You know, I hope the gay community will get a break....

In my heart, I really hope the speculation surrounding that horrible Trent Lott stepping down because of perhaps a gay sex scandal uncovered by Larry Flynt's team of investigators proves to be untrue.

I hope they got him on something else.

As satisfyingly delicious and deserving as it is to continue shining the white hot spotlight on the vicious Republican hypocrisy, these scandals simultaneously stir up a tornado of negative implications that are very uncomfortable for a lot of people in the gay community, including myself, to have to live through.

In fact, they make me cringe.

Yes, I've made my fair share of Larry Craig foot tapping remarks, mostly because I'm furious with him. But the truth is that situation is embarrassing. And I don't know any gay person who wants America to think that restroom sex is some sort of popular homosexual pastime. Because it's not.

It's a stereotype. And I suffered through that Matt Lauer interview with Craig thinking people in towns throughout the country think gay people flock to international airports to engage in lewd behavior.

Mark Foley doing whatever he did with male pages is not normal adult gay behavior. But there were the implications to the contrary.

What's happening now is every time a rotten Republican (I know, redundant) is under suspicion, people start suggesting that they might be gay.

And then all of a sudden, all of these negative people with all of their negative behaviors (or suspected behaviors) result in negative connotations. Bad does not equal gay.

It's a scar and I hate it.

So for the sake of gay people, if only because we already have so much on our proverbial plate (and have been down this road too many times): It would be nice if there's indeed any scandal behind Lott's announcement, that it involves bribery, or hookers and NOT gay escorts or the likes.

Bribery. Embezzlement. Money laundering. Hookers...wouldn't that be just as good?

And gay and lesbian people could really use a break. :)

Always judged by the worst things members of your given identity group do, not the best.

And well said.

Under current senate rules he only has to spend a year on the bench before he can lobby former colleagues.
Next year it goes to 2 years.

gay escort buzz.

...however, I agree that it would be more satisfying if Lott were taken down because of his connections to Abramoff.

homosexuality is not and was not ever an option, its what is and thats that. do people choose to be gay? I think not. I have a real dear close friend who came out of the chute gay and its as simple as that. If not for that experience of knowing him from birth maybe I would believe otherwise but I have seen and I do see. I say give them a break ;-) they're nice people too

friend.

love and a kind heart sure does though :hi:

They have been in longtime relationships all. I think it's the idea of the quickie bathroom pickup that people find unacceptable. It's wrong for straights too.

public restrooms, I don't know how anyone does it.

I pee, wash my hands, and race the hell out as though I'm part of a NASCAR crew changing the tires during a pit stop.

hands first! LOL

Learned that one the hard way. :evilfrown:

Only the self-hating closet cases do this sort of thing and they would never consider themselves gay.

If Lott turns out to be having gay sex that is very much an issue.

2 things

#1 As a straight man I can not say, "I know what you are going through
to a gay man."

#2 In Lott's case if he was involved w/ a gay escort it is not about the sex
but about the hypocrisy .... he would be one more self hating gay man
who public speaks about God, values, and tradition and used those issues
to hurt, marginalize, and engender bitterness toward people who have done
nothing wrong except to have been born gay.

Of course it would be a vivid case of hypocrisy.

Lott has one of the worst gay rights voting records of any United States Senator. (info below)

I'm just saying, I hope the scandal (if there is one), is not gay-related.

Let it be something else. Corruption will take out Republicans just as easily as gay scandals.



http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/11/trent-lott-a-de.html

Trent Lott, a dependable anti-gay vote in the U.S. Senate, plans to retire
November 26, 2007
Chris Johnson

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), the number two Republican in the U.S. Senate as minority whip, announced his intentions to retire today, reports the AP. Sen. Lott's shameful record of opposing and working against GLBT civil rights during his 35 years in Congress, including being a key sponsor of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments in 2004 and 2006 and recent vote against hate crimes, has earned him a lineup of zeroes on HRC's congressional scorecards from 2002 - 2006.

almost acceptable behavior for politicians.

(If the Lott rumors prove true)

I agree with your concerns. Being forced from office over this issue is a double edged sword. On one side the hypocrisy of the Republican party is exposed and laid bare for all to see and a leader of the party that opposed gay rights and inclusion in society goes down.

But on the other edge, required for him to be 'forced from office', is the view that gay is bad. He most likely would have survived if he had a woman on the side.

So in the end there is not so subtle message that being gay is bad and caused the fall of Lott (if true).

Bathroom stalls, escorts, young male pages, public parks all are tough on the image people have of gays.

The good news is that I'm seeing lots of reasonably positive images on TV. Brothers and Sisters, Desperate Housewives, many more.

And it makes me happy to read that people like yourself understand.

Note to self. Hire Kansasblue as my writer. ;)

I'll write for you anytime. :-)

Trent Lott is a slimy racist ratfuck who once compared homosexuality to kleptomania. He's a garden variety homophobe, but he's not gay.

I hate this bad=gay crap around here. That's the sort of crap one would see at Free Republic.

The inexcusibly untrue bullshit that gets posted around here. :eyes:

directly to the thread and posted.

fucker

Okay. A lot.

I'm glad you've been repeating it, or I never would have seen that post.

A geek tragedy.

Yuckky! x(

They may be men who have sex with men, but that does not make them gay in my mind. "Gay" is much much more than sex. Gay is an identity. I don't believe that one can be gay and closeted at the same time.

Closeted hypocrites don't get to call themselves gay.

when exposed will make it more difficult to use gay bashing in political campaigns. I'm an optimistic person. I do understand your point and I'm very sorry for any hateful comments.

Flynt had pictures of Lott having intimate congress with a variety of household appliances (though that toaster could hurt!). Repukes are weird. It seems everything goes except sex: bribery, cronyism, lying, racism, intolerance, hypocrisy, torture, deprivation of civil rights, ad nauseum.

I enjoy a juicy sex scandal involving judgmental hypocrites, but agree that GLBT people need a break. Oh well, I expect if that's a consenting vacuum cleaner, it wouldn't be so bad.

ignorant as they are, it does. That's half the goddamn problem with the republicans is they have no freakin morals. And no brains. "Bribery. Embezzlement. Money laundering. Hookers..." my friend if we could get them for any of those things there would be no republicans left. That said, I agree with you and hope that Lott just retires gracefully or gets busted for one of his many crimes instead of for his poor choice of how to deal with his sexuality.

anyone who doesn't judge a person by their sexual orientation..

I think folks sometimes use the hypocrisy issue as an excuse to go all "HAHA <person I don't like> is a homo!". Before I started reading DU I might have been one of them.

The same is true with gays.

I guess the fundies would disagree with both of those statements, but they're irrelevant so it's not worth worrying about IMO.

on many issues, not the fact that they are gay. Larry Flynt is NOT a homophobe, and is actually an extremely open-minded person. He is seeking to expose Republican hypocrisy against gays - he is not attacking gay people in any way. And these people need to be exposed in my opinion if they spout anti-gay speech, but walk an entirely different walk. And for the record, I am 100 percent in support of the gay and lesbian community, as well as gay marriage.

The problem seems to be that these Repub hypocrites have their stereotypical ideas of what it means to be a homosexual that is rooted firmly in their own conservative mythology. That's what they act out on when they get urges they don't understand and want to condemn. They think of homosexuality as dirty and deviant, so they pursue their form of it in dirty and deviant ways.

They know nothing about how real homosexuals live their lives, not to mention they seem to have no real connection with their own personalities and end up acting out in anti-social ways.

I'm starting to lean towards the financial reasons for Lott's early retirement. Money seems to be a primary motive for these guys, if for no other reason than it makes it easier to buy privacy for their deviant lifestyles. And by deviant, I am referring to the undercover, hidden, unhealthy aspects of it. Frankly, the sexual orientation of people in office doesn't really interest me, unless they are pushing some kind of sexual agenda that ends up being exposed as hypocritical to their own personal behavior. Then they deserve all the scorn that can be heaped on them IMO.

Let's hope some of it sinks in, and I'm certainly bookmarking your post for later reference.

K/R

like you with your high gift of knowledge.

Think about it like this... silver lining.

Republicans campaign on homophobia. The more closeted gay Republicans that are outed, the easier it is to say to the homophobes, "See? Elect a Republican, and you're probably electing a GAY! Booga booga boo! Better vote Democratic!"

:)

"Bribery. Embezzlement. Money laundering."

Republicans don't give a fuck about any of that, unless it's a Democrat doing it. But bring same-sex relations into it, they scream and holler regardless of political affiliation.

One way or the other, I'm glad that Lott is gone. May he die soon, and burn in hell for all eternity.

gay people to take one for the team if it means we can gain Democratic votes vis-a-vis the hypocrisy card.

You gay people just be humiliated and embarrassed because it could help us win elections.

But then when gay people start talking about civil liberties, such as equal marriage, lots of Democrats start accusing us (even if it's just indirectly) that we're going to cost votes (even whole elections) because all of our issues are those of the wedge kind.

It just doesn't seem to be a fair trade off, if you ask me.

I think straight sex scandals are just as easily controversial as gay sex scandals because you focus on the family values issue. Straight men hooking up with female prostitutes is not consistent with Republican family values.

Therefore Republican family values is a sham. Vote Democrat.

Fuck those people. They aren't democrats (either small or big D) as far as I'm concerned.

"I think straight sex scandals are just as easily controversial as gay sex scandals because you focus on the family values issue."

No argument there.

"Straight men hooking up with female prostitutes is not consistent with Republican family values."

Well, it's not consistent with what they portray as "Republican family values", but since so many of them are hooking up with prostitutes, both male and female, it can only be fair to say that fucking hookers is the very essence of Republican family values.

"Therefore Republican family values is a sham. Vote Democrat."

Amen!

but for a lot of those of us who weren't, and were born and raised in places similar to Idaho where, as Craig sort of said like Ahmadinejad, "there are no gays in Idaho," well, there are gays in Idaho and unless someone discovered a "cure" for gayness and didn't tell me, most of them are going to behave in same-gender, consensual sexual relations when they become adults, whether or not that means they can be open about it, or else they feel they must remain closeted. I don't think you can say that as a group of millions of people that they all wanted a gay white picket fence lifestyle, but probably most would have wanted a little more personal freedom. In the absence of that however, men are not going to stop having sex.

That doesn't mean you are responsible for their behavior, if by that you mean, all gays are collectively guilty for the behavior of a few. That is the same line of reasoning the Nazis used to exterminate Jewish people, and it is wrong, false and evil.

On the other hand, you have to recognize that hormones drive people in certain directions. So, pull back from this stuff and realize that you are an individual.

after it was discovered Strom Thurmond had a black lover...

You'd think that'd be ideal fodder for the M$M scandal machine, no?

That explains why they've jumped on the story as aggressively as they always do with "Gay, gay, gay!!!" :sarcasm:

It's getting to be like hearing of a violent crime and hoping the perpertrator isn't black because it only adds fuel to bigotry.

Well then how come gays called me a bigot when I said the exact same thing.

What are you talking about? Have much of a persecution complex??

you my thoughts sandnsea.