Senator on the Down Low

From this week’s schadenfreude files comes the long suppressed news of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s (Republican, of course) arrest for lewd behavior in an airport bathroom in Minnesota. He entered a guilty plea.

The residents of the blogistan are, unsurprisingly, all over this story. Craig (R – His Own Private Idaho) is yet another in a long line of Republican hypocrites where sex is concerned. His voting record on gay issues is horrific – he has a 0 (yes, a zero) from HRC. Since he first entered public life, Craig has been followed by rumors about his sexual orientation.

Craig defended himself against the charges by arguing he has “wide stance”in the bathroom and was not in fact tapping anyone’s foot to invite them for sex (there’s something so embarrassing about this defense I can’t even begin to deconstruct it). The details and commentary are unfortunately both tawdry and pedestrian – Craig has apparently spent most of his adult life as a closet case and one a variety of occasions acted out in inappropriate and public ways. From the Idaho Statesman:

In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he’d never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.

The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington’s Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig “cruised” him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable.

I could talk about the hypocrisy – but that’s already been done here, here, here , here and here. I’d actually like to come out with both barrels blasting and reduce Craig to a quivering mess, but I just can’t. I actually feel bad for him - sure he’s a self-loathing, hypocritical, conservative sell-out, but I feel bad for him. He’s actually pretty pathetic and pitiable.

A few years ago, while attending the Utah Gay Men’s Health Summit, I was surprised when one of the leaders of a workshop (and a local social worker) commented that half of his practice was court ordered – married men arrested for having sex with other men in public parks in and around the state. There are a lot of men in Utah on the downlow – married, and discretely or not having sex with men on the side; I suspect Larry Craig feels many of the same pressures these men, pressures he simply cannot manage to reconcile in a mature way. Salt Lake City is up to its eyeballs in Returned Missionaries who tell bathetic stories of falling in love with their missionary companions, of being told to “just get married” and the problem will go away. Salt Lake is up to its ears in men who are safely, securely married with a wife, a few kids, a house in the burbs, and a regular spot at the Fruit Loop Park* by the old Oxbow Jail where they have a bit of the sex under the bridge.

Some of these men defend themselves saying that two men can’t have sex together – sex only happens between men and women. Others are so in denial they actually believe that they’re doing it with other men because their wives won’t do some things. Many of these probably know their gay but are so trapped in a world where being gay is shameful, horrible and wrong that they cannot imagine a way to reconcile their identity with the world around them. For many closeted, married gay men, a bit on the side with the guys at the park is as close as they have ever come to a real, fulfilling sexual relationship and it’s impossible for me to look at that reality and not feel incredible pity.

And a bit of contempt. Maturity ultimately requires honesty – which at times hurts like hell and is scary as hell and sometimes has a price. But a hallmark of maturity is facing facts. I once read that a person doesn’t come out of the closet, a family does. I think a community comes out of the closet. I’ve been told, in all seriousness, that people in Utah don’t believe there are gay people in Utah (I’m sure the same goes for Idaho). Many conservative communities are unable to honestly admit that they have glbt citizens. Those citizens learn, quickly, the price of belonging is systematic and systemic dishonesty. People will, generally, politely choose not to know that men are having sex in the public park if the men are willing to let everyone continue in their bliss-less ignorance. Openly gay and lesbian people threaten the balance and force many people even deeper into denial and the closet. Anti-gay sermons and letters and pamphlets are intended to keep the queers quiet and keep the straight people in line. If every gay Returned Missionary in Utah were to walk out of Mormon churches, there’d be a lot of empty pews. But the threat of being cast out keeps them quiet. The message, “We are all you have ever known and if you come out, we will kick you out and you will have nothing” keeps many individuals from coming out – they’d rather lie than lose everything. It’s not just the Mormons – small towns, conservative churches, even families, use this emotional blackmail.

Senator Craig on the downlow isn’t just some wicked, stupid man – he’s a man trapped between brutal choices with no easy way out.

I know a man who was told to get married and it would cure his “feelings.” He did marry and have children. He eventually could not keep up the lie and at long last came out – to wife, to children, to family, to friends and at last to the community. The costs have been high – there are some family members who literally will not acknowledge his existence, but others with whom he has a new, deeper and richer relationship than he ever imagined possible. His honesty made it possible for them to truly know him and to be truly known by him. He is one of the mature and admirable people I know.

There is a third way – a way between the tormented closet case and the social outcast – that is a life of a healthy, honest person, with healthy relationships. I have never met a glbt person who regrets coming out of the closet and claiming their identity. Whole people are healthy people. The price of denying your identity is paid in a thousand countless ways on a daily basis until you’re so twisted and deformed and broken it’s almost impossible to live a decent life. So, I feel for Sen. Craig – I sympathize with him, but I can’t help but feel he has already paid the price for his dishonesty. And he will keep paying every day until he refuses to be dishonest anymore.

So long as there are people in our society who refuse to see the full humanity of glbt persons, so long as the Republican party and its conservative base believe vilifying and demonizing glbt persons is necessary and good, there will be more stories like Larry Craig and Mark Foley. It’s difficult to see anything other than a straight line between the public moralizing required to be a Republican and the misdeeds of these men – deny who you are long enough and every other boundary of behavior begins to seem eminently negotiable.

When your sister, the best man at your wedding, two of your closest friends from college, your cousin, your business partner, etc. all reveal to you that they are, in various ways, GLBT or any permutation thereof, they are being honest with you about an extremely complicated and fundamental matter. They are showing you the moral virtues of courage and honesty. Every religion tells people to be both honest and brave. May you and I both be as brave and honest in our hours.

If you hide your body inside a twisted hole for years, it will become twisted. If you hide your mind inside a twisted hole for years, it will become twisted. If you hide your soul inside a twisted hole for years, it will become twisted. You don’t have to be GLBT to understand that a mind, body and soul cannot live life inside a twisted hole.

If you want people to walk upright and straight, so to speak, you cannot cram them – any part of them – into a twisted hole.

Share Utah:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  1. #1 by Richard Warnick on August 28, 2007 - 10:48 am

    Senator Craig has been one of the most vigorous opponents of wilderness legislation, therefore I won’t be the least bit sorry if he’s not re-elected. On the personal level, I think Glenden is right that he deserves sympathy.

  2. #2 by Misty Fowler on August 28, 2007 - 11:32 am

    Foley? I fail to see the link between a child molester and a gay man in the closet. While Republicans would like to criminalize homosexuality, it’s not a crime. Having sex with anyone underage is a crime, however.

  3. #3 by Glenden Brown on August 28, 2007 - 11:56 am

    Misty – Foley is a gay man who couldn’t come out. Hiding his sexual orientation delayed his maturity and probably led to his misbehavior. When gay people are forced to hide who they are, it leads to all kinds of problems. Foley’s behavior was worse, but the cause was the same.

    Richard – I wouldn’t miss Sen. Craig either. Over are Reproductive Reality Check, Scott Swenson has this to say about New Republic author Mark Hemingway:

    Hemingway does his best to deflect attention from the GOP by mentioning many Democratic sex scandals. The common thread in all of them, the individuals (Pres. Clinton, Gov. McGreevy, Rep. Frank) were hiding something, lying, and not being honest with themselves or their families. The difference between the Democrats and the GOP? The Democrats support civil rights for all Americans, so their short-comings were personal, not political. We can all relate to personal challenges, but only a special few elevate those to political hypocrisy.

    The systemic and systematic dishonesty forced on people like Craig if they wish to succeed in the GOP establishment extracts a very high price.

  4. #4 by Frank Staheli on August 28, 2007 - 12:24 pm

    Glenden,

    You lost me on the distinction between “personal challenges” and “political hypocrisy”. Aren’t they all having personal challenges? Is it only the hypocrisy that makes it wrong?

  5. #5 by Larry Bergan on August 28, 2007 - 12:52 pm

    Misty:

    You forgot about the time, not too long ago when a basketball team came to Utah and some of it’s members had sex with underage girls. That story disappeared instantly and every time I bring it up somewhere, nobody remembers. But yesterday at work I brought it up and a coworker actually knew the name of the team, (which I can’t remember right now.)

    No wonder the congressmen are so jealous of sports figures and feel they have to right to steal us blind. Hopefully, Mr. Craig has enough money and power to get himself out of any prosecution, (it will), but I’m afraid his “wide stance” defense will follow him to his grave.

  6. #6 by DaveB on August 28, 2007 - 12:57 pm

    What bugs me is that Utah newspapers won’t touch this with a ten-foot pole. Yet when Idaho’s governor was in the running (and became) interior secretary, they were happy to cover Idaho politics then.

    I know tons of people who live along the Wasatch Front who are from Idaho and plan on returning soon, or at least have family ties to the state. Moreover, Idaho is culturally connected with Utah in that there is a large LDS population and BYU-Idaho. The Utah Bar routinely holds their annual convention in Sun Valley.

    Utah’s press need to cover this story. It is important.

    I don’t feel sorry for someone who repeatedly cruised bathrooms like this. If you are a politician and a closeted homosexual and want to stay both, hire someone or get partner. He had to know on some level that eventually he was going to get caught.

  7. #7 by lamonte on August 28, 2007 - 1:10 pm

    Although I left many years ago, I am willing to admit I am a native of Idaho. Most of my family still lives there. A quarter century after those idiot voters turned Frank Church out office I can only hope they will finally see the error of their ways. But I’m not really optomistic that will happen.

  8. #8 by glendenb on August 28, 2007 - 2:05 pm

    Frank – I think there’s an important distinction to be drawn. Allow me to indulge in a hypothetical:

    Politician A runs for office on a “morals” platform – he is opposed to prostitution, homosexuality, sexually oriented businesses and says he will pass laws to outlaw such activities. We then discover he’s been hiring gay prostitutes; he has a personal challenge in cheating on his wife, yes, but he has also supported the passage of the laws he’s breaking – he has violated the trust of both community and family. His problem is both personal and public, an explicit violation of the trust of his family and his voters.

    Politician B, on the other hand, has run on a platform of government efficiency, transparency in decision making and balanced budgets. When asked about morals issues he says he prefers to leave those decisions to indvidiuals. We discover he’s been hiring gay prostitutes and cheating on his wife. In this case, he has in fact violated the trust of his wife, but has not in fact violated any of the promises during his campaign. He may not have lived up to the ideals we hoped he would but his actions weren’t in violation of policies he himself supported. His problem is truly personal.

    Mark Foley, for instance, sponsored laws to outlaw the activities he himself was engaged in. Craig has voted against glbt rights on numerous occassions. They have made their personal issues into very public issues through their own actions. Bill Clinton didn’t run on a platform of not outlawing cheating on your wife. It makes a difference.

  9. #9 by Misty Fowler on August 28, 2007 - 2:06 pm

    Glendon, I have to disagree. Mark Foley is a gay man, I’m sure. But I don’t think that being gay would drive you to molesting a child, even a “young teen”. It’s a perverted desire to dominate someone you are in a position of authority over, who is helpless, and/or whatever twisted things go through a person’s mind that they want to have sex with a child.

    While he may have chosen girls if he had been straight, I think you do a disservice to the gay community to say that Mark Foley molested those boys because he was gay. To me, that’s the same argument the “Christian Right” uses to say that being gay is immoral and wrong.

  10. #10 by Nephi on August 28, 2007 - 2:31 pm

    “I am not gay!”

    Yes you are you god damned lying fucking hypocrite!!!!

  11. #11 by Glenden Brown on August 28, 2007 - 2:35 pm

    Misty – I think it’s an issue of sexual maturity. Foley’s closeted status prevented him from going through the normal experiences of sexual maturation. I think, sexually, Foley was as mature (or immature) as they people he was propositioning.

    I think Pastor Dan at Street Prophets said it best:

    there are consequences to forcing people to live their lives in the closet. This is one of them. Sexuality has to find a channel, and if it’s dammed up, it’ll come bursting out (sorry) in all manner of wild, inappropriate ways.

  12. #12 by glenn on August 28, 2007 - 4:21 pm

    So that’s what those tapping feet in the mens room are all about. I just thought they were straining hard and needed an outlet.

    I once stomped a foot that came into my stall while I was doing my business.

  13. #13 by Caveat on August 28, 2007 - 8:25 pm

    Being gey is not the same as being perverted. Foley and the other A class politicians are more the perverted variety, and Republican, of course. It’s a surprizingly long list, if you ever see it. Wow.

  14. #14 by Frank Staheli on August 28, 2007 - 8:50 pm

    Glenden,

    Anyone who violates the principles he espouses and which have been enacted into law should be punished according to the law. A hypocrite is often simply one who doesn’t live up to a standard that he knows to be best.

  15. #15 by Glenden Brown on August 29, 2007 - 8:04 am

    Frank – “Anyone who violates the principles he espouses ” is the textbook definition of a hypocrite.

  16. #16 by Richard Warnick on August 29, 2007 - 8:30 am

    You know what, in light of the ugly remarks that Senator Craig made about the president of the United States in 1999, I’ve changed my mind. No sympathy from me.

  17. #17 by glenn on August 29, 2007 - 9:59 am

    So gore coming from oil money and his insane mansion and giant energy bills makes him a hypocrite. Oops forgot the mention the jet. What is gores carbon footprint? Let’s just start calling him Sasquatch. Thanks Glendon.

    Maybe that piece of paper on the bathroom floor craig was trying to save was just the Constitution. It is of course invisible these days, which is why the cop couldn’t see it.

  18. #18 by Larry Bergan on August 29, 2007 - 11:38 am

    glenn:

    If Al Gore runs for president, we’re going to hear so much about his light bill that we’re going to want to scratch our own eyes out with forks. Could you please give us a break.

    The media is poised to do the same thing to any Democrat that runs but especially Hillary and Gore because they won’t have to do any work. They already have the talking points memorized and they have already been drilled down the throats of the truth starved American public.

    All I’ve heard from you is that you will tepidly support Ron Paul. Wow, the republic is saved!

  19. #19 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2007 - 8:34 am

    Remember last month’s scandal, about Senator Vitter’s (R-LA) predilection for prostitutes? He clearly broke the law, and no Republican called for his resignation.

    Blogger Scott Lemieux explains:

    Louisiana’s governor is a Democrat, and Idaho’s is a Republican. Craig resigning would mean a Republican incumbent going into the 2008 election; Vitter resigning would mean another Democratic Senator. So no conservative pundit should get credit for standing on principle for demanding that Craig resign, and that goes triple if they haven’t made the same call for Vitter (who actually violated the law, although he did so in a more heterosexual way that will help to earn forgiveness from conservatives.)

  20. #20 by Glenden Brown on August 30, 2007 - 10:10 am

    Hey Richard – more than a few people have also suggested that Larry Craig would be in way less trouble if he’d been cruising for sex with women rather than men.

  21. #21 by glenn on August 30, 2007 - 12:56 pm

    No Larry, this is politics, rack your brain on how to spin it. How about as a ex veep he has no choice? That would indict us entirely as useless, as a Country, and a glaring truth, that no matter what, we can’t get out of our own way. It could help gore get out responsibility, help him get elected, but will in no way fly with the rest of the modern world that can see right through this hypocrite.

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on August 31, 2007 - 11:24 pm

    What’s your point glenn?

    I gave you, and everybody else my phone number. You said you would call me, but I haven’t heard from you.

    801-265-9221

    I’m in the book!

  23. #23 by glenn on September 1, 2007 - 10:35 am

    My point is gore is a hypocrite, and we can’t expect any virtue from him. He talks a good game, but that’s about all. If the election was stolen, he laid down for it, as did we all. By rights he is gutless, and is now riding around in his plane talking nonsense, while the world burns its fires.

    The reason he accepted it? Really, without much complaint? He’s either in on the scam, or simply afraid of those running the scam. Certainly no one to follow.

    As for the rest, the scrap heap of history is seemingly in view. The control of our lives, economy and military by fascism won’t be talked away.

  24. #24 by Cliff Lyon on September 4, 2007 - 5:38 am

    Glendan,

    I think Frank’s point depends on the premise that being gay is wrong and therefore there is no hypocrisy. Even if one is gay one can still believe it is wrong and take a stand against homosexuality.

    So it really isn’t hypocrisy in that situation. Its just really really sad.

    Such men need to consider how unfair that is to their wives – to deny them the honesty of a heterosexual relationship and the real confidence of a satisfying sexual relationship with their husbands.

    Instead, they live a secret life of frustration and humiliation and self-loathing.

    It also has untold negative effects on the kids when the father can never be a real role model for personal integrity, genuine honesty or the kind of real love that punctuates the soul. ( Closeted father’s may deny this and the kids may never be conscious of this it, but they know it intrinsically, and God knows it too.)

    Those men need to know that in the fairly common event that a father comes out as gay, their children’s’ love for them remains diminished.

    P.S: Congrats getting cross posted at Pam’s. You need to watch your spelling.

  25. #25 by Glenden Brown on September 4, 2007 - 6:43 am

    Cliff – thanks! It was a bit of a shock to find OneUtah linked at Pams Place. And the embarrassing part about the spelling – I spell checked it then made some changes on the fly and posted it without rechecking. Color me red!

    I’ve talked to so many men who have done the marriage and children route for years before finally coming out. In some cases, their wives are so hurt, so devastated, they never really recover from the blow. Discovering their husband’s are gay strikes at the core of their self esteem, identity, and such that some of these men’s wives literally cannot talk about the experience. Where their husband had been suffering before, they are suffering now – many of these women are profoundly ashamed to admit their husband’s orientation, they see it as a judgment on themselves and their identity as women; they question themselves – what is wrong with me that I loved a gay man and didn’t know, why was a gay man attracted to me, am I not feminine enough . . . it goes on and on.

    A lot of men I know who have come out say that they genuinely love and care for their ex-wives. Then they describe relationships devoid of physical intimacy, devoid of honesty. I sometimes wonder, how much could you actually care for your wife if you put her through that? These women’s lives are thrown into chaos; as their husbands come out of the closet, they go into a different kind of closet. The lie to friends and family about the reasons their marriage is on the rocks. They still live in the social world their ex husband is leaving or has left behind. Their families are suddenly in pieces and no one in their lives can understand why or what happened.

  26. #26 by Cliff Lyon on September 4, 2007 - 12:21 pm

    Glendan,

    I have to assume these stories are for the most part Mormon stories. With exception of the bible belt and right-winger in general, most of America is progressive enough that gay men don’t stay in the closet and therefore don’t marry women.

    If the church would accept that homosexuality is not a choice, the Mormon women wouldn’t take it so personally, and everyone could live happily ever after.

    Its too bad that mortal men who claim the authority to be able to interpret scripture and God’s will have to fuck it up for so many good souls.

    to speak for God in order

  27. #27 by glenn on September 4, 2007 - 1:55 pm

    Hey listen, it has been a long standing practise to marry a woman and be gay for thousands of years. After all, you can’t bear a child out of your ass. The women are married as a means to have children with your genetics. It was necessary in ancient Greece, where man boy love was believed by some to be the highest form of love. It is of course short changing women. With surrogates and all the rest of the technology this won’t be an issue for much longer. The marriage to a woman and the continuance of a gay lifestyle without a wifes consent or knowledge, is one of the most selfish acts, I can imagine.

    So what is the verdict on those people that were gay and are no longer, are they confused?

    In Europe medical therapies have successfully made gay men straight with hormones. In an open society you have that choice, and in Europe gay men that don’t wish to be gay, can seek and get successful treatment.

    Have they betrayed themselves? Is it because society doesn’t accept them? Not in Europe, it is simply they aren’t comfortable being gay. Sex is a physical act, and all physical acts besides bodily functions, are a choice. What do you think being a abstinent monk is all about?

    So in the same way a person wishes to get gender reassignment, they can also get treatment for orientation reassignment. The idea that one is “born gay” is rather fascist, and is almost a religious notion itself, that you should, as well as society, accept what you have been born to be in the opinion of those that believe people are born gay. This is very much also a nature vs. nurture argument, as there is ample evidence that upbringing and family, societal conditions can lead to people becoming gay. To think otherwise is to deny open reality of many peoples experience. There are plenty of people that thought they were gay, conducted themselves as gay, then quit, and became straight. I know them. Anecdotal? Ok. To each their own beliefs.

    Belief in a person being “born gay” is however the logical outcome in reaction, to puritan based Americas’ obsession with sex.

  28. #28 by Cliff Lyon on September 4, 2007 - 9:42 pm

    No Glenn, “born gay” is not nurture as science tells us, it is nature. Certainly choice is a factor in some cases, but a minor one. Such events fall into the category of deviance.

    To say, however, “The idea that one is “born gay” is rather fascist” is nothing more than a Glennism without merit, substance, or sense, just as being born Glenn makes no sense it just happened, and we need to deal with it because we can’t change you or kill you.

  29. #29 by glenn on September 4, 2007 - 10:07 pm

    Whatever, that is certainly NOT scientifically determined..yet. There is no gay gene. A lot like the promotion of human induced global warming, we don’t KNOW. The data is scanty. The entire assumptions are derived from political motivation which betrays ignorance. Remember you are a POLI SCI MAJOR!

    The born gay concept, unfounded as it is, and vehemently held by you, drives youe politics, which causes you to be prejudiced against those who disagree. This is intolerance, and put into law and politics, primary fascism.

    /news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm There is no gay gene, for Cris’sakes STOP promoting what you wish, and start dealing with the reality.

    Insisting on people being born gay is the same as believing in some 1400 century concept of predestination based on gods wishes. It is bullshit, and since you have made it personal Cliff, most of what you promote is bullshit, which is WHY, you have the difficulties dealing with people such as myself. As for killing the likes of us, good luck with that, we believe in arming ourselves, for the very reason you couldn’t help putting in print. You are a fascist, as I have often told you. I’m still alive.

    Your “facts” don’t exist!!! It is actually FUNNY!

  30. #30 by Caveat on September 4, 2007 - 10:08 pm

    Suppose Gheii people were just plugging holes sans procreation for the sake of staving off the population crisis…shouldn’t we really just be thankful to them? God knows there are already too many of us who breed wontonly for the smiles thier quiver garner at the ward. Breeders ought to give the planet a break. What’s gay anyway?

  31. #31 by glenn on September 4, 2007 - 10:23 pm

    Parades, warm breezes, light social engagements…it is sad such a word is now associated with wide eyed bung-holery

    Since they have no proper birth control, hetero coupling in Africa is primarily anal, unless the goal is pregnancy. Think there is relation to this proclivity and the highest incidence of AIDS in the world per crapita? There is so much opportunity for tissue tearing and bleeding, joined with the bacteria, and flora found in the bowel, that it is small wonder it leads to pathologies. Sure sounds like fun, huh?

  32. #32 by Cliff Lyon on September 4, 2007 - 11:13 pm

    Glenn,

    If you search this site, you will find references to ALL the science that says homosexuality exists naturally in almost all mammals. btw: This POLYSCI major happen to take psych, chemistry, and physics courses because unlike you, I paid my way through college and decided to get my monies-worth.

    The gene issue is freaking proof you know pretty much nothing about this subject.

    THERE IS ALSO NO GENE THAT DETERMINES YOUR GENDER. So why would it mean shit if there were no gene to determine sexual preference?

    If I need to know about WWII era Russian tanks, I’ll ask you.

  33. #33 by glenn on September 5, 2007 - 8:16 am

    You paid huh, I doubt it. I guess you didn’t link to the BBC article. There is no gene for it fool. If you took sciences Cliff it sure doesn’t show. You are prone to believing the worst of junk science.

    the evergreen society, 60 minutes, wooo real titans…hahhah

  34. #34 by glenn on September 5, 2007 - 8:35 am

    Well Cliff in a search that has hundreds of links the scientific conclusion stands, there is no gay gene, and any real scientific evidence is inconclusive, and not accepted as fact.

    Let’s talk about how tactically stupid pursuing a desire for there to b e a gay gene. In doing so it denies the choice issue, which in the long run if society defines the behavior as deviant, will lead to those mothers who do not want gay children, to simply abort them, or to vary the genetics that you supposedly believe leads to “gayness”. Real science indicates that this isn’t far off.

    and if you didn’t know, I was a geology major until my senior year, 9 credits from the BS. I instead took 10 history classes in my senior year, and got out. My summers in Alaska paid for my living and school. I minored in Geo, and that discipline comes with the “science” along with being taught the method of objective science that rejects what we wish to be true, when faced with objective facts. Poli Sci not so much, I took those subjects as guts, as that was what they were, aced all of them, as history is political science in fact, whilst PS(BS?) is theory.

  35. #35 by glenn on September 5, 2007 - 8:49 am

    Gender is determined by the male, depending on the chromosome contributed Cliff. This very much something you are “born” with. Your sex is determined by actual biological events at the time of your conception. This is absolutely scientific FACT by now, whereas what YOU BELIEVE IS NOT! Not saying that it might someday be, but for now it isn’t. Your posturing for political/social reasons is admirable, but you sort of look like a person playing Twister after the 10th spin.

    Sure you took all that science huh? Stop looking foolish.

  36. #36 by Cliff Lyon on September 5, 2007 - 2:26 pm

    Glenn, you seem not to be listening – surprise surprise.

    Pay attention! You will never find a gene that determines sexual preference.

    Pay attention! You will never find a gene that determines sexual preference.

    Pay attention! You will never find a gene that determines sexual preference.

    All the scientific evidence (you didn’t read because, ah, why bother if you’re Glenn) suggests sexuality is determined by hormones.

    If you still don’t believe people are born that way, you have to explain how animals get GAY… K DORK!

    Oooh, oooh, I know, some mother rams are really sooo overbearing they emasculate their baby boy rams.

    Oh, btw: I didn’t ask you what YOU studied in college, YOU raised the issue with me. But thanks for sharing. That you still have never studied the history of the Middle East and Israel remains unforgivable given the intensity of your confidence on the subject.

    And thanks for reminding me. I also took a geology course (gut).

  37. #37 by glenn on September 6, 2007 - 2:14 am

    Yeah, I know that hormones determine sex. Animals display “gay” behavior in the context of harem male dominance. As you are fixated on the male aspect of homosexuality, you will discover that in the wild there no gay bitches. They all want the bone. What the hell can you do if you are male and not dominant? Most males use their hand in anticipation of future hopes. The rest fuck each other, that is entirely described by behavioral dynamics of this fact.

    So if being gay is not genetic, then it is in fact, a choice, not that there is anything wrong with that.

    See, I know what you studied in college, and have had extensive conversations with you, and am amazed that you claim any knowledge of “science”, as in discussion you were seemingly woefully ignorant.

    What zionist histrionics of the ME would you like me to accept? Done heard it from sources more credible, though invalid, as you. I get ot say whatever I want, get usde to it. Many people agree, deal with that. More shall soon. Live with that, as there is NOTHING for it. Cheers.

  38. #38 by Cliff Lyon on September 6, 2007 - 4:27 am

    Glenn, What do you mean by “hormones determine sex?” Do you mean gender or preference?

    You said, “in the wild there no gay bitches.” You obviously didn’t read this.

  39. #39 by glenn on September 6, 2007 - 10:06 am

    Gender, which is your sex.

    The behavior exhibited by these animals occurs in the context of packs, and male, and female dominance displays. In female harems, or in stag male groups, the inability to be allowed to breed surely can lead to some queer behavior. All manner of behavior in our own species can be attributed to sexual frustration. Everyone is gay to some extent as humans, as we all masturbate. Which is sex with someone of your own gender. You are born with that perhaps, but any sexual proclivities can be denied by humans. Like celibate monks, so you aren’t born with that.

    I suggest that behavior defines your orientation, and that is changeable and chooseable. As I have said before gays that quit and then “breed” are not gay despite the behavior, they are gay while doing it, and het when they quit, or celibate.

    Why do you attempt to put human sexuality into a box? I don’t think you can. We are an adaptable species, and that covers sexual behavior too.

    Are the queer acting animals gay? I dunno, why don’t you ask them? Despite any of these apparent behaviors, given the opportunity, and position in the herd/pack, all females will be bred, all males will breed with females, should cunning or dominance permit it. In the end sexual behavior is about procreation and breeding. The rest is just something to do until that time.

    Are men in prison for life or long terms gay when they succumb to rape or consensual sex with the only available partners? Or are they just getting what they can, until better partners they prefer show up? Consider the animal behavior in that light. Animals that aren’t dominant often aren’t allowed to breed,(though the males that distract alphas and breed through cunning, are an interesting lot), leading to the behaviors. Like prison.

    I frankly don’t care what anyone does, and they have the right to conduct themselves as they wish consensually, and get the modicum of allowances anyone else does with regard to marrying, etc. Arguing about why humans are gay, by using “science” is really pointless, and a sign of the insecurity about the rights people should have. It is not a scientific issue, except to those with such interest, it is really a social one, and like most social “science” it isn’t hard and fast, and is not meant to be.

    As people once thought “vapors” made you sick, using available science of the time, so too do we now speculate about animal behavior and our own as having some rigid calculus to define it. I’m content to say, who knows why? As we do not know.

  40. #40 by Cliff Lyon on September 6, 2007 - 5:57 pm

    I suppose Glenn, empathy is something you were not born with. You see the reason its important to acknowledge the fact that most gay men do not choose to be gay is because some cultures believe wrongly that it IS a choice and a deviant one.

    Such false (religious dogma) causes a great deal of prejudice and pain in people’s lives and families. But I don’t suppose you give a shit about that kind of justice.

    I’m not trying to put sexuality in a box. I fully realize choice can come into play, but it certainly is not the case for a great majority of gay men.

    Look Glenn, you’ve been very clear about your bigotry on this subject. Lets drop it shall we. Arguing with you is neither fun nor interesting.

    God bless. May you find happiness someday.

  41. #41 by glenn on September 6, 2007 - 6:16 pm

    I have empathy for those that are convinced they are born gay, do what you want, you will get no persecution from me, if anything I will support them, and defend against their detractors. Whatever cockeyed reason anyone wants to give about their consensual activities is fine with me.

    Once again Ad hominem statements, no addressing any points you cannot defend or agree. Who’s the bigot? Of course with this tack you automatically lose any argument. It is very typical. Not interesting either.

    Your views are opinion, and that’s ok. I was born German and suffered discrimination for that, nothing to be done, that IS absolutely a condition I was born with. Nobody cares about others problems until they cry from the roof top, which the gay community well does, so now we know. Many with other problems can’t. That said I inhibit nor impinge anyones lifestyle, but I don’t have to fit in the correct box that you utilize to judge others.

    If anyone is bigoted Cliff it is you. You favor all manner of attitudes over others, and your faux liberalism is, you are right, very boring. I’m pretty happy these days, Certainly not concerned with this really, it just a semantic exercise for me. For you, as I know you, your “beliefs” are pretty phony.

    You don’t believe in God Cliff, so don’t utilize others beliefs in vain to pretend that you care.

  42. #42 by Caveat on September 6, 2007 - 9:03 pm

    I despise Glenn (or whatever his name really is) for his pointed and often well written analysis of so many topics!

  43. #43 by glenn on September 6, 2007 - 11:22 pm

    So now I ‘aint myself? There’s no winning, so I don’t bother anymore. I could write in support of many of the ideas here, but what fun would be?

    The irony Cav, (wowooo,, is that your name?), is that I agree with many of the politics here, but judge no one for their thoughts, that is cliffords’ department.

    The ability to write and compose thoughts, defend the indefensible, logically, and as you wrote, pointedly, is the benefit of classical education. It continues when you can think for yourself using the resources you have, these gifts combined with learned knowledge powers the better half of the human race to success. The rest are judging and taking adversarial poses they claim to believe in. Who knows what they really believe in? The mark is in what they DO!I have no agenda. My bone with cliff(small c) is that he is judgmental of morality of those people that disagree with him. It is in my view small minded.

    So, if I have be unpopular to end the glad handing show this site has a tendency toward, then so be it. It’s fun, and I am reasonably certain I give a look most people don’t cast their brains upon. No hubris, I am doing this for sheer SPORT! Maybe I’ll go back to school, become an attorney. Or maybe I’ll get banned again.

    Here’s mud in yer eyes ya’all!

  44. #44 by Caveat on September 7, 2007 - 3:59 am

    Glenn, I was just being an a-hole. Sorry. ‘Despise’ is the wrong word…by abour 180*.

  45. #45 by Caveat on September 7, 2007 - 4:03 am

    I actually think you’re radically and refreshingly empathetic. Glad to have you around.

(will not be published)