Posted on 08/30/2007 8:58:20 AM PDT by Alaphiah123
So just what is a sexual deviant these days? According to the politically correct and the cultural gatekeepers of our society one can engage in just about any kind or type of sexual activity and that sexuality is totally acceptable by today’s standards.
(Excerpt) Read more at creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com ...
As I understand things, Larry Craig is under attack by the politically correct crowd for being a “family values” type Republican, while privately seeking certain activity in the men’s room. So to the politically correct, he’s bad for being a Republican and bad for being a hypocrite.
Democrats, on the other hand, never talk about family values or anything of the kind. Since Democrats are so lenient in any kind of standards, a Democrat doing what Larry Craig did is not held to the same standard. Since Democrats don’t have any values or standards, a Democrat doing the same is not considered to have done anything wrong.
Actually...not to defend him and I don't doubt that he would have done the perceived crime given his past history...but from what I understand Craig didn't technically do anything wrong either. If he didn't expose himself to the guy, proposition the guy verbally for sex, or physically touch the guy in an inappropriate manner then what he did is not illegal.
Hatred of sin is hard when you are the sinner. It ends being hatred of the self very often.
What I hate most about all this corruption by public officials, is that most Americans would be so proud to be a Senator or a Congressman that they wouldn’t do this stuff . . .
Problem is, he pled guilty. Those who believe themselves innocent don’t plead guilty.
EXCEPT that prominent activists have claimed that the behavior that Larry Craig was ATTEMPTING to initiate should not be criminal. So they are hypocrites themselves for now being silent in that regard.
Either they believe in the law or they don’t. They’ve come to the defense of many a man who’d done this. Not now.
He pled guilty to disorderly contact. If he’d been loudy insulting the guy in the stall next to him with shouts of “P-Ewwwwww! Something die in here?” for minutes on end, it could’ve resulted in the same charge. He took the plea bargain for the lesser charge.
The City Hall in Malden had a problem with this sort of activity (and it got a high rating for the responses in a listing on a website for cruisers). They only charged people with “tresspassing” and “vandalism”.
Technically, he pled guilty to disorderly conduct not the original charge. But I ain’t gonna argue his case for him : )
” I did not have sex with that wo(man)....”
>Actually, not to defend him and I don’t doubt that he would have done the perceived crime given his past history....but from what I understand Craig didn’t technically do anything wrong either. If he didn’t expose himself to the guy, proposition the guy verbally for sex, or physically touch the guy in an inappropriate manner then what he did is not illegal.<
I tried to make this point more briefly yesterday: The schools are teaching homosexuality as a viable lifestyle beginning in early grammar school, as well as other promiscuous behavior; There is a hate bill in Congress drawn up to protect all sorts of deviant behavior.
Barney Frank is not criticized for being openly homosexual, and is accepted on The Hill.
So why is Republican Larry Craig being “martyred” not only by the liberals, but by his own party? Double standards once again! This must be very confusing to all those school kids!
We can start by insisting on having candidates with impeccable character, and the only way to judge that is to view issues of their judgment. If they have shown bad judgment in their personal lives then they shouldn’t be in, or running for, office. That will cover a lot of issues. ANY person in public office who exhibits bad judgment is a security risk.
Actually, Senator Craig via Chris Matthews may have advanced our cause! According to an earlier posting Matthews described Senator Craig as a “Sexual Deviant” for the actions he is accused of (not charged with). It is presumed that Senator Craig is a homosexual. That means Matthews is equating homosexuals to sexual deviants.
I wonder if he meant to do that?
Can we now quote Matthews as the authority on homosexuals - sexual deviants?
Just curious at the moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.