Is Now A Proposal For Gay Sex Criminal Behavior?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>There is a thread just below, discussing the senator from Idaho, where there appears to be more republican bashing than anything else. The hypocrisy of the left and the rest of the liberals is blatant. There is no surprise that all the Gay and Lesbian Associations are very much looking the other way and they are not jumping to “defend” the senator…but what did he really do?</p>

<p>The elderly senator tapped his foot and the 29 yo officer tapped his own foot back. Then, the senator moved his foot and “bumped” into the 29 yo officer’s foot. The senator then waved his hand under the partition. The 29 yo officer showed his police officer card and said…“you are arrested”.</p>

<p>There was no sexual exposure, there was no sexual act. There was not even a clear request for sexual contact, other than the telepathic inference from the 29 yo entrapment officer. The reason the police allowed a plea of “disorderly conduct” ( tapping a foot, waving a hand, touching shoe to shoe !!!) was because there was no way that ANYONE could be found guilty in a court of law under such circumstances. To save himself the embarrassment and the exposure of his very hypocritical life ( as well as to protect his cushioned job and influence ) the senator accepted a lower plea thinking that it would go away. He was an idiot because there was no way that with his prominent profile it would ever go away. In reality, his conduct could not amount to more than to being innapropriate.</p>

<p>It seems now that what is really criminal is a proposal ( ?) for gay sex. The next time I am sitting in a bar and see a girl I like , I am going to tap my foot and see if she taps back. Then I am going to bump my foot into hers and bend down and wave my hand under the stool. I betcha I wont get arrested. </p>

<p>Shame on all of you more interested in bashing republicans than in looking at what really happened here.</p>

2

<p>What really happened is that, after thinking about it for six weeks, having access to as many lawyers as he’d like, as much advice as he’d care for, as much family support as he could muster, he pled guilty. To a misdemeanor. He admitted that his act was criminal, and that he committed it.</p>

3

<p>I don’ t think what he did should be criminal, if they were having sex- male or female in a public bathroom, different story</p>

<p>he was caught in the web of his own party’s and his own hatreds thinking</p>

<p>he had to not fight it, and I am sure was told to fall on the sword, otherwise the stupdity of the toe tapping law would be seen for what it was</p>

4

<p>mini says:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly, because he was embarrassed and was trying to protect his job. Bill Clinton did wave his finger to World News and said…" I did not have sexual relations with that woman", after months of having them, etc…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So what? He felt that for the same reasons above, it was better to do that.</p>

<p>You are avoiding the answer to my question. You are one of those people i was referring to.</p>

5

<p>Exactly citygirlsmom, but there is NO LAW for tapping. Most of these people rather plea to something else to save themselves the shame of their innapropriate behavior or of their double lives. When this goes to court, it gets thrown out, which is the reason they offer guilty pleas for something else.</p>

<p>Tapping a foot, waving a hand and bumping into someones foot is now DISORDERLY CONDUCT?</p>

6

<p>I don’t see a question. As far as I’m concerned, he can have as much wonderfully hot gay sex as he likes. I even offered (and I’m serious) to take up a collection for him to have a romantic gay weekend at a hotel in his home town. If he wants to have a threesome, with his wife included as well, as long as she is a willing participant, I don’t have a problem with that either. </p>

<p>I have much, much more in the way of a problem with Mayor Rudy having a 9-month affair at government expense in the Mayor’s mansion with his 8-year-old present, or Newt deserting two sick wives to take up with new sweeties, and then refusing to pay child support, causing the kids to go on welfare. </p>

<p>But if Rudy, or Newt, or Larry or their “party” want to preach family values at me or at anyone else, they get what they deserve.</p>

<p>(There are kids who go into this foot-tapping places, but I think I’ll leave that one to other people’s opinions.)</p>

7

<p>mini</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are so blind in your bias that you already forgot the name of the thread.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What in the world is that??!!!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are forgetting also Bill,…Bill Clinton, in case you want to think of some republican named Bill</p>

8

<p>Please clarify your point: are you concerned that Craig was in a restroom well-known as a cruising site for male-on(in?)-male sex (to the point that 40 arrests were made in the previous few months), using signals recommended on a website to indicate interest in such sex, but did not actually consummate the sex, and thus was unfairly busted,</p>

<p>OR</p>

<p>Craig was in a restroom well-known as a cruising site for male-on-male sex, using signals recommended on a website to indicate interest in such sex, and this was PURELY A COINCIDENCE?</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>Ahhh, don’t get your panties in a twist. America knows darn well what really happened here. Being able to bash hypocrites is just part of the fun. With all the ruin the conservative fundamentalists have brought us, I think we deserve a little fun.</p>

10

<p>Well, wrongly accusing someone of being gay may be cause for damages: <a href=“Gay Prank Peeves Pair | The Smoking Gun”>Gay Prank Peeves Pair | The Smoking Gun;

11

<p>Serchingon, I, too am interested in the answer to the question posed by Drb.</p>

<p>Beyond that, yes, I do think that it is “disorderly conduct” and appropriately punished as a misdemeanor to proposition someone to engage in sexual activity in a bathroom which is open to the public. I’m enough of a prude about public sex in places where minors may wander in (or anyone else, for that matter - manners, people!) that I think that criminalizing such overt propositions for immediate sex in a public place is not unreasonable - albeit only at the misdemeanor level.</p>

<p>And I don’t care what kind of sex it is, either.</p>

12

<p>Sherigon,</p>

<p>C’mon now big fella, it’s kinda hard to twist and spin this puppy. You certainly can try but… </p>

<p>“The elderly senator tapped his foot and the 29 yo officer tapped his own foot back.”
No harm, no foul</p>

<p>" Then, the senator moved his foot and “bumped” into the 29 yo officer’s "
They were inside freakin toilet stalls, not urinals. You have to really try and touch somebody’s foot in a toilet stall. Standing at a urinal, it could be an accident. Sitting down, ya gotta try.</p>

<p>“The senator then waved his hand under the partition.”</p>

<p>If accompanied by the phrase “I’m out of toilet paper over here, can I borrow some?” Yea, Ok. I tell you what, I see somebody’s hand come into my stall while I’m doing a number 2 and I’m stomping the hell out of it. </p>

<p>“The 29 yo officer showed his police officer card and said…“you are arrested”.”</p>

<p>As they did like 49 other times in that particular sting. The senator was just one of the many.</p>

<p>“There was no sexual exposure, there was no sexual act.”</p>

<p>So are you saying a prostitute has to be actively engaged as well? Wouldn’t that be asking alot of a police officer’s wife to allow her husband to be penatrated in the line of duty? Do you fail to see your own logic? </p>

<p>" There was not even a clear request for sexual contact, other than the telepathic inference from the 29 yo entrapment officer."</p>

<p>When they do this prositutes do you complain as well? This was a basic operation that the senator fell into, by his own actions.</p>

<p>" The reason the police allowed a plea of “disorderly conduct” ( tapping a foot, waving a hand, touching shoe to shoe !!!) was because there was no way that ANYONE could be found guilty in a court of law under such circumstances."
REALLY? Good for those other guys arrested that same time. </p>

<p>“He was an idiot because there was no way that with his prominent profile it would ever go away.”
Hey, something we agree on. how bout that?</p>

<p>" In reality, his conduct could not amount to more than to being innapropriate."</p>

<p>Hence a fine. Not every thing that is against the law results in prison time. </p>

<p>“It seems now that what is really criminal is a proposal ( ?) for gay sex.”</p>

<p>No, just where the proposal took place. Most folks use the bathroom for other reasons. Likewise, you’d get a ticket for taking a dump on the bar room floor. Everything has it’s place. :)</p>

<p>" The next time I am sitting in a bar and see a girl I like , I am going to tap my foot and see if she taps back. Then I am going to bump my foot into hers and bend down and wave my hand under the stool. I betcha I wont get arrested. "</p>

<p>Depends on what state you live in, how is your sister anyway? ;)</p>

13

<p>drb

</p>

<p>Did you bother to read my post or is your bias as blinding as mini’s?</p>

14

<p>There are a whole bunch of issues here, and it’s appropriate to separate them:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I don’t think people should be arrested for soliciting anonymous gay sex noncoercively in public men’s rooms. But see below: I am ambivalent about this. I would rather people didn’t use public men’s rooms to solicit sex.</p></li>
<li><p>I think less of someone for soliciting anonymous sex of any kind, even noncoercively. I don’t think it’s a disqualification for any particular job, but it raises a character question.</p></li>
<li><p>It is common for police to patrol public men’s rooms and to use charges like “loitering” and “disorderly conduct” to discourage a practice of soliciting anonymous gay sex there.</p></li>
<li><p>I’m not certain that I disagree with trying to discourage the use of public men’s rooms for soliciting anonymous sex. While there’s a certain dishonesty to using “loitering” and “disorderly conduct” charges for that purpose, I don’t know that it would be better to charge people with “soliciting sex”, or to use security cameras, or other more intrusive methods.</p></li>
<li><p>In context, what Mr. Craig did was unambiguously to solicit anonymous sex. It’s fundamentally dishonest to suggest otherwise. Not in a court of law, of course, but here in reality.</p></li>
<li><p>I didn’t like Bill Clinton’s sexual morality much. It certainly raised questions about his character, as did his prevarication about it. However, he had enough of a track record as a politician that I felt I could judge his fitness for office adequately taking into account both positive and negative information.</p></li>
<li><p>I would say the same thing about Larry Craig, but no one’s asking me. I’m not his constituent, and if I were I would have hundreds of better reasons than his sex life or his hypocrisy about it not to support him.</p></li>
<li><p>Neither Bill Clinton nor Larry Craig should be proud of how he behaved; neither Bill Clinton nor Larry Craig should be removed from public office because of it. However, Larry Craig’s party and Larry Craig’s constituents are not exactly the same as Bill Clinton’s, and I suspect the vast, vast majority of Larry Craig’s supporters believe, contrary to me, that BOTH should be removed from public office because of their behavior. That doesn’t mean that Craig should be impeached and Clinton not, but it explains the very different responses of their parties to their behaviors.</p></li>
<li><p>"But Bill Clinton . . . " is a dumb argument for anything. I certainly hope the next time a Democratic President does something monumentally, historically stupid and irresponsible, Democrats don’t waste time saying "But George Bush . . . "</p></li>
</ol>

15

<p>If Craig had asked the entrapment officer in the bathroom, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ME?, would he had been arrested?</p>

<p>drb, klluge and opie</p>

<p>Do you people realize how ridiculous your arguments are?</p>

16

<p>I did read your post. Please answer my query to you. Do you think that it was a remarkable coincidence that Craig was using signals recommended for indicating interest in male-on-male sex in a restroom where such activities routinely occurred? Its a simple question.</p>

17

<p>JHS,</p>

<p>I appreciate your eloquence and I fully agree with you, My position is exactly your position.</p>

<p>I would like to clarify something though, I only mentioned Bill Clinton because i was trying to illustrate the same dumb argument that someone was making about some republicans.( Not the purpose of my question)</p>

18

<p>drb, </p>

<p>Read JHS post. It is eloquent enough. I have not said that the senator was NOT soliciting gay sex. My point is that what was done to him, amounts to answering YES to my OP question.</p>

<p>Is Now A Proposal For Gay Sex Criminal Behavior?</p>

19

<p>"Do you people realize how ridiculous your arguments are? "</p>

<p>Not nearly as ridiculous as your defense of Craig is. ;)</p>

20

<p>“You are forgetting also Bill,…Bill Clinton, in case you want to think of some republican named Bill.”</p>

<p>I am not forgetting Bill Clinton in the least, and he is guilty of far worse sins than staining a blue dress, like committing genocide, with a half a million dead children.</p>

<p>But, when it comes to family values, he is total Mr. Clean when compared with Rudy and Newt. Not even close.</p>

<p>And to answer your question (which hardly deserves an answer): Larry Craig pled guilty to criminal behavior, and paid for his crime. Whether what he pled guilty to and paid for “should” be considered criminal behavior is another question altogether, one which has been well adjudicated by the courts in more than 40 states (and cleared the U.S. Supreme Court without comment.)</p>