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.

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.

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.”

“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 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.

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.

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?

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.