UPDATE: 8/30/07 – There is now audio of the police discussion with Senator Craig after the arrest in Minneapolis. Given the speculation here and elsewhere, I though it might be interesting to consider. It surprises me that he did not fight the charge given the tone of this interview.
Beth Frerking of the political magazine, Politico, interviewed me for a story out today regarding the political fallout of scandal on social conservatives. I hesitated to respond since I know nothing of Senator Craig’s life. However, I think it is clear in the article that I am replying in general terms. I am not going to speculate any further about the Senator’s situation but I suspect this will be an ongoing story with additional fallout. Feel free to add links to relevant aspects of the story in the comments.
Mary,
I don’t think that’s true of all people – but in general, I DO think you’re right. People are afraid of the “different”, and that’s unfortunate. Although, as someone who strongly sympathizes with ex-gay people, I find it hard to really support most of them because of their political stances, and I have to believe that others, who are less sympathetic than I, are going to care for them much more.
Sadly Jayhuck, you may be one of the few. And I have had it thrown back on me (a liberal) too many times for what you are saying to be true. I think people are scared of anyone or anything that is different from them.
Mary,
I definitely think there is some truth to that – the wanting to protect a personal interest statement you made. I don’t think anyone questions the fact that people can change – whether you are gay, ex-gay, straight, ex-straight, whatever 🙂 – they do it all the time in all manner of ways. I think the problem comes in with some of the outlandish claims made by some ex-gays and groups like Exodus, and the tying in of change to politics – when they use the “change” to suppress the rights of others. Just because some change doesn’t mean all or even most can – granted, I know we’ve been over this before – and I think we’re on the same page with it too.
Jayhuck –
See Timothy’s post at 45120 and 45218 regarding an accurate account of Craig’s voting record….see what you think.
David –
You stated:
“Regarding your repeated assertions to know the “truth” in another man’s or woman’s heart, I have heard you make much better arguments using sound thinking, rather than some intuitive truth assessing skill you have.”
David, we don’t know the “truth” in his heart, but we know what he has consistently sought in his pants for the past 30 years. He is a married man who has been on record since 1967 (see my post 4472) seeking same-sex sexual encounters. Behavior certainly doesn’t say it all, but his consistent and repeated choice for random male sex does say something.
It’s not “intuitive truth assessing,” but rather the not-so-big-leap that a heterosexually married man seeking out another man for sex repeatedly for over 30 years may have something to say about his inclinations…bisexual, gay, etc…the fact that he so vehemently opposes anything in legislation and speaks so condescendingly about gay people also carries some weight.
To ignore the gender of his sexual encounters would be missing something important about this man. He certainly has been very specific and consistent about it…
As Throckmorton has stated “What I think he [the senator] might be saying is that he is not attracted to guys. That might be harder to accept at this point.”
Jayhuck,
“Me thinks he doth protest too much”
The bard, Shakespeare, is so prevalent today because he wrote many universal truths.
I often wonder if people who are vehement against ex gays are really scared that people do change their perspective etc… I used to be that way. And I used to say the same thing about people who are vehement agianst gays. Too passionate one side or the other could mean you have more of a private and personal interest to protect instead of just saying you are protecting and acting in the best interest of others & society. I have run into very few people who did not have something in it for themselves in particular.
I’m a little confused – someone said that Craig was not anti-gay and someone else said that he had spoken out against gay marraige. I’m curious which one of these is the truth?????
Mary,
I don’t think Warren was disputing the fact that often the most vocal opponents of gay people are actually gay themselves. There is ample evidence to at least give this some weight. Read Jags post above.
David,
The problem with your Jefferson analogy is that you are looking at Jefferson with a 21st century lens. Many good people owned slaves at that time. It most certainly isn’t right to judge Jefferson by our standards today, but it is right to criticize Craig by the standards of the time he lives in.
Ok, I certainly get that you believe that. I don’t really think that is the case and I do not think we can get very far that way. To me, this is like someone opposed to gay marriage saying, “Those gays just want to ruin the family and hate straights. They want to tear down traditional morals and values.”
kinda like (just from today)
Dobson: “By striking down Iowa’s DOMA, Judge Robert Hanson has shown he believes the desires of adults should trump what’s best for children. His ruling represents social engineering at its worst.”
“Once marriage is available to homosexuals, they don’t choose it,” the Iowa Family Policy Center’s Hurley said. “That’s not commensurate with their lifestyle.”
CWA: “This case proves once again that the only way to assure that the institution of marriage is protected – and not radically redefined into oblivion – is to pass a federal marriage amendment,” concluded Barber.
Because this really had nothing to do with the merits of the case. It was all just social engineering to radically redefine marriage into oblivion for people who don’t want it anyway.
Is it so very difficult to understand when I say that the debate from the opposition seems to be more anti-gay than anti-gay-marriage? Am I really stretching here?
Who is out there opposing the decision who is also not attacking gay folk?
Craig is niether closeted nor anti-gay…that we know of…it is much less clear what he is.
You and I must define “anti-gay” differently.
Senator Craig has voted against everything (literally everthing) that would in any way address specific concerns raised by gay people. He opposes anti-discrimination, he opposes gay people serving in the military, he voted to constitutionally ban gay people from marriage in those states that wish to allow them (certainly neither a federalist, states rights, or conservative position), he opposes hate crimes tracking. There is literally nothing that would benefit gay people that he doesn’t automatically oppose.
Now perhaps we could list out all the various reasons one might have for taking those positions. But ultimately a pattern emerges.
Larry Craig – in his voting, in any case – was anti-gay. Consistently and unwaiveringly.
Perhaps others may define “anti-gay” in some other way. Perhaps they think that only the Phelps’ are anti-gay. I don’t buy it.
If he wants to be anti-gay, that’s his right. But let’s not redefine words out of recognition.
Timothy,
Regarding why this topic has arisen: Craig’s behavior in the bathroom is being used to undermine his arguments in favor of DOMA and heterosexual marriage.
I am sorry that is not clear.
Regarding your repeated assertions to know the “truth” in another man’s or woman’s heart, I have heard you make much better arguments using sound thinking, rather than some intuitive truth assessing skill you have.
People on both sides make decisions about SSM based upon a variety of information, misinformation, experiences, progressivism and traditionalism, biases and bigotry.
Craig’s arguments for SSM should be assessed on their merits, as should Gavin Newsome’s.
David,
My point for not having unisex bathrooms!! Eeeeewwww.
jag,
I have said what I will say on the subject.
Warren,
Maybe it’s like those that are the most vehement against ex gays are really ex gay??? Doesn’t make sense does it?
Timothy said:
The bare stark truth is that the most vocal advocates for stopping the evolution of marriage to extend to include marriage between persons of the same sex do so out of animus towards gay people. And though you may not like the label nor think it productive to the debate, it is irrefutable that the leaders in the anti-gay-marriage campaign have earned their identification as homophobe and bigot.
Ok, I certainly get that you believe that. I don’t really think that is the case and I do not think we can get very far that way. To me, this is like someone opposed to gay marriage saying, “Those gays just want to ruin the family and hate straights. They want to tear down traditional morals and values.” Well, partly thanks to this blog and a decision I made a few years ago to listen to people, I decided that there are many arguments for and against gay marriage made by people of good will. Calling them names just doesn’t help us live together very well — so I was glad to see you add the disclaimer of sorts to your comment to David.
I am reminded of the line from the Sting song: “I hope the Russians love their children too.” Even though I haven’t agreed with Sting’s politics, I liked that line — made me think.
Jefferson’s hypocricy was so absurdly clear as to be completely invisible as the people he bought and sold. Slaves were non-persons.
Craig is niether closeted nor anti-gay…that we know of…it is much less clear what he is.
I just know I don’t want to be in the stall next door.
Warren –
I have to say that I feel badly for his family – as with any family going through this type of marital sexual indiscretion. The Senator would likely go further with his audience if he were just honest about where he’s at.
His life is just an example of what many people find to be true – that some people do struggle with sexual impulses, and who they are tempted to fulfill those with. He may indeed be a “thrill seeker,” as Warren, Mary and others have noted…but there are many thrill seekers who engage with their spouse, a random female (happens in bars all the time), etc….
Mary –
I agree entirely with Warren when he states:
“What I think he [the senator] might be saying is that he is not attracted to guys. That might be harder to accept at this point.”
Indeed…he’s going to have to do some soul searching about who he is and what he wants. Do you still disagree at this point that the seeking out of another “man” is significant?
All of which is not to say that ALL opposition is based on bigotry or that reasoned debate is inappropriate.
David Blakeslee,
I don’t know why this has become a debate about marriage. But since it has become so, let me address your argument.
Yes, a society has a right to determine whether expanding marriage recognition is a benefit or a boon to society.
But sometimes the reason for the questioning is as relevant as the question itself. We need to ask ourselves why one particular expansion is presumed to be so very controversial or why it is even being considered.
Historically, the oppositions to marriage expansion (unequal status, mixed-faith, mixed-race) were most often argued in terms of cost to society (“think of the children”) but were in truth based on bias and animus.
Let’s be honest. I mean really truly truthful.
The overwhelming percentage of folks out there all upset about same-sex marriages are not upset because of some thoughfully considered analysis about the costs and/or benefits to society of offering legal recognition – along with rights and responsibilities – to that relationship which already exists between two people. Most never thought about it and are just parroting what they’ve heard. Setting polemic aside, we all know this to be true.
And it really isn’t refutable that the opposition from the most vocal is not to a change in marriage structure, but rather based on the individuals such a change would benefit – gay people. It is not an objection to the evolution of marriage but rather to gay people getting what they want.
This is abundantly clear when reviewing the message of the “protect marriage” efforts. They nearly always are accompanied by long lists of the evils of homosexuality and claims about the insincerity of gay persons seeking legal union. There are virtually universal claims about “the destruction of marriage” or “an attack on marriage” or some other language that make it clear that this isn’t really about measured societal structures but instead about evil vile homosexual militant activists and their hatred for Christians, capitalism, and Western society. It isn’t just recognition of an unconventional structure, but it is GAY marriage they oppose.
The bare stark truth is that the most vocal advocates for stopping the evolution of marriage to extend to include marriage between persons of the same sex do so out of animus towards gay people. And though you may not like the label nor think it productive to the debate, it is irrefutable that the leaders in the anti-gay-marriage campaign have earned their identification as homophobe and bigot.
And just as it is reasonable to determine whether same sex marriage will result in benefit or boon, it too is reasonable to determine whether opposition is based on bigotry and to expose it when it is presented. And it is reasonable to show that an argument based on hypocrisy has less credibility than an argument based on rationality.
The problem with David Blakeslee’s Jefferson analogy is that Jefferson didn’t try to hide the fact that he owned slaves. The information was in the open for anyone to challenge him about it.
In the case of closeted anti-gay politicians it is not. And the problem is that these politicians may be supporting anti-gay legislation and rhetoric, not because it is “right to do”, but simply to try to cover the fact that they are gay.
Jag,
I am willing to add interracial marriage to the discussion as a benefit in the evolution of marriage.
As to carefully worded statements by the AAA:
“…provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution.”
Human beings are a persistent and resilient species…I really don’t think the sexual and moral values of 2nd Century Rome or BC Greece are the kind of civilization I would like to encourage…but they were vibrant cultures.
The AAA statement is a statement of “when you average out all the cultures of all time they all have different assets and libilities.”
Hmmmm. Kind of meaningless, when you think about it…especially as you argue the opposite, that marriage is “evolving” from these more primitive ideas of coupling and sexual expression.
Lynn David – I agree with you at 45028. I think he may same-sex attracted or he may be a thrill seeker of some type but being gay encompasses a larger set of intentions and feelings. What I think he might be saying is that he is not attracted to guys. That might be harder to accept at this point.
Timothy – Yep, I do think avoidance is a problem. I like the acceptance and commitment school of thought in my discipline which promotes acceptance of internal states, even when one may not act in concert with those states. What one resists, often persists.
David –
You premise your argument on false links, and make the mistake of lumping same-sex marriage (“as a part of that process”) with “cohabitation, childbirth before marriage, easier divorce and easier re-marriage.”
Why not lump same-sex marriage also into things like the expansion of marriage to include interracial couples (1967)? You lump it into all negative cultural events.
David, certainly you understand that an objective examination occurs in light of all of the cultural events – not just some. We should be looking at both.
Perhaps also, we should look at the examination by experts on culture and their thoughts on the impact.
Hmm…How about the thoughts of the American Anthropological Association who stated:
“”The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”
But this is all terribly off topic…how about we refocus a bit. The senator hasn’t lost your interest already, has he?
Haha. Even if Craig thinks it was entrapment – he should not have taken the bait.
Found this a few moments ago:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzRiY2ExNTZjNmU0OGI0NTU5ZWU0NzdlMGE5OTVhNWY=
“Here’s an analogy that bears on this point: Thomas Jefferson wrote the most important words in American history: “all men are created equal.” Jefferson was also a slave owner, which made him a hypocrite. But the fact that Jefferson was living a life that was at odds with his principles doesn’t invalidate and shouldn’t weaken the principle; it only means that we, as fallen creatures, need to strive harder to live up to what we know to be right.
The logic employed by some people today would lead them to say that Jefferson would have been fine if he hadn’t penned the words in the Declaration. As long as he didn’t claim some high principle that he was falling short of, there’s really no problem. But if he did stand against slavery, particularly on moral grounds, then his personal life becomes fair game.
The issue, then, is whether one sees hypocrisy and wants people to live up to higher standards — or whether one sees hypocrisy and says that we should dissolve moral standards.
The effect of the Craig case will not be to weaken standards related to lewd behavior in public bathrooms; it will be, rather, make those who are perceived as holding “moralistic” views more hesitant to speak out on moral matters”
The Senator seems to be on the ropes.
Jayhuck-
“Marriage has been evolving since marriage has been around – to talk otherwise is just to twist the discussion in your favor. Have there been changed to heterosexual marriage that have caused it problems? Absolutely – Does that have anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage – not at all.”
Marriage as been evolving and devolving for thousands of years, the last few hundred has seen the protection of women’s rights in marriage and the rights of children in the family.
The last fifty is a form of evolution which is cause for concern…
Expanding marriage to include Same-sex couples occurs in a cultural context where cohabitation, childbirth before marriage, easier divorce and easier re-marriage make for a fast changing, “evolving” institution of marriage…
Same-sex marriage is part of that process…we have a right to assess it in light of the other modificatoins we have made to marriage in the last 50 years.
Why I think this is relevent to Craig (and Haggard and others) is their behavior is being used to undermine what is a sound concern among social scientists: Will broadening further the meaning of marriage make for a better or worse society?
It is very difficult to have a thoughtful discussion with people yelling “homophobe, bigot!”
Again, somewhere between 2-4% of those who voted for DOMA and other similar bills will eventually be identified as either having SSA or engaging in SSB. It is simplistic and naive to attribute this to undermining their arguments.
The arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on human frailty.
Jayhuck –
“the most vocal critics of gay people sometimes tend to be gay themselves, because they haven’t been able to reconcile that part of who they are.”
Absolutely…if you look back at 44772, I made that parallel to the Haggard issue. It’s really unfortunate to have so much self-loathing – for whatever you sexual inclinations may be.
An interesting article examining this phenomenon, it’s an older one…but interesting – Psychiatric News, September 20, 1996:
http://www.psych.org/pnews/96-09-20/phobia.html
Granted, there are competing theories…
Jayhuck and Eddy,
Thanks for the notes – funny! Yes, I have heard of the mile high club 🙂 I am actually traveling today and when I used the airport bathroom for all the usual and boring reasons, I found myself a little more curious about “the stall” than usual =-0
Sorry Jayhuck,
Sneaking a woman in would not have been anonymous (he would have to talk to her, convince her, probably pay her etc…) too many factors that don’t coincide with quick, free, easy sex, no strings – no discussion kind of action.
Until there is more info or corroborating and validated evidence – that’s how I see it. I know it is not the popular vote.
I’m going to discontinue my comments on Craig about this specific idea. Let’s agree to disagree.
BTW,
Dr. Drew Pinsky and the ex-wife of gay N.J. Governor had a few good things to say about the Craig scandal on Larry King tonight. Dr. Pinsky made a good statement about how the most vocal critics of gay people sometimes tend to be gay themselves, because they haven’t been able to reconcile that part of who they are. I think this is how the situation parallels the Rev. Haggard issue. I should have seen that before.
Mary,
I don’t think you can discount the gender with him though. If he really wanted to he could sneak a woman into a restroom – I’ve seen guys do that. Personally, I think the gender has a great deal to do with it – but the restroom can sometimes make it more anonymous than even a prostitute could be. (NOT speaking from experience – I promise :))
David Blakeslee,
You said: “The last 50 years of family law and Western culture has been very difficult for children of divorce and children born out of wedlock. Good people look with skepticism at the “evolution of marriage,” when it includes harm to children and women.It is simple-minded to attribute this to bigotry. Actually it is a slogan and a bumper-sticker…”
You seem to be implying that gay marriage has something to do with the problems currently being experienced with straight marriage. I realize you didn’t say this, but I’m getting the sense that that is in some of what you said.
Marriage has been evolving since marriage has been around – to talk otherwise is just to twist the discussion in your favor. Have there been changed to heterosexual marriage that have caused it problems? Absolutely – Does that have anything whatsoever to do with gay marriage – not at all.
The evolution of marriage doesn’t have to be bad – the mistakes made with heterosexual marriage can be corrected – but let’s not try and blame homosexuals for the problem. Many countries are successfully implementing gay marriage without any direct dire consequences for the straight population.
My apologies for going here everyone – but I think David started it 😉 I won’t go back here though if no one else wants to.
For the ‘complete audio tape’: http://www.kstp.com
I’ve heard the edited version on the news and haven’t visited their site yet but that’s what they promised.
Sorry jag, I still view his choice of the bathroom as being more weighted than his choice of gender here. Yes, men treat prostitutes as “meat” but again – they are paying for that (a criteria of sexuality) and they are not in such a public place (another criteria of sexuality) He could have gone to male prostitutes (he has the money and the time apparantly) To get the anonymity in each city, in a public place would require he sort of train each prostitute about what he wanted (time consuming – let alone going and finding a prostitute)
It is my opinion, that his trysts in the restroom are more exciting to him than the gender and weighs more heavily on the definition of this man.
David–
Do you know where I can access a copy of that police interview tape? I live in Minneapolis and this morning’s local news uncovered approx. 40 arrests in that ‘sting operation’ at the airport. Although it wasn’t the point of the story, I was left with the impression that the confessions were actually drafted by the police. They seemed to have a similar style and wording.
Portions of it reminded me of a sting decoy officer who has a reputation for entrapment. I’m wondering if he’s moved from the Park Police to the Airport.
I don’t have much to add to the other comments except to say Amen…at the moment I’m remembering JAG’s and Timothy’s rounded and insightful comments.
LOL! And this will prove that I’m still trying to figure out the Craig story…. On one hand, I’m considering the possibility of entrapment but on the other, I’ve got to tell you, I’ve been to that airport–several times. I’m guessing that, throughout the airport, there are around 100 men’s rooms. (It could be more or less but, believe me, there are MANY.) Quite a coincidence that Craig stumbled into the one where the sting was going on. Did he pick that particular restroom due to some secret reputation it had? Was he targeted beforehand and then followed when he went there?
I love a good mystery!
Just heard that the tape is supposed to be on this evening’s news. Gotta go catch it. Will let you know if I miss it or if they edit the heck out of it.
LOL! Ann, for hours I’ve been trying to think of a way to answer your bathroom question TASTEFULLY. The best I can come up with is: Have you heard of The Mile High Club? It’s pretty much a hetero thing where you manage to have sex on an airplane. Most of the time, it’s in a bathroom…a tiny, airplane bathroom. It seems humans are masters of improvisation.
Here comes the audio tape. Later.
David Blakeslee,
Whose morals are we talking about? Are you suggesting that a blatant and proven hypocrite is a good spokesperson? I’m a little unclear what you are trying to get at.
Let’s summarize.
Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig is NOT gay.
To be gay is to recognize and accept one’s homosexual orientation. What you do from there on is up to you. I know men who identify as gay but are celibate as their Roman Catholic religion teaches. One could also have a bisexual orientation and identify as gay, or identify as some are so beginning to do so as queer. At any rate what Senator Larry Craig thinks is important to what he is, and he isn’t gay.
Then there are the possibilities, Idaho Senator Larry Craig is either oriented as:
Straight
Bisexual
Homosexual
Which means his actions are then either of the type:
Straight – Perverse Adulterer
Bisexual – Uncontrollable Adulterer
Homosexual – Hypocritical Adulterer
My guess is that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is somewhere between the last two, making him a hypocritically uncontrollable adulterer.
Or something like that…..
There are languages where they still use sexual activities to define whether 1 is straight, homosexual or bisexual. The term sexual orientation or proclivity was generated by Kinsey & has been popularized since the 1970s. They must use behaviors to define some1, rather than proclivity. People can have proclivity to do other behaviors, but we don’t define them as such unless they engage in that behavior. What it means is that if some1 has the homosexual orientation but only engages in straight behavior or is celibate, then we can define them as straight. It’s time to go back to the old definition of homosexual & straight.
Warren,
Based on your comments in the article, it would seem to me that you and I share one idea in common – supressed sexual desires can lead to inappropriate and bizarre acting out.
I would recommend that persons experiencing same-sex attractions that are not wanted should seek to find a way to live as a happy healthy gay person. You would probably recommend that they find a way to address their attractions such that they live a life with values. (ok, that oversimplified both of us).
Nonetheless, I think we agree that the right solution is not to hide and deceive and keep it all compartmentalized inside. Denial (especially to oneself) leads to bathroom encounters and arrest. Also we would probably agree that counseling can be an essential tool to avoid the Larry Craig/Bob Allen/Ted Haggard phenomenon.
Call me crazy but I’ve been trying to find out of Larry Craig is left handed. So far no luck.
If you’ve seen his hairline you’d know it is a little late to determine hair whorl. 😎
Warren
Why does my stuff end up in the spamfilter so often, is it because I include links?
Mary –
“No one can say for sure – but I just get the feeling that Craig is a sexually perverse man who wants to use others for his own sexual gratification. He may in fact really hate men and enjoys the perverse degradation of using them.”
This may be true, but many men use female prostitutes this way. The interesting part about the Senator, is that he has consistently chosen men…and that he has chosen to interact with them in such a public forum.
Conversely, there are many gay/bisexual men who are just in it for the “hook-up,” as well. As much as I’d love it to be true, not all people of a homosesexual or bisexual orientation are into pair-bonding, etc.. Just like not all heterosexual people are.
“Homosexuality or those who identify as gay see more than that – they see the oppotunity for pair bonding, love, community and social integration as a homosexual etc…”
I would argue that this is not always the case.
“As far as his voting record – I wonder if he sees sex with men as just sex and not something the warrants rights.”
Possibly…because for him, that’s all it has been, so he thinks all gay/bisexual men must be like that. I think many people believe this, not just the good senator…that homosexuality is just about the sex. For some, this may be true – as in heterosexuality – but for others, it is one of many wonderful parts of a solid relationship.
Gavin Newsome…is he now more or less qualified to talk about what makes a healthy family?
What were his motivations in being so open-minded and tolerant of Same Sex Marriage?
We can be cynical and assume he was calculating.
Or we can assume he was making his best guess and a critical time in our nation’s history.
The last 50 years of family law and Western culture has been very difficult for children of divorce and children born out of wedlock. Good people look with skepticism at the “evolution of marriage,” when it includes harm to children and women.
It is simple-minded to attribute this to bigotry. Actually it is a slogan and a bumper-sticker…
OK.
So there are Republicans who are unable to keep the moral guidelines that they think form the best kind of family environment for children…
That is what makes them morals…they are important behavioral ideals which are difficult to keep.
We write laws around morals, because all morals have an impact on civil society.
I wonder if we’ll eventually find that between 2-4 percent of Republicans who voted for the DOMA have SSA? Does that devalue their vote or make them hateful or bigots? It doesn’t have to…
By the way, has anyone listend to the tape of the police interview of this? Its pretty troubling
Thank you Warren.
Ann –
LOL – ok, THAT (the bathroom stall comment) was funny 🙂
I do not presume that expertise is needed to discuss personal experience. So no need to defend credentials jag, although you are certainly free to write me off list regarding your professional work.
No need to carry this forward; it is a distraction. Mary said she didn’t mean it personally — although I see how you might have taken it that way — and now jag has addressed it. Back to topic.
Mary –
“As for what else I see, it seems that gays are all too eager to say “He’s gay!”
Read my posts carefully, I have repeatedly expressed that he may be bisexual. Obviously he has been seeking out sexual behavior with other men for 30 years. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to question his heterosexuality. If I told you that I am a lesbian, but have had ongoing fantasies and sexual interactions with men for the past 30 years, any astute person would question that. Even though I have a degree, you don’t need one to pick that out.
Wow Mary…all riled up? “That you are a lesbian and clinician and academician does not make you an expert on human sexuality.”
I need not lay out my resume – it has gotten me publications, speaking engagements and board of director positions, and I’m really not in the mood.
However, you have questioned my credentials and that’s personal, so I’m wondering – since I have given you at least some indication of my formal training and professional endeavors, what are yours?
I say with assurance that I have nothing to worry about should we compare our report cards like schoolchildren.
Credentials don’t make you automatically correct…heck Nicolosi has a PhD. from somewhere…but being a lesbian doesn’t make me wrong either.
Try to remain objective here…30 years seeking sexual contact with the same gender…and you don’t question his heterosexuality?
wow…
ugghhh.. University of New Orleans CRs, not Oregon State. Duh
Warren,
Sorry. Of course some folks called for him to resign.
I think the OSU College Republicans called for his resignation too.
What I meant is that the Republican leadership in the Senate did not strip him of his appointments and no Senators called for him to resign that I’m aware of.
Jag,
It was not apersonal attack. Many years could mean 5, 12 or 20 and does not explain the focus of your profession nor the client base. And I was not speaking of a client who had persistent fantasies. I spoke of fantasies in general – that people go over the gender barrier is normal. (You presented the idea that ex gays have fantasies – I just pointed out that a lot of people have fantasies that do not make them “the fantasy”)
That you are a lesbian and clinician and academician does not make you an expert on human sexuality. You have never said what is your area of expertise. Just as a lawyer may specialize in criminal law or family law. And his/her interests may bend more towards physical forensics or pathological forensics. You do not talk to a criminal attorney about divorce matters.
I said enough of Craig’s sexuality – I did not say something. Two different ideas. You have bent a lot of what I said. I am just trying to unbend it and clarify.
Sorry – but I am just pointing out what I see. It was not a personal attack.
As for what else I see, it seems that gays are all too eager to say “He’s gay!” when in actuality there may be more at work here then just gender sexuality. (See pedophiles, rapists, misogynists, sadomasochists, etc..)
Craig’s behavior is more than just about men in the bathroom and repressed homosexuality.
Timothy – Perhaps not as loud, but there were some calls for Vitter to resign.
Lynn David –
“I have to say this too. I’ve never gotten what is so great about just getting off with someone in a bathroom or other public place.”
Many people just find it exciting. People don’t just do this with random strangers, but often with people they are involved with – husbands, wives, boyfriends,girlfriends, etc…
Public sex is not so uncommon….just uncommonly caught.
Wasn’t there a politician on the hill who resigned because his name was in a mdam’s black book? And this was in the last 12 months??
You are referring to Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who did not resign. Nor were there calls for his resignation.
Mary –
“Right now, we do not know enough of his sexual habits except he is married to a woman (adopted children mind you) and has anonymous sex with men in restrooms. I can’t say he is gay.”
This is inaccurate. We do know something of his sexual habits…at least that he’s been propositioning men and having alleged sexual encounters and attempted sexual encounters with them since 1967. That he isn’t giving them a 5 dollar bill, isn’t really a big distinction.
Mary, this was a bit of a stab:
“As far as your comment about fanatasies. I’m not getting the impression that you have been in practice for very long or do not focus on sexual issues with individuals or couples??”
Say what you wish, I have a doctorate of clinical psychology and have been in practice for many years – as both an academic and practitioner.
If a lesbian had a persistent fantasies for 30 years (as the Senator has been seeking out sexual encounters with men for this long – see my above post referencing this) about being with men sexually, I’d question whether or not she was a lesbian – her orientation would seem more bisexual, or straight (depending on her inclinations toward women). I’d be an idiot to think she was just simply gay when she had been seeking out men repeatedly for sexual encounters for so long.
In the future Mary, refrain from personal attacks until you have an explanation.
Jag et al,
But you can’t say these men are entirely gay either? Bisexual? Yes.
As far as his voting record – I wonder if he sees sex with men as just sex and not something the warrants rights. Homosexuality or those who identify as gay see more than that – they see the oppotunity for pair bonding, love, community and social integration as a homosexual etc… It has more depth (meaning to the soul) for those who identify as gay and homosexual.
No one can say for sure – but I just get the feeling that Craig is a sexually perverse man who wants to use others for his own sexual gratification. He may in fact really hate men and enjoys the perverse degradation of using them. I do not know. I don’t think anyone does. He obviously is not interested in pair bonding with another man. Now if we see evidence of showing favoritism to an assistant, an “acquaitance”, something that indicates a return visit to a particular individual then there is more to go on.
Wasn’t there a politician on the hill who resigned because his name was in a mdam’s black book? And this was in the last 12 months??
I think people are asking for a resignation because of his hypocrisy – not because of his behavior. An interview with an elected offical in Idaho (lesbian) has expressed the such an opinion. (all over CNN)
No, I don’t think the same logic applies. He is also married. And finding a prostitute involves money another factor to add to the mix. Also a prostitute usually provides some privacy such as a car, behind a building, etc… Right now, we do not know enough of his sexual habits except he is married to a woman (adopted children mind you) and has anonymous sex with men in restrooms. I can’t say he is gay.
Now if we find that he has a boyfriend, or has been with male prostitues then we have a different circumstance to consider.
As far as your comment about fanatasies. I’m not getting the impression that you have been in practice for very long or do not focus on sexual issues with individuals or couples?? Rest assure straight women have fantasies about being with another woman and here’s a shocker – lesbians have been known to have fantasies about being with men. That does not make either one a lesbian or a straight women. It just means they have thoughts.
Have you ever thought of something and did not act on it? And if Sen. Craig had only thought of anonymous sex – he certainly would not be accussed of having tried to solicit it.
As far as ex gays “struggling” with fantasies about the same sex – yes, I guess some do, and thus are somewhere along the continuum of change and their sexuality. People do not fall into neat boxes of definition. But we use labels to get an idea of where we are or what our goals are.
Also, you might consider there are people who have given up deer hunting who still dream about it from time to time, or got a divorce and still think about their ex with some adoration, etc… There is sooooo much that goes into our thoughts, hearts, and lives that to take a quick punch at ex gays for having fantasies was sort of short sighted.
Jag said:
One other point? Why does he lose his career over soliciting men, but likely he wouldn’t if he was caught soliciting women in a lewd manner (like prostitution)?
I doubt the situation would be much different if it were a woman. However, the calls for his resignation are all political. Look who is making the calls, republicans. This is because Idaho has a republican governor. So his replacement will be a republican and have a year to establish himself as an incumbent in the election for the seat next year. If Idaho had a democratic governor, I’m sure you would be hearing a lot more from the democrats while the republicans were largely silent or arguing it was only a misdemeanor offense that doesn’t warrant his resignation.
Mary –
We agree here:
“I think homosexuality really encompasses more than just the act. Just my opinion.”
However, I have heard more than once that individuals who label themselves ex-gay, are often still struggling with fantasies for same-sex individuals although abstaining from the behaviors. Your statements would indicate that then these individuals are still gay?
I don’t think Craig is gay (or bisexual) because of his acts…but because of their implied motivations – one that seems obvious is that he finds sex with men gratifying – moreso than having illicit sex with a woman. He chooses having anonymous male sex over anonymous sex with a female prostitute, etc…
Since I am married to a woman, if I were to be consistently seeking out sexual relationships with men for over 30 years…people would likely question if I were “really” gay, don’t you think?
The same logic applies here.
Mary –
I read a couple of things and thought I would respond. You stated:
“There is no political gain to comment on someone like me going on a date with a man.”
Absolutely there would be! If openly gay Senator Barney Frank decided to become straight and went on a date with a woman – believe me, it would make the headlines…
Also, I thought it was interesting that you seem to consistently believe that the guy is not gay, or at least, bisexual. My thought is that if you are not gay or bisexual, why would you seek out someone of the same gender for sex, especially if you are not aroused by them? There is a reason that he keeps seeking out other men, and has since 1967…..
I believe him when he states that he doesn’t see himself as gay. He’s married, and truthfully, for “out” gay men, there are so many options.
MSNBC reports that expert William Leap, an anthropology professor at American University, said his research indicated that up to half of those who engage in male bathroom sex would consider themselves heterosexual.
“You’ve got several groups of folks,” he said. “Happily married men with children who enjoy having sex with men every so often, and also self-identified gay men who enjoy the thrill of anonymous sex.” Matt Foreman of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force supports earlier comments about George Michael not being “out” when he was caught ““My sense is that most of the people who engage in bathroom sex are living closeted lives,” Foreman said. “If you’re open, you can hook up on line, in a bar or even through your church.”
He may well want desparately to believe that he’s straight…but his consistent pattern of seeking out other men for sex since 1967 tells me otherwise.
He likely believes (from his voting record and statements) that there is something “wrong” with being gay…and because of his acts of desparation, a career that has been strenghtened by his homophobia is now crumbling.
One other point? Why does he lose his career over soliciting men, but likely he wouldn’t if he was caught soliciting women in a lewd manner (like prostitution)?
Food for thought.
I’m still trying to envision the different ways to have sex in a bathroom stall =-0
Jayhuck wrote: “…if a man were having sex with a woman – anonymous or otherwise, we wouldn’t hesitate to assume that person is straight – but when the man is having occasional sex with another man, we debate his orientation/leanings? Is it not simply possible that Craig is bisexual? ”
One woman, his wife, perhaps 100s if not a thousand men, having anonymous sex. The balance sheet sorta tips in one direction, not to mention parts of his anatomy.
Everyone,
I’m not trying to be silly with this statement, but if a man were having sex with a woman – anonymous or otherwise, we wouldn’t hesitate to assume that person is straight – but when the man is having occasional sex with another man, we debate his orientation/leanings? Is it not simply possible that Craig is bisexual? Most bisexuals ARE married. Why does it always have to be gay or straight with us? If the man enjoys sex with both sexes, then he is bisexual – its really not any harder than that. Now, is he 50-50, 60-40, 30-70, etc… bisexual? – who knows.
Mary,
Many gay men have been married with families – I also realize you weren’t suggesting this, but being married and having kids, as I’ve told many ex-gay people before, doesn’t make someone straight.
Eddy,
Yeah, if only he could have thought of the Elaine angle sooner – but somehow – I don’t think men ask for help the way women do. My goodness, I’ve been asked on more than one occassion if I had any extra toilet paper in my stall. LOL!!!! I never thought anything of it except for the poor woman in the other stall!!!
I’ve heard the term ‘sexual opportunist’ more than a few times. (And, hey, that’s MY airport! “Welcome to Minnesota! Land of Opportunity!) Anyway, it seems that some men take the adage ‘any port in a storm’ quite seriously and, once they realize that the sexual sensations are similar and pleasure inducing, find it relatively easy to continue ‘hooking up’. Anonymous, NSA, and readily available if you know where to go.
I have no idea what motivates Craig. Perhaps he was playing Elaine from Seinfeld and was reaching under the stall for ‘just one square’. I do see profound differences between his case and Ted Haggard’s though. Admission of guilt. Accepting responsibility. Accepting consequences. Accepting discipline. Undergoing counseling. Haggard 4 1/2, Craig 0.
JAG,
I do not see this Craig incident to be anything like the Haggard incident because Haggard actually had an ongoing relationship of sorts whereas with Craig it all seems anonymous and with a different man each time.
Usually, it seems to me, that in circumstances like Craig – he is objectifying the other person and not really seeing them as a person with whom to relate. Haggard actually knew the man and returned (as in that particular man – although I would bet there were others in his past) Craig was just “getting off”.
I cannot estimate what if at all his self loathing meter would read. By his statments I really don’t think he sees himself as gay and does not see men with men sex as anything else to be realized than just sex. So voting against marriage rights and civil rights for gays would make sense in his world (I’m guessing).
And as Timothy pointed out many of these men in the restroom sex phenomenon are married, with families, etc… .
As far as calling person who has sex with the same gender homosexual – I’m not sure our current definitions fit all situations. I don’t think Craig is in denial of his acts – I just don’t think he sees himself as homosexual. I think homosexuality really encompasses more than just the act. Just my opinion.
What about that singer, George Michaels, who is openly homosexual and yet found public restrooms for sexual activity as well.
Well, actually, George Michael was not openly gay when he was arrested in the bathroom in the park in Beverly Hills. I don’t know that he’s been habituating bathrooms since he came out. (he has been doing drugs and passing out in cars in intersections, but that’s another story).
In addition, there are many openly homosexual men who are having sex in public restrooms.
I don’t know that this is the case. The police who do the stings all agree that the majority of those they catch are married men.
Jayhuck,
The details are available here:
http://www.ktvb.com/news/legislature/stories2/ktvbn-aug2807-police_report.7b673027.html
I have to say this too. I’ve never gotten what is so great about just getting off with someone in a bathroom or other public place. It seems that when these are described they are nothing more than one man seeking out a sexual release and the other more than wiling to oblige. OK, I understand the desire to get another person off, but give me at least a half an hour for some passionate enjoyment of a person’s body.
On an aside note, Drew Carey’s show “The Power of 10” was just on and claimed that 51% of Americans think people are born gay. I was having an argument wanting the woman to go higher (she had a 30% range set on 24% – 54%) but my mother (who is sure I was born gay) kept insisting that she go lower, saying the woman was nuts….. finally we got it worked out after the answer was revealed that mom understood the question to be “What percentage of Americans believe people are born dead.” LOL!! Gay, mom… I think a hearing aid might help.
What do you use to to define homosexual & lesbian? I define it as men having sex with men & women having sex with women, even if that is not their orientation. They must erase the word orientation from the vocabulary & use the behavior definition.
Transcript from the 40 year old in Union Station from 2004:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/144047.html
It is amazing how easily Republicans are abandoning Craig, evidently all in the expediency of the voting moment. All of the fallout in 2006 from Foley, Abramhof, and others is just too much to take for the Republicans in 2008, especially with the presidency up for grabs. The Clintons look like angels by comparison.
Years ago, Salt Lake City had a program where gay psychologists/groups were helping those which were cruising in public parks, etc…
XGW had a thread on it:
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2003/12/collaboration-c
Deseret Morning News had the originating article on the subject:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,565036793,00.html
I’ll just be happy if Idaho voters replace him with someone of greater compassion and empathy, something so many hard-line Republicans seem to lack. Not necessarily for gay peoples but for all Americans who face some suffering.
Ann,
Please, please everyone, forgive me if this is considered off topic, but i wanted to address this comment by Ann – This is by no means an attack, but it sounds a little odd to talk about isolated SS incidents and then wonder if the person is gay. The word gay has different meanings for different people – you will hear Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (often it is these two groups, sometimes not though) try and separate homosexuals into two camps. The ones who are gay, they say, are the ones who live a “gay lifestyle” – whatever that means, and the ones who struggle with homosexuality simply struggle or “suffer from” SSA – I have various opinions about WHY they do this, but I’ll save that for another time. Most of the world would call anyone with a primarily homosexual orientation gay – whether they are practicing or not.
Does that make sense? It all depends to whom you speak. 🙂 The funny thing is, we don’t seem to do this with straight people – I often wonder why 😉
I’m somewhat out of the loop on this story it sounds like. Does anyone know for sure what happened in that restroom? I keep hearing a great deal of speculation on the radio, but I haven’t heard anyone come out and say he was arrested or convicted for lewd behavior. If someone knows to the contrary, please feel free to enlighten me!!!!
Romney throws Craig under bus
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Romney_throws_Craig_under_bus.html
“And the truth of the matter is, the most important thing we expect from… an elected official is a level of dignity and character that we can point to for our kids and our grandkids, and say, `Hey, someday I hope you grow up and you’re someone like that person.’ And we’ve seen disappointment in the White House, we’ve seen it in the Senate, we’ve seen it in Congress. And frankly, it’s disgusting.”
Mary –
I don’t know his actions cannot fall out of repressed homosexuality – he has a consistent pattern of seeking out other men sexually. How he expresses it, however, is considered a “lewd act.”
As you aptly point out, a famous gay man George Michael, also was seeking sex in public restrooms and engaging in lewd behavior, as has many straight people. The fact that he was seeking sex in a restroom says nothing about his orientation, the fact that he has been consistently seeking sex acts with other men does.
This event was, much like Ted Haggard, so indicative of a man making consistent efforts to seek out sex with other men while simultaneously advocating against the rights of people who do have same-sex relationships. Self-loathing seems an issue, no?
Jag,
The list does continue to grow but it does not discount the list of others who have changed their behavior, attractions etc.. that are not being publicised. There is no political gain to comment on someone like me going on a date with a man. And yet, events such as mine happen all the time. Please see Lisa Diamonds research.
In addition, Craig, it seems, has been under investigation for his supposed illicit behavior for several months. I have a feeling this was not just a coincidence in the restroom and rather a follow up on a tip on the senator. And again, we do not have any proof or comment from Craig that he has ever tried to stop his behavior. In fact, he may honestly enjoy it – and he is just mad that he has been caught.
It is sort of like people having affairs – there is excitement to it, the thrill of possibly being caught, the idea of clandestine activity is attractive, etc, etc.. Do any of us know at this point or can even speculate at this point what the motivation for Craig’s behavior is??? I don’t think he is a 100% repressed gay man who feels his only choice is to seek “public restroom sex” because of his tightly held religious belief. I think there is more to this man’s “sexual aberrations” (public restroom sex as opposed to gay sex) and I am curious to see how this plays out.
Do you realy think his actions are fall out from repressed homosexuality? What about that singer, George Michaels, who is openly homosexual and yet found public restrooms for sexual activity as well. I wonder – is it the excitment of public places with strangers that is more enticing and gender is a by product?? In addition, there are many openly homosexual men who are having sex in public restrooms. Whether or not Craig is gay seems not to be the issue. The issue seems to be that he legislates for a certain kind of morality and then is caught committing lewd acts. The lewd act is not homosexuality – the lewd act is asking for sex to be performed in a public place.
An interesting link that I found:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003632075
It discusses this gentleman’s history of allegedly seeking same-sex relationships for years…
“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. ”
These types of things always strike me as “sad” – he goes on to marry a woman, etc..and perhaps he is bisexual, but clearly, he has had an ongoing interest in men.
Again, when people are free to be themselves, we find that there is no necessity in leading such a double-life that ultimately affects his family, and wife foremost.
All the while he predictably voted for the constitutional ammendment banning same-sex marriage, etc…
figures.
Can any of us be surprised anymore when those so vehement in passing laws against the gay community turn out to engage in such activity themselves?
The list continues to grow.
Truth is, Warren, despite the fact that SIT might attempt to align a gentleman like this to his conservative beliefs about homosexuality, ultimately, no one could say his inclinations would ever have changed.
Dr. Throckmorton,
Can a person have isolated incidents like this man is accused of and still be considered gay or is that left up to individual interpretation? It seems that his responses are very different from those of Jim Mcgreevy who apparently made it a way of life instead of isolated incidents. This man does not want to be identified as gay whereas Jim McGreevy did.