The Senator Larry Craig outing

[Jack Scribe]

Here's a thoughtful perspective from The Denver Post editorial pages concerning this week's events:

 

http://www.politicswest.com/local_western_...uters_not_outed.

 

Jack

[JamesSavik]

Here's a thoughtful perspective from The Denver Post editorial pages concerning this week's events:

 

http://www.politicswest.com/local_western_...uters_not_outed.

 

Jack

 

What Craig probably did, what Haggard admittedly did, what thousands of other wretchedly conflicted gay or bisexual men did, hurt only themselves and their loved ones who were caught up in the resulting media maelstroms. The ones who "outed" and persecuted them, in contrast, have deprived our country of the services of good citizens.

 

 

Bollocks! What Craig and Haggard did was to use the subject of homosexuality for personal and professional gain.

 

Craig grandstanded gay issues and fought/voted against basic civil liberties for gay people... for votes and power.

 

Haggard demonized gay people from the pulpit... to exploit fear, inspire bigotry and capitalize on the sensationalism surrounding homosexuality.

 

The claim that they only hurt themselves is clearly specious and completely disengenous. They both built their careers on marganilizing gay people while participating into worst behaviors attributed to gay people.

 

The ones who "outed" and persecuted them, in contrast, have deprived our country of the services of two con men and bullsh*t artists whose biggest claim to fame is selling out their own kind.

[Conner]

You're right on, James. Neither Craig nor Haggard are the blameless victims that the author makes them out to be.

 

Unfortunately, that has the result of tainting the postive sentiments the author expressed.

 

Conner

[AFriendlyFace]

I have some thoughts on this:

 

What Craig probably did, what Haggard admittedly did, what thousands of other wretchedly conflicted gay or bisexual men did, hurt only themselves and their loved ones who were caught up in the resulting media maelstroms. The ones who "outed" and persecuted them, in contrast, have deprived our country of the services of good citizens.

Bollocks! What Craig and Haggard did was to use the subject of homosexuality for personal and professional gain.

 

Craig grandstanded gay issues and fought/voted against basic civil liberties for gay people... for votes and power.

 

Haggard demonized gay people from the pulpit... to exploit fear, inspire bigotry and capitalize on the sensationalism surrounding homosexuality.

 

The claim that they only hurt themselves is clearly specious and completely disengenous. They both built their careers on marganilizing gay people while participating into worst behaviors attributed to gay people.

 

The ones who "outed" and persecuted them, in contrast, have deprived our country of the services of two con men and bullsh*t artists whose biggest claim to fame is selling out their own kind.

 

In my opinion, you're quite right to point out that that particular section of the article is flat-out wrong. I would agree that they and others have caused like them have caused a great deal of harm to society, civil liberties, and particularly gay people. However, even there I think we must require an asterisk to appear beside the word "harm".

 

I don't believe "harm" is something objective, don't get me wrong, my personal belief is that hindering gay rights is wrong, but I recognize that that's just my stance, and just because I believe it doesn't mean it's right. In fact, since I am a relativist in nearly all matters, especially morality and cultural matters, I don't think it could EVER be objectively stated what is "right" and what is "wrong". That's irrelevant however, I'm content to say that "what they did was wrong" as long as it's understood that I'm simply saying it was wrong from my perspective, and not that I'm making an absolute moral judgment (which I don't with anything).

 

Anyway, yes, they were wrong and they did a lot of harm, and they certainly aren't blameless. However, they were pitiable. I have very little doubt that they actually believed (and undoubtedly from a dangerous absolutist perspective) that homosexuality was wrong, and that their crusades against it were right. I suspect they did struggle with the idea that they themselves might end up going to hell, perhaps they even got some kind of crazy notion that if their "good" (fighting against gay rights) outweighed their "bad" (being gay) then they would be spared. They probably felt that they were entitled to any profit or success they might have enjoyed due to their suffering and/or because their public and political motives were pure, even if their private ones weren't.

 

The author of this editorial makes two extremely relevant and astute observations:

 

And in that same spirit I refuse to be shocked, shocked, at news that Sen. Craig may have joined Ted Haggard and thousands of other men in being forced to deal with a wrenching conflict between the way God made them and the way they sincerely believe God wants them to act.

Exactly! This makes them extremely sad, pathetic, wretched people, but certainly not evil. What evidence do we have that they believed what they were doing was wrong, and that they felt a huge amount of social pressure? That would be the 2nd observation the author made:

 

Maybe if we accepted offbeat but consensual behavior more charitably, we wouldn't drive the likes of Larry Craig to seek solace in public toilets.

(although I wouldn't describe homosexuality as "offbeat")

 

Clearly they thought that what they were doing was shameful, needed to be hidden and couldn't possibly be done in a more positive context (like a relationship). They were gay, they couldn't force down their deepest urges and drives, and the fact that they probably felt fundamentally hypocritical and messed up probably only made the whole thing worse (since being sexually celebrate really should be an option as long as one accepts and expresses one's sexuality in other ways).

 

What would have been fundamentally "evil" (and even here I cringe to use the word), and hypocritical would have been if they'd been secretly involved in gay society, if they'd secretly belonged to forums like this, been involved in loving, positive relationships, had gay friends, etc. and STILL championed against gay rights. THAT would have been messed up and hypocritical. As it was they were, IMO, simply pathetic, and contemptible, one may go so far as to say poorly developed emotionally/religiously/morally, or even "stupid" and "ignorant". I would even agree that their actions are "hypocritical" from most people's perspectives (probably even my own), but I wouldn't call them evil. Their actions sadly make too much sense when viewed from the proper religious and psychological perspectives.

 

They were our enemies, I'm not sorry they were "destroyed", and in fact from a "them versus us/greater good" perspective, I'm glad it happened, and might have considered doing it myself if I were in the position. But let us not over-simplify things or lose sight of the fact they probably were their own worst enemy.

 

Just my thoughts,

Kevin

[sungod]

I think the most important part of the editorial is this comment: He

[Jack Scribe]

What Craig probably did, what Haggard admittedly did, what thousands of other wretchedly conflicted gay or bisexual men did, hurt only themselves and their loved ones who were caught up in the resulting media maelstroms. The ones who "outed" and persecuted them, in contrast, have deprived our country of the services of good citizens.

 

This was a rather odd sentence. I have no problem in pointing to Craig and Haggard as troubled, conflicted bigots who couldn't publically acknowledge their orientation. That they resorted to devious means to satisfy sexual needs/gratification is very sad. Worse is their negative public posturing on gay issues. I shook my head while listening to Senator Craig's arrogant resignation statement.

 

This goes unanswered: what were the Minneapolis authorities thinking when they set up a sting operation in the men's room at the airport? Please identify the bible-thumping proscecutor who thought up this lame investigation. I don't condone restroom cruising, but aren't there higher priorities on which the police should focus to protect the citizens? Maybe murder, rape, robbery? Perhaps they could have used the manhours to adequately inspect the infrastructure of their bridges? (With apologies to the loved ones of the deceased...but you get the point).

 

Can you imagine what the cop answered when his S.O. asked over dinner, "What did you do at work today, honey?"

 

Jack

[C James]

This goes unanswered: what were the Minneapolis authorities thinking when they set up a sting operation in the men's room at the airport? Please identify the bible-thumping proscecutor who thought up this lame investigation. I don't condone restroom cruising, but aren't there higher priorities on which the police should focus to protect the citizens? Maybe murder, rape, robbery? Perhaps they could have used the manhours to adequately inspect the infrastructure of their bridges? (With apologies to the loved ones of the deceased...but you get the point).

 

I have to disagree there; that restroom was at the main airport, and it is important to the economic life of the city not to have

strange and disgusting behavior going on in public, especially where the tourists may encounter it. Therefor, i think a sting operation was fully called for; that kind of behavior has to stop, and if you think about it, its in the best interest of gays that it is bought to an end; every time some "toilet sex" or other sick behavior comes to light, it gives all of us a bad name.

 

Since this scandal broke, I've heard about the "signals" used. Much to my astonishment, I discovered that I've been a target more than once; in public restrooms, in airports in all three cases, someone did to me roughly what the senator did to the undercover cop, I thought it was just "weird" or a "nutcase" and got the hell out of there, never realizing what they were doing. It did, however, rattle me at the time, and had I realized, I'd sure as hell have reported it to airport security. I certainly will if it ever happens again.

[rknapp]

I think the author successfully got his message across -- unfortunately he just used two piss-poor examples to do it. As awful as those men are, they do still fit the bill for part of the authors message. What he's saying is that if society was more accepting of homosexuality then these men -- scratch that, cockroaches -- would become a dying breed. They do what they do in public to make their lives cushy, because what they say and do is unfortunately what much of society wants, or at least their respective microcosms. What they do in private is simply further proof that homosexuality is not a choice.

 

Kevin, what you described in the first part of your post is aken to "ethno-centricity." Ethno-centricity is where you treat someone in some way that you would not apply to your best friend simply because they are different. An example would be a white person in modern western society treating someone native to an African country different (good or bad) because their manner of dress or behavior reflects their own culture as opposed to the westerners culture, largely due in part to the westerner not understanding the other persons culture (Note: ehtno-centricity and kevin's explanation of himself are not completely related, this is just what came to mind). Anyway, I am saying this because it sounded to me like you were afraid of calling the actions of these slimeballs wrong, since other people would view them differently. Stop doing that... if what you say offends someone, then that is their prerogative and it has nothing to do with you

 

Now then, I will say out right that these men are indeed pitiful, pathetic, and disgusting. They are also wrong. Getting a blow job from someone whom you are actively working against is wrong no matter how you look at it. It's no different than me getting a blow job from a black man after a KKK party (no this didn't really happen -- it's just an example). I'm sure they've spent more than one night crying themselves to sleep because of their life choices, but they deserve it. No one is twisting their arm and forcing them to do what they do. Gay friendly areas are all over this continent, as well as others, and there are many professions that do not shun gays.

[AFriendlyFace]

Kevin, what you described in the first part of your post is aken to "ethno-centricity." Ethno-centricity is where you treat someone in some way that you would not apply to your best friend simply because they are different.

Actually, no. You've got that backwards. I was indeed thinking of Ethno-Centricity and Cultural-Relativism when I made that post, but I'm a cultural-relativist (in terms of their culture), NOT someone who approaches things Ethnocentrically (in terms of my culture).

 

Ethno-Centricity is when you view other cultures (Ethno) from your own point of view (Centricism - centered around your culture). Cultural-Relativism is when you view others in relation to their own culture. I am a cultural relativist. I'm also a moral relativist. Since I view morality in a relative versus absolute terms (I.E. stealing might usually be wrong, but I'd look at the context to decide).

 

I didn't use either term (Ethno-centricity and Cultural Relativism) because these are terms which should be applied when comparing two different societies, and while the society in which I live pretty much is completely different from the one in which Larry Craig inhabited, it's still theoretically all the "American Society".

 

Anyway, I am saying this because it sounded to me like you were afraid of calling the actions of these slimeballs wrong, since other people would view them differently. Stop doing that... if what you say offends someone, then that is their prerogative and it has nothing to do with you

Contrary to popular perception I'm not afraid of stating my viewpoint even if it may indeed offend someone. Granted, I usually try to temper it a bit to take the sting out, and I don't offend people gratuitously, but if the situation calls for bluntness, I can be very blunt.

 

From my moral perspective what Craig and Haggard did was wrong. Based on my best understanding of their values from their moral perspective what they did was wrong. However, I definitely think their were complex psychological and religious factors in play which overall serve to mitigate the degree to which they should be...Condemned(?)...Scorned(?)...JUDGED(!)

 

As someone whose primary points of interest and study have been psychology, sociology, philosophy, and religion I simply cannot - and will not - reduce things to blanket statements or superficial evaluations of "good" or "evil". It would be great if we could simply say that homophobic Evangelical Christians are evil, but the truth (at least as far as I'm concerned) is that they are NOT. They are in most cases very sincere people who mean well but have been conditioned to believe something all their lives (I'm fine with using the term "brainwashed"), and who in many cases steadfastly stand behind their religion and the moral blueprints they've been handed because they feel that they'll "go to hell", "disappoint Jesus", or are otherwise morally obliged to "help the poor misguided sinner". They are not perfect people and their strict moral codes means that they themselves will often run afoul of them. It's tempting to say that when that occurs they should carefully evaluate its merit and discarded any out-dated views; however, unfortunately the concepts of human imperfection and grace/forgiveness/salvation run very deep as well. So instead of saying "this is a stupid rule" they say "I messed up because it's human nature" or "because I'm weak", and then they pray forgiveness. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

 

It IS very sad that Craig (and millions of other gay conservative Christians) are unable to accept their own sexuality. It's a recipe for disaster actually. All their friends, all their family members, and their entire church community (which holds a great deal of sway) would be horrified and shun them (if you've come out before imagine all your worst fears. Now imagine that they're true). Everything they've ever been told about homosexuality is how evil it is. They feel an overwhelming amount of pressure to conform and to also castigate gays. It's further heightened by the fact that they feel those gay urges themselves. They "over-compensate" plain and simple. Then the pressure builds up and they let it out in a bathroom stall. Then they feel worse. Then it all starts over again ad nauseum.

 

Sure, alot of people simply walk away from that, or aren't caught up in it in the first place (like me for example). However, that's due to individual differences in people's personalities, and usually also largely due to their unique circumstances. Yeah, some of us might come from that background and may have walked away from it, and I'm really proud of - and happy for - the ones who did, but that doesn't mean that everyone can, and it doesn't mean that everyone had the same unique opportunities to do just that. I never struggled morally with homosexuality, but I know a lot of people who did. Some escaped it. Some didn't. Tell me they're just evil, stupid, or weak.

 

-Kevin

Edited September 2, 2007 by AFriendlyFace

[JamesSavik]

It IS very sad that Craig (and millions of other gay conservative Christians) are unable to accept their own sexuality. It's a recipe for disaster actually. All their friends, all their family members, and their entire church community (which holds a great deal of sway) would be horrified and shun them (if you've come out before imagine all your worst fears. Now imagine that they're true). Everything they've ever been told about homosexuality is how evil it is. They feel an overwhelming amount of pressure to conform and to also castigate gays.

 

 

Quite a lot of gay people have grown up around conservative churches and have had the courage to come out and not sell out.

 

I DO mean COURAGE because a-holes like these Haggard and Craig are a dime a dozen. They are the sort that will cause an out, gay person whatever sort of trouble that they can manage.

 

The actions of people like Haggard and Craig are destroying the very churches that they follow by exposing the centuries old lies, distortions, double standards and hypocracy of those instutions.

 

I have NO compassion for Haggard or Craig. Their bad karma has finally caught up with them and its about time.

[Graeme]

This goes unanswered: what were the Minneapolis authorities thinking when they set up a sting operation in the men's room at the airport? Please identify the bible-thumping proscecutor who thought up this lame investigation. I don't condone restroom cruising, but aren't there higher priorities on which the police should focus to protect the citizens? Maybe murder, rape, robbery? Perhaps they could have used the manhours to adequately inspect the infrastructure of their bridges? (With apologies to the loved ones of the deceased...but you get the point).

 

I have to disagree there; that restroom was at the main airport, and it is important to the economic life of the city not to have

strange and disgusting behavior going on in public, especially where the tourists may encounter it. Therefor, i think a sting operation was fully called for; that kind of behavior has to stop, and if you think about it, its in the best interest of gays that it is bought to an end; every time some "toilet sex" or other sick behavior comes to light, it gives all of us a bad name.

 

I also have to disagree, but from a completely different perspective. The toilet in question would be used by parents with young children. Consenting sexual activity between adults must take place where children can't be affected. If this was an out-of-the-way toilet block after dark, then I would agree with Jack. In a transport center, however, parents (like myself) should feel safe to have their children go to the toilet when they need to. This is especially true when a mother is travelling with her boys and needs them to go to the toilet, since she can't go in with them.

 

I'm not accusing these people of molesting children (though that HAS happened here in Melbourne), but I'm simply talking about the risk of what those children may see.

 

As for the rest of this discussion -- I agree that Sen. Craig has been a hypocrite by publicly working against gay rights when he's a homosexual himself. However, I can understand a lot of how he must have been feeling because I've been in a similar situation. You feel torn, and the pressure can be overwhelming. I've been lucky in that I've found a non-destructive release (in my writing and in participating in communities like GA), but it would've been that much more difficult for a public figure like Sen. Craig to do so.

[glomph]

I read somewhere that the sting operation was in response to numerous complaints, not from a desire of the police department to waste funds or to grandstand for political gain. One might argue that having a uniformed officer just stationed in the outer section from time to time would have been as good a deterrent.

 

The right to relieve oneself without listening to heavy breathing, having someone play footsie with you, or seeing them wave their wedding ring under the partition may not be the most important fundamental human right, it is still an important one.

 

I would put this sting in a different category from Pee Wee Herman's arrest in Florida. I think it was more than one policeman who were staking out the porno theater. That seemed to be a big waste of public resources. I mean, there were patrons of the theater who were shocked! shocked! that someone might masturbate during porn?

[NaperVic]

Personally, I am glad that Craig was outed, but I do have a little sympathy for him and especially for his wife.

 

It may be too late for Craig to accept who he is and be comfortable enough in his own skin to live a gay or bi lifestyle (whatever he is). But hopefully young, struggling, questioning gay guys who heard the messages of hate in their churches or from their parents will see what happened to Craig and Haggard and realize 'Ok, if those guys can't fake it and suppress their urges maybe I should stop fighting it and just accept it? Even if I get married and have a solid career, a wife, and family, the itch won't go away. And I don't wanna scratch that itch in a public toilet '.

 

Too bad Craig didn't have someone in his young life whispering 'There's nothing wrong with you Larry'. Craig & his wife would have been better off for it.

 

Take Care,

 

Vic

[rknapp]

Sure, alot of people simply walk away from that, or aren't caught up in it in the first place (like me for example). However, that's due to individual differences in people's personalities, and usually also largely due to their unique circumstances. Yeah, some of us might come from that background and may have walked away from it, and I'm really proud of - and happy for - the ones who did, but that doesn't mean that everyone can, and it doesn't mean that everyone had the same unique opportunities to do just that. I never struggled morally with homosexuality, but I know a lot of people who did. Some escaped it. Some didn't. Tell me they're just evil, stupid, or weak.

 

-Kevin

 

Actually I would use the term "Weak" against the conservative homophobic Christians. On one of my car forums it isn't unheard of for there to be discussions on the topic of homosexuality, and I would say 30% of the forum is very accepting, another 50% doesn't give a rats ass, and 20% calls it evil. In that 20% is a man who once called gays weak because they succumbed in some fashion to the temptations of the devil and became gay. He naturally called homosexuality a choice, and pitied all gays for their weakness.

 

The same can be said for those in the far right. All bible thumpers and just about anyone who uses the Lord God to explain something on a day-to-day basis is weak because they've been brainwashed to believe so. Anyone who believes in Creation Science (now called Intelligent Design, just because it sounds "intelligent") and calls Evolution a lie was clearly brainwashed to believe so and is therefore weak.

 

I wonder if saying as much to someone who tells us that our beliefs are wrong would show them how stupid/cruel they sound... but that might just spark another battle in the endless war that is a thousand times bloodier than the Cold War. (Math geeks: I know that statement is mathematically false since the number of deaths caused by homophobia in recent decades times the number of deaths caused by military strikes/ battles during the Cold War between the USA and the SU comes out to be zero, but I'm just saying that our "war" is far more bloody than an actual historical war.... kthxbai)

[rknapp]

Personally, I am glad that Craig was outed, but I do have a little sympathy for him and especially for his wife.

 

It may be too late for Craig to accept who he is and be comfortable enough in his own skin to live a gay or bi lifestyle (whatever he is). But hopefully young, struggling, questioning gay guys who heard the messages of hate in their churches or from their parents will see what happened to Craig and Haggard and realize 'Ok, if those guys can't fake it and suppress their urges maybe I should stop fighting it and just accept it? Even if I get married and have a solid career, a wife, and family, the itch won't go away. And I don't wanna scratch that itch in a public toilet '.

 

Too bad Craig didn't have someone in his young life whispering 'There's nothing wrong with you Larry'. Craig & his wife would have been better off for it.

 

Take Care,

 

Vic

 

This situation is also very apparent in the events following former NJ governor Jim McGreevy's coming out speech and subsequent resignation. I read an article the other day that told of how Jimmy is going seminary school to become a minister. He is now Episcopalian, so clearly not all of Christianity condemns gays. The article went on to describe the now lengthy and ugly divorce that he is currently in with his estranged wife, Dina, with whom he has a five-year-old daughter. Despite all this, he has a boyfriend and is therefore following his heart, as opposed to his mind which had been sculpted to believe that a wife and kids is what he wanted, then reshaped to allow his heart and soul to have a say in the matter before he got too far in life (he is currently 50 years old).

 

I applaud Jimmy and wish him well in seminary school, and I also wish him and his family well in the divorce proceedings, namely the daughter who will be hit the hardest.

I spit on the ground walked by demons such as Craig and Haggard.

[Ieshwar]

But hopefully young, struggling, questioning gay guys who heard the messages of hate in their churches or from their parents will see what happened to Craig and Haggard and realize 'Ok, if those guys can't fake it and suppress their urges maybe I should stop fighting it and just accept it? Even if I get married and have a solid career, a wife, and family, the itch won't go away. And I don't wanna scratch that itch in a public toilet '

 

Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen. They'll surely say that gays like Sen. Craig are perverts who come in public toilets to suck dicks. They'll give the children a very horrible view of homosexuality. And I fear this may have a negative impact on parents who are trying to deal with their child's homosexuality. This scandal has given rise to a great misconception about gays, in my opinion.

 

And here's a story by Ronyx, No more Rainbows. It relates from the POV of a gay son whose father is caught having toilet sex, presumably. It's rather a love story but this scandal did remind me of this story.

 

http://www.themustardjar.com/rainbows1.html

 

Take care,

Ieshwar

[NaperVic]

Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen. They'll surely say that gays like Sen. Craig are perverts who come in public toilets to suck dicks. They'll give the children a very horrible view of homosexuality. And I fear this may have a negative impact on parents who are trying to deal with their child's homosexuality. This scandal has given rise to a great misconception about gays, in my opinion.

 

I respectfully disagree. The message that I hope people will get out of this is that you can't just 'pose' your way out of your attraction to men. Getting married, having a family & career will not make those feelings go away. Former Senator Craig was 62yo and he could not avoid the 'demons' after all those years.

 

I think many parents of questioning gays think that all it will take would be for their son to meet a nice girl, and the love of show tunes, the uncanny ability to put together an outfit, and the '1 second too long' look at cute guys would all go away.

 

Hopefully people will realize that 'it' doesn't go away.... ever, and that it's best to just accept it now. At least that's what I hope.

 

This scandal has not harmed accepting and adjusted gays. And Craig isn't gay, he's just an MSM. This event harms all the closet case, MSM's who would be better off getting out of their closets (which the author of the article suggested). Instead of finding anonymous and risky sex with other men in public restrooms, they can find companionship at gay bars or other more respectable places .

 

Take Care

Edited September 3, 2007 by NaperVic

[Jack Scribe]

And Craig isn't gay, he's just an MSM.

 

This whole episode has been an eye-opener for me. First, this foot-tapping thing. Then, to read that there's a whole MSM category. Dig deeper, and up comes Down-low.

 

Our community has made great strides since Stonewall in acceptance and this episode doesn't represent, IMHO, any setback for gay issues. It's the political/religious MSM's , embracing the hetero family values dogma, who are in serious conflict. We survived the Catholic priest scandals, Mark Foley and the Rev Haggard. Craig's actions play into the fears of a bigoted crowd...nothing more.

 

Intelligent, thinking people will judge the senator as a person who broke the law.

 

Jack