<p>Serch, you sly fox, your debate teacher is Yoda. In over your head you are perhaps? </p>
<p>“Is Now A Proposal For Gay Sex Criminal Behavior?”</p>
<p>Just read this morning that Craig passed 4 other bathrooms to get to this one. Another co inky dink? Possibly?</p>
<p>I don’t think propositioning someone else should be illegal, as long as no money exchanges hands. If it unwanted attention, the propositioner should back off. </p>
<p>Sen. Craig exacerbated the situation by pleading guilty. He didn’t want this to make the news because there have been rumors about his extra-curricular homosexual activity for years. Now he’s the one who is keeping it in the news. </p>
<p>Trying to turn this into some kind of hypocrisy on the part of liberals is preposterous. They probably are amused, as I am, that once again it is a Moral Crusader of the Right who is in trouble for sexual picadillos. </p>
<p>Lest you bring up Bill Clinton, he never was a moral crusader, so he really can’t be accused of hypocrisy.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing that Craig is innocent, because he did plead guilty.</p>
<p>I’m arguing that that kind of propositioning for sex should not be illegal. If the action itself is threatening or harassing, there are legal charges to deal with that kind of stuff. If it is not, then in my mind it is not illegal.</p>
<p>Yes, you can say that it is often followed by illegal acts (sex in public), but that’s not a reason to make it illegal. Saying that it is is analogous to saying that drinking while owning a car should be illegal, because people who own cars and drink often drive drunk. Or that file downloading clients themselves should be illegal, because they are often used for illegal things. Or that guns should be illegal because… you get my point.</p>
<p>“you get my point”
Honestly no, I don’t/</p>
<p>“Yes, you can say that it is often followed by illegal acts (sex in public), but that’s not a reason to make it illegal.”</p>
<p>I think your only defense here could be a lack of knowledge about how this occurs (or how often) in real life. No one asks to go to a hotel room, no one asks for names. It’s done down and dirty in either one stall or two (holes in the stall wall). As I said location matters in this situation as past practice indicates the sexual activity begins right there 99% of the time. It is rather unpleasant and unsanitary as a 3rd party to happen across this activity. At least it was the times I’ve had the misfortune to witness it. All I wanted to do was pee…</p>
<p>" Saying that it is is analogous to saying that drinking while owning a car should be illegal, because people who own cars and drink often drive drunk. "</p>
<p>Don’t be hung up on the gay thing… hetros get arrested for this too. It is not just a gay bashing issue…People can drink and people can drive. It’s we don’t want them to do it at the same time. A bathroom is for number 1 or 2, not intercourse. </p>
<p>“you get my point.”
Honestly it is not about gays it’s about public health. I could care less about somebody’s sexual orientation as I have a rainbow of friends. Do I want to risk my health by using a public restroom? Not more than I have to. In no way does that mean, I’m anti gay or hetro. It means if I wanta pee or poo in a public bathroom, I’m not having to step over anyone’s legs or be above the usual concern of cleanliness of a public bathroom. </p>
<p>It’s location man, location. No body arrests you on a dance floor for asking for sex. As long as you go elsewhere to do it. Hence the bathroom problem, they don’t go elsewhere.</p>
<p>I have not come across any co-ed public restrooms in the US, so there cannot be a hetero equivalent of this incident. I seriously doubt if the police would act on complaints that “Gate B5 in Minneapolis airport is a place where men and women hook up to find sexual partners”. </p>
<p>Fact of the matter is that it is harder for gays to hook up. They can’t easily flirt in public. If a guy makes a pass at a random woman who is not interested, she will just shrug him off. OTOH, a gay man runs the risk of getting seriously hurt if he makes a pass at the wrong (e.g a homophobic hetero) guy. Hence the need for these discreet codes.</p>
<p>1 of 42, the correct analogy is: it’s like making propositioning a person for an act of prostitution illegal… oh, wait, that is illegal. </p>
<p>You see, engaging in sex in a public restroom is illegal. Propositioning someone to perform that illegal sexual activity is on the same level as propositioning someone to engage in the illegal act of prostitution - and for much the same reason. It kind of ruins the neighborhood for everyone else.</p>
<p>Yes, most of them end up having sex in the bathroom. So what? Does that legally mean it is justified to assume that everyone who is propositioning in the bathroom intends to have sex there?</p>
<p>Opie, I’m not hung up on the gay thing at all. I’m hung up on the fact that the illegality of the act is not the act itself, but rather a subsequent act that is assumed to happen. I cannot see that that is justified in any way.</p>
<p>kluge, propositioning for prostitution is illegal for a whole bunch of other reasons. Note that, for the record, I don’t agree with it being illegal (it isn’t in most other countries in the world, this being just another example of how prudish the US is in some ways), but regardless, the two are not comparable, since the propositioning in the case of prostitution is in this case explicitly saying “I want to commit a crime”, whereas in the case of the propositioning for gay sex it is not necessarily saying any such thing. How do you know they weren’t planning to go to a hotel?</p>
<p>Yes, I’m being pedantic. I just think it sets a worrying legal precedent to make something against the law because of actions that are presumed to follow.</p>
<p>Let Mr Craig, go to trial. Would his odds to beat the rap be better under a judge or by jury? Minnesotans maybe more tolerant than Idahoans that he represents. This will be a fun trial with deep consequences. </p>
<p>Ref: Doonesberry, Sept 13. </p>
<p>Now what was the name of early computer game (circa 1983) a guy named, Larry. {Leisure Suit Larry, ??} I always got busted. </p>
<p>Gerry Spence already has a fun case in Oregon. John Edwards and Bob Kerry are too wealthy to care. Where is the ACLU?</p>
<p>vicariousparent - I disagree. If police were receiving information that sex was being solicited in ANY public bathroom, anywhere, I think they would respond, or at least I hope they would. I, too, DO NOT want to go into a public bathroom and discover things going on other than normal bathroom activities. </p>
<p>You might also be naive - who says that heterosexual sex in bathrooms can only take place in hetersoexual bathrooms? I’m sure men have snuck into women’s bathrooms, and visa versa, at slow times, disguised, or whatever. People get very creative. I’ve shared that I’ve entered unisex department store dressing rooms, only to be met by exiting boy/girl couple where only one look at them explains exactly what they were doing. Yuk! Not the dressing room I now want to go into to try on clothes!</p>
<p>"I have not come across any co-ed public restrooms in the US, so there cannot be a hetero equivalent of this incident. I seriously doubt if the police would act on complaints that “Gate B5 in Minneapolis airport is a place where men and women hook up to find sexual partners”.</p>
<p>Do you have children? If you do and travel with them, you know the answer. </p>
<p>“Fact of the matter is that it is harder for gays to hook up. They can’t easily flirt in public.”</p>
<p>The reason being in many of these cases, they are married men. They cannot be public. I’ve been out on the street and single gays don’t have this problem.</p>
<p>“If a guy makes a pass at a random woman who is not interested, she will just shrug him off. OTOH, a gay man runs the risk of getting seriously hurt if he makes a pass at the wrong (e.g a homophobic hetero) guy. Hence the need for these discreet codes.” </p>
<p>You’re right some of the time with this statement, but not all of the time.</p>
<p>“I just think it sets a worrying legal precedent to make something against the law because of actions that are presumed to follow.”</p>
<p>How many times… location location location?</p>
<p>Can you be arrested for the same thing on a dance floor? Why? because a dance floor does not offer privacy to commit the act. </p>
<p>Why do they commit the act in the bathroom? because leaving together invites someone to see you. When the whole object of the bathroom sex is to remain anonmous, sometimes only placing the ***** through the wall so your partner doesn’t know who you are… well are you getting the point yet. </p>
<p>Say it with me, location makes the action illegal. Much like shouting fire in the theatre.</p>
<p>I’m getting the point absolutely, and I’m not arguing that most who solicit sex in a bathroom will, if responded to, have that sex in the bathroom. But I don’t think you can tell me with 100% certainty that any given person is going to have sex in the bathroom, having solicited that sex. Yes, it’s very much more than likely, in fact, it is almost certain. But I thought the requirement for conviction was “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”</p>
<p>I just think it’s not a valid role for law enforcement to impute motives on to people. Yes, they’re probably right, but this is one of the things should not be done. Punish the crime if and when the crime (public sex) actually occurs. Yes, I am very much aware that it’s harder to catch that, and that the sting operations are a great way of catching people. But that doesn’t make them ethically correct.</p>
<p>
Craig wasn’t arrested or charged with propositioning for sex; he was charged with disorderly conduct and with invasion of privacy. The theory behind the disorderly conduct charge is that his actions were disruptive or disturbing to people; the theory on invasion of privacy was that he was peeping through the crack into bathroom stalls. The privacy count was dismissed when he plead guilty to disorderly conduct.</p>
<p>It doesn’t really matter for purposes of the law whether there was a solicitation for sex or not. The charges were essentially that he was doing something in the bathroom likely to disturb other patrons. </p>
<p>Analogy: it is perfectly legal and protected speech for a person to engage in public protest - for example, carrying a sign and chanting slogans to protest the war. But if that person blocks the entry way to private buildings, the person might get arrested for disturbing the peace or trespass – so it is very common for protesters to get arrested on that type of charge.</p>
<p>This whole thing about “imputing motives” seems to be something that has come up in this thread by people who don’t understand what the guy was arrested for. If there had been a trial (again, unlikely), the prosecution wouldn’t have had to prove that Craig intended to have sex with anyone at all. The cop would have testified that he saw Craig peeping into stalls and that would be enough to sustain the invasion of privacy charge.</p>
<p>Hmm, decent point. I guess I lost sight of that since everyone here was so intent on using the “but he was going to have sex there!” argument. I think it’s a bit spurious to say him sticking his hand under the stall divider was likely to cause a disturbance, but at least it’s an argument that could be made. The fact that he plead guilty to it just nails his coffin shut, imo.</p>
<p>Yes Opie, I know about ‘family’ bathrooms. But not “co-ed” bathrooms where a true ‘hetero’ version of this incident (making a pass at a stranger in the adjacent stall) can occur. I disagree that single gay men have no problems flirting with strangers in public. It may be easier for them than for married gay men, but it is far more difficult than single hetero men (who can proudly flaunt their sexuality if they choose). </p>
<p>I agree with you that cheating on your spouse is a bad thing, whether you are gay or straight. This is the aspect that bothers me the most about what Craig (or Clinton) did. Craig’s hypocrisy about being an anti-gay politician also bothers me. His specific actions in that bathroom stall don’t bother me so much.</p>
<p>teriwtt, sneaking into opposite sex bathrooms or dressing rooms with a partner and actually engaging in sexual activities is totally different from this situation. As has been said before, we don’t know if the senator was going to go beyond exchanging phone numbers and making a date. And since he won’t even admit that he was making a pass, we are not likely to ever find out.</p>
<p>the senator had several weeks to make his case, he chose this path. </p>
<p>He could have very easily fought it and possibly won. He chose not to. He could have gone into any of the four bathrooms he passed before this one. He chose not to. He could have very easily said “sorry” when his foot reached under the stall wall and “touched” the officer’s. He chose not to. He could have kept his hands inside his stall. He chose not to. </p>
<p>“As has been said before, we don’t know if the senator was going to go beyond exchanging phone numbers and making a date.”</p>
<p>Again, this is just wishful thinking. If the good senator was going to ask for a phone number, why all the other things? </p>
<p>What he should have claimed was he was doing “reasearch”. ;)</p>
<p>vicariousparent, it was suggested that heterosexuals do not engage in sex in public places because there are no co-ed bathrooms (other than family restrooms). I was just pointing out that it does. I’m not arguing the specifics or legalities of this case.</p>