So...being gay is like a drug addiction? or tax evasion or adultery? The phrase "with friends like these" comes to mind.

The concept is 'things you don't want other people to know'. If a gay person doesn't want people to know he is gay, and someone outs him anyway, broken kneecaps it is.

Outing is wrong, no question- but there's also no denying the hypocrisy that Santorum, probably the most vocally anti-gay politician in America, has a gay person flacking for him. I mean, put his name in Google and look at what comes up first.

I f***ing ADORE you. This was terrific! (It also serves as a reminder not to mess with you, which is always good).

Steve, there is a big difference between being anti-gay marriage and being anti-gay. Clearly his spokesperson felt the same way since he does work for the man.

I'm a big believer in revenge and this type of revenge is also useful in serving as a lesson to future people who want to do a little outing. Just try it and see what happens to your mom.

It is hypocritical - Maybe. Do we know who made the choice for the staffer to be in the closet? Do we know if Rick even knew? To me, it reeks of petty sophomoric backpay for Rove. It would be so nice to have an intelligent debate instead of Democratic Hijinks all the time. H. Clinton and Gang have started acting like utter children. Shame on them.

Not to be the southern baptist (or now, presbyterian) but - "Revenge is mine, saith the LORD". ...

he'll get his.

See, I follow Bob Marley on this one (the quote in my sidebar). Like, it's nice that he'll be punished by G-d someday but in the meantime I would do a little of my own punishing here on earth.

I'm a big fan of revenge too (which is the chief reason I am angry that Bush has not gotten Osama). But there is a firm line about how far revenge should go. You can take revenge against the man who wronged you but to go after his loved ones who have nothing to do with the situation is wrong. Look at Dantes and Villeford from the Dumans novel. Dantes has every right to go after Villeford but his revenge eventually takes the life of Villeford's son. Dantes rightfully recognizes that he goes so far and must return to self imposed exile, far from his beloved Mercedes. There is a line when revenge can be carried too far and the avenger becomes as much a guilty party as the initial sinner.

"Steve, there is a big difference between being anti-gay marriage and being anti-gay."
Care to explain that one?

What don't you understand? People can have no problem with gay people, have gay friends, employees, neighbors but not want to change the institution of marriage. On the flip side, I know people who hate gay people, think they're disgusting and wrong and yet don't care if they marry.

If anyone had any doubts of your Russian heritage, Karol, this should dispel it. :-)

Those who do not want the GLBT community to have the same marriage rights as straight people are anti-gay in my opinion if equality is used as the measurement. If they don't have a problem with gay people, why do they even care about gay marriage? In fact, the greatest contradiction is when people talk about preserving the institution of marriage because nothing will change for straight people! It's all about power and heteroexclusivity. I'd love to lead a more detailed discussion with you about this because it's so important to me.

ahhh, bob marley. ... :)

If people have a problem with gay marriage, then they have a problem with gay people if equality, as it should be, is used as the measurement. Those who think that gay marriage changes "the institution of marriage" are contradicting themselves because nothing at all changes for straight people. Being anti-gay marriage is heterosexist and that's that, and everyone can agree that that type of exclusivity breeds prejudice. I'd love to have a longer conversation about this with you because it's really important to me.

You can take revenge against the man who wronged you but to go after his loved ones who have nothing to do with the situation is wrong.

You are assuming that the loved ones of a person who is outed are not also adversely affected. And there is an argument to be made in that why should Karol care about the loved ones of the man who wronged her more than the man does?

Karol - Santorum is not just anti-gay marriage. He's anti-gay. He equated being gay with bestiality for Christ's sake.

Second - his staffer was already out. So sorry - this does not count as an outing. It's just being publicized.

I think it's legitimate news to find out how a spokesperson reconciles his employment with an employer who hates every concept of his existence.

Two years ago - after all - Santorum was publicily advocating for the imprisonment of gay people. Does he still think staffer should go to jail, just because he's gay???

What don't you understand? People can have no problem with gay people,

Santorum compared gays to people who have sex with dogs- I think that qualifies as "having a problem with gay people."

And how exactly does outing someone "destroy their lives"????

What if someone is outed as heterosexual? Is it wrong for gossip columnists to talk about which celebrity is dating who? Or is it ok to talk about who they're dating as long as it's someone of the opposite sex?

If you use equality as a measurement to answer this debate, being anti-gay marriage is being anti-gay, and the argument about changing "the institution of marriage" is false on its face because nothing will change for straight people if the GLBT community is granted equal marriage rights. In other words, the only people who are affected by this are gay people. If straight people have a problem with it, they still have the option of not attending the wedding!

And let's start with some more hypocrisy.

If one's sexuality is something that should be left private,then why are some Republicans so intent on creating laws that discriminate against this private behavior.

For example:

If you have gay sex in private - well then you can't' adopt!

If you have gay sex in private - well then you can't serve in the military!

If you have gay sex in private - well then we can put you in jail!

Care to explain that one Karol? Because Santorum believes in the above three items. So if he's so intent on invading MY private life, then I think his PUBLIC staffers are definitely open for scrutiny.

Steve: No he didn't. That's why people never link to the interview or give full quotes. You can mis-state what he said, you can cherry pick quotes, you can take it out of context, but it does not change what he said: Link

If you have gay sex in private - well then you can't' adopt!

Because it affects a third party.

If you have gay sex in private - well then you can't serve in the military!

Because it affects a third party.

If you have gay sex in private - well then we can put you in jail!

Prove it.

Exaclty - why don't you post what he said?

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

So here we have a Senator who is publicly saying that he has a problem with homosexual "acts" and thinks they should be outlawed.

Guess what - his communication director, who is PUBLICLY OUT OF THE CLOSET - is participating in these "acts" on a frequent basis.

I think the Senator should tell us how he feels about that. Why is employing somebody he feels is engaging in activities that the Senator thinks should be outlawed????

The public would like to know.

By the way - it's hard to say anything more offensive about gay people that the Senator's comments above. He compared being gay to a father raping his daughter.

Disgusting.

How the hell does who I'm having sex with in the privacy of my own bedroom affect how I raise children or affect how I'm fighting a war? I'd really like to hear about that.

As for the jail thing - I guess you're too stupid to read the quote that you just provided. Lawrence V. Texas, after all, was about the imprisonment of two gay people who had sex in the privacy of their own home.

by the way - if I ever find out that any relatives or friends of "ll" are gay - I would publicly out them on my blog in a second.

Cool!

And, as previously noted, 11 should then proceed to kneecap you.

Jay, I leave that up to Karol, The Enforcer. Uh, oh! I see Karol warming up with a whiffle bat. lol!

Let's see Jay - ll wants to put me in prison for being gay, wants to keep me out of the army for being gay, thinks it is ok to fire for me being gay, won't let me adopt my partner's child who I've been helping to raise for 15 years - and you're saying he should kneecap me.

Tell me Jay - why are you so interested in controlling what I do with my life? You think the government has the right to regulate my intimate private affairs? And you call yourself a conservative? I call you a fascist.

uhhh...Ari...what, pray tell, does H. CLinton "and gang" have to do with this? I mean a call for a debate on the issues should not include an unfounded insinuation that New York's U.S. Senator has nothing better to do than snoop around the closets of her colleague's aides. After all, she's got her hands full snooping around the closets in her husband's bedroom to see who's hiding in there.

The point is that just because one may hold a view about homosexuality that is consistent with the teachings in the Bible - as Senator Santorum does - does not mean that he hates gay people or refuses to work with them. Having a gay spokesman proves that he is not a bigot or a homophobe. And liberals just can't stand it to know that conservatives are really the tolerant ones, not them

If you have gay sex in private - well then we can put you in jail!


Prove it.

Well, seeing as it took the Supreme Court in Lawrence to overrule this exact kind of law a couple of years ago, that should be sufficent proof that there were certainly some people (republicans and democrats) who thought they could do this (and I suspect, without proof, that there are people today who want to overrule Lawrence precisely to reimpose laws such as these in the name of majority rights...)

NDS - because the collective brain trust that is the Democratic party always (always!) works in collusion as does any cohesive group.

Lot's of busted kneecaps going around. Karol... I suggest you stow the Whiffle Ball Bat and bust out the Louisville Slugger.

This whole thing just cracks me up. Here we have a liberal outting a conservative, and the lefties come flockin' to his defense by bringing up how the right is "anti-gay this" and "anti-gay that".

Honestly... I've gotten more sh** from Dems for being a gay Republican than I have from Republicans for being gay. This, mind you... from the compassionate and caring, "we are all equal" Left. (Where "equal" is to be read "friends of yours if you vote for us.")

Gay marriage? Yeah, I'd like it. More importantly though, I just want the same rights afforded to straight married couples. Honestly... what difference does it make if the word "marriage" is tacked on to it?? Straights can keep it for all I care. I just want the tax breaks.

I'm sick and tired of gays following the liberals around like a flock of sheep praising how diverse and caring they are, and then turning around and condemning (and in this case outing) those in their puported social demographic just 'cause they voted Bush.

Grow the F up.

Chad - We're not talking about gay marriage here. Santorum wants to criminilize homosexuality (i.e. put gays in prison). That's why he is publicly in favor of sodomy laws, which would apply to gays only of course. He thinks its fine for straight people to sodomize each other.

He then compares being gay to incest.

Do you really think he knew that his Communication spokesman was gay?

Give me a break - He obviously just found out about it. And let's see how outspoken he is about homosexuality now that he actually knows one. I bet his rhetoric goes down.

I don't favor outing. But Santorum is obviously being a hypocrite. This guy was not outed, as he was already "out" to many people (though not likely Sanotorum). This is just as newsworthy as someone like Hillary Clinton being found to have an evangelical Christian as her spokesman. Were that the case, I would hope that the media would question the evangelical Christian and ask her how she could support someone so diametrically opposed to her views.

Being gay is not something to be ashamed about. Shame on Karol for comparing it to drug addiction, implying it's something that people should keep secret.

I'm out to some people, but not others (it just hasn't come up). But it's idiocy for me to imply that my friends who know should not tell others I'm gay without checking with me. Give me a break!

Also - anti-gay bigots like ll, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Ace of Spades, who are actively working to make sure that gay people have zero rights, are imprisoned, and forced back into the closet have ZERO authority to speak about what is good for gay people.

The reason they are horrified about this story is not that someone's privacy was invaded. If that was the case, they wouldn't favor asking "Are you gay?" when you apply for the military. They have no problem with privacy then. They are horrified, because they think being gay is a sickness and something that should be hidden from public view. They want gay people stuffed back into the closet or imprisoned. So they're horrified that one man gay is out and proud.

Sorry - but the biggest way to cut down on homophobia is for people to meet some real live gay people. That's why I came out to all of my homophobic relatives before coming out to my fag-hag friends.

Alceste:

The statement was something to the effect that, "we can put you in jail." If I make a statement that I can own slaves, are you going to cite the 13th Amendment as proof that it is true?

Again - just to make this clear - STOP THE LIES. HE WAS ALREADY OUT.

In a phone call recorded by PageOneQ and blogACTIVE.com, Robert Traynham, Director of Communications for United States Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) has said he is an out gay man who completely supports the Senator.

http://ocbq.com/news/2005/Rick_Santorums_Communications_Director_confirms_to_PageOneQ_he_is_gay_stands_behind_Sen_0714.html

Why is it wrong to identify a man as gay, who is already "out" and who admits he is gay when questioned by a reporter?

This is an invasion of someone's privacy? Huh?

Maybe if he had said "no comment" or "that's irrelevant" or "that's none of your business" I would agree. But when a man says "yes, I'm gay", then there's nothing wrong with printing that.

Ace of Spades, who are actively working to make sure that gay people have zero rights, are imprisoned, and forced back into the closet have ZERO authority to speak about what is good for gay people.

It's because of hysterical and defamatory flames like this that no one of importance takes you seriously.

ll - Why don't you just tell everyone on this board whether or not you agree with the Lawrence v. Texas decision?

That will clear things up very quickly.

Well put Chad. One thing that Grover Norquist brought up at CPAC a few years back was that most of the 'rights' that gays complain about not having are the result of big government. The Estate Tax is the prime example, gays complain about not having the ability to inherit without being taxed the way spouses can. Well, rather than establishing special rights for gays, just get rid of the damn estate tax for everyone. Problem solved. This is the approach conservatives should be taking with regards to the entire debate.

Let's remind everyone that Ace of Spades has an official policy of banning any gay person who dares to defend gay rights from his blog.

No one of importance? You mean you ll???? You're of zero importance.

Blogs like Gawker however, take me seriously enough to link to me.

Chad, today's "conservative Republicans" ARE anti-gay for the most part and therein rests the reason why the average gay person is inclined to vote Democratic. Who are the politicians authoring discriminatory amendments to state constitutions all across the country?Republicans! When there are Republican wantons like Texas governor Rick Perry running around telling gay people to move to states with more "lenient views," isn't it obvious which side of the fence gay people are going to be on? When you compare the records of Democrats and of Republicans holding public offices side by side, the Democrats have a much better record on equality issues for the GLBT community. Don't you see the irony in the "compassionate conservatism" doctrine this administration espouses to uphold? The only dumb gay sheep here are the ones fooling themselves into thinking that this President actually supports gay rights when he cannot even state whether or not he believes homosexuality is a choice. This is a President who as governor supported heterosexual sodomy but not homosexual sodomy. True conservatives would support gay rights, but these guys aren't true conservatives; they are fools lead awry by an ideology of fear.

ll - Did you agree with the Lawrence V. Texas decision?

Let's remind everyone that Ace of Spades has an official policy of banning any gay person who dares to defend gay rights from his blog.

Ace of Spaces has neither an official or unofficial policy of banning any gay peson who dares to defend gay rights. There are a number of gay persons who regular post over there making passionate defenses on many subjects, including, but not limited to, the subject of gay rights.

I would not be at all surprised if he banned
a-holes. However, you would have to be a major, major a-hole for him to do that. Hmmm, sound familiar?

Blogs like Gawker however, take me seriously enough to link to me.

Oh, well, you're in pig heaven. :-)

ll - Answer the question? Do you agree with Lawrence V. Texas?

Show me one person ll who defends gay rights and does not get slammed

Do you support Lawrence v texas?

Karol - Your comments box sucks the big one

"Homo Lite - Comes complete with aids, hepatitus C, and hepres, now you too can join this exclusive club, get free medicie for it from the government, and live on SSI so you won't have to work or fear disease anymore!" - Comment on Ace of Spades website which is met with a huge round of applause from all of his readers.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/101796.php

That's pretty anti-gay. But you're too much of a bigot to see it.

Oh, I'm sorry. I had to step away from the computer and actively work to make sure that gay people have zero rights, are imprisoned, and forced back into the closet. Well, actually I went to the post office. Now what were you saying? Show you a person where? DL, you have the obnoxious habit of deeming anyone not 200% in agreement with you as against you. Most adults do not need approval that bad. I hope you grow out of it.

Karol: There's a very old film, the kind you see once in the middle of the night, that your post and you remind me of: Such Good Friends

I have no idea why.

Being gay is not something to be ashamed about. Shame on Karol for comparing it to drug addiction, implying it's something that people should keep secret.

DL, um weren't you in the closet until a very late age? What were you so ashamed of? If I was gay, I'd be out but that's because I really like myself and think everything I do is the best. But you were closeted for many years DL. What if someone had tried to hurt you by outing you? What if their intent was to hurt you by revealing a secret, any secret, you don't want revealed? Shame on you for getting into this kind of rhetoric. It does not help your cause to label anyone who disagrees with you a gaybasher.

Regarding the comment section, if you get an error message, be patient. It just means your comment is being held for my approval.

ll, I'll have to check that film out.

And if our comments never show up, what does *that* mean? That we hit the preview button and then closed without ever hitting post? Is that what you're trying to say, Karol???

No, that I was out for a few hours and have just finished going through an avalanche of comments. They should be up now, some will probably be repeats from people trying to post them more than once. Sorry.

Karol - As I've blogged before I was what you would classify as a "self-loathing gay". In fact - every gay person in the closet is self-loathing, no doubt about it. If you're asking me to defend that portion of my life, I can't.

However - I grew up in a time where there were no gay celebrities, except for Rock Hudson who had died of AIDS (and was the subject of multiple jokes). Even Liberace was thought of as straight. There was not one gay person that was out in my high-school. It was not the easiest time to be out. Gays were ostracised by society.

I had no problem with gay people at all though, and never said anything anti-gay. I had gay friends. But I couldn't bring myself to admit that I was gay too. However, I was well aware that there was tons of anti-gay bigotry in society - and frankly - I took the wimpy route of avoiding it.

What if someone had threatened to out me? Well I guess they could have. However, the outing process only targets gays who are engaging in anti-gay behavior. I've blogged before that I don't support it, but can you really blame them. People love exposing hypocrites. What if turns out that a pro-life advocate goes and gets an abortion? Can that be exposed? I would say yes.

By the way - the only people I call gay bashers ARE gaybashers. Ace and ll being two of the biggest ones.

Name one thing ll said that was gaybashing. She did no such thing. As for Ace, since I know him personally, I know you are wrong about him. But, whatever, they can both defend themselves. You said I should be ashamed at my comparison. And I'm not. People can have a million reasons for being in the closet. Not all closeted gay people are self loathing. Some just don't know how to deal with it. I have at least one friend who was closeted despite having accepting, loving parents and friends who didn't blink an eye when he finally came out (at a late age). I have another friend in college who took the realization that he was gay much harder than his family (who I guess always suspected). It's not right that you view your experience as THE experience for gay people. Outing people, for whatever reason, is below the belt and the response should be too. That's life: You hurt me, I'll destroy you.

Still keen on the revenge and hate themes, eh Karol?

ll supports Lawrence v. Texas, which means that gay people should be rounded up and imprisoned. That's not gay bashing??? An amendment that makes gay people second class citizens is gay-bashing as well.

You wouldn't be offended by an amendment that said only Christians could marry, but not Jews?

As for Ace - care to defend this statement?

"Homo Lite - Comes complete with aids, hepatitus C, and hepres, now you too can join this exclusive club, get free medicie for it from the government, and live on SSI so you won't have to work or fear disease anymore!"

That comment has been sitting on his blog, unanswered for over a week. Why? - because he's banned anyone and everyone who has dared to condemn statements like that. That's why I got banned - for daring to call statements like this bigotry. Ace has no problem with that quote - and that makes him a bigot in my book.

Do you find the quote funny?

I'll repeat - all closeted gay people are self-loathing. All of them. I've been there. You haven't. So I have infinite more authority in that area than you do. You will never know what it is like to be gay and in the closet. It is a lonely place. Because you hate a part of yourself.

Ask your friends if they were self-loathing then? Of course they were.

Karol: I was making fun of myself and my ability to delete my own posts. Hey, it looks like DL is really losing it now. THAR HE BLOWS!!!!!!!!!

Typical bigot ll - you don't think gays have a right to speak.

Well - not a surprise - since you don't think we should have ANY rights.

How do you feel about Lawrence v. Texas ll????

Are you going to ignore that question for the 20th time????

Here's how the anti-gay commenters work.

Bigot makes a gay-bashing comment. Then when the gay person points out that bigotry, the bigot launches into anti-gay slander by calling the gay person "hysterical".

That's what ll, who wants gay people to be put in prison always responds.

Still keen on the revenge and hate themes, eh Karol?

I'm definitely all about revenge, Phil, and I'm not afraid to say so. If the first person that was outed in this way used my method, there would be no second outing.

DL, I get plenty of comments I disagree with, both from the right and left, even some that I find repulsive. I don't delete them. I've been pretty much only deleting comments that have zero to do with the post. I think that's fair. I like that people know that they can be themselves here. I've never banned anyone, ever. As for all closeted gay people being self loathing, I disagree but am not sure how that's a valid point. They hate themselves so that gives people a right to try to hurt them?

Downtown Lad said he is a lifetime member of NAMBLA.

[See, two can play your game, DL.]

Karol - There's a typical example of the hatred I'm talking about.

ll has a problem with me, so how does she respond? By attacking the entire gay community. She brings up NAMBLA - which is a pedophile orgnization - one that has been shunned and demonized by the entire gay community. But nonetheless - she'll bring it up anyway.

Why? Why the slander of the entire gay community. My beef is with particular bigots (ll, Ace, etc.) not with any group.

Karol - Would you be offended if someone responded to one of your comments by saying "Jews make bread from the blood of gentiles".

That's the equivalent of what ll just did. Just trying to point it out. I've seen that kind of anti-gay stuff coming from her before.

Karol - Are you surprised that the particular comment I posted was not disputed by anyone? Would a comment like that go unanswered in your blog?

Think about it.

And for the third time - I don't support outing. But one, this guy was not outed, as he was already out. Two - I can understand why people out hypocrites, although I wouldn't do it myself.

Are you surprised that the particular comment I posted was not disputed by anyone?

Which?

Karol aren't you shooting yourself in the foot with a flawed logic, claiming that DL can't view his experience as the gay experience when you do the same in a failed attempt to add, shall we say, some "objectivity" to the discussion? What are you proving by invoking the experiences of the few gay people in your life you know? I'd wager that DL probably knows a lot more gay people than you do. Why not leave it up to gay people to actually speak on the issue?
By the way, do you still dare to write that anti-gay marriage is somehow not anti-gay? You failed to demonstrate that thus far...

And ll has still not responded with whether or not she supports Lawrence v. Texas.

Remember - that's the ruling that prevented the imprisonment of gay people simply for having sex in the privacy of their own home.

Because if she doesn't support this decision - then she therefore supports the imprisonment of gay people (as Lawrence would have been).

George Bush was probably the biggest supporter of sodomy laws (for gays only of course), publicly supporting them in 1994.

ll has a problem with me, so how does she respond? By attacking the entire gay community.

I'm not attacking the entire gay community, just you, sport, just you.

You have made post after post with false attributions and motives to me and continue to do so. So, don't whine when you get some of it thrown back on you, hypocrite.

I've seen that kind of anti-gay stuff coming from her before.

DL, you are nothing more than a compulsive liar.

ll for the 28th time has refused to answer whether or not she supports Lawrence V. Texas

We can only assume she doesn't. Which means she felt that Texas had a right to imprison gay people.

And she's calling me a liar for saying that she advocates the imprisonment of gay people, which it appears she does.

I'm willing to stand corrected if she would just answer the easy question.

So, 11, what is your view on Lawrence vs. Texas?

Karol - The comment on Ace's blog.

Would it be ok to point out that the communications director of David Duke was Jewish? Just a hypothetical question.

ll thinks she can support sodomy laws that apply to gay people only, but then wants to put her head in the sand when gay people are imprisoned as a result of that law.

Phil - I will admit that Karol probably knows more about gay people that most straight people out there.

But I think she's unwilling to consider that her friends may have been "self-loathing". Probably because she'd feel pretty damn sad if they really were.

There's a reason so many gay people commit suicide. Sometimes it's the easier path to take. Wouldn't be surprised if Zach (the teen from Sunday's times) ends up blowing his head off, what with a bigoted father and all.

Phil, I think if I had to go gay friend for gay friend with DL, we'd be about even. The me of 10 years ago would have kicked his ass in the contest. :-)

Anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay. Again I give you the example of people that hate gay people but don't care if they marry. They are out there. They exist. In great enough numbers to prove my point.

DL, the point is the secrecy. If Duke's spokesperson doesn't want people to know he is Jewish, no he should not be outed as a Jew. And, if someone does out him to hurt him or Duke, bat to kneecaps it is.

Karol - Do you really think Santorum knew this guy was gay? I say no way. Maybe someone should ask him.

I think if you're anti-gay marriage, you ARE anti-gay, but so what - most straight society is at least a little bit homophobic. I can deal with that. My whole family is anti-gay marriage for Christ's sake.

I agree that just because you are for gay-marriage doesn't make you pro-gay. In fact, you can still be a bigot. But I'd rather deal with these people.

I don't need people's acceptance. I just want the law changed, so that gays have equality, so I can live my life as I so choose. Couldn't care less anymore if people hate me because I'm gay. I deal with that every day.

I didn't read all the comments, but for what its worth, you should remember that most of these folks have no shame anyway.

Do you really think Santorum knew this guy was gay?

If he was as out as you say, how could Santorum not know? If he wasn't out, then Santorum probably didn't know.

If I was gay, I'd care more about acceptance and less about the law. All marriage rights can be had privately but you can't do much to change societal views. I think forcing gay marriage through the courts is bad for gay rights. Why would any politician ever stand up for gay marriage if they can just take a hands off approach and let judges get the blame? Why do you suppose Hillary and Schumer are against gay marriage? Also, I feel like people would vote for a candidate who supported gay marriage but are annoyed to wake up one day and find it the law of their state without any input from them.

Admit it Karol - You love it when I comment. You never get so many comments otherwise.

Ace is jealous I'm sure...

Well I'm out Karol - and LOTS of people don't know I'm gay. I personally told about 50 friends and family. The rest, I have no clue if they know or not. I'm sure lots don't.

So this guy could have easily avoided telling Santorum - who would want to have THAT conversation? With HIM? And his boss for Christ's sake.

I totally understand the courts vs. legislature there. What I don't understand are those who are opposed to a law (not a court ruling) that would legalize gay marriage. Well I understand it - they just don't like gay people.

I'd rather have this be changed legislatively as well. Many gays agree.

Of course. Comments make blogs interesting, in my opinion.

Wow. Hot topic tonight Karol. Lot to comment on. I'm just going to refer to betteratFL350...

"When you compare the records of Democrats and of Republicans holding public offices side by side, the Democrats have a much better record on equality issues for the GLBT community."

Yeah.... DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were outta-the-park homers for the GLBT community under Clinton.

And as for supporting this president.... On gay rights? I'm not going to say I agree with the proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. However, I'm not going to disagree with his reasons for bringing it up. If you were president and these courts started legalizing it left and right... well. Not a whole lot of choice. See... Basic 9th grade civics says the legislative branch MAKES the laws. Not the judicial.

And guess what? The legislative branch is elected by the majority of the population (one of the bigger reasons they get to make the laws - for the majority).

So I propose this. Instead of bitching and whining about "anti-gay this" and "anti-gay that" and bringing even more focus to the fact that we're a minority, let's start changing public opinion. Let's get a more positive image out there. Let's stop protesting every damn Eminem lyric. Let's stop screaming for equal treatment by showing the world just how different we are. Let's stop acting like we're constantly helpless victims.

'Cause I'll tell ya somethin'.... Any gay rights law that is passed through the courts and force fed upon the rest of the county will back-fire.

And backfire huge.

So, 11, what is your view on Lawrence vs. Texas?

Phil: My view is that the more people obnoxiously demand that I answer a question and the more upset they get when I don't, the funnier it gets. Thanks for the laughs!

ll thinks she can support sodomy laws that apply to gay people only, but then wants to put her head in the sand when gay people are imprisoned as a result of that law.

Downtown Lad's picture on the Megan's Law website is not his best one.

Speak for yourself Chad! I don't consider myself a helpless victim, but I'm sorry if you do! Oh, and stop refering to gay people as "us" because we're not Cyborgs.

Chad, you amuse me. Here's some other news for the record about your President:
-He opposes the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act and did not support adding sexual orientation to the Texas hate crimes law when he was governor
-Opposes allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. In his own words, "I'm against gay adoptions."
-Has never supported the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
If you want me to go on, I will, but you won't prove that Republicans are fair on these issues because that's impossible. Get your head out of the clouds!

Phil, you live in, arguably, the most liberal state in the union (Mass). I live in NY. Our four senators are all against gay marriage. And they're all Democrats. What do you make of that?

I'm actually not positive about Ted so let's go with 3 out of 4 of our senators are against gay marriage.

Have the histrionics stopped?

If I'm going to be repeatedly defamed, at least I'm lumped together with ace. Which is pretty damn cool in my book.:-)

Wow thats some list. I did not read them all but thought I would help to get it over the 100 comments. LOL

But on the matter at hand; personally I do not think it is OK to go after the surrounding enviroment. If you are after the man stay after the man.

Oh yeah! Revenge is a dish best served cold!

Phil, my apologies for branding gays as an "us". From now on I will address an entire social group (of which I'm a part) by the first name of everyone in said social group....

Phil, Bob, Mark, Chris, Dan, Eric, Aaron, Larry, Jason, John, Jules, Shane, Rich, Ed, James, Joe, Brandon, Jay, Erik (with a K), Ryan, Adam, Mike, Jeff, Bill, Frank, Julio, Stew, Michael, Greg, Sal, George, and Dana (Sorry, don't know that many lesbians.)

First off, I don't recall singling you out as a victim. I was referring to groups such as GLADD that supposedly "speak for us" (sorry...), "speak for Phil, Bob, Mark, Chris, Dan, Eric, Aaron, Larry, Jason, John, Jules, Shane, Rich, Ed, James, Joe, Brandon, Jay, Erik (with a K), Ryan, Adam, Mike, Jeff, Bill, Frank, Julio, Stew, Michael, Greg, Sal, George, and Dana) who cry and complain evertime Eminem releases a new album.

And personally, I'm still hazy on this whole "hate-crime" thing. While I can see its point, I feel it's just another special law for us (DAMNIT...) for Phil, Bob, Mark, Chris, Dan, Eric, Aaron, Larry, Jason, John, Jules, Shane, Rich, Ed, James, Joe, Brandon, Jay, Erik (with a K), Ryan, Adam, Mike, Jeff, Bill, Frank, Julio, Stew, Michael, Greg, Sal, George, and Dana.

When was the last time you heard of a crime being committed because they perp just ADORED their victim?

Karol-
Senators Clinton and Schumer both oppose legislation to ban same-sex marriage. Also, they both have good records on other GLBT equality issues. In many ways, your state is not all that different from MA. "Liberal" MA...Oh how I wish that were true...you don't even know the half of it! ;)

Chad-
Hate crime legislation for crimes against GLBT persons is not "another special law" for the GLBT "community" because those who commit hate crimes are more harshly punished for their crimes when they are defined as such. Otherwise, they can get away with just a slap on the wrist. Basically getting away with a crime, now that's a special right!

Chad - How do you feel about laws that incarcerate gay people if they can get 51% of the population to sign off on it? You ok with that? How about laws that executed people for bineg gay as they did in South Carolina last century? Hey - if it's majority vote - then it's all ok?

How about we just enslave black people if we can 51% of people to sign off.

Some things are patently unconstitutional. It's completely valid for the courts, indeed it's their duty, to strike down these laws.

So when Lawrence was locked up in jail Texas for having sex in the privacy of his own home, you think he should just shut up and stop complaining, because that would make him a victim?

Sorry, but Lawrence was no victim. He had enough dignity to defend and fight for his rights.

Attorney General Spitzer, who has a very good chance of being our next Governor, is publicly in favor of gay marriage.

Still doesn't mean I'll vote for the guy. I am a Republican after all. But I'm not going to make the stupid argument that Republicans are better on gay rights than Democrats. Most of them are horrendous.

New York Republicans, however, usually have excellent records on gay rights, i.e. Giuliani. Many New York Republicans support gay marriage too.

Hate crime legislation for crimes against GLBT persons is not "another special law" for the GLBT "community" because those who commit hate crimes are more harshly punished for their crimes when they are defined as such. Otherwise, they can get away with just a slap on the wrist. Basically getting away with a crime, now that's a special right!

Hate crime legislation is retarded. Why not make penalties harsher for all crimes?

Karol - Crimes are never prosecuted the same. Intent matters.

That's why there's a difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, etc.

You don't think there should be a difference in how someone is prosecuted for the following crimes.

1) Guy assaults another guy for sleeping with his wife and molesting his daughter.

2) Guy assaults another guy, because he hates black people.

Do you really think these crimes are equivalent?

By the way - I don't agree with hate crimes. But I don't think they are "retarded". They came about, because many crimes against minorities were not being prosecuted harshly.

Believe it or not - a significant number of people in this country think it's ok to assault or even kill a gay person, if they "believe" the gay person was making a pass at them.

DL, murder is murder. Few murders are committed out of love. They're all hate crimes. Hate Crime legislation puts a premium on the death of certain people over others.

I agree to some extent with you Karol, but I still don't think that protecting GLBT persons with appropriate legislation constitutes a special right. Hate crimes legislation sends a powerful message that society will not tolerate hatred, and that is why it exists. Given our country's sordid racial history, I certainly think that's an appropriate message to send!

Phil, again, few murders are committed with love. Society can 'send a message' against 'hatred' by locking up forever/killing murderers. All murderers.

"Hate crimes" is a fuzzy little blanket of warmth given to victims to victimize thtem even further. If a white guy beats a white guy, or a black or a gay, how are they not all equally wrong? The reasoning behind it is irrelevant. ex: Do we care if Jeffrey Dahmer was going to sautee the guy or roast him? He was a horrific murderer either way and should have been penalized no matter what his mind frame is.

Few murders are committed out of love. They're all hate crimes. Hate Crime legislation puts a premium on the death of certain people over others.

HaHaHa. This reminds me of my gay friends arguing with me that Bush was horrible b/c he was against hate crime legislation and using the murder of James Byrd, Jr. as some sort of example. Jeesh, one got lwop, the others death. Can't get tougher than that. And of course, they were all against the death penalty.

Most crimes have a sentencing range. If a crime is more agregious for whatever reason, prove those reasons and let the court sentence them to the higher sentence within the range. There is no need for specific legislation except that it gives some people the all important validation they seek. And isn't that what's really important? :p

Phil people have the right to hate others. That is a part of free speech. It is when people act violently on their hatred that there is a problem.

Hate crimes legislations punishes thought. However gross and disgusting that thought may be is irrellevent. The crime is what matters not the thought motivating it. This is different from intent. Intent gauges level of wrongdoing and negligence. That is why we have various murder counts.

So Karol, sorry to sidetrack, but I'm assuming that life in your opinion begins at conception and ends at birth? In other words, you probably support the death penalty (which makes sense given your hate-driven mentality) while supporting a "culture of life." Very mature opinions indeed, especially your usage of the word "retarded..."

I see ll is still continuing with her neo-nazi insinuations that all gay people are child molesters...

11, did you mean egregious?

So Karol, sorry to sidetrack, but I'm assuming that life in your opinion begins at conception and ends at birth? In other words, you probably support the death penalty (which makes sense given your hate-driven mentality) while supporting a "culture of life." Very mature opinions indeed, especially your usage of the word "retarded...

I'm not trying to be mature. I like the words 'retarded', 'moronic' and 'corny' and hey, since it's my blog I'll use them as I please. And really, you're so corny and moronic with your 'hate driven' blah blah.

And, actually, nice conclusion jumping but I consider myself pro-life in both instances, with abortion and with the death penalty. But let me guess, you think murderers shouldn't be killed but babies should, right?

Whoa. That's what I get for posting a comment in a provocative thread and then not coming back for 24 hours...

Downtown Lad called me a fascist. Sigh. Heard that one before... what else ya got?

I see ll is still continuing with her neo-nazi insinuations that all gay people are child molesters... Posted by Downtown Lad at July 19, 2005 11:08 AM

Not all, DL, just you. [keep it up, asshat]

11, did you mean egregious? Posted by Phil at July 19, 2005 11:08 AM

Did you think I meant egregious, Phil? Because, that's what only really matters.

Your accusation is that I'm gay - therefore I'm a member of NAMBLA and a child molester.

Like I said - that conclusion is a slander of all gay people, and plays on the worst stereotypes.

Kind of equivalent of me saying that Karol makes matzoh out of the blood of gentiles. That's not a slander against Karol. It's a slander against every Jew.

I agree (mostly) with ll on the hate crime laws (or at least the portion excerpted below) -

(off the cuff not fully thought-out legal analysis to follow:) I do think one benefit of the hate crime laws is that they allow prosecutors to use evidence of the defendant's bias as part of the proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim - for an "ordinary" murder prosecution, the evidence may be so prejudicial that it won't come into evidence until sentencing (unless it's evidence of bias as demonstrated at the crime scene)

in the end, i think the laws, while probably unnecessary, are within the realm of a reasonanle policy judgment - not the best application of the law perhaps, but certainly a step above retarded or fuzzy little blanket of warmth...

Most crimes have a sentencing range. If a crime is more agregious for whatever reason, prove those reasons and let the court sentence them to the higher sentence within the range.

So, K, the death penalty is now totally out? (notice me sidestep the main issue nicely)

The truth is, neither abortion nor the death penalty make my top 5 (and probably not even top 10) list of issues important to me. But yes, Toby, I've changed my mind since college on both abortion and the death penalty. I used to be very pro-choice and very in favor of the death penalty.

Ahh, down at 12" I didn't think you went that far on the death penalty. The death penalty is probably in my top 10 issues (not top-5) and I agree with you on that.

Abortion is one of those "hot button" issues I cannot dive into much anymore. Perhaps it is because I have a very rare perspective and have been so effected by it. What is one to do when he KNOWS life begins at conception, but that life has no liberty outside the womb.

Your accusation is that I'm gay - therefore I'm a member of NAMBLA and a child molester.

Nope, my accusation is that you are a real asshole who has made numerous false statements about me. You pull this crap on anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Like I said - that conclusion is a slander of all gay people, and plays on the worst stereotypes.

Slander all gay people? No. I'm just stating opinions/observations/quoting you, Downtown Lad. Now, don't go near any playgrounds today, okay?

I have been shocked at how widespread the ignorant stereotype is that gay men are child molestors.

Even my own dad, once, when I mentioned in my blog that I had a "taste for boys" took the word "boys" to imply children. In fact, gay men call eachother boys... "one of the boys," "for the boys," etc.. perhaps it comes from wartime camp. Dammit, at 32 I'm rarely attracted to anyone under 26!

At any rate, some stereotypes (and here i go saying something that I'll get blasted for) show half-true generalities. They are, while a stereotype, based in fact. This one, however, is disgustingly untrue.

Exactly Toby.

ll still can't point out one false statement I've made about her. I assume she means to imply that she doesn't favor imprisoning gay people, but by opposing Lawrence v. Texas, she DOES favor exactly that.

So she resorts to the worst of the anti-gay stereotypes.

ll happens to be engagin in slander as well, which is illegal last time I checked.

Judging by the mess this comment thread is, I see people still feed the Downtown Troll, eh?

Oh DL - we get it. You are the most anal person ever. And gay. And insanely defensive.

Point taken.

Your accusation is that I'm gay - therefore I'm a member of NAMBLA and a child molester.

Nope, my accusation is that you are a real asshole who has made numerous false statements about me. You pull this crap on anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Like I said - that conclusion is a slander of all gay people, and plays on the worst stereotypes.

Slander all gay people? No. I'm just stating opinions/observations/quoting you, Downtown Lad. Now, don't go near any playgrounds today, okay?

They love me Sean. Face it - I'm the most popular commenter on this blog. You're just jealous.

Ari - Considering your blog is called "Aria Goes Down", I don't think you should be the first one making gay jokes...

ll still can't point out one false statement I've made about her.

Everything.

So she resorts to the worst of the anti-gay stereotypes.

You got it back-assward. (No surprise there!) You resort to defamation and lies and personal attacks any time someone disagrees with you on gay marriage.

ll happens to be engagin in slander as well, which is illegal last time I checked.

Are you suggesting I sue you?

Judging by the mess this comment thread is, I see people still feed the Downtown Troll, eh?

Nolo contendere.

Still waiting for one statement ll. Since you're incapable of providing even one, you're obviously full of hot air.

They love me Sean. Face it - I'm the most popular commenter on this blog.

No, DL, most people just back away slowly when you start your nonsense. That's why you continue to get away with your crap.

I think Larry Sommers was right. Due to ll's complete inability to answer some basic questions - it is obvious that women have smaller brains. I stand corrected for disagreeing with the Harvard President on this matter previously.

DL -

I can't remember the last time (if ever) I've heard of a gay person being incarcerated in my entire life. Now, I'm sure that's just because the Right is covering it up, but still....

People being executed for being gay... last century? I'm sure it happened, but again... how does this pertain to what's going on today?

Yes... we needed civil rights movements to give minorites throughout our history such as blacks and women the rights they deserve. I'm all for it. I'm all for equal.

Equal.

Not preferential. Not special.

Equal.

Do you honestly think that in today's world 51% of the country would be all about incarcerating or executing people for being gay? And pass legislation to do so?

And here I thought we Republicans had the market cornered on promoting fear.

Chad, you're about to learn that DL considers himself a Republican.

Due to your inability to think with anything but your dick, DL, anything you say lacks logic.

Chad, There were people convicted of homosexual sodomy surprisingly recently in Texas. I don't think there were police looking for people to lock up, but if police were called to a house (by a neighbor or for suspicion of a different crime), sodomy (homosexual or heterosexual or both depending on the state) provided a basis to convict someone.

This is no longer an issue as a result of Lawrence, but it's certainly one area of the law that is vulnerable to a re-thinking on the judicial level as it's firmly rooted in the often-criticized privacy jurisprudence.

Still waiting for one statement ll.

As I already clearly stated, every thing you've written. Everyone knows your m.o., DL. You spew lies about people who disagree with you politically. I blame this on your immaturity. However, it does not make it, or you, any less obnoxious or fit for polite company.

Maybe you guys can meet in the park and settle this like men, er boys, er and girl.

Karol... half of your readers here are about to learn I consider myself a tap-dancer on par with Gregory Hines and what's-his-face from Bring In Da Noise, Bring In Da Vinci Code.

(I also consider myself one of - if not THE - best emu wranglers north of the Rio Grande.)

Alceste:

They were arrested in 1998. The law was overturned in 2003. I would hardly call it recent.

Lawrence and Garner spent the night in the hoosgaw, released, pled no contest and paid a fine. Contrary to what some people have been posting, they were not "imprisoned" or were they under any risk of "imprisonment."

While the case was working its way through the various appellate courts, up to the USSC and afterwards, I have no doubt that Lawrence & Garner were having the time of their lives.

I know of no other arrests under that code in a constitutionally protected area. Anyone charged and convicted for it while in public -- tough. While it may not have applied to opposite sex defendants, leud behavior by opposite sex defendants in public is covered by other criminal statutes.

I mean, Texas is a long way from Massachusetts where an order issued says: "And public sexual conduct is not illegal unless there is a "substantial risk" that the conduct will be observed by a casual passerby, the order says."

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/massachusetts/manews09.htm

Of course, it applies to straights and gays in equal measure.

Chad - People have been charged on sodomy charges quite a bit prior to Lawrence. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

And there is an 18-year old kid in Kansas who is spending 17 years in jail for getting a consensual hummer from his friend a few years younger than him. If the friend had been female, he could have served one year max. And had they been straight, the chances that the law would have been enforced would have been close to zero.

So despite ll's cluelessness, there are gay people who are sitting in jail, while if they were in an equivalent straight relationship, they would not be. That's called discrimination and bigotry. Perhaps you'd like to go tell the kid who will be in jail until he is 35 years old that these laws are not enforced....

The Lawrence case happened to be the one they chose to bring to the Supreme Court. And many on the right are actively calling for that decision to be overturned. Just read the first editorial in today's Wall Street Journal if you don't believe me. And what would the result of a Lawrence overturning be? It would allow for one thing - for gay people to be imprisoned for having sex.

Now why are people so anxious to put these laws back on the books if they don't want to enforce them????

Sodomy laws are on the books in over a dozen states. The Texas one, which Bush supported, was particularly obnoxious as it applied to gays only.

Would people vote to imprison gay people? Of course. They already have.

Would people vote to execute gay people? Well if people like ll keep spreading lies by saying that gay people are child molesters, then yes, that is a definite possibility, especially in a backwards state like South Carolina.

Another disgusting example of Sodomy laws impact on gay society. Hundreds of gay people who were prosecuted on sodomy charges in the 60's and 70's are today listed as "sex offeneders". Their crime - having consensual sex with someone of the same sex.

ll thinks this is "no big deal"

Toby has blogged about this before.

DL, slightly off topic but as an education for new commenter Phil who just emailed me with the phrase 'a majority of Americans do support marriage equality for same-sex couples', what percentage of Americans would you say support gay marriage?

DL, it was actually longer ago than that (1940s and 1950s), but recently these men, some of them in their 80's have been arrested for not registering as a sex offender at their local precinct. It all stems from raids of gaybars and motor vehicle stops of men leaving gay bars together.

DL, overturning Lawrence would also result in states being able to criminalize heterosexual sodomy. Not sure how much having a law on the books really means though. NY had a consensual sodomy law on its book until at least 2000, but the NY Court of Appeals had ruled it unconstitutional back in the 60's (I think - no online research on sodomy while in the office). Same for Georgia, whose state supreme court effectively overturned bowers on a state level a few years ago (in a case involving pretty horrible facts about an uncle and his niece...)

If consensual sodomy (homosexual or otherwise) can be criminalized (and who knows what individual state courts would do if lawrence were overturned), I don't think there are prosecutors out there affirmatively seeking to prosecute these cases - These charges end up being lesser-included offenses or fallback charges - the biggest problem is that these cases are typically very easy to prove or they aren't prosecuted

As for the kid in Kansas, the application of the law seems unfair in his particular case from your decription of it; but I am not sure if there is necessarily something wrong with including additional punishments for same-sex sex offenses (in this case, likely aggravated sexual abuse of a minor) - i think the statistics are pretty clear that same-sex offenders are far more likely to be repeat offenders than opposite sex offenders (and clear that most of these offenders are not in fact gay) - i think this alone is a sufficient basis for enhancing the penalties - where it is truly consensual, as you suggest in your comment, the effects are unfar; but this is the same unfairness that is created by statutory rape laws and judicial definitions of consent and not necessarily animus

DL -

Shhhhh.... You'll startle the emus with all this talk of hummers and executions.

Quiet now.

I gotta tap.

Chad - Here's an article on the Kansas teenager. He's learning disabled to boot.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/kansas/ksnews32.htm

And he's still in jail. The ACLU is taking up his case thank God.

But you never read about stuff like this - do you? Because the mainstream media couldn't care less when gay people are imprisoned. Just like nobody reads how a gay man in Nigeria is about to be stoned to death for being gay.

Or a father in Florida who killed his 3-year-old he feared could turn out gay.

Yet, DL, jailing isn't really bad enough, is it? Perhaps we should be sentenced to death.. Or perhaps a new clan will start coming for us.. After all, good Christians are takign to the street because soldiers killed in Iraq are gods revenge for tolerance of homosexuality..

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050718/NEWS01/507180321/1006

DL Hughley-

I mean, sorry dude. But as a gay man AND human being, you are one irritating bitch. Seriously, what the hell are you doing? You're making US (as in me and the rest of the chilled out, open minded, mature, gay men) look bad. You're fighting just to fight now and it's SO unbecoming on you. Quite unflattering.

Maybe you should get a job or a friend or well...I don't know, a hobby? But sitting here refreshing your computer over and over and over until you see a new comment pop up on this post not only seems pathetic, it's sad. And I'm through crying tears for YOU Argentina.

Good night now.

I'm starting the DL Soapbox Fund. Anyone wishing to contribute to the purchase of a taller, stronger, and broader platform with a new omni-directional microphone with a whopping 1700 watts of power to pump out constant surround sound from which we can enjoy DL's ruminations can contact me.

Cash only.

Half the proceeds will go to feed conspiracy theories that gay Republicans are Rove-plants to draw votes away from the bastion of GLBT rights, The Democrats.

DL: This kid was not a few years younger than Limon. In this case, "M.A.R. was a 14-year-old developmentally disabled minor." And contrary to what Limon's attys stated, the court found their characterization of the victim as gay untrue in that ". . . the record does not show that M.A.R. was either homosexual or bisexual."

Moreover, you also ignore the fact that Limon already had two convictions for aggravated criminal sodomy.

I personally have no problems striking down the law that applies to the opposite sex. Make their punishment greater and equivelant to same sex.

Disengeniously, what you label the equivalency of a straight relationship, most states label as either statutory rape or child sex abuse regardless of the sex of the victim and perpetrator.

Not only are you clueless and a liar, you are woefully ignorant to be lecturing on sex crimes.

p.s.: NAMBLA has filed an amicus brief in this case. You must be so proud!

ll - It IS a few years. That's why for heterosexuals, it falls under the Romeo and Juliet laws.

You seem to have no problem with 50 year olds marrying 13 year old girls in Texas. That's 100 times worse in my book - and legal.

You obviously support pedophelia when it comes to straight people. Rather disgusting.

But when two teenagers barely 3 years apart engage in consensual sex, you want to send the kid to jail for 17 years.

The maximum crime for a heterosexual male in the same situation would have been 1 year.

The record does not show that he was bisexual? Well he was certainly able to get it up when he was getting a hummer. That makes him bisexual at a minimum.

The Supreme Court will agree with me when this case reaches them. And you will be proved wrong. Again.

Joe - At least I can laugh knowing that I make about 10 times more than you, and live in a place that is 10 times as large as well.

Shouldn't you be resting up, so you'll be all refreshed for your escort job tonight?

I see Joe is an "actor".

I wonder what restaurant he works at?

DL, you have me worried now.

I'm gay. But sometimes, when my female friends and I are at a club and grinding on each other, I get a semi.

Am i bi?

Or is it possible that that particular spot on a guy can react to any kind of attention.

Point being, I think that just 'cause the kid had a stiffy while gettin' a hummer is a damn weak argument for being "bi".

ll - It IS a few years. That's why for heterosexuals, it falls under the Romeo and Juliet laws.

You're ignorant as ever, DL. In charging sex crimes, those few years that you think do not matter, mean a lot.

You seem to have no problem with 50 year olds marrying 13 year old girls in Texas. That's 100 times worse in my book - and legal.

Prove I ever said that or implied it. The only way you can express yourself is through lies, DL. You're sick. Sick in the head. And you wonder why I say no one takes you seriously. And you wonder why others tell you to shut up in that you do more harm to gay rights than any homophobe. lol! Keep shooting yourself in the foot. Not my problem.

You obviously support pedophelia when it comes to straight people. Rather disgusting.

Your fantasy, DL, not mine. You are the one who supports pedohphilia whether gay or straight. Rather disgusting your fixation about having sex with children.

The Supreme Court will agree with me when this case reaches them.

It won't.

And you will be proved wrong. Again.

I was never proved wrong the first time, retard.

I wonder what bush in the park you work at, DL.

Joe - At least I can laugh knowing that I make about 10 times more than you, and live in a place that is 10 times as large as well.

In every argument, you bring this up. It really defines you -- but not in the way you think.

Still haven't answered the question yet ll. What a joke...

Umm, it actually appears Joe is a working actor and an office manager. Kinda a good combo for a young lad. Nice balance.

ll - That's your age, eleven, right? Because you really have zero capability of responding to any points that are raised.

You just call people pedophiles.

Not once can you comment on Lawrence v. Texas, which of course was the original point that was made. So you just launch into ad hominen attacks.

Quite infantile actually.

I've tried to have an intelligent debate, but it's quite impossible when you simply choose to respond with gay bashing.

I can't waste my time anymore. You bore me.

Perhaps Toby. But his unintellectual response deserved another.

Although every actor I know DOES happen to be a waiter.

Question: What is the worse thing that happened to gay rights?

Answer: DL

Hmm, and I thought it'd be

1) Clinton signing DOMA
2) Bowers v. Hardwick (still chipping at it).
3) O'Connor resigning (gonna be harder to chip).
4) Bush
5) A culture shift toward motivation by fear without a concrete target (oh, let's hate the gays).

ll - You bore me.

I declare this thread dead.

The thread can't be dead!!!

I need to know if I'm bi!!!

ll - That's your age, eleven, right?

Are initials numbers? If 11 was not your age, you would know that.

Because you really have zero capability of responding to any points that are raised.

You don't make any points. You just insult, smear, and lie.

You just call people pedophiles.

Only those who are. You, on the other hand, will lie and accuse anyone of anything that does not toe your political line.

Not once can you comment on Lawrence v. Texas, which of course was the original point that was made. So you just launch into ad hominen attacks.

Original point? No it wasn't. As always, it starts with you personally attacking anyone who doesn't agree with you and proceeding quickly to making up lies about them. Anyone can read the comments and see it for themselves.

Quite infantile actually.

Yes, you are.

I've tried to have an intelligent debate, but it's quite impossible when you simply choose to respond with gay bashing.

You and intelligent debate? Ha! As already stated and worth repeating, your m.o. is to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you, lie about them, make up statements they never said or inferred, etc. etc. The list goes on forever.

I can't waste my time anymore. You bore me.

And you bore everybody.

are there really 173 comments on this post? really?

I know! And no poker spam.

I was 'Outed' as an heterosexual. I'd tried pretending I was gay but it was no use, it was just too hard pretending to be sexually attracted to men. The woman who outed me had her teeth smashed in.

Of course, I am proud of my heterosexuality and now proudly display the obligatory Jenna Jameson poster on the bedroom wall, and I have the stereotypical collection of hetero-attire. I even pretend to hate shopping these days and have had to refrain from getting manicures.

And that woman whose teeth got smashed in... well her sister is still in good shape ;)

Chad when you were grinding against the woman were you looking at other guys on the dance floor? Did you have your eyes closed and fantasize about men? Why would you be grinding against women anyway? Maybe you are slightly bi.

My theory is straight men are turned off by men.
Straight women and gay men are neutral towards women.
Why do so many female porn stars that only have relationships with men and only fall in love with men have no problem doing lesbian scenes? It's because they are sexually neutral towards woman and sex is sex, a physical act that brings pleasure. But emotionally and mentally these woman are straight.

Why do so many female porn stars that only have relationships with men and only fall in love with men have no problem doing lesbian scenes?

Because they are really fucked up people, Paul. Chad was slightly stimulated by direct physical contact. He didn't have sex with the girl who dropped in unexpectedly to clean his pool/fix his xerox machine/deliver a package, etc.

It's because they are sexually neutral towards woman and sex is sex, a physical act that brings pleasure. But emotionally and mentally these woman are straight.

How come mostly guys, who are into watching lesbian sex, make these types of unsubstantiated claims?

p.s.: You know those porn lesbian scenes? The orgasm is fake. hth

ll, that's my point. I'm sure Chad, like most people male or female, straight or gay is sexually neutral toward a Xerox machine so would have no problem getting stimulated. Since a gay man is sexually neutral towards a female he would be able to get aroused by grinding with a female.

I am saying that a straight man would not get aroused by grinding with another man.

To make things clear i am refering to a Xerox machine as vibrating or something to provide physical simulation.

I had a friend who said he was straight but would accept a blowjob from a guy. To myself and all his other friends this was outrageous and we definatly called him out on this revelation.
His reply was "a mouth is a mouth" didn't seem to matter to him who was giving the blow job if he closed his eyes.

It still seems gay to me!!