But it doesn't change the fact that he sinks low enough to have Mitt Romney at his house.

--in their birthday suits at a sex party than they can walking outside fully clothed in order to get there. (Men realize that if they don't heavily police the behavior of other men, women won't come back.)

The usual hypocrisy.

If a core belief of the Democratic party is that a person's sex life is private then isn't it hypocritical for Democrats to base an attack on someone's sex life?

No, it's not.

What is being made issue of is not the sex, but the hypocrisy.

When a religious leader who has characterized homosexuality as a disorder and a sin is found in a hotel room doing drugs with a same sex prostitute, the issue is not about whether he's gay, the issue is the rank hypocrisy.

It's "Marc Leder, Rmoney fundraiser, also throws swanky sex parties".

Seems like the sex parties are the issue, no?

I'm not.

You won't find too many people here at DU who object to any group of consenting adults doing whatever they want to do at a party.

I haven't checked, but maybe you are new here, and haven't been invited to the really wild secret forums which are run here.

The item is not of interest because some guy was throwing sex parties. Many, if not most, DUers host or attend them almost every night.

Heck, you can even come to one of mine if you want.

The POINT is perhaps missed by persons who need things spelled out for them in some literal way, because such persons lack the requisite common context here that the individual involved was also hosting the "family values" guy's find raisers.

You see, of any and all people who may have been or intend to host sex parties, you don't see too many reports of those on DU, except for some after-action roundups in the lounge.

So, you have to ask yourself, "Self, some guy threw a sex party. So what?"

Well that very "so what?" should lead you toward realizing that it must have some relevance to something other than a report that some guy has sex parties. And the conclusion is that for a "family values" guy, Mitt either has a personal definition with which we are unfamiliar, or that he is unwise in choosing associates. Neither of those alternatives is favorable to Mitt, but the likelihood is strongly in favor of him, and especially more broadly those of his ilk really not giving much a damn about values they profess or seek to impose on others. This suggests an even larger question of integrity.

LMAO.