[Warning: This post contains a frank--albeit not indecent--discussion of homosexual behavior.]
The recent news that Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in a Minnesota airport restroom for lewd conduct is shocking. Perhaps even more shocking is the reactions by some people who are surprised to learn that such behavior is rather commonplace. In fact, many otherwise urbane and cultured people act as if they are surprised to find that homosexual men engage in anonymous sexual encounters in public places.
Many well-meaning people--including Christians--fall for the politically correct lie that homosexual men (i.e., men that engage in homosexual behaviors) are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexual men. Such claims of behavioral equivalency, however, are demonstrably false. For decades social scientists have extensively documented the fact that extreme promiscuity is a common occurrence among homosexual males.
One study published in the Journal of Sex Research examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals and found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners." The same study notes that about half of all the men surveyed said they had "casual sex only" while less than one quarter were monogamous. Such results are not uncommon (see my prior post on the subject for more data).
So where are these casual liaisons taking place? There are a number of public settings for these private encounters but since the 1930s one of the most common has been public restrooms. In the slang of the homosexual subculture, the term for such facilities is "tearooms" (in Britain the gay slang term is "cottaging".).
In 1970 sociologist Laud Humphreys published Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places, a landmark ethnographical study of anonymous male-male sexual encounters in public restrooms. In his book, Humphreys explains the bizarre set of rules and rituals associated with tearooms. But it is the focus on the reactions of the participants that is the most disheartening:
Activity in the tearooms is organized to make what is highly stigmatized seem matter of fact and taken for granted. So long as there is no conversation and little gestural communication, the participants can mask the varying interpretations each privately makes of what is going on. One suspects that if the participants talked freely about what they were doing they would not find it easy to maintain the gathering as a positive sum game. Evelyn Hooker has observed how even in an interview situation with rapport built up over a long period of time, homosexuals find it difficult to discuss in detail their specifically sexual behavior and their feelings about it.
Apologists for homosexuality will claim that it was the lack of acceptance in the late 20th century that forced gay men into such deviant behavior. How then do they explain the fact that despite homosexuality becoming increasingly socially acceptable that tearooms have continued to flourish? The research shows that little has changed since the 1970s. In 1990, Canadian sociologist Frederick J. Desroches provided an update which confirmed the findings of Humphreys earlier research. Desroches found that the basic pattern of the behavior had not changed:
[M]ost tearoom participants (a) communicate through non-verbal gestures and seldom speak, (b) do not associate outside the tearoom or attempt to learn one another's identity or exchange biographical information, (c) do not use force or coercion or attempt to involve youths or children, (d) are primarily heterosexual and married…
Desroches writes in his conclusion:
The behavior of players reveals remarkable consistency over time, from community to community, and across national boundaries. Many men, the majority of them married and primarily heterosexual, continue to visit out-of-the-way public washrooms in search of fast, impersonal, and exciting sex despite the risk to family, friends, job, and reputation. Although shopping malls have usurped public parks as the favorite locale of tearoom participants, the basic rules of the game and profile of the players—as Humphreys contends—remain the same over time and place.
All homosexual acts are sinful and contrary to the will of God. But this type of sexual behavior is the very antithesis of sex: God designed sex to be a unity of male and female; this behavior is homosexual. God created sex to be reproductively unitive; this behavior is sodomitical. God intended sex to be enjoyed within a monogamous commitment; this behavior is promiscuous. God intended sex to be an intimate one-flesh union; this behavior is depersonalizing. God purposed sex to be creative and beautiful; this behavior is destructive and ugly.
Merely pointing out the obvious will make some evangelicals--not to mention other people--uncomfortable. They will wonder why I feel the need to stomp once again on such well-trodden ground. It is a legitimate concern. Regrettably, far too many conservative Christians tend to overemphasize the sin of homosexuality while overlooking the more common and equally nefarious sins of pride, greed, envy, lust, etc., that we heterosexuals are more prone to commit. Recognizing that we have a log in our own eye, however, should not prevent us from denouncing homosexual sins, particularly when it is manifested in such behavior as the "tearoom trade."
Our hearts should break for those who are caught up in such a dehumanizing and degrading conduct. If we want to show love for our neighbors--including Sen. Craig--then we must not only refuse to condone homosexual behavior but show them the path that leads away from sin and death. We need to show them that the love and fulfillment they are searching for can only be found in Christ---not in stalls of a toilet.
Addendum: As for Sen. Craig, my view is that he should resign from the Senate -- and take the whore-mongering Sen. Vitter with him. Mark Steyn best summarizes why Craig should step down:
Only one hundred people out of 300 million get to be U.S. senators. Granted a wide public tolerance for creeps and weirdoes, an understanding that one will not solicit sex in airport men's rooms is about the minimum entry qualification.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3872
1
Great post. What I don't get is how he could plead guilty and then have the chutzpah to rescind the plea and say he caved under media pressure.
posted on 08.30.2007 7:48 AM2
A reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog had this to say, which I thought was interesting:
Jamie (who is guest blogging) responds:
I think there's a limit to this analysis --as men will always be men-- but the the normalization and stabilization of gay life (epitomized by gay marriage) over the past 30 years has only helped gay male culture mature.
Men are always going to be more promiscuous than women. Men's sexuality is probably simplier for them to understand than women, the consquences for sex are often lower for men and men are often more geared toward action. Men are going to be more promisucious than women which implies male couples will be the most, male-female will be medium and lesbian couples the least.
But consider:
1. I would point out that 'adult bookstores' with 'video booths' are the same thing. Basically they are a place for straight men to have a semi-public sexual experience. Granted they do it with itself but I don't doubt for a second if a large group of women were willing to have 'tearoom sex' a larger group of men would be happy to take them up on the offer.
2. These places still exist despite the fact that straight men have a socially acceptable and encouraged alternative (hooking up with straight women). The only thing that seems to have stopped these places is the arrival of the internet.
3. Let's be clear here about Craig. He almost certainly did what he did because his party has made a fetish out of total rejection of open gays. It's good that Joe feels Vitter should resign also but notice how lonely Joe is in that position. Noted Christinist Heweitt explicitly came out and said he didn't call for Vitter to resign but he did for Craig. Why? Even with Joe, I remember his reaction to Vitter was more outrage that Larry Flynt had the audacity to be and honest reporter and report about criminal activity being done by a sitting Senator. The underlying message here remains pretty clear, it's ok to be a gay Republican provided you go to extraordinary lengths to keep it a secret and if you ever get caught your friends will drop you like a rock.
posted on 08.30.2007 8:53 AM3
Is it just me, or is something horribly wrong when our public discussion takes us to a point where we have to gradiate deviant sexual behavior?
posted on 08.30.2007 9:03 AM4
It's interesting that researchers tell us that most of these men are, in fact, heterosexual. From all indications, Craig himself is a heterosexual.
By the way, can anyone find a passage in the Bible indicating that either Jesus or Paul ever expressed any clearly heterosexual behavior or desires?
posted on 08.30.2007 9:25 AM5
I don't understand how this happens. Each man is in their stall. How can they have sex between the partition? I don't get it.
posted on 08.30.2007 9:59 AM6
Is it just me, or is something horribly wrong when our public discussion takes us to a point where we have to gradiate deviant sexual behavior?
Why? Isn't all behavior by definition gradiated?
CT
I don't understand how this happens. Each man is in their stall. How can they have sex between the partition? I don't get it.
Do you really want to get it? I assume these 'coded signals' are used for identification. Assuming both are game, they then will open the doors and get together...or perhaps climb over or under the walls to meet each other but Craig doesn't seem that athletic.
It should also be pointed out that what Craig did technically shouldn't be a crime. For all we know he would have proposed getting a room somewhere and never would have had sex in public. In every prostitution sting I've seen on TV they wait until the perp verbally agrees to exchange money for sex. The case seems very weak, Craig was right that he shouldn't have taken a plea and he should have fought it. Of course I'm 99% sure Craig would have had sex with this guy if he wasn't a cop but still the law should actually be followed. I hate to say it but I can see how an innocent person (say someone who wanted some tissue) might get caught up in a sting like this.
I don't think Craig was innocent here, though, especially considering all the other 'smoke' around him from people claiming to have had bathroom sex with him. He can't be innocent unless he has exceptionally poor bathroom social intelligence.
It's interesting that researchers tell us that most of these men are, in fact, heterosexual. From all indications, Craig himself is a heterosexual.
Not quite, I suggest you read the article in the Idaho Statesmen. Craig raised eyebrows in the early 1980's when there was a congressional page scandal. He preemptively denied anything before anyone even mentioned him. He later said that being an unmarried politician often invited such accusations. (Which is true, NYC Mayor Ed Koch was continually accused of being gay because he never married...but he has never confirmed or denied that insisting that he will never discuss his private life) Less than a year later he quickly married. A gay blogger outed him but the Statesmen didn't run the story because Craig denied it and the man refused to let his name be used. IMO it seems that Craig is a closeted gay man whose tried to produce the impression he is straight.
posted on 08.30.2007 10:18 AM7
They're genuinely surprised, since, as your source states, most of the participants are "primarily heterosexual and married." posted on 08.30.2007 10:43 AM8
That's one way to look at it Joe, but one could just as easily look at it from a republican hypocrisy type of angle too.
posted on 08.30.2007 10:56 AM9
Anyone have a count of Republican's implicated in serious ethics problems at the moment? By my count we have at least 3, Vitter, Craig and Stevens (whose house, I believe, was recently raided by the FBI). That doesn't sound like a lot but there's only 49 Republican Senators giving a 6% rate. That's also not counting the fact that the Bush Justice Dept has been overtly politicized with the Former AG firing attorneys probably for launching investigations of Republicans...so if anything the bias is towards overlooking ethical lapses.
Expanding to the larger Conservative world we see a lot more cases of the arrogance of power such as Missippi's Gov. Barbour pilfering Katrina relief money for his family connections or Haggars implosion.
On the Democratic side the only thing that comes to recent memory is NJ's Gov. McGreevy who basically did what Rudy probably did (there's some credible evidence that his diasterous decision to locate NYC's emergancy command center in the WTC complex...which experts told him was insane to do considering the WTC was a known target...was partially motivated by a desire to have a pad close to his then girlfriend's apt).
Of course Republican commentators are going for Barney Frank as their fall back defense but after 17 years since Frank's episode it seems rather dated IMO.
posted on 08.30.2007 11:24 AM10
Boontoon,
You would think, people would start understanding the Republican party is not the party of family values, right?
Republicans are the party of greed, hypocrisy, and corruption. Let's be honest though, the democrats are no better because they won't stop funding the occupation of Iraq or hold the administration accountable for it's abuse of the constitution. They say "impeachment is off the table", I'd say "integrity is off the table".
We need a new american revolution-nothing drastic really, just a return to a constitutional democracy would be enough.
John
posted on 08.30.2007 11:58 AM11
Well Boonton, I don't blame you for not being able to come up with any democrats involved in scandals because the media so often plays guess the party when democrats are involved.
Off the top of my head I can think of William Jefferson of LA, Robert Kennedy Jr who ran a police barricade while driving drunk. John Mutha is getting sued for libel for accusing marines of being guilty of committing war crimes before they were tried. Rep Bob Filner is facing assault charges related to an incident at an airport. cynthia McKinney also assaulted a capitol police officer. Harry Reid was involved in a shady land deal in Nevada.
I will note that when republicans get in trouble they are more likely to take responsibility or face cansequences. Trent Lott lost his status as majority leader, Bob Livingstone stepped down form the speakers job after his infidelity was revealed.
I also find it interesting that for the left the only real problem they have with the sexual scandals of republicans is the hypocrisy angle. After all, when there is no such thing as sin in ones worldview, the only thing left to be critical of is hypocrisy over bad behavior.
posted on 08.30.2007 12:30 PM12
Simple . . . Some men who are homosexual can't accept who they are. They are encouraged by their families, church and society to get married, have children and speak up for "family values." It seems that many who scream the loudest about family values are actually very pathetic people who destroy the lives of their wives and their children because they are too scared to stand up to their families, their church and their society and say "I'm gay and I'm going to live an open, happy life, get over it." These men benefit from not making gay people full citizens. If gay men could marry each other, there would be much fewer men available for this dirty little secret that slims all over the bathrooms that these men cruise. These closeted sick and married homosexuals aren't the great healthy homosexual couples that I know in my community. They wouldn't engage in this behavior any more than you or I. Instead of having sex in public bathrooms they are often raising their children, walking their dogs, working in their yards . . . living open healthy lives as who they are.
Quit with the "ex-gay" movement already, accept that the Bible is silent on loving and committed same sex relationships and put people like Craig in jail where they belong. And, please if you are one of these homosexuals - DO NOT GET MARRIED.
PS - Any man who claims that Craig is NOT a homosexual is suspect. If a man like that is your partner - take precautions. These men are homosexuals and are sick and very dangerous to their female partners.
posted on 08.30.2007 1:49 PM13
Simple . . . Some men who are homosexual can't accept who they are. They are encouraged by their families, church and society to get married, have children and speak up for "family values." It seems that many who scream the loudest about family values are actually very pathetic people who destroy the lives of their wives and their children because they are too scared to stand up to their families, their church and their society and say "I'm gay and I'm going to live an open, happy life, get over it." These men benefit from not making gay people full citizens. If gay men could marry each other, there would be much fewer men available for this dirty little secret that slims all over the bathrooms that these men cruise. These closeted sick and married homosexuals aren't the great healthy homosexual couples that I know in my community. They wouldn't engage in this behavior any more than you or I. Instead of having sex in public bathrooms they are often raising their children, walking their dogs, working in their yards . . . living open healthy lives as who they are.
Quit with the "ex-gay" movement already, accept that the Bible is silent on loving and committed same sex relationships and put people like Craig in jail where they belong. And, please if you are one of these homosexuals - DO NOT GET MARRIED.
PS - Any man who claims that Craig is NOT a homosexual is suspect. If a man like that is your partner - take precautions. These men are homosexuals and are sick and very dangerous to their female partners.
posted on 08.30.2007 1:49 PM14
Robert Kennedy Jr who ran a police barricade while driving drunk
Indeed he is a democrat but he holds no elected office. You only mention him because his family is famous but if we go down that route then just about anyone who gets arrested or convicted of anything, if they happen to belong to a political party, would be added to this list.
John Mutha is getting sued for libel for accusing marines of being guilty of committing war crimes before they were tried
Sounds like a harassment suit that will be dismissed.
William Jefferson of LA
Fair enough but if we are going to start going to the House we'll have to bring up Foley, and of course Jack Abramoff seems like he has at least a half dozen or more people waiting to be brought down (so far two White House officials convicted, one GOP Rep. more if you look at convictions among lobbyists and congressional aids).
Trent Lott lost his status as majority leader
Lott stepped down after his statements about Thurman. This wasn't a criminal or ethical issue, though. This seems less about 'taking responsibility' and more about strategic thinking. The GOP dumped him as a leader because they viewed him as costing them more than he could give. He fought it as long as he could but agreed to step down when it became clear he had more to lose by fighting.
In contrast, look at Tom Delay who fought tooth and nail to hold onto power even when he was indicted in Texas. Only when his aides started getting convicted in the Abramoff scandal did he finally step down.
Bob Livingstone stepped down form the speakers job after his infidelity was revealed.
Indeed, something we should be thankful to Larry Flynt for uncovering....Bob was preparing to judge Clinton in the impeachment fiasco. Ironic that he was replaced by Vitter. Other notable infidelities included Hyde and Gingrich from that era.
I don't see a pattern here of 'taking responsibility' (good spin btw). I see a pattern here of trying hard not to get caught and then cutting and running when the light shines on you. I do not think, for example, that one should step down simply because one is unfaithful. But it's pretty clear that people like Livingston and Hyde and even Gingrich were happy to play the role of hypocrite....judging others while they engaged in their own fun only to 'take responsibility' when they were caught. Notice these Republicans 'take responsibility' when caught and not before. I would call taking responsibility a Republican saying "I believe infidelity is grounds for having to resign, I was unfaithful but no one caught me. It was wrong so I'm taking responsiblity"
I also find it interesting that for the left the only real problem they have with the sexual scandals of republicans is the hypocrisy angle. After all, when there is no such thing as sin in ones worldview, the only thing left to be critical of is hypocrisy over bad behavior.
This is amusing, really. You're basically saying by sinning Republicans are demonstrating how they believe in sin therefore they are still better than Democrats! Wonderful. Unfortunately I'm unaware of any major Democratic figures who think people should have sex in public bathrooms or bribery should be legalized so I'm not really sure how this applies...but then I guess you gotta use whatever you can.
posted on 08.30.2007 2:13 PM15
Most people that do the tearoom shuffle identify themselves as heterosexual. And it is also a fact that straight men do have sex with other men on occasion. A specific sexual act does not identify anyone as gay or straight. I've had heterosexual intercourse on several occasions, it doesn't mean I'm straight. The reverse is also true. For example, many straight men don't consider receiving oral sex from from a guy to mean that they have a gay identity.
By the way Joe, you are doing the old double-standard thing on gender again. The main point of your post is that gay men are bad people because they like to have sex often and with multiple partners. Using your same criteria, Lesbians are apparently nearly angelic beings. Or at the very least, they are more monogamous than straight people are and thus more deserving of praise.
The tendency to have promiscuous sex is based much more on gender, than sexual orientation.
Also, I think that from the Christian point of view there is little real moral difference between having sex with one person or 100 if it takes place outside of marriage. The severity of the sin is exactly the same. So there is no real difference between someone that has sex outside of marriage and the crime of being a gay man.
Of course straight people that have sex outside marriage are not forbidden to get married. And in fact are encouraged to do so. Gay men do not have that option. Even when we find our one true love, we cannot marry that person.
posted on 08.30.2007 2:46 PM16
Sen. Craig either plead guilty to make it all go away, or was looking for sex in a public restroom.
Mark Steyn missed a point, which is rare for him.
Any Senator that would not defend themselves and plead guilty when they were not shows they can't defend his constituents either.
posted on 08.30.2007 2:57 PM17
Joe,
About the argument that increased social acceptance affecting tearoom behavior... I don't get it. Do you cite numbers? Have they gone down or up since the 1930s? Why would social acceptance of homosexual behavior affect the actual social dynamics of cottaging? I know there's more than one way to skin a cat, but a lot of your article seems like a giant non sequitur...
posted on 08.30.2007 3:04 PM18
Sen. Craig either plead guilty to make it all go away, or was looking for sex in a public restroom.
No Craig plead guilty to 'disorderly conduct' which is maybe a notch above speeding but below what he was originally charged with. He would have been equally guilty of that lesser offense if he had simply been playing music too loud at a backyard party or got into a screaming match with a clerk at Motor Vehicles.
posted on 08.30.2007 3:17 PM19
Boonton,
I think you are proving my point. Is there any doubt that there are equal numbers of politicains on the left and right that lead double lives, and are involved in or have been involved in behavior that is sinful?
However, what charge does the left use as a cudgel against those caught? Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, because to the left, to condemn such actions as sin would be anathema to their worldview. That is why people like Barney Frank and Bill Clinton got a pass from the left. Whatever their discretions, they weren't considered hypocrites, which apparently to the left is the worst thing a person can be.
If you think I'm going to defend people for their bad behavior you are wrong. But I will note that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are still in congress despite their antics, while Bob Livingstone and Henry Hyde arent'.
posted on 08.30.2007 3:23 PM20
If you think I'm going to defend people for their bad behavior you are wrong. But I will note that people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are still in congress despite their antics, while Bob Livingstone and Henry Hyde arent'.
Cute. Hyde retired from Congress after a long career. He never resigned as a result of any 'sins' he took responsibility for. I'll give you some passing credit for Livingston but try to keep in mind what I said about the difference between taking responsibility after you're caught versus before your caught. True to form you're still yanking on Frank after 17 years. Sure you wouldn't like to bring up the Teapot Dome scandal while you're at it?
Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, because to the left, to condemn such actions as sin would be anathema to their worldview.
I ask you again to tell us which mainstream left wing figures do not feel it is wrong to take bribes or have sex in public bathrooms.
posted on 08.30.2007 3:40 PM21
BTW, neither Frank nor Clinton got a pass from the left. Frank was censured and Clinton was heavily criticized. Like most Americans, 'the left' did not feel Clinton did anything to deserve impeachment and he didn't. The somewhat amusing antics by numerous Republicans since then has only solidified that view.
posted on 08.30.2007 3:54 PM22
Boonton,
It seems to me the left isn't mad at Craig becasue he is gay, but because he is a hypocrite.
Frank is relevant because depsite what he did he skated off scott free. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's the double standard.
posted on 08.30.2007 3:58 PM23
Oclarki
A double standard would apply if Frank and Craig did the same thing, they didn't. Frank had a houseguest who used his home for prostitution when Frank was out. As far as the investigations showed, Frank was not involved and did not know about that behavior. While he committed no crime, he was nevertheless censured because you are responsible for policing your own house (to a reasonable degree).
Craig plead guilty to a minor crime and paid a fine. The only people who seem mad at him is the right which is calling for his head. The only Democrat I heard who said anything on the matter simply said "let's hear what he has to say".
You seem to be quite soft on being a hypocrite. That's interesting because of the few times Jesus ever bothers to call anyone names in the Bible, hypocrite shows up quite often. It's actually a pretty serious sin because it is based on quite a bit of pride. In essence, the hypocrite presumes both to judge others and at the same time exempts himself from his own judgement. It is the height of arrogance and you don't have to be a moral relativist to object to it (in fact, technically, a moral relativist wouldn't be able to object to arrogance anymore than any other offense). Then again arrogance describes the GOP pretty well for the last half decade or so...so perhaps I can see why you'd want to dodge that issue.
posted on 08.30.2007 4:10 PM24
I didn't think you believed in all that Jesus stuff anyway, so what's it to you?
Be that as it may, where have I defended hypocrisy? I AM saying that Craig should resign because what he did was immoral. People on the left are the ones who care only about the hypocrisy.
But is he really a hypocrite? Has he ever said being gay was wrong? What is his hypocrisy?
posted on 08.30.2007 4:29 PM25
But is he really a hypocrite? Has he ever said being gay was wrong? What is his hypocrisy?
Good question, I'm not really sure. He seems to have been pretty keen to play up to the 'family values' meme on behalf of Mitt Romney. Let's be frank, that usually is used as a code word for being anti-gay so maybe you can claim he is a hypocrite. On the other hand, I've seen moderates fairly point out a person could oppose both gay marriage and civil unions and yet still think it's ok to have gay sex....so I'd say he is a hypocrite to a degree but not at the level of someone like Haggard or if we learned as much of a hypocrite as Falwell would have been if he had done this.
I would say he should not be re-elected and he should not run again. It's pretty clear he has been leading a messed up life that harms his family and has been engaged in really stupid law breaking. By that I'm focusing less on this incident and more on the claims by numerous people that he has gone all the way with them in his quest for public sex. On top of that he seems to have a pretty serious problem with behing honest about himself. I'm not going to say he needs to admit he is gay because as ex points out...he may not be. I would say he needs to stop with the "it's a witch hunt" and "it's all a big misunderstanding" routine. In NJ McGreevy admitted he was gay and didn't try to pretend it was everybody else's fault. (Ohhh BTW, I guess McGreevy counters your claim of double standards there doesn't it?).
posted on 08.30.2007 5:00 PM26
I didn't think you believed in all that Jesus stuff anyway, so what's it to you?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Whether or not one believes Jesus was supernatural shouldn't have much play as to whether they think he said things that should be seriously considered.
posted on 08.30.2007 5:04 PM27
Boonton,
From what I know of Craig, he wasn't really a "family values" conservative. He was like most of us in the Rocky Mountian west, a conservative who believed in less government interference, fewer taxes and property rights. In fact it may come as a surprise, but most people even in the red states of the West like Idaho, Colorado, and Wyoming have a pretty strong tradition of letting people do what ever they want.
Idaho is a highly mormon state, so I can't fault Sen. Craig for voting the wishes of his constituents when it came to things like gay marriage. I'll leave you to decide if thats hypocrisy or good representation of the will of folks who elected you.
BTW, I've been meaning to ask, what's a Boonton?
posted on 08.30.2007 5:16 PM28
Thanks for letting me decide! My call is that Craig is guilty of a bit of hypocrisy. Probably not the worse case ever and but enough to be noted.
All other commentors are hereby ordered to adhere to this decision or face the wrath of Oclarki.
A Boonton is a town in NJ. I live in NJ but never lived in Boonton. Long story short, it always seemed like a cool name to me so I adopted it as my handle.
posted on 08.30.2007 5:22 PM29
It's a strange situation for sure, and I don't know if we'll ever know all the facts. It seems that Craig's critics are depending upon a re-enactment to substitute as facts. And a description of the incident that I heard today sounded more like the officer was hitting on him. And given that the Left has been hounding him for years, I'm starting to question the integrity of the critics.
But, as I began, we may never know all for facts without spin.
Boonton,
We all know Barney was lying when he said that he didn't know about the prostitution going on. Don't be so naive.
Oclarki,
The Left (not merely Liberals) hates anything that's Conservative. They're always angry.
Collin
posted on 08.30.2007 7:00 PM30
"Many well-meaning people--including Christians--fall for the politically correct lie that homosexual men (i.e., men that engage in homosexual behaviors) are on average no more promiscuous than heterosexual men."
Strange that I have never heard even one person utter this "politically correct lie". Doesn't someone have to actually say it before it becomes either politically correct or a lie?
I think everyone knows that male homosexuals are much more likely to be promiscuous than any other broad demographic; it is only the relative selectiveness of women that prevents heterosexual men from moving in that direction.
posted on 08.30.2007 7:22 PM31
Collin
It's a strange situation for sure, and I don't know if we'll ever know all the facts.
What facts are you missing? The police report seems pretty straightforward. The only problem with it is that the cop made the arrest before Craig actually said or did anything to indicate he intended to engage in lewd behavior in the public restroom.
I think he had a pretty good defense but as often happens with petty crimes it is often easier to just take the plea than risk bringing it to trial. That is especially true of traffic offenses
And given that the Left has been hounding him for years, I'm starting to question the integrity of the critics.
What critics? His primary critics appear to be right wing bloggers and GOP Senators. I don't really see what you mean by hounding. The Statesman seems like it played it very low key regarding the allagations. They didn't print anything because they couldn't get more than one guys word against Craig and that guy wasn't willing to make his name public. Only after this incident did they publish what they knew.
Are you trying to maintain that Craig never did intended anything to happen in that bathroom and that he just seems to be unlucky in that multiple people imagined meeting him in public bathrooms? Perhaps the guy is just really unlucky and there's a gay businesman in DC who just happens to look a lot like him.
We all know Barney was lying when he said that he didn't know about the prostitution going on. Don't be so naive.
Actually I don't know that. The case is 17+ years old, I barely took note of it at the time. How exactly do 'we' know Barney was lying? Are you basing this on actual knowledge of the case or are you just assuming he should have known? Considering there was an investigation and he was censored at what point is enough enough? Whether or not the right decision was made back then it seems to me twenty years is more than enough to let it go.
The Left (not merely Liberals) hates anything that's Conservative. They're always angry.
The most common emotion I have here with you guys is bemused detachment. Does that mean I'm not part of 'The Left'?
posted on 08.30.2007 7:39 PM32
I think it's really odd that you are hesitant to make conclusions about Senator Craig's bathroom antics (especially in light of his history) and yet can still accuse Boonton of naivete. Or are you joking?
posted on 08.30.2007 7:41 PM33
Collin
I think it's really odd that you are hesitant to make conclusions about Senator Craig's bathroom antics (especially in light of his history) and yet can still accuse Boonton of naivete. Or are you joking?
posted on 08.30.2007 7:41 PM34
Collin, the "left" has not been hounding Craig for years, or even for seconds. You think like a lot of conservatives. Conservatism isn't based on any principles. There's no set of principles or beliefs that defines someone as a conservative. Conservatism is defined by only one thing - hatred of liberals. And a liberal is defined by conservatives as anyone who's out of favor with conservatives. So anything you don't like is a product of the "left".
You, unlike most conservatives, still want to defend Craig, so you are seeking to portray him as "hounded by liberals". But he hasn't been hounded by liberals, stuff has just come up about him from time to time and he issues these excessively shrill denials.
Now we have been presented with evidence that can't be denied by anyone except really, really, really, really, really, really, really stupid people such as yourself. We liberals are both amused and saddened by Craig's predicament, but we aren't really participating in the denunciations. That's all being carried on by conservatives.
We liberals are doing nothing but eating popcorn and watching the show.
posted on 08.30.2007 7:50 PM35
Joe says:
"Our hearts should break for those who are caught up in such a dehumanizing and degrading conduct. If we want to show love for our neighbors--including Sen. Craig--then we must not only refuse to condone homosexual behavior but show them the path that leads away from sin and death. We need to show them that the love and fulfillment they are searching for can only be found in Christ---not in stalls of a toilet. "
Notwithstanding his usual arrogant claim to know what God's will is, even the study he quotes says:
Its not the gay men you should be worring about Joe, its the straight ones.
posted on 08.30.2007 11:38 PM36
Rob Ryan Doesn't someone have to actually say it before it becomes either politically correct or a lie?
My prior post that I linked to was a direct response to my friend Josh Claybourn, who criticized me for claiming that homosexuals are more promiscuous. There are a lot of people who still believe that their sexual habits aren't that different from heterosexuals.
Patrick Its not the gay men you should be worring about Joe, its the straight ones.
Stop being silly, Patrick. I said men who engage in homosexual behavior. It's absurd to say that these are "straight" men who are engaging me male-male sex. You might can say they are bisexual, but they sure ain't heterosexuals.
posted on 08.31.2007 12:33 AM37
As I wrote at the time, homosexual men are only more promiscuous because their chosen partner - men - are also more promiscuous. Heterosexuals have more reserved, chaste women standing in the way of promiscuity. If women were as promiscuous as men, then heterosexual men would, I would argue, be just as promiscuous as homosexual men.
posted on 08.31.2007 1:26 AM38
Joshua Claybourn, yeah,
What does a lebian bring on a second date?
A U-haul.
What does a gay man bring on a second date?
What second date?
posted on 08.31.2007 1:47 AM39
Marco, Toreno, Boonton,
I'll not defend Craig for any wrong committed. I'll also not defend errors in reporting or a rush to judgement. Craig was at best really, really stupid as well as immoral.
Toreno,
That's just a standard talking point to define "conservative". Historically, we're also "liberal".
You can read the angry Left over at TalkToAction, CrooksAndLiars, DailyKos, and TruthDig. Amato and Belle are very special religious bigots, the radical pluralists over at TalkToAction are quite totalitarian, and TruthDig appears to be part of the anti-Jewish Left. (They've gone beyond being simply "liberal." )
Collin
posted on 08.31.2007 7:00 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
40
I'll not defend Craig for any wrong committed. I'll also not defend errors in reporting or a rush to judgement. Craig was at best really, really stupid as well as immoral.
What errors in reporting and rush to judgement? The guilty plea went unnoticed for weeks by the media. The Statesman held off reporting the accusations of Craig having sex with several different men because they didn't feel the sources were good enough.
You can read the angry Left over at TalkToAction, CrooksAndLiars, DailyKos, and TruthDig. Amato and Belle are very special religious bigots, the radical pluralists over at TalkToAction are quite totalitarian, and TruthDig appears to be part of the anti-Jewish Left. (They've gone beyond being simply "liberal." )
OK are you actually upset at something specific or is this just some general rant against the generic 'left'?
posted on 08.31.2007 7:10 AM41
BTW, neither Frank nor Clinton got a pass from the left. Frank was censured and Clinton was heavily criticized. Like most Americans, 'the left' did not feel Clinton did anything to deserve impeachment and he didn't. The somewhat amusing antics by numerous Republicans since then has only solidified that view.
Boonton, will you ever admit the obvious? Clinton and Frank (and William Jefferson and Hillary Clinton) and John Murtha and Harry Reid and Cynthia McKinney and, dare we mention him, Teddy Kennedy, are ALL STILL IN OFFICE. The Democrat line for all these people is: "What they did was indefensible, but we're going to defend them anyway."
There is a simple solution for Larry Craig if he wants to remain in office: just switch parties. He will still be a teatrade tart, but at least he won't be a hypocrite. I bet his poll numbers will even go up.
posted on 08.31.2007 8:47 AM42
are ALL STILL IN OFFICE.
So what?
posted on 08.31.2007 9:08 AM43
I rest my case. You can't understand the obvious.
posted on 08.31.2007 9:14 AM44
So far in the last month and a half, there's Craig, Vitter and Allen, plus Foley is back in the news, and if you want to count Ted Haggard and Coy Privette as prominent Republicans (they were both clearly involved in the political machine), you can. He helped to enact "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". He stated, when voting to impeach Clinton, that private sexual behavior was a matter of public interest. He was a vocal backer of amending the constitution to ban gay marriage. He's gotten a lot of mileage out of his homophobic constituents; he deserves whatever he gets from them.As for Joe's article itself...
That's a very good question, and you happened to answer it yourself.Read, primarily closeted. "Such deviant behavior" is a symptom of self-denying shame, which the closet is excellent at providing. Clearly these men don't find that their homosexuality has become "increasingly socially acceptable"; Craig certainly didn't.
It's incoherent to claim that anonymous public sex between men doesn't decrease when homosexuality is less stigmatized, when the men who engage in anonymous public sex are precisely those for whom the stigma remains.
posted on 08.31.2007 9:44 AM45
My own suspicions tell me there are two types of homosexual men who engage in this behavior. The first is really sleazy types for which I have no sympathy. If you are promiscuous, you can always go to a privately owned gay bath-house or hook up online and have sex in the privacy of someone's home.
However, the other type -- which Larry Craig perfectly fits the profile and so did McGreevy before he came out -- are homosexually oriented men who are so far in the psychological closet that they haven't even admitted to themselves they are gay. It's psychologically easier for them to cruise in public toliets. Stepping foot in a gay bar is a mental step towards embracing a gay identity; you are pretty much signaling you are gay to other gays in a social venue where the gay subculture congregates. The public toilets make it easier on your mind to pretend you are still straight and live a double life.
I do feel sympathy for these people and think they are victims of the type of society the Family Research Council wants to implement or bring back.
posted on 08.31.2007 9:54 AM46
An analogy comes to mind. Tigers have a system wherein fetuses express a growth hormone in utero, while females express a suppressant. The result is that tigers are born roughly the standard size of a big cat. However, if you cross a male tiger with a female lion (to get a "liger"), you'll get a very large cat, as the growth is unchecked. If you cross a male lion with a female tiger, the growth suppressant causes the resultant "tigon" to be subject to dwarfism.
Whether you think the difference is inherent or cultural, men seek sex aggressively, while women attempt to deter it. The same things happen when you remove the feedback loops--gay men are very promiscuous, heterosexuals less so, lesbians least of all.
posted on 08.31.2007 9:57 AM47
You've got five points there, and old (no longer fertile) people having sex hits two of them--it's neither "reproductively unitive" nor is it "beautiful". Does this mean that old people should stop having sex, or they're roughly forty percent as bad as homosexuals? Don't be so coy. Joe here is doing his best to engage in the same kind of shaming, which won't stop people from being gay but will make them hate themselves. Presumably he'll then weep and gnash his teeth, crying out "why?!" when men who are gay but now full of self-loathing engage in shameful, self-destructive behavior. posted on 08.31.2007 10:03 AM48
Patrick said: "Its not the gay men you should be worring about Joe, its the straight ones."
Jon Rowe said: "..the other type...are homosexually oriented men who are so far in the psychological closet that they haven't even admitted to themselves they are gay."
So which is it? Are they "straight" or are they "gay"?
posted on 08.31.2007 10:19 AM49
It's fairly obvious that Patrick was referring to males who call themselves straight, but who are gay in that they're sexually attracted primarily or solely to other males. Which is exactly what Jon Rowe was talking about. Are you being disingenuous, or do you really not get this? posted on 08.31.2007 10:47 AM50
Are you being disingenuous, or do you really not get this?
What I'm asking for is the latest popular talking point on homosexual behavior: Is it the product of an orientation that is immutable and biological innate or is it more fluid?
Contrary to what you might think, not every person--not even gay men like Patrick and Jon--would necessarily agree on which is the correct answer. Patrick, for example, seems to think that it is rather fluid and that heterosexual men are the ones that are engaging in this behavior.
posted on 08.31.2007 11:14 AM51
I don't have a popular talking point; take my opinion with a grain of salt, and please understand that I don't know whether or not it fits with current theory. Note that this excludes purely situational homosexuality (such as that seen in prison), where a member of the same sex stands in for absent members of the opposite sex.Sexual orientation is like height. It's the result of a complex interplay of factors involving genetic predisposition and one's environment. Some people will grow tall no matter what, while some people will never grow tall no matter what. I don't know what the relative levels of influence of genes and environment are other than that they both have influence, and that it's complicated. I also don't know how environment influences orientation. However, no matter how people got that way, it's not going to change. Tall people don't become short people, and short people don't become tall, without Procrustean intervention, far more likely to destroy the person than to create a healthy person of the opposite height-type.
Again, this is just my opinion; I don't know what "the latest popular talking point on homosexual behavior" is.
I'm reasonably certain that when Patrick wrote "Its not the gay men you should be worring about Joe, its the straight ones", he meant that it's not the out gay men you should be worrying about, but rather the closeted ones--not the gay-acting ones, but the straight-acting ones. Patrick, could you clear this up? posted on 08.31.2007 11:30 AM52
What I'm asking for is the latest popular talking point on homosexual behavior: Is it the product of an orientation that is immutable and biological innate or is it more fluid?
It would appear to be an orientation that is immutable but along a spectrum so you can be orientated gay, straight, bi as well as 'more gay than straight' or 'more straight than gay'.
Patrick, for example, seems to think that it is rather fluid and that heterosexual men are the ones that are engaging in this behavior.
Let's say that 95% of the time a particular man would choose to be with a woman but 5% of the time he would like to try a man. This very well might be immutable (you're not going to change him into being 100% one or the other). It's not very plausible to describe him as gay and even bi seems a poor choice since that implies he is closer to 50-50.
posted on 08.31.2007 11:49 AM53
Joe,
Craig is one of many homosexually oriented men who are not "gay" in terms of chosen identity. To some extent being "gay," as an identity, is a matter of choice; so perhaps I should distinguish between that word and "homosexual." A homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice; it is a state of being.
That Mr. Craig purposefully chose a "straight" identity yet for all these years and at the age of 62 well after a man's libido has waned, he couldn't help himself in the tea room I think is damn compelling evidence of the unchosen, unchangeable nature of the homosexual orientation. If you don't give male sexuality a healthy outlet for release (like marriage) it will rear itself in ugly places.
That said, I also endorse the notion that sexual orientation (still unchosen and unchangeable) exists on a continuum. Whatever the problems with Kinsey's research, he was right in this regard. The existence of say a Kinsey 5 (a man who is fully attracted to men, but slightly attracted to women) or a Kinsey 1 (a man who is fully attracted to women but slightly to men) may give the appearance of "fluidity"; but such is, in my opinion, illusory. A man who is a Kinsey 5 (probably McGreevy and the other gay men who have married women and fathered children) may be able to "get it up" in the short term with a woman, but cannot flourish in the long run in such relationships.
posted on 08.31.2007 1:00 PM54
Orientation is just a political label anyway. People choose whatever political label they want, whatever behavioral label they want to emulate, and go for it. It is a tool for legitimizing extreme behavior by emphasizing the root potential for the nuclear behavior in everybody. It is also rather purposefully demeaning by de-emphasizing or intentionally masking the sacred nature inherent in the reproductive process. IOW, using and encouraging the use of the political label on other people is a means for bringing the other people down to the intended level in order for the person willfully using said label to feel justified that the labeled person is no better than they. It is annoying that it has grown to such wide spread use that people now unwittingly participate in its use.
posted on 08.31.2007 1:58 PM55
You know it makes sense that since men are notoriously randy and think about sex every couple of minutes that homosexual men would have no problem getting sex whenever and as often as they wanted it. What's to stop them?? No headaches, that time of the month, I have to cook dinner etc.
posted on 08.31.2007 2:01 PMOne possible reason for this increase in our awareness of these casual liasions is that there no longer is any shame in being a homosexual or carrying out homosexual activities. So many view homosexual relationships as "so cute" or "they are so in love." We need to go back to the time when we found the actual sexual act as disgusting as it truly is. The bottom line is the physicallity of the act. It is gross, abhorant and un-natural.
Lastly, I hate the term "homo-phobe." Denotatively that implies an "abnormal or un-natural fear" of "homosexuals." I don't fear them, I feel sorry for them and find what they do to each other reprehensible.
56
Do you really think that "eww, icky!" is a sound basis for forming public policy? Will you, then, be prohibiting the morbidly obese, the greatly aged, and the profoundly deformed from engaging in consensual, private sexual intercourse? Will you be banning old men in speedos from the beach? If the knowledge that private boning of a sort you find icky is going on somewhere so disturbing that you base your vote around it, I'd say that's a bit over the top. If it's not fear that motivates you, what is it? I find plenty of stupid things that people do depressing, yet I don't develop that kind of fixation.As Ted Rall said, "Anyone who frets about the sex acts of total strangers, much less calls for government regulation of private boning, needs to get a life."
posted on 08.31.2007 2:34 PM57
"The bottom line is the physicallity of the act. It is gross, abhorant and un-natural."
I have news for you: The behavior that Craig was seeking, indeed the one most commonly (universally) practiced by homosexual men is also practiced by 90% of the heterosexual population and, while there are some health risks associated with it, has a very low (some say impossible, but I think that goes too far) risk of HIV transmission.
posted on 08.31.2007 2:50 PM58
Orientation is just a political label anyway. People choose whatever political label they want, whatever behavioral label they want to emulate, and go for it. It is a tool for legitimizing extreme behavior by emphasizing the root potential for the nuclear behavior in everybody.
Yawn, another retread of smm's version of 'the personal is political' theory. It didn't even have enough coolness when the left did it to make it thru the entire 70's without becoming lame.
IOW, using and encouraging the use of the political label on other people is a means for bringing the other people down to the intended level in order for the person willfully using said label to feel justified that the labeled person is no better than they
All labels are inherently 'political' in the sense that they group together people who are individuals. True no two individuals are ever exactly alike. Nonetheless, orientation is a perfectly valid label to describe a trait that can be observed in most individuals.
imforgvn
The bottom line is the physicallity of the act. It is gross, abhorant and un-natural.
You know, you guys romanticize sex so much (or at least your view of what proper sex should be) that if you really believed this crap none of us would be here today. I don't think there's any couple in the world that could possibly live up to the 'sacred, pure, creative, beautiful' line you want to give Approved Sex(tm). Yes it is all those things but it is also physical, smelly, done by people who are fat, are old, are ugly. It is also a constant in human life, just like we eat every day..go to the bathroom every day...we don't usually have sex that often but we do have some type of sexual activity on a regular basis thru much of our lives. Do you realize how silly it sounds for your to call it unnatural when it seems there are quite a few people who naturally do it!
Sorry if you could watch us all with an invisible camera what you'd see would hardly look like some type of Hallmark card to pure, united love. (BTW, the Simpsons movie has a very funny scene that illustrates just this point).
grendelkhan
Do you really think that "eww, icky!" is a sound basis for forming public policy? Will you, then, be prohibiting the morbidly obese, the greatly aged, and the profoundly deformed from engaging in consensual, private sexual intercourse? Will you be banning old men in speedos from the beach?
Indeed, let's try to take various poiticians, tv personalities, writers etc. and imagine what it would be like to watch them in bed (exclude entertainment celebrities who are selected for being fun to look at). What better way for us to accomplish the goals of the voluntary extinction movement?
posted on 08.31.2007 3:40 PM59
Joe, your original definition of a homosexuals--"men that engage in homosexual behaviors"--is simplistic to the point of being obtuse. Would you equally define heterosexuals as "men that engage in heterosexual behaviors?" At this point Craig would be, in your definition, both homosexual and heterosexual.
Obviously, the definition is inadequate, and I think Jon Rowe has done the best job explaining why: we have to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual identity. Furthermore, we have to see sexuality as a spectrum rather than a simple dichotomy, "homosexual" versus "heterosexual."
posted on 08.31.2007 4:09 PM60
Joe, they are unique individuals, so some are straight, some are gay, some are bi, and some are in-between, and some were probably just bored meterosexuals such as yourself.
The point I was trying to get across however is that they are a very different group of people than say someone like myself, who has been openly gay since my teens. They are also not comparable to the people interviewed in the first study who participated in it by signing up at gay pride festivals or through newspaper ads soliciting gay volunteers. They behave very differently.
And the problem I have even with the first study is that if you look at when it was done, and the ages of the people involved, you are looking at some very different groups of gays and lesbians who each have had very different behaviors. You had those that grew up in Pre-stonewall times, those that grew up in the days of the sexual revolution, you had people like me who grew up in the ages of AIDS, etc. And it does not cover two new groups of gays and lesbians, those that came of age post-AIDS cocktail, and those that grew up in a post-Clinton, post-marriage world. My sexual habits are very different from both the generation that preceded me and the one that came afterwords.
My point on this is that you really can't make sweeping pronouncements on gay and lesbian sexual habits using these studies, the groups are too dissimilar. Its going to be interesting for example to look at the generation of gay and lesbian children and teenagers in MA who are actually growing up with an expectation of being married.
And BTW, as long as we are dissing sexual behaviors of past generations Joe, why is it that you are always giving gay men a bad time about being promiscuous in the 70's while ignoring the behavior of straight people back then? For that matter why do you ignore their behavior today? Straight people also have plenty of promiscuous sex and go to sex clubs or belong to swinger groups, and do all kinds of wild kinky stuff, but I never see the slightest criticism of it from you. Just complaining about the divorce rate isn't enough.
posted on 08.31.2007 4:34 PM61
"My prior post that I linked to was a direct response to my friend Josh Claybourn, who criticized me for claiming that homosexuals are more promiscuous."
Josh is one person, and the only rebuttal he provided to your generalization dealt with gays in a civil union. While homosexual men may generally be much more promiscuous than heterosexual men, that doesn't necessarily mean that those in committed relationships are more likely to slip up.
"There are a lot of people who still believe that their sexual habits aren't that different from heterosexuals."
And they may be perfectly justified in their belief. Not everyone fits the stereotype.
My point is that I don't see this "politically correct lie" as having anywhere near the prevalence you seem to imply.
posted on 08.31.2007 6:38 PM62
You are so obtuse, I don't think I even want to waste the time to point out how much you have twisted up what I said and meant. You really ought to learn the difference between traits and behavioral choices, but since you seem to think you know better than anybody else, I don't think that will happen any time soon.
The latest popular talking point is usually the one believed to have the greatest leverage toward affecting public policy, and it's often a product more of desire than knowledge. That's why it's popular.
posted on 09.01.2007 12:54 PM63
"You really ought to learn the difference between traits and behavioral choices..."
Maybe he knows the difference and it is you that calls a trait a choice. You seem to think that supporters of gay rights are calling a choice a trait to forestall criticism of the behavior associated with it. But why are you so keen to have it seen as a choice? On what do you base your conclusion?
posted on 09.01.2007 5:42 PM64
You really ought to learn the difference between traits and behavioral choices, but since you seem to think you know better than anybody else, I don't think that will happen any time soon.
Orientation does a fine job recognizing the difference. Orientation is not about who you do sleep with but who you want to sleep with. Who you do sleep with is often used as a proxy to measure oreintation because we often assume in a free country people aren't sleeping with people unless they really want too. But that is not always the case.
You are so obtuse, I don't think I even want to waste the time to point out how much you have twisted up what I said and meant.
Perhaps the problem is that you are not very good at communicating what you mean. YOu seem to jump very quickly towards the assumption that people who disagree with you are dishonest actors seeking to twist the facts to suit secred agendas rather than just people who, right or wrong, don't see things the way you so. Perhaps you do this because you're projecting some of your own faults onto others?
Rob
Maybe he knows the difference and it is you that calls a trait a choice. You seem to think that supporters of gay rights are calling a choice a trait to forestall criticism of the behavior associated with it.
I'd be interesting to know what actual evidence he has that orientation exists as just a behavioral choice and not a trait.
posted on 09.01.2007 8:10 PM65
"I'd be interesting to know what actual evidence he has that orientation exists as just a behavioral choice and not a trait."
I'd like to know too. Even Evangelical Hater-In-Chief Dr. Dobson admits (grudgingly) that its an innate characterisic.
posted on 09.02.2007 12:33 PM66
http://www.slate.com/id/2173029/fr/rss/Speaking of morality, didn't Dante put sodomites much higher up in hell than those who betrayed friendships?
posted on 09.02.2007 4:31 PM67
Dobson said it too, so it must be true? ROFL!
posted on 09.06.2007 9:05 AM68
Evidence? It ought to be self-evident that homosexual acts are unnatural. It is organically impossible for two men to reproduce with each other (as well as two women reproducing being just as organically impossible). To perform unnaturally requires a distinct choice.
posted on 09.06.2007 9:41 PM