Don't frighten the horses: What Larry Craig tells conservatives about ourselves.

vanity | September 1, 2007 | Nathanbedford

[Theophilus]

But that is not a crime unless you act lewdly, solicit, or act disorderly.

• He looked into the stall - lewd
• He touched the officers foot - disorderly
• He put his hand under the stall - disorderly

If I had been in the officer's position, I would have been placed in jeopardy of committing assault against a U.S. Senator.

[RobbyS]

Civil unions, on the other hand, should be easy for a conservative to tolerate because he believes in the freedom of contract. I don't think so. Marriage itself is no longer a true contract in large part because of no-fault divorce. But a civil union? In this case, exactly what constitutes breech of contract? My imagination may be limited, but given the openness of all homosexual relationships, I cannot find any line between compliance and noncompliance. Why should it be tolerated where nonsexual relationships are not, say a "permanent" household relationship between two brothers or sisters?

[PGalt]

A trojan horse is very frightening to a wife, children, relatives and their children, friends and their children, constituents and their children.

Anti-life lies are contradictory to our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[Manic_Episode]

" Yep, -- when you get caught disturbing the peace, 'scaring the horses', - you should pay the price. 30 days; - next case.."

===========================

The apologists are driving me nuts. I don't have to let my dog crap on the carpet before I do something about it. When I recognize the signs of what he is about to do I stop him and put him out.

[Minn]

Well, sometimes it's like I don't even know my wife.

But you don't get anything during those times, do you?

[jhroberts]

Plain and Simple — Unlike the democraps, we neither want nor need sexual deviants in our party.

[semoto]

Kudos on this post. The logic is stellar. The honesty is refreshing.

If a person believes in a limited role for government, it’s hard to argue for a limited role everywhere except in the bedroom. And if a person argues that government should stay out of a heterosexual’s bedroom but NOT a homosexual’s bedroom, that person deserves to be called a hypocrite.

Let’s get out of the business of trying to legislate private behavior between consenting adults. It doesn’t really work and it’s at odds with nearly everything conservatives believe.

[RichInOC]

Leave the horses out of this.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks

[Waryone]

Kudos on this post. The logic is stellar. The honesty is refreshing.

Except for the fact that we are talking about public restrooms not private bedrooms.

The real hypocrisy is in those who say they are for personal privacy -- unless they are in a restroom. They believe that no one should expect privacy in a bathroom because there should be a protected right to allow deviants to ogle and leer at you. What's next crapping, peeing, and puking on you.

Where my personal privacy begins your freedom to do whatever ends for the government and the deviants.

[Mamzelle]

There’s a big space between approval and minding one’s own business.

[trisham]

My argument is not that homosexuality is moral or immoral

************

Why not? It is immoral.

[eyedigress]

A good post for a wrong reason, but remember that heterosexual sex, cannot by definition, be sought after in a same sex toilet. Break it down.

[eyedigress]

His rant could be applied to many things, crimes against humanity ain’t gonna cut it.

[nathanbedford]

Why not? Because I had another point to make: Is it a proper conservative value to enlist the law to prohibit that which we find morally repellent? Even if it is a proper value, it is a bootless quest because the tides are running against us. Do we have the right to distort ages old Anglo-Saxon principles of fair play and our ancient understanding of the rule of law to enforce our morality? What price public toilet decorum?

[nathanbedford]

And bisexuals double their chances for dates.

[trisham]

Why not? Because I had another point to make: Is it a proper conservative value to enlist the law to prohibit that which we find morally repellent? Even if it is a proper value, it is a bootless quest because the tides are running against us. Do we have the right to distort ages old Anglo-Saxon principles of fair play and our ancient understanding of the rule of law to enforce our morality? What price public toilet decorum?

**************

Homosexual sex in public rest rooms is apparently all right with you. It isn't with me, and no amount of sidestepping around this issue is going to convince me otherwise.

Our country has put up with this kind of nuttiness long enough.

[OutsideTheWire]

“Is it a proper conservative value to enlist the law to prohibit that which we find morally repellent?”

Of course, that was the whole purpose of sodomy laws. That is also the purpose of the UCMJ. Do you propose doing away with all reasonable codes of conduct?

You have also avoided the whole issue of how this affects innocent children. No young boy wants to be relieving himself and either be hit on by a homosexual like Larry Craig or be witness to his toilet gymnastics with another pervert.

The Larry Craig scandal has more important overarching implications - foremost being that we simply can’t trust these closeted homosexuals. They are willing to block out reality to an absurd extent. They can literally look you in the eye and deny what you just witnessed with your own eyes (like slick Willy). These type of people have some major mental pathology and are scary as hell because they seem to be totally comfortable with huge and blatant lies (just like a serial killer who eats a Snickers while his hands are still dripping in blood).

“Nathanbedford”, I can almost guarantee you don’t have kids because this subject takes on a whole new meaning then. No parent wants their child exposed to this kind of abhorrent and nauseating “alternative lifestyle”. Any responsible parent guides their child and instills a moral compass. Toilet homosexuals like Larry Craig have no conscience or moral compass and it reflects poorly on all of us that they are able to get in positions of power in the first place.

[nathanbedford]

If you read the vanity you will see that I have no reservations in enforcing laws against sexual acts in public toilets. And I should have made that more clear in my last post. What I object to is an improper tendency to overreach, to criminalize an otherwise innocuous solicitation, for example. You will also recall that I was quite careful in the piece to say that the law should to be quite vigorous in prohibiting homosexual behavior where it conflicts with a higher value, such as the protection of our children or public decency.

You and I both find homosexuality to be morally abhorrent. I am not willing to enlist the law to punish those that I find morally disgusting. I would reserve that for criminals who commit criminal acts. I very much want the law to protect society against the excesses of homosexual acts. I do not want sharia law. I certainly do not want jihad against homosexuals.

[trisham]

You and I both find homosexuality to be morally abhorrent. I am not willing to enlist the law to punish those that I find morally disgusting. I would reserve that for criminals who commit criminal acts. I very much want the law to protect society against the excesses of homosexual acts. I do not want sharia law. I certainly do not want jihad against homosexuals.

***************

Someone who disagrees with you is a, what? Muslim? Terrorist?

I'm tired of intellectualizing this issue. Homosexual behaviour can be extremely depraved. One example is what takes place in public rest rooms. The fact that there is anyone in our society who can defend any part of that astounds me.