"I'm not gay and I never have been."

---

But, I'm not gay!!! "Let me be clear: I am not gay and never have been," said Craig, who has aligned himself with conservative groups who oppose gay rights.It seems this is the main thing he wanted to get across. I guess being a out-of-the-closet gay, elected Republican is worse than pleading guilty to "disorderly conduct."

Towards the end of the article it shows that someone had once asked if he was gay, and they said it was "completely ridiculous" or something like that. Then there was something about something that happened in 1982 ..Anyway, the whole story is stupid. I'm guessing he wanted to keep this thing private, but it got out, and now he's apologizing. Sound familiar?Michael Vick: I'm sorry, what I did was a mistakewtf? Motherfucker you killed dogs with your bare hands. The only erason he's apologizing is because the story got out.I hate that, especially when people believe them.From reading that article, this old-ass man was watching a cop through a door crack for 2 straight minutes, then went into the next stall, put his suitcase up against the door so he could jack off or do whatever, and even slid his foot into the cop's stall and touched his leg.And now he's saying he's not gay? Jesus.

So after all the time and energy spent on A2A insisting that one homosexual act doesn't make you gay, and how nobody knows if you're gay or not except you, and all that crap...we're not going to insist that this man is gay, despite what he says, based on one incident...because it tickles our particular political funnybone to do so?Seriously. If this were a Democrat, would the response be the same? Or would everyone (as has been done before) leap to his defense?Don't get me wrong. I'm disgusted by his behavior, but I think a little bit of intellectual integrity would be an admirable thing among people who tout their intelligence publicly.

Quote: If this were a Democrat, would the response be the same? Or would everyone (as has been done before) leap to his defense?Remember House Rep. Gerry E. Studds, Pennsylvania Massachusettes who was censured by the House of Representatives for having a sexual relationshiip with a House page? The relationship was consensual with the 17-year-old and he admitted he (Studds) was gay. I think there was some outrage there.

> So after all the time and energy spent on A2A insisting that one homosexual act doesn't make you gay, and how nobody knows if you're gay or not except you, and all that crap...we're not going to insist that this man is gay, despite what he says, based on one incident...because it tickles our particular political funnybone to do so?

Sorry, I must've missed "all the time and energy" because I had no idea such a thing was going on. Me, personally, I don't care if someone is gay. The way I see it, it's not anyone's fault that they're gay, and that's the end of that. No, I don't wish to discuss it, because I don't care that much.

> Seriously. If this were a Democrat, would the response be the same?

Uh, yes? I didn't even know that guy was a Republican. I hate politics, and I don't care who it is. When I was reading that article, I wasn't thinking "oh, stupid republicans". Like I said, I didn't even know he was a Republican (I know it says it a ton of times, but since I hate politics, I skip over the "Sen." and "Dem." and all those paragraphs about some stupid "ethics committee", I skipped over those, too).

When I was reading the article, I basically read it as "Someone did this and that". I don't give a fuck if he's even involved in politics. Granted, if it was a random guy that did that, they wouldn't be posting it on CNN, but to me he is still a human being like you and me, and what he was doing was retarted.

Good example of what I was talking about in my previous page.So you guys are telling me, because this man belongs to some political party, they look at him differently? I wonder why I hate politics.And I don't even know what a House page is. Soudns to me like a page in a book, but I doubt that page was 17 and that he had sex with it.

Some people say that the media has a liberal or conservative bias towards politicians who get in trouble with the law. But, that's irrelvant here. I think the media focuses on anyone, no matter political affiliation, when they screw up. Remember, media types nowadays grew up in the age after Watergate and subsequent scandals involving both parties, so they are more likely to view all politicians as corrupt. And when they get into trouble, the story is magnified.A page is a high school student who goes to Capitol Hill and serves as messengers for Congressional staff. They also attend classes like any other high school student, but also have those duties. I know that seems vague, but that's the simplified view of pages. For more info, go here.

Think back...was the media outrage because of Studd's admission that he was gay, or because he had sex with a 17 year old page?I will admit that my response to things like this often depends on how I feel about the public figure in general. Not just politically, but in any respect. I'm just inviting others here to make the same admission.

I will admit that my response to things like this often depends on how I feel about the public figure in general. Not just politically, but in any respect. I'm just inviting others here to make the same admission.I wish everyone would just treat people like people. Because Vick is a NFL quarterback, he's getting all this attention and prosecution. Because this guy's a senator, it's a big deal.But I think part of it is because the media can't show stuff that happens to everyday people, because there's so much of it. I bet they won't show the rape case that's going on sometime within this hour (I'm sure someone got raped in the last 60 minutes somewhere).. basically, because they're not important enough. It's a fucked up world we live in.

I have mixed feelings about this story (and similar ones).On the one hand, the evidence suggests the guy was being hypocritical. He seems to have known the signals, which suggests he did it regularly. He was probably voting against gay rights bills because he was doing these things - it helps convince himself he's not gay.On the other hand, what he actually did, though creepy and perhaps offensive, was hardly a serious felony. And surely politicians should be allowed to make occasional mistakes like anyone else, and should be allowed some reasonable privacy.

Seriously. If this were a Democrat, would the response be the same? Or would everyone (as has been done before) leap to his defense?
I think there's a point here, other than political party, that you're missing. The reaction to incidents like this has a lot to do with a politician's hypocrisy level as demonstrated by his prior voting and speechifying history (to coin a word).
It is just soooooooooo damned typical that politicians who have these propensities in their private lives are often the same politicians who are most vehement in the condemnations they put forth in their public/political lives. The examples are legion- Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, etc., etc., etc., etc.
For me, frankly, I've seen it soooo many times for soooo many years that it's virtually an axiom. The most rabid moralists are almost always the ones battling personal demons of the type they are railing against: or to put it another way, their railing is part of the way they try to deal with their personal demons. I don't think there's an immense difference in poltical parties; but I do actually think this is far more a characteristic of right wingers than those on the left, because they tend to be the most vociferous moralizers and greatest hypocrites.

This is the best part of the story:  Quote:After Craig ran his hand underneath the partition wall three times, Karsnia held his police identification down by the floor so the senator could see it, the report said. I bet the look on Craigs' face was priceless when the officer flashed his badge instead of his willy. Anyway, I don't care whether he is Republican or Democrat. I think it's crap that he is so openly against the gay lifestyle, yet he was caught looking for some type of sexual activity from a man.

I think I'm turning gay... LOL

The fact that the word hypocrisy has been tossed around so much in this discussion reminds me of how sad I am that words have no meaning anymore. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it. If a person touts a moral standard and falls short of that standard, that's not hypocrisy. That's humanity. There are several areas in which I find myself falling short of what I believe, and would even state publicly, is right. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. That makes me weak and confused and broken and often embarrassed.

The actual definition of hypocrisy is professing a belief that you don't actually have.
Seriously, I've got a dictionary that maybe I need to start loaning out.

How's this for "hypocrisy" or whatever.

Gerry Studds has sex with an under-aged boy who is serving as a page. He gets to continue life as usual.

Barney Frank runs a prostitution ring out of his apartment. He gets to continue with life as usual.

Bill Clinton has sex with an intern in the White House. He gets to continue life as usual.

Craig is found guilty of playing footsie with a cop. And the same people who insist the above people should get to continue with life as usual are calling for his resignation.

You wanna know who are the most consistent, honest people in this whole fiasco? The Republicans who are calling for Craig's resignation. They're the ones who consistently hold folks on both sides of the aisle to the same standard.

It's hipocracy because Craig, who is a known "family values" fanatic, has been caught lying about a "moral issue." It wouldn't have been so bad if he didn't try and cover it up.

But, it's not surprising. Family values, conservative Christians have consistently been caught red-handed living a lie--Teg Haggard, Mark Foley and now Larry Craig.

And, if you notice, it's not Democrats calling for his resignation--it's Republicans.

Now, these holier than thou Republican, Christian conservative politicians and activists can use this incident to decide whether they are going to continue to promote hate-filled policies or embrace that no party is morally superior than the other.

Hypocrisy is a little more than professing a belief that you don't have. It come from the Greek for "to act on the stage, to play a part, to pretend". A hypocrite is pretending to be a different type of person than he really is - especially, pretending to be more moral or virtuous than he really is.Both my copy of the OED and some online dictionaries support this meaning.Falling short of your ideals is not hypocrisy. But to pretend to be virtuous when you were not, would be. Or to pretend to hold certain principles, when you do not in fact apply them to yourself. Or perhaps to pretend not to be gay when you are?

That's a great way to put it Ineligible.

You made an interesting point Damien. But I don't really buy it. The hypocrisy of people like this is not that they fall short of their own moral standards. It is demonstrated in the depth of their condemnation of others, while doing exactly what they are condemning the others for doing. Seldom do people like this exhibit tolerance of human weakness. What could ever be more hypocritical than Newt Gingrich promoting and acting in the impeachement of Clinton while at the same time committing adultery in his own life. That's what I call hypocrisy; it is not so much expressed in their actions as in their moralistic condemnations of others for exactly the same actions..

Originally Posted By: damienGerry Studds has sex with an under-aged boy who is serving as a page. He gets to continue life as usual.Barney Frank runs a prostitution ring out of his apartment. He gets to continue with life as usual.Bill Clinton has sex with an intern in the White House. He gets to continue life as usual.Craig is found guilty of playing footsie with a cop. And the same people who insist the above people should get to continue with life as usual are calling for his resignation. I think I'd call that a "double-standard".

actually its based on severl incidents and men who claim to have had gay sex with him.that being said, who gives a fuck?being gay shouldnt have anything to do with what your capable of doing, it doesnt limit you to not doing a good job.his problem is being an elected official who has served for a bunch of uptight assholes thta want gay rights to nto exist and make sure that gay marriage "garbage" never has a place in thier fucked up white trash state.his worrie is losing his job because he had a couple gay expereiences or because people will assume he is gay or he sympathizes with gay rights.When ya lie all your life about what yuo stand for or stand for what you say you do because your a closet self laother, ti all bites ya in teh ass later on, better to just be who the fuck you are all along.