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

vanity | September 1, 2007 | Nathanbedford

[goldstategop]

I've been perfectly clear on that. Conservatives can still disapprove of homosexuality. The fact consensual behavior is allowed in private by no means should be read as permission to extend that to other areas of society. We should and still can institute and enforce appropriate rules for expectations of public conduct.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[kinoxi]

I cannot argue with post #56.

[gidget7]

I agree, for the most part!

[tpaine]

Sex in public is wrong and illegal across the board period.

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

[Jim Noble]

There are serious public health issues involved here that in my estimation do fall within the Constitutional purview of the state.

Those public health issues (which are real) are IDENTICAL in the privacy of one's own home.

The real issue is that what Senator Craig was doing was disgusting and perverted. I'm not sure the law offers a solution in our time.

I'm certain the public health law doesn't.

[nathanbedford]

That may be, but as a conservative, the problem is the newer laws and policies not the Constitution, which does not allow for depravity. The more we dumb down what is acceptable in society, the less we get from people as far as decency.

Actually, the Constitution does allow depravity if the state or the federal government chooses not to prohibit it. The Supreme Court in the Texas sodomy case when a step further and said that the Constitution prohibits a state from criminalizing depravity-sodomy in private between consulting adults-on privacy grounds.

The question for conservatives I think is what do we do now that the law is not available to enforce "decency" which you say will result in the dumbing down of society?I tried to articulate in my vanity some of the areas which I described as having" higher value"which should still be permitted by the courts to be enforced and which also, fortuitously, politically advantageous.

[gidget7]

If there are more Craigs, then they too should step down, before they disgrace themselves and the country. THAT is how I truly feel. I will not cow tow to this agenda. To do so would be at the detriment of my own soul. And as I have stated, that is neither helpful nor is it loving, it is enabling.

[nathanbedford]

Whew!

[Kleon]

Just what did he do that was so disorderly?

Even if we ignore the implications of his actions, the acts themselves would make any man who had the misfortune of being in the next stall extremely uncomfortable. If I see anyones body parts on my side of the divider, I'm going to tell him to remove them.

I was giving the Senator the benefit of the doubt before, but now it's clear to me he was up to no good.

[Mamzelle]

re: Anyone can appoint a power of attorney for healthcare, anyone can will their estate to anyone they wish, anyone can execute a reciprocal personal services contract with another to assume certain obligations. The purpose of a "civil union", therefore, is to bundle these various, already legal contractual pieces, into an instrument for the state to ostentatiously approve of that which most citizens do not approve of.)))

Very concise. I wish, when any conserv pol is confronted with "do you approve of civil unions?" would have the straighforward rejoinder "I don't approve of them, but they already exist in every state of the union. Every couple, triplet or quartet--etc, already has the right to go to an attorney and work out household contracts to suit themselves."

[Logophile]

So long as we as conservatives attack homosexuals for their status as homosexuals rather than for their overt acts which are repugnant to a higher value, we are open to the hypocrisy charge.

But do we attack homosexuals for their status? Most conservatives I know—myself included—are content to live and let live. But we have been forced by circumstances to oppose homosexuality as a social and political movement.

Years ago, homosexual activists asked only that we respect their privacy: What we do in the privacy of our bedrooms, they said, is our business, and nobody else's. That made sense to me at the time.

But somewhere along the line the argument changed. It is no longer enough to tolerate homosexuals: now we must approve, even "celebrate" their lifestyle, and treat homosexual liaisons as equivalent to marriage. Some have even gone so far as to demand affirmative action for homosexuals, to compensate for alleged past discrimination.

When activists try to tell my children that homosexuality is just another lifestyle, every bit as healthy as normal sexual relations within traditional marriage, they have crossed over the line. I for one have begun to doubt the wisdom of my previous tolerance of homosexuals.

[gidget7]

The key word is “privacy”. And the problem with this particular agenda referring to that word, is their definition of it. Ever broadening, and ever changing. Not many have a problem with what goes on in a bedroom, between two consenting adults. But that is not what this agenda limits itself to. They are broadening privacy to mean all areas of life, not just the bedroom.

I agree the cops didn’t go far enough, thus haven’t a lot to go on in a court case, but it is their policy that should be changed, not our views on the subject. I applaud their attempting to stop this behavior. And they have done extensive investigations to find out the places, as well as what these codes consist of. I have a problem with the fact that these codes exist, and that they are so well known, and practiced.

[Billthedrill]

Those public health issues (which are real) are IDENTICAL in the privacy of one's own home.

No, with respect, they're not. Without getting more graphic than this thread deserves they're quite a bit worse if those acts take place in public.

The real issue is that what Senator Craig was doing was disgusting and perverted.

Really? What did he actually do? That's the problem here - he may have been (and almost certainly was) soliciting an anonymous homosexual tryst, but all he actually did was to make some signals that he was willing. As I stated, it is easy to legislate against the act, but expression of willingness to take part in it is not, I suggest, within the state's rights to prohibit lest the state decide to prohibit other speech as well. There are exceptions - sedition comes to mind - but when did we last see a prosecution, much less a conviction, for even that?

Being "disgusting and perverted" is not, in my opinion, a valid ground for law. It is certainly valid ground for expressing disapproval and shunning the individual, which is what I am fairly certain would happen in the next election should Craig be foolish enough to run.

[Rudder]

Are we to conclude that it is proper to make criminal a solicitation of homosexual sex but not the solicitation of homosexual sex?

It's your call, Nathan.

[gidget7]

“But do we attack homosexuals for their status? Most conservatives I know—myself included—are content to live and let live. But we have been forced by circumstances to oppose homosexuality as a social and political movement.”

Bump for clarity! Excellent points

[Logophile]

The key word is “privacy”. And the problem with this particular agenda referring to that word, is their definition of it. Ever broadening, and ever changing. Not many have a problem with what goes on in a bedroom, between two consenting adults. But that is not what this agenda limits itself to. They are broadening privacy to mean all areas of life, not just the bedroom.

It appears that you and I are singing from the same page. See Post #71.

[gidget7]

Yes indeed :)

[nathanbedford]

Thanks for the kind words Jim.

I agree with your observations about civil unions with this caveat: the bundle of rights, which you say the homosexual couple already has, is something they can accomplish therefore seriatim. Query: Should the law prohibit the bundling because to do so would be to somehow endorse sodomy which is repugnant to the majority of the people or should the state allow what is otherwise legal because to prohibit it amounts to little more than an act of petulance done because we are disgusted by the sex act?

Your comments to Bill the drill about the application of public health laws is interesting. It seems that we as a society tie ourselves into all kinds of knots when we address this issue.

[Billthedrill]

Oh, my yes. I don't think many on this thread would believe the extent to which the government has already been empowered in the pursuit of public health, and even tested and approved through the Supremen Court. Confinement without a trial in the form of quarantine, for example. It's absolutely legal, and has been since the Yellow Fever days. It is difficult to believe how far public health issues trump what we might normally consider as unquestionable civil rights.

This is an entirely peripheral issue and I apologize for that, but gay activists who complain that Reagan, et al "didn't do anything" about the AIDS epidemic should be very careful what they wish for.

[nathanbedford]

Bill the drill seems to have commented clearly on this issue in the post preceding yours.