As a non-gay I would like to ask a question.

[rhett o rick]

We have gay family and friends but my wife won’t let me ask them as she is sensitive to offending them. Personally I figure those in the GLBT community aren't easily offended would let me know if I was offending. My wife just doesn’t trust my discretion, and probably for good reason. I don’t intend to offend but am somewhat clumsy.

Recently I posted that someone should find out who Jeff Gannon was visiting in his well over one hundred visits to the White House. Another poster accused me of being homophobic because I was suggesting that some one in the WH was having a gay affair. I didn’t mean any disrespect to gay’s and would have asked the same question if Gannon had been a female prostitute.

My question: Is it insensitive of me to suggest that Cheney might be having a gay affair?

And another question if I may: Do gays consider Larry Craig as being gay? This is a serious question and not intended to offend anyone.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. the quickness with which some heterosexuals are willing to call evil people gay

is what is insulting.

gannon could be visiting anyone. there is no reason so assume cheney is gay. nor bush. therefore lumping him on us, is what is insulting.

i think larry craig is a man who has sex with a man. which to me is very different from those of us who have gay/queer/lesbian/bi/trans identities.

[skooooo]

3. this still doesn't make sense to me

More than Bush and Cheney spend time in the White house. :shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. your sentence makes no sense to me. nt

[skooooo]

6. you said...

"there is no reason so assume cheney is gay. nor bush."

I'm saying that other people are in the WH. I don't care what Gannon did, if he had sex or whatever, but taking offense because you think someone is insinuating that Bush / Cheney may be gay (which I don't think is the only conclusion you can come up with from the original statement) doesn't make sense.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to understand.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. first of all i dont think you are putting in any effort to understand

is there any proof that gannon was going in to service bush or cheney. there are dozens of others in the white house. also gannon could be going for non work related event.

associating gay people with hated people without any proof is just another way of calling gays evil.

[skooooo]

23. Read post 20.

Maybe it will be more palatable coming from someone else.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. are all you straight people in unity, that all gay people should be?

a vast majority of us will find this offensive. will everybody? no.

[skooooo]

28. I'm saying....

...that post #20 expresses what I am trying to say.

Why are you reading things into my post that aren't there???? That's what floors me. Can we discuss issues without you making assumption that there is something sinister behind what someone else is saying?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. i'm saying, i disagree. nt

[skooooo]

31. that's fine...

I don't think any less of you for it.

[Warpy]

12. As a straight woman who finds Coulter being lumped in

with my cohort, I do understand your offense.

However, the question of whom Gannon was having his overnight visits with is a legitimate one, if only because this administration is both rabidly homophobic and rabidly secretive. The possibilities for blackmail are stunning, especially since Gannon was a pro.

This is a security issue, not a moral one, in other words.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. the difference is coulter is straight. she says so.

[rhett o rick]

16. I greatly appreciate your candide response. Ignorance is what hurts us most and I hope

my ignorance is not mistaken for insensitivity. I completely agree with your first sentence. And please tell me if this is either ignorance or insensitive or both i guess. Any suggestion that Cheney might be gay is not intended to disparage gays or to disparage Cheney at the expense of gays but to underscore the hypocrisies of this anti-gay administration. Yes Gannon could be visiting anyone but again I want to say that if a prostitute is making regular visits to the WH, I want to know why, male or female, gay or hetro. I think that is fair. Another thing, I would think that Bush and Cheney are aware of what Gannon is doing there and must be ok with it. His visits are not a secret.

And I agree with you last statement re. Larry Craig.

Thanks for responding

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. i tried to be non judgmental in my response to you and i am glad you appreciate it.

gannon could be visiting a cook in the white house for all we know. he could also be visiting non-gay related. the thing is while an investigation into why he was visiting is perfectly legitimate, the assumption that the two most hated men on DU are gay, is where i object.

[skooooo]

25. But nobody said this.

That's what I don't get. And what if it were true?? So what?? Why assume that it would mean anything to anyone on DU?? Why would you assume that stating that Bush and Cheney were gay would say anything about "gayness?"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. My question: Is it insensitive of me to suggest that Cheney might be having a gay affair?

that was straight from the OP

:eyes:

[skooooo]

30. ok...

my bad..

[rhett o rick]

51. I believe that, as homophobic as republicans are, if Gannon was visiting the cook

or anyone other than the highest ranked individual (not sure if that is Bush or Cheney) do you think they (Cheney/Bush) would allow it to go on? I agree that we shouldn't automatically assume that Bush or Cheney is gay. But as you said, actions don't make them gay. Maybe Gannon reads bedtime stories to one of them. I don't no. But I believe that Bush/Cheney are ok with Mr. Gannon's visits.

[Ian David]

71. You mean Bi-Desperate? n/t

[skooooo]

2. rhett...

Can't address your question per se, but it seems no matter what you post on DU someone will take issue with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think I was a racist child beater because I still like Imus and think the schools have gone to crap because there are no consequences for misbehavior.

If someone answers you thoughtfully, it's worth discussion, but don't expect everyone here to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Toasterlad]

45. That's Easy For YOU to Say, You Racist Child-Beater.

:hide:

[OneBlueSky]

4. "Do gays consider Larry Craig as being gay?" . . .

speaking only for myself, the only people I consider gay are those who have self-identified as such . . . everything else is just conjecture and/or gossip . . .

[skooooo]

7. A person's actions don't define them?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. no, gay is an identity not a description of actions. a virgin can be straight or gay,

if they described themselves in that manner.

[skooooo]

24. Ok...

Well I have to admit that makes sense.

[LostinVA]

8. Yes it is

And it's also against the DU rules to suggest he's gay.

[xchrom]

9. identiiiying hated people as gay without proof

of their gayness is a left-handed way of saying gay is evil.

like all the evil bad characters who are gay in books or moviesbad characters = gay -- therefore gay = evil.

[skooooo]

10. but he was trying to initiate sex with someone..

...in a restroom. Would he do this if he wasn't attracted to men?

[xchrom]

13. the OP was about gannon first of all -- second

i find an extraordinary amount of naivete about sex in your post.

believe it or not there are men who engage in sexual activity with other men who are neither gay or bi.

i have no idea where larry craig falls in the scope of things -- and he has done himself all the damage needed.

[skooooo]

22. I guess it depends on how you define things.

I'm hardly "naive," but you don't need to be condescending.

[xchrom]

46. i'm condescending when i

encounter attempts to paint gay folk into the same age old corner.

that's what's going on here -- no matter how you define it.

[Sal Minella]

11. JimmyJeff GannonGuckert had a website offering sexual services for sale.

GannonGuckert was a hooker who had free and easy access to the White House at all hours. Whether he was gay or straight is completely irrelevant to me -- I don't care if he was sleeping with Barney.

I just really still want to know why a hooker (who maintained a website quoting prices by hour and by night) had such loosey-goosey White House access when other people are required to undergo background checks and sign in with Secret Service, etc.

[qb]

14. The temptation to draw "gay" conclusions about Republicans is strong

because that combined with their hypocritical positions on "family values" can lead to media scandals that remove them from their positions of power. Public conjecture is harmful because while it may expose hypocrisy, it may also be incorrect and it encourages people to view homosexuality as something bad.

I prefer to leave the Gannon issue alone and focus on this administration's war crimes and dismantling of the Constitution.

[NorthCarolina]

20. As a gay man I don't think your question is offensive

and I also don't think it was Cheney who was the recipient of the Gannon visits. Rather I would suspect Bulldog Gannon was there to see our fearless commander in chief, GW.

As for Larry Craig I can say that all I needed to do is hear that guy speak a couple of sentences and that was more than enough to be able to say that he is as gay as they come. The same can be said for Sen. Lindsay Graham, and the one I found most obviously when speaking was our good friend the Reverend Ted Haggard; how he was able to come off as believably straight to ANYONE in that congregation is beyond me. These folks I mention are not of course reflective of the way ALL gay men talk, but the men that DO talk like they do, and have mannerisms as they do, are virtually undeniably gay.


Larry Craig...GAY


Lindsay Graham, I'd be shocked if he ISN'T Gay


My suspect for the Gannon Visits


In gay circles, a guy like Ted Haggard would be known as a "flamer" or "raging queen"

edited to add pic of Larry Craig....how could I have forgotten him?

[mitchtv]

32. Do you have a reason to suspect him visiting GWB?

I always thought he was Scotty's friend.GWB impresses me as a strate Christian man. And until someone accuses him legitimately, I will continue to suspect him of heterosexuality

[NorthCarolina]

33. Do I know for sure? No. But do I suspect? Yes. Why? Victor Ashe.

Interesting read and draw your own conclusions as I have drawn mine.
http://poland.indymedia.org/pl/2004/09/9014.shtml

[mitchtv]

34. pretty slim pickings

lots of innuendo

[NorthCarolina]

47. I suspect there is plenty of "innuendo" going on in the GOP

eom

[galledgoblin]

39. I can see shrub as somewhat bi

in the HOO-RAH repressed fraternity boy sense. doubt he'd ever act on it, just make occasional awkward drunk talk.

[NorthCarolina]

48. I wouldn't bet my life on him never having acted on it

I could be wrong, but I could be right too. I don't really care one way or the other...well apart from curiosity i guess. SOMEBODY was receiving Bulldog Gannon during his evening pajama parties at the White House. Based on things I have read, my GUT simply tells me it was likely "W" himself.:o

[rhett o rick]

49. Look at it this way. Everyone knows that Jeff Gannon is a male prostitute including

GWB. As homophobic as the republicans are, don't you think that GWB would not like the appearance of having Mr. Gannon visiting the WH? What I mean, if someone below GWB or Cheney was involved or even appeared to be involved with something "gay", don't you think they would put a stop to it. So why did it continue for so long?

[newmajority]

53. I don't know whether or not the Chimp is straight or gay

but he damn sure ain't no Christian.

[izquierdista]

44. However in the case of the Gannon visits

That is not gay sex, but a "chrome dome" fetish. Sex is not involved, merely the caressing of a cranium devoid of hair. All he wants to do is see a hairline that has receded ALL the way and touch it. Feel its texture, smooth as a bowling ball, or with a little sandpapery stubble on it. To read the curves and bumps the way a blind man reads the Braille on a basketball. Perhaps kiss it tenderly as he would a globe or a light bulb. You know that Mikhail Gorbachev has a standing invitation to come and spend a week, a night, even just a short couple of hours at the White House so George can color in the rest of his birthmark.

[Laughing Mirror]

21. What would your response be, as a "non-gay" ...

Were you to learn that Cheney (!!Heaven Forbid!!) was having a "gay affair"?

And if Larry Craig came out and said that he was a closet queen?

[rhett o rick]

35. I would be disgusted with their hypocrisy. When strong anti-gay people turn out

to be gay it is the height of hypocrisy.

[baby_mouse]

66. Uh-huh, that's the right answer, but rhett...

... (please be assured I'm not offended by what you're asking) the thing is, it seems to some gay folk that if people are looking for a cheap shot at a pub, its somehow always that particular kind of hypocrisy that they choose. There are plenty of other kinds, kinds that can be shown to be true, whereas hypocrisy regarding one's sexual orientation could only be established if the target was outed. So some of us think, "How come, huh? How come it's always being like US that's the issue?"

Also (please be assured that I speak for myself here only) *I* don't give a SHIT whether or not any of these clowns are gay. Why should I? It's what they're doing with the money and people's lives that matters to me (along with a fairly strong desire to be addressed as a human being with the same rights as everyone else), not where they put their tiny johnson in their spare time. That would be hypocritical of ME! :D

To summarise, your question isn't offensive to me but I can see why some gay people might get fed up with folk on their side perpetually sniffing around Republican asses trying to smell spunk. I don't think it matters, and though I am more than happy to take you at your word that it's hypocrisy that you despise, some might make the assumption that your search for hypocrisy masks something else.

I don't even particularly care whether or not they're hypocrites. What interests me is the RESULT of their hypocrisy, not it's flavour. If some closeted gay guy gets into Republican politics and starts putting around that gay marriage is wrong, it's his stance on gay marriage that matters to me, not his sexual orientation. It doesn't MATTER whether it's a gay person or a straight person that's putting around the bullshit, it's the fact that it's bullshit that I think we need to talk about.

[jonnyblitz]

36. one thing is certain, rhett o rick, you will never get a consensus

"gay" answer to any question you might have! Some gay folk find something offensive that others don't find offensive at all. hell, way too many of my fellow LGBTers vote REPUBLICAN (:scared:). Try and figure THAT one out.

[rhett o rick]

50. Well said jonny. nm

[jonnyblitz]

52. People jump to hasty conclusions about others on these internet

discussion boards without much context. I am guilty of this myself. :shrug: don't take things too personal, just learn and ASK QUESTIONS. :hi:

[rhett o rick]

56. It is hard to express oneself in writing. I have gotten myself into trouble many times.

One time I got a very strong reaction to a post I made. I was surprised, but when I reread my post I fully understood their reaction. I tend to be flip and some times that comes across as being insensitive. I am honestly trying to learn.

[readmoreoften]

37. Extended answer for you on both issues.

ANSWER TO: "IS SO-AND-SO Gay???"

What's difficult to explain--especially in written text--is that it's largely the tone and context of the statement. The question you have to ask yourself would be "what is my reason behind this assumption?" Do I hope that Cheney is gay because it might humiliate him because being gay is a humiliating thing to be? The answer here is normally "I just want to show his hypocracy." With Cheney in particular, his hypocracy already precedes him, because his own daughter is gay and has a child with her partner. Cheney is not particularly a homophobe. Cheney is a corporate opportunist and an elitist who quite obviously believes that super-wealthy gay people will always be able to take care of themselves and that since no one matters but the wealthiest people. Cheney doesn't believe in civil rights for ANYONE. The only "rights" anyone should have are those who can buy their power over others. Black, white, gay...it's all equal. Cheney's problem with gays isn't gayness, it's the idea that the rich have to give any "rights" to the peons at all. Give rights to the gay peons and soon the straight peons will want rights too! This is where the concept of "special rights" takes form. RW evangelicals believe that "rights" come from God; capitalists believe that "rights" come from destruction of the weak. In both cases any "rights" demanded of the "state" are illegitimate and unearned.

To say: "I have evidence that Cheney may be gay. If it's true, this could leverage us some power in the upcoming election, but I'm not sure if that's ethical because it undercuts the work of our gay and lesbian community members" is just a statement of strategy and--in my opinion--homophobic.

To say: "I think Cheney's a gay! All republicans are gays!" is generally a statement that means either (a) My enemy is weak. Our men are more manly and our women are more feminine. We are more "moral and righteous." This is a homophobic statement, or (b) My enemy hates gays because they are gay. "We" are all good straight people who tolerate people humble enough to realize that they were unfortunate born gay. Those are the type of gays we let in. It also insinuates that all violence against gays is actually "gay-on-gay crime". That no "straight" person would ever do such a thing because to be "straight" is to be well-adjusted.

Historically this position has been extremely harmful to gay people. Emasculating the enemy is a common wartime practice in order to create a bond between "the troops." But who does it hurt? In WWII the OSS commonly termed Hitler as a "queen" and the Nazis as a bunch of "sexual deviants" in particular because of his appointment of ONE gay man who he later killed for being gay. The result has been that conservative historians get to call Nazi Germany a "gay movement" even though the Nazis killed and tortured up to 100,000 gay people. This is being used against gay people today throughout the world: gays are Nazis. This idea that "the enemy is gay" also led to the post-war witchhunts that destroyed many gay people in the US. It is quite possible that conservatives 100 years from now will call the Bush Administration a "disastrous Gay Movement" and cite Larry Craig, Mark Foley, and Jeff Gannon as proof.

This was also used in communist cultures as well because of a homophobic letter written by Engels to Marx that is still cited by some culturally conservative Marxists. In communist societies of the mid-century: gay people were inherently "capitalist" and "decadent." As a result there were purges in the USSR, China, and Cuba. (Note: Marxist groups have as a whole almost completely reversed this attitude since the late 20th c.)

Identifying the enemy as "gay" tends to leave the enemy unscathed and kill ordinary gay people.

ANSWER TO: "Do you consider Larry Craig gay?"

I have absolutely no idea. For all I know, Larry Craig could be a submissive heterosexual man whose dominatrix has been telling him to go into public toilets and have sex with men , videotape the encounter, and return it to her for so she can humiliate him.

But the real question behind this question is "Why do you people do this kind of stuff?" Or, "Do you approve of this behavior?"

The answer to this one is fairly straightforward.

(1) If you lived in a gay world where you were forced to take a gay husband in order to get ahead in your career, but you barely tolerated the sex and just picked her husband because "if it had to be a guy he's the least offensive", how would you find a woman to love? Especially if any flirtation would send a woman screaming "HE'S A PERVE!!!!" and ruin your career? You might try to make eye-contact with her and see if she smiles back. Send signals. Tap toes, etc. Now imagine if the State set up with with a gay woman to "catch" you. The point is: gay, not gay--I have no idea. But what I do know, is that he put his own financial success in front of everything else.

(2) Gay people don't ask straight people... "So do you consider Ted Bundy to be straight? Is Scott Peterson still a heterosexual? I thought all you people were telling us it was safe to accept heterosexuals." This remarks would imply that the person thinks that serial killing or wife murdering might be a secretly accepted part of the heterosexual community--that a lot of people do it and that it's a common maybe even 'hard-wired' characteristic of heterosexuality. The response "yeah but consider just how many straight people aren't like that!" implies that it is possible that the person doubts that an equal number of gay people wouldn't engage in deviant behavior."

Gay people and straight people are mostly the same. If you think that straight men don't have really bizarre fetishes, then read Dan Savage's column and you'll learn all manner of straight male kinks. And women have their kinks too. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Hope this helps.

[rhett o rick]

57. Good post. I especially like your last paragraph. nm

[Toasterlad]

38. Yes. And, What?

It is ALWAYS insensitive to suggest that someone is gay without evidence, because it is ALWAYS done with a negative or stereotypical connotation. This is especially true of homophobes, and more especially true of Republicans, and even more especially true of politicians, and incredibly, especially true of homophobic, Republican politicians.

"Do gays consider Larry Craig as being gay?" Well, let's round them up and take a poll. ...11...12...13...14...okay, all 14 gays in the world are here. How many think Larry Craig is gay? 8? Okay, majority wins.

You didn't really deserve the over-the-top sarcasm, but I would have preferred it if you had phrased your question "do YOU consider Larry Craig to be gay?". Otherwise, it sounds like you think we have a hive mind, and take instructions from the Queen, who, I'm guessing, is believed by straight people to be Dame Elton John.

For what it's worth, it doesn't matter if anyone THINKS Craig is gay: he IS gay. He's a man who's sexually attracted to his own sex. That's what gay IS. You can have an opinion about whether or not he's a pervert, or a sicko, or an asshole, but it's ludicrous to speculate about whether or not he's gay. By definition, he's gay.

[galledgoblin]

40. some consideration for personal labeling should be taken into account

I agree, he's attracted to members of his sex, no question. but he doesn't identify as gay... maybe we should add another level of labeling? non-identifying gay?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. men who have sex with men. nt

[galledgoblin]

42. I like it

:7

[Toasterlad]

43. ....Are GAY.

Or bi. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

I can understand the reluctance to claim those who, for whatever reason, do not come out of the closet, and I can ESPECIALLY see the reluctance to claim hypocritical, closeted Republican assholes, but..."identify"? WTF? That's like saying, "Don't call me pregnant; I don't consider myself pregnant." To, you know, a pregnant woman.

There is absolutely no difference between people "choosing" to "identify" as gay and this "lifestyle" crap we are innundated with daily. "Identifying" implies choice on the part of the "identifier", and choice is not part of sexual orientation. You can "identify" as whatever you want, but if you're a man and you willingly (and skillfully!) suck dick, you're a homosexual.

This is all frighteningly reminiscent of that furries debacle. You can "identify" as a fucking tiger all you want, but it doesn't make you any less a human being.

Gay is not "good". Gay is not "bad". Gay is a neutral characteristic, like blue eyes or right handedness. It is not possible to determine a person's worth by their sexual orientation, it is not logical to consider a gay person "not gay" because they haven't come out yet, and it is not necessary to create new terminology to define what is already clearly defined.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I sprained my "quote" finger.

[newmajority]

54. Would the term "self-hating gay" work?

That definitely would be the case with Ted Haggard, whose response to being caught was to get "therapy" to supposedly make him straight. So clearly he knows he's gay, but hates it. Larry Craig, on the other hand, seems to still be in denial.

[Zuiderelle]

60. "the furries debacle"

:spray:

[FreeState]

58. I like the APA's definition

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

What is sexual orientation?

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the other sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex. However, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women). This range of behaviors and attractions has been described in various cultures and nations throughout the world. Many cultures use identity labels to describe people who express these attractions. In the United States the most frequent labels are lesbians (women attracted to women), gay men (men attracted to men), and bisexual people (men or women attracted to both sexes). However, some people may use different labels or none at all.

Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological, and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity, or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one’s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

[unsavedtrash]

55. I have friends who have the same occupation and visit me. It doesn't mean we are having sex.

So I can't assume he is going to the White House with that in mind.
But no, the question doesn't offend me.

[rhett o rick]

61. If a plumber visited the WH one might conclude that the piping needed fixing,

if an electrician visited maybe the wiring needed fixing, and if a prostitute visited over a hundred times what would you conclude? I don't think it is a big stretch to assume that there is a whole lot of hypocrisy going on.

[kdpeters]

59. To ask or not ask? Better make that decision based on your friends.

If they are easy going and generally laid back and you have an otherwise open and trusting rapport with one another, go ahead and ask. You seem like someone to me who is respectful of other people and careful with their feelings. Trust your judgment. How would YOU take it if asked a similar question? Go from there.

Another poster accused me of being homophobic because I was suggesting that some one in the WH was having a gay affair.

Homophobic? That was rude. Listen, the guy went from hustler for hire to white house press VIP in the span of a couple of years with no interim experience to explain it. Well, we know what explains it. An influential satisfied customer pulled on a few strings and soon he was in the White House doing whatever he was doing to whomever he was doing it to all those visits. That's not homophobia. It's the most plausible explanation in my opinion, and probably somewhere very close to the truth.

Yes. Larry Craig is gay, but he is closetted, probably self-hating, and has sold his soul. He's gay, but is still an an enemy to gay folks.

[one mean sheath]

62. not a "gay" but certainly a queer....

I guess in response to your first dilemma, maybe ask yourself: Why do you need to know? Is it really your business? Does it affect your life or relationship with these people? I'd say leave it up to them. If they want to say, "Hey, I'm a man who likes men," or something to the effect, cool. Otherwise, if their sex life isn't pertinent to you (which it isn't), back off. It's not offensive because they're gay, it's just none'ya. We all have friends who are open with their sex lives and the gays are just the same. Their sex life, their discretion.

As far as Larry Craig goes, it ain't my place to consider him gay or anything else. His sexual orientation is his deal. I consider him to be a man who was looking to pay for some guy-on-guy fun times, but beyond that, it's his deal, no matter how in denial he may publicly be.

[and-justice-for-all]

63. I do not want Dick or Craig on our lawn at all!

You can keep'em on your side of the fence.

Some people are 'touchy Tammy's' and other, like myself, do not offend very easily. It takes quite a bit to set me off.

[donco6]

64. Doesn't offend me at all.

Some will be upset that Cheney is being thrown in the gay camp. To me, that's not the issue. The issue is the hypocrisy. They went after Clinton ESPECIALLY because of his activities in the WH. Now Cheney (or whoever) gets a pass for the same thing? Not fair.

And yes, Larry Craig is gay. I can't speak for all gays, however.

[donco6]

65. You know what's sad, tho . . .

. . . is how you had to work so hard to softpedal the question.

[Zuiderelle]

67. Why is that sad?

[donco6]

68. I believe we're a bit hypersensitive.

But that's just me. Don't take it the wrong way. Just one person's opinion. Not stating any facts, implied or otherwise. I could be completely, utterly wrong. In fact, I'm sure I am. I don't even know why I wrote this. Just ignore me. I never know what I'm talking about.

[baby_mouse]

69. What do you MEAN by that?

HM? Care to SHARE?

:D

:rofl:

[Ian David]

70. I suspect that Jeff Gannon was there at Scott McClellan's request.

See my prior post:

20. McClellan and Bush had a sexual fetish arrangement going on. Updated at 5:42 PM
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 04:19 PM by IanDB1

Bush got a kick out of watching Scotty being abused, and Scotty enjoyed it, and got off on it.

By the end of a press conference, you could tell that Scotty was "lost in subpsace," having thoroughly given himself over to his little bondage scene, using David Gregory and Helen Thomas as his unwitting Master and Mistress.

He even brought in a gay male prostitute named Jeff Gannon to join in his daily BDSM scenes.

It couldn't possibly be more clear.

Sending Scotty out to be abused was Bush's power-trip. Whether Bush sexualized this or not is anyone's guess.

Being abused was Scotty's fetish.

And Jeff Gannon's 19 sleep-overs in The White House was Scotty's reward.

It all makes sense now.

More:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3375463#3375626

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

72. I'm pretty sympathetic to honest mistakes

Some people would snap at you and try to deliver a guilt trip if you made any remark that could be construed as potentially offensive. Trouble is, they don't understand that you meant no harm and just made a mistake, or maybe it isn't a mistake at all but they just read into your remarks a little too deeply. It's these kind of attitudes that give the anti-PCers a raison d'être because let's face it, some people really are 'Nazis' when it comes to the whole "Thou shalt not offend" bit. And I don't have much respect for this attitude.

Of course I have even less respect to attitudes that are openly intolerant, bigoted, or slanderous.

I like to make jokes about Larry Craig, mainly because he's being so damn hypocritical. If, on the other hand, someone who suspected a gay affair among politicians was making blatantly anti-gay remarks about it, I would rip him/her to shreds!

And this is coming from a 26 year old gay guy. I think PC has gone too far but I also have no patience, tolerance or willingness to compromise when it comes to the anti-gay lobby.