My Mom is definitely not a homophobe but is against SSM. It’s this weird semantic thing with her that I don’t quite understand. She totally supports same sex, State sanctioned domestic partnerships with the exact same rights as a marriage (like we have here in CA) but not when you call it “marriage.” Maybe this isn’t what you meant though.
A very good friend of mine who is a gay man does not support making homosexuals a protected class but he is a Libertarian who thinks that all Affirmative Action type laws are wrong.
I dearly hope he caught last night’s episode of “Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple in All the World” which included a Log Cabin Republican expressing just those sentiments. “We deserve full and equal marriage rights! And the time to demand them is…later!”
I wouldn’t call this guy’s position opposition to SSM anyway, just a disagreement on tactics for obtaining it.
What it boils down to for me is why do people like Craig, whether he wants to come out of the closet or not or enter a SSM or not (he’s gay – puh-leeze), actively work to oppress those of the group he’s a part who do.
If you don’t want to come out or marry someone of the same sex or even support legislation in favor of either being made possible, then just refrain from doing so in either case.
Yes, since he’s a conservative, republican politician, I understand what he’s doing. But as a human who’s presented the behaviors he has presented, I don’t.
What it comes down to is that there’s no way he could, as an Idaho Republican, be elected or re-elected if he were neutral about same-sex marriage or ANY gay-positive political initiative. And for people like Craig, power and money are more important than their own happiness and ability to actually be who they are. And the happiness of the millions of GLTBXYZetc. people in the nation who aren’t them isn’t even of peripheral importance.
Remember…until fairly recently gay relationships weren’t even an option. Gays (well homosexuals) were believed to be sick and an abomination. Men attracted to other men mostly got married women just like every one else. The outlet for sex was mainly anonymous encounters (rest stops, parks, public restrooms). Same sex relationships weren’t recongnized or validated…only condemed by society. The push for marriage is an advancement towards recognizing the fact that it could be possible…even healthy…for people of the same sex to have a healthy, committed relationship instead of anonymous encounters in the bushes.
This is all quite frightening. Who among us has not peered luridly through the gap between the stall and the door for several minutes? It’s a natural human reaction. And tapping your foot? There is a law against that? I too stand to urinate with my legs wide enough to make contact with they guy in the next stall. It happens all the time! Finally, don’t we all reach under the stall next to us sometimes and signal, as if to say, “Everything is OK in here, how about you? I’m just checking, not looking for sex or anything.”
If Senator Craig can get railroaded like this, it can happen to anyone. Next thing you know people are going to be arrested for putting their wussnames through holes in the bathroom wall. Like that makes you a deviant or something.
My WAG is that Craig (being no lawyer) thought that by paying the ticket it would just go away, but that a trial would drag it out into the public.
Of course I have little doubt he is gay and was cruising. However, for Gawds sake “tapping his foot”? :eek: :rolleyes: I have been to a public restroom at a rest stop and the guy put his erect cock through a hole in the wall. That was clearly solicitation. Tapping your foot, etc is bullshit. Although we have outrage here abiut Craig’s hypocrisy, how about that PD and it’s strang idea that “tapping your foot” is crusing for sex? And who gives a rats ass anyway? If two gay stangers want to have sex, it’s fine by me.
Yes, we need to see hypocritical assholes like Craig are outed.
But we also have to stop with this ridiculous police oppression of gay sex.
I suggest all us males start “tapping our feet”. :rolleyes: Fuck them.
As ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies said, if that is in fact what those two honestly and fully believe, then I wouldn’t really say either one “opposes same sex marriage”, at least as that phrase is used in the common parlance.
(The first guy, however, is, from the perspective of someone who has just heard this position described second hand over a message board, possibly a weasel… it would be easy for someone who was basically libertarian but also a homophobe to adopt precisely that same position… “I’m against same sex marriage, because I’m against all government meddling in private affairs” “so are you also against government-sanctioned opposite-sex marriage?” “Well, yeah, but, uhh, see, it’s already in place and it’s what were used to and there’s no point in locking the barn door now, yada yada yada.” Of course, he might also not be a weasel.)
I think that the thread title is misleading, at least as far as what is known, unless it’s intended to be figurative. (In that case, it may be spot on.)
I think it should be changed to read: “Sen Craig sucks sweaty bathroom cock!” or perhaps “Sen Craig sucks bathroom cock and vehemently denied nailing a 17 year old male Congressional page!”
I thought it was some new kind of Euro-toilet, I swear.
Seriously, though, Criag did more than tap his foot on the floor. He tapped the ociffer’s foot with his own, and reached under the door to make some, as yet undefined, signal and repeated it 3 times.
As a gay man who’s spent his share of time stall-crawling, I’d like to note that tapping your foot is a pretty standard signal for that particular non-spectator sport. It’s only the preliminary signal, yes, but it IS a signal. Further signals include running your fingers over the bottom of the stall wall, as Craig did. And looking intently between the cracks in the door and the stall, as Craig did.
Having been pretty active in the past in this milieu (I haven’t done it in close to a decade now), Craig showed more than enough signs of that being his intention for anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the activity (and I’d assume a trained plainclothes policeman would have more than a passing knowledge of this) to be certain of his intention.
Just as an experiment, I went into one of the public restrooms here at work (municipal building) and measured the width (partion to partion) of one of the non-handicapped accessible stalls. It was 36" in width. The center of the toilet was about 18" from either wall. I looked at the Minnesota Building Code but couldn’t find a regulation for public bathroom stall width, but I think 36" is probably a good measure.
In order for the Senator to be able to sit on the toilet and get his foot under the stall and reach police officer’s foot (read the arrest report) he had to really be on the hunt. Either that or he’s really Gumby in disguise.
And for those of you who say, “Yeah, well I use a wide stance,” I’m guessing you don’t stand more than 36" apart.
I just had a “not in Kansas” moment. How does the other party indicate receptiveness? More importantly, if someone is staring into a stall, how does one indicate stern and solemn disinterest? Does money change hands, or is this strictly all amateur?
24" judging from the 12" tiles while in front of the urinal in the customary stance. I did not bring in a tape measure, though. God only knows what THAT signals. [you must be this -> <- long to ride Waverly… shudder]