand by the fact, I'd rather have them in power than a hostile Republican.

I think the Dems have enough pressure to do something, if nothing but sympathise, which is a fuck of a lot more than you'd get from a conservative.
 
[quote name='Hex']That was me being facetious.

As for the Democrats, with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel, they're hardly anti gay, or even neutral- As much as I think Obama is a pussy, he's still for civil unions. While I will most certainly concede that those are an equal-but-different approach, it's still better than any Republican's stance.

As an aside, believe me when I say how dissapointed I am in the frontrunners on the democrat side- Obama openly said he's not going to allow gay marriage because he likes sucking the religious cock and thinks that somehow allowing us to have equal rights is going to somehow cause Christianity to rot from the inside out. Hillary as I recall just beat about the bush, as did Edwards, and Richardson managed to alienate everyone at the HRC meeting with rather unfavourable remarks. But i stand by the fact, I'd rather have them in power than a hostile Republican.

I think the Dems have enough pressure to do something, if nothing but sympathise, which is a fuck of a lot more than you'd get from a conservative.[/quote]

I don't buy Obama's extended hand to Christians. If he was so "Godly", why does he agree with abortion? You can't just pick and choose.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']I don't buy Obama's extended hand to Christians. If he was so "Godly", why does he agree with abortion? You can't just pick and choose.[/QUOTE]

Why? The majority of Christians do. Outside of evangelicals, most Christians are pro-choice.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']I don't buy Obama's extended hand to Christians. If he was so "Godly", why does he agree with abortion? You can't just pick and choose.[/QUOTE]
Finally, someone who sees the world for what it truly is--black and white.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']As Myke likes to believe, a politician has to use tact in order not to offend potential voters.[/quote]

Ah. Forgive me that slip of the tongue. I forgot every politician ever genuinely speaks what is on their mind, and doesn't have focus groups, researchers, facial analysis psychologists, and a myriad of people on board, ensuring that every action and statement that comes out of their mouth is thoroughly tested for a broad swatch of Americans. Nope. They don't do that at all.

:roll:

It's perfectly acceptable behavior for a democrat, but when it's a republican it's suddenly hypocrisy. I'll say again that the democrats are not professing any love for the homosexual agenda. At best they get a lipservice from Kucinich, and the rest are conspicuously silent.
Click to expand...

You often like to profess your intelligence (though I disagree), so I can't figure out if you're being intentionally obtuse here, or if you're just thick. Homosexual rights aren't this clearly bifurcated issue sui generis (the single biggest asshole phrase this side of "prima facie"), let alone considered in the context of it being a hot button political issue. Given the choices between a politician who is willing to advance some rights for homosexuals and a politician who advocates a change in the federal constitution to ban gay marriage (as our current president suggested), the choice is obvious.

"Hey, myke, you can get a mere portion of what it is you truly want, or you can have that which you despise in abundance! Your call, hombre!" That's essentially what you're suggesting, and presenting it as a difficult issue. :lol:

Look, you have no idea how liberal I am, and you have no idea what sorts of ideals i truly demand from politicians (and the fact that, of all politicians, the I-kid-you-fucking-not truth that the one politician who has come closest to that ideal is George-Goddamn-W-Bush) - but the matter is plain and simple: selecting a candidate necessarily involves compromise on some issues. The failure to recognize that you disagree or differ with a politician you're voting for is the result of (1) an absurd lack of information on that politician's stances, (2) a lack of concern with or knowledge of the issues. To be unwilling to vote for anyone but a politician with whom you agree in toto is (1) an implication that you have surely never voted before and (2) a "she has sharp knees" level of dimwitted standards.

The best you can expect from a new democratic administration - after they have used you to become elected - is another round of don't ask, don't tell and the promise of a reacharound in another 4 years.
Click to expand...

While it would be very easy to say "DADT" is surely better than the "screw you, homo" policies of the past 6 years, I don't want to get into a game of "MY party is the least damaging to an already marginalized group" (that's precisely what you want. Instead, I'll merely point out that the military dismissals over the past few years (Bleu Copas comes to mind) have shown how absurd DADT is, and that you will find very few people of any political persuasion who think DADT is good and should be kept in place.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']I don't buy Obama's extended hand to Christians. If he was so "Godly", why does he agree with abortion? You can't just pick and choose.[/QUOTE]

Are you a Pacifist and a Socialist?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
You often like to profess your intelligence (though I disagree), so I can't figure out if you're being intentionally obtuse here, or if you're just thick. Homosexual rights aren't this clearly bifurcated issue sui generis (the single biggest asshole phrase this side of "prima facie"), let alone considered in the context of it being a hot button political issue. Given the choices between a politician who is willing to advance some rights for homosexuals and a politician who advocates a change in the federal constitution to ban gay marriage (as our current president suggested), the choice is obvious.[/quote]

I'm not in academia, myke. I don't need to, nor do I profess my intelligence. It radiates through my glorious, heavy-handed, marvelously constructed, and morally consistent posting. And if you think Democrats are actually willing to advance homosexual issues, you are much more naive than I am obtuse.

"Hey, myke, you can get a mere portion of what it is you truly want, or you can have that which you despise in abundance! Your call, hombre!" That's essentially what you're suggesting, and presenting it as a difficult issue. :lol:
Click to expand...

No, I would never suggest to anyone they should vote for a Republican for president.

Look, you have no idea how liberal I am, and you have no idea what sorts of ideals i truly demand from politicians ...
Click to expand...

Come on Myke, you're not a real "liberal", you're a leftist. You only believe in freedom in so far as it applies to your own daily allowances. The people who get a bigger bread ration are the undeserving, and the ones who squander theirs are the disenfranchised. I'll take an educated guess here and say that you believe everyone's first obligation is to his brother and the common good. Am I close ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']IAnd if you think Democrats are actually willing to advance homosexual issues, you are much more naive than I am obtuse.[/quote]

So where's your evidence that under a Democrat president it's going to be four more years of hell? Tuthfully it could go either way, but the pattern still shows that Democrats are more inclined to offer rights to homosexuals than Republicans. Not the full rights we deserve, but I'm certain they'll try to rectify the problems of the past.

At least with Republicans, I know for a fact that I'll be treated like shit, with the Dems I have at least a fighting chance. :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']with Christianity? :roll:[/quote]

What I meant was if Obama is supposed to be a religious person (he talks about his faith, going to church, etc) shouldn't he have a problem with abortion? Like the OP with the Republican dick sucking. He was supposed to have morales and "family values" (probably a Christian background) but then goes and cheats on his wife, tries to have sex with a man, etc. It's sending a mixed message. These are the people who talk about their faith, but then pick and choose on what they want to act on. They don't allow things like gay marriage etc because they have "religious convictions", but could then let something like abortion slide, or whatever it may be.
 
[quote name='Blackout542']What I meant was if Obama is supposed to be a religious person (he talks about his faith, going to church, etc) shouldn't he have a problem with abortion? Like the OP with the Republican dick sucking. He was supposed to have morales and "family values" (probably a Christian background) but then goes and cheats on his wife, tries to have sex with a man, etc. These are the people who talk about their faith, but then pick and choose on what they want to act on.[/quote]

You are confusing non-dogmatic natural religion with hypocrisy.

A rational individual could decide that while he agrees with the main spirit of his religion, there are some rules or mythology (typically dogmatic) that he will not accept or abide by (for example, the christian bible prohibits eating shellfish, but IMO a person can legitimately be called christian even if decides to eat oysters every once in a while because the religion is not really based on avoidance of shellfish - unless I'm missing something)

A hypocrite advocates an ideology that he does not personally believe or abide by. (by way of example, a christian who loudly denouces those who eat shellfish as immoral and unchristian, but secretly eats oysters in the privacy of his own home)
 
Ive often wondered how homosexuals felt about just leaving the gay marriage issue up to the states. This has been the traditional stance: to just let the states handle it however they want to and keep the fed gov't out of it.

I was talking with a friend the other day about these issues and we came across the question of whether homosexuality can be a "choice." I think it isnt and said that nobody chooses who to fall in love with; but then he pointed out that what Sen. Craig did was a choice, and that some who are bi may choose to be homosexual. What do homosexuals in this board have to say. Sorry if I'm offending by asking but I dont have many opportunities to discuss things like this in the real world outside of message boards.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Ive often wondered how homosexuals felt about just leaving the gay marriage issue up to the states. This has been the traditional stance: to just let the states handle it however they want to and keep the fed gov't out of it.

I was talking with a friend the other day about these issues and we came across the question of whether homosexuality can be a "choice." I think it isnt and said that nobody chooses who to fall in love with; but then he pointed out that what Sen. Craig did was a choice, and that some who are bi may choose to be homosexual. What do homosexuals in this board have to say. Sorry if I'm offending by asking but I dont have many opportunities to discuss things like this in the real world outside of message boards.[/quote]
I think it's a Federal issue because it's a civil goddamn right. It's being left up to the states as is, and the majority of them are choosing segregation (though things are slowly turning round). This isn't a state issue, it's a human and legal issue that applies to the entire country.

Homosexuality of any shade is not a choice, either. What he did was a choice to engage in homosexual actions, but what he feels with regard to his preference only he knows; he may be bisexual and interested in both genders, or he could be gay and just putting up with having a wife for the fact that people will ostracize you for loving the opposite gender. He could be anywhere in between bi and gay, or he could even just be curious about homosexuality but thanks to his party's politics, it's publicly verbotten so he tries to cover it up (but managed to get caught anyway). When you're bisexual, you don't "choose" to be homosexual, you choose to involve yourself in a homosexual relationship because you just happened to fall in love with someone of the same gender. It could just as easily go the other way, but as long as you consider yourself bisexual, then you're only "choosing" to be in a heterosexual relationship. My boyfriend is bisexual, but he's ended up in a homosexual relationship. Were we not together, I'm sure he could as easily go the other direction, and he'd be in a hetero relationship.

It's not about choosing to completely exclude one gender or another, it's just about having feelings for and being attracted to either your own or the opposite gender. Sexuality is never so black and white. :roll:
 
[quote name='Hex']I think it's a Federal issue because it's a civil goddamn right. It's being left up to the states as is, and the majority of them are choosing segregation (though things are slowly turning round). This isn't a state issue, it's a human and legal issue that applies to the entire country.

Homosexuality of any shade is not a choice, either. What he did was a choice to engage in homosexual actions, but what he feels with regard to his preference only he knows; he may be bisexual and interested in both genders, or he could be gay and just putting up with having a wife for the fact that people will ostracize you for loving the opposite gender. He could be anywhere in between bi and gay, or he could even just be curious about homosexuality but thanks to his party's politics, it's publicly verbotten so he tries to cover it up (but managed to get caught anyway). When you're bisexual, you don't "choose" to be homosexual, you choose to involve yourself in a homosexual relationship because you just happened to fall in love with someone of the same gender. It could just as easily go the other way, but as long as you consider yourself bisexual, then you're only "choosing" to be in a heterosexual relationship. My boyfriend is bisexual, but he's ended up in a homosexual relationship. Were we not together, I'm sure he could as easily go the other direction, and he'd be in a hetero relationship.

It's not about choosing to completely exclude one gender or another, it's just about having feelings for and being attracted to either your own or the opposite gender. Sexuality is never so black and white. :roll:[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have slept with someone of the opposite sex, but aren't even bisexual. I know a lot of people with the "I'll try anything once" mentality--if they sleep with someone of the same sex, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're gay.
Man, I never thought adults would have to have this conversation. It's sad, really.
 
[quote name='defiance_17']I'm sure there are plenty of people who have slept with someone of the opposite sex, but aren't even bisexual. I know a lot of people with the "I'll try anything once" mentality--if they sleep with someone of the same sex, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're gay.
Man, I never thought adults would have to have this conversation. It's sad, really.[/QUOTE]

Yeah because NOT talking about things works so well and is really fun to do on message boards.
 
[quote name='defiance_17']I'm sure there are plenty of people who have slept with someone of the opposite sex, but aren't even bisexual. I know a lot of people with the "I'll try anything once" mentality--if they sleep with someone of the same sex, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're gay.
Man, I never thought adults would have to have this conversation. It's sad, really.[/quote]
Bingo. Plus there are guys who really like pegging, but there are some who'd probably like it, except they figure it means they're gay. :roll:

I concur, but sexuality is a rather taboo subject, unfortunately.

[quote name='pittpizza']Yeah because NOT talking about things works so well and is really fun to do on message boards.[/quote]

I think he's implying (with which I would agree) that it's unfortunate that one must spell out sexuality in such a manner.
 
I think the sad thing is that some people feel the world is black and white and actually think people choose to be gay. I never think free and frank discussions are ever "sad."
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

I was talking with a friend the other day about these issues and we came across the question of whether homosexuality can be a "choice." .[/QUOTE]


If homosexuality is a choice then isn't ALL sexuality? The answer of course is no.

Sex is a choice. Sexuality is not. Don't confuse the 2.
 
[quote name='usickenme']If homosexuality is a choice then isn't ALL sexuality? The answer of course is no.

Sex is a choice. Sexuality is not. Don't confuse the 2.[/quote]

Yeah I know sexuality is not a choice and I've never confused the too. As to sex being a choice, this is only true for women, for men it is never really a choice because the answer is always "Yes please!"

I dont understand people who think that gays choose to be gay. For instance one would ask a man "Did you choose to be attracted to women?" And they would probably respond something like "No, thats just natural and RIGHT, and the way -od meant it to be." Soo stupid and tautological. This may sound racist (I am a minority, sort of) but I would never choose to be black in colonial america or jewish in Nazi Germany if I truly had a choice. While the treatment may not be as bad for gays in America today the rationale remains the same. The problem with trying to reason or rationalize with somebody holding this view is that reason has no place in an emotional view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top