It has to do with having sex in a non-private, very busy, public airport bathroom where children are very likely to be using the facilities as well.

Perhaps it's just me, but when my 9-year old walks into a stall I don't think he should be exposed to two horny gay gays going at it "hammer and tongs".

Why is anonymous gay sex even something that happens? Even anonymous straight sex isn't a good idea.

And WHAT the hell is with sex in bathrooms!?!?! Since when did the toilet become a turn on? I'm so confused.

So to me, it's not because he's supposedly "gay" but because he was breaking the freaking law and then tried to get out of it by showing his business card. It's all very stupid.

I never encountered it myself, but many times when I was at UCLA I'd go into a mens room and find the stalls and toilets had been removed. The Powers That Be would just leave the urinals and the sinks for a couple of years, then put them back.

After the 3rd men's room in a row like that, both the administration and all gay men are on your list of people who need killin'.

Have you seen the condition of public restrooms?

"Shit, the ancient Romans didn't even invent it, probably."

No you are correct here, they did not, that would be the Greeks. The Greeks like to take credit for most "firsts" commonly ascribed to the Romans. This would be another example of such.

Q: How do you seperate the Men from the Boys in Greece?

B: With a Crowbar.

Nuff said-case closed.

Do people really not know that this is a pretty common thing with gay men?

It's not uncommon with men who are nominally straight and married, but who go out to seek some kind of cheap thrill they don't get at home. There's a large wooded park close to my home, and after a bunch of complaints about open gay activity in the parking lot there I went along on an enforcement with the PD one afternoon.

Sure enough, in under two hours they had over a dozen arrests. Many of them were married guys just looking for a thrill. "Don't tell anyone, you'll ruin me!" and "Does my wife have to find out?" Well, maybe you shouldn't be humping in THE PUBLIC PARK. IN DAYTIME. Guess you better hope no one forwards the court reports to Mama, eh?

The highlight was one of my neighbors cruising through the lot, seeing an arrest in progress, and leaving post-haste. Now I'll always wonder....

Anyway, I want to know what the big damn deal is. No joke. Is it that he broke a law or is it all about being gay?

He committed disorderly conduct (which he copped to) and solicitation (which he hasn't). Now I'll admit that some of the evidence seems a little fishy to me. For instance, the officer said Craig was "tapping his foot", which is apparently a secret signal for gay sex, and he "put his bag against the stall door", which is supposedly a signal that the person in question plans on engaging in lewd behavior. I don't know about you, but those two "signals" seem like something anybody might do even if they aren't looking for some man-on-man luvin'.

Even so, the rest of Craig's behavior seems suspicious enough that I could understand why he was charged.

Frankly, I honestly don't care whether he did it or not. I say we throw the bum out on general principle. The Republican Party doesn't need another scoop of scandal on top of everything else.

Since when did the toilet become a turn on?

Since the internet was born.

See, that's the thing about online porn. It always runs to the ultra-specific. When I was 15 I found my dad's collection of old Playboys from the 70s and I almost gave up sex on the spot. Full-page shots of a bunch of nude girls with hairy cooters just didn't turn me on.

The thing about guys is, we all have a bunch of general things that turn us on (butts, boobs, long legs, etc.) but we also each have a secret list of things that if we ever catch sight of them we have to cover our crotches to hide the boner. Okay, I'm exaggerating a little but it's basically true. Every guy has a specific sex fantasy and by God, the internet will find that shit out.

Old ladies dressed in schoolgirl outfits? Oh, it's out there. A woman in a bunny suit getting raped by The Mummy? There's probably whole web-rings devoted to that.

What amazes me is that men will risk their livelihoods, families, and reputations for a quick thrill. Seriously, if I had that strong of a sex drive along with that little self control, I'd be seeking medical treatment for it.

"For instance, the officer said Craig was "tapping his foot", which is apparently a secret signal for gay sex, and he "put his bag against the stall door", which is supposedly a signal that the person in question plans on engaging in lewd behavior"- mightysamurai

Are you serious? If that's the case then I guess I was cruisin for ass in many a restroom without knowing about it. I wonder if I can get a hold of the secret codebook here so I will know if I can expect to find some hairy guy in peekaboo chaps waiting for me the next time I take a leak.

he "put his bag against the stall door"

I guess that depends on what you mean by "bag".

Are you serious? If that's the case then I guess I was cruisin for ass in many a restroom without knowing about it. I wonder if I can get a hold of the secret codebook here so I will know if I can expect to find some hairy guy in peekaboo chaps waiting for me the next time I take a leak.

In fairness, the cops have caught 41 different guys in that very same area and both of those "signals" were common themes. So it may not be as random as it seems.

The clincher though, IMO, is the fact that Craig pled guilty to the disorderly conduct charge (which I'm told is often used as a substitute when a solicitation charge won't stick). If he was innocent, it seems odd that he would plead guilty to anything, since any reasonably competant lawyer could have conjured up enough reasonable doubt to get the case dropped.

I'm with you on the whole "busted" thing.

Consider the words of Matt Foreman, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

“What’s up with elected officials like Senator Craig? They stand for so-called ‘family values’ and fight basic protections for gay people while furtively seeking other men for sex. Infuriating pathetic hypocrites. What more can you say?”

Re: family values

No matter what some Christian Evangelicals believe, nor what the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force would have you believe, a large portion of Christians (including Evangelicals) believe homosexuality and family values can and do co-exist. Certainly there exist gay Christians (including Evangelicals) who believe in family values. They are not hypocrites.

I don't know jack about Senator Craig. He may or may not be a hypocrite. But, if the charge is true, it is also true that expousing family values + gay cruising in a restroom does not - in and of itself - make him a hypocrite. If it's true, it makes him a fragile guy who committed a legal misdemeanor. It makes him an imperfect human. Jesus died to atone for Senator Craig's inevitable sins.

Re: "basic protections for gay people"

Foreman's argument is that holding a constitutional opinion opposite of his makes one a bigot. It's a common argument on the left, and it is ridiculous. Matt Foreman demeans himself.

"But, if the charge is true, it is also true that expousing family values + gay cruising in a restroom does not - in and of itself - make him a hypocrite."

It sure as hell does. Last time I checked adultery (no matter which sex it is committed with) was not considered a family value, and Senator Craig is married.

Last time I checked adultery (no matter which sex it is committed with) was not considered a family value, and Senator Craig is married.

If Mrs. Craig had simply come thru with a blow n' go in the airport bathroom for her husband, all this excitement could have been avoided.

Mightysamurai is quite right about there being someone who gets excited by just about anything you can name. This is why it's so hard to fail at what I refer to as the "Random Internet Porn Search".

Basically, you pick some subject, go to a good search engine, and enter that subject, followed by the word, "porn," and see if you get results. The only way I've been able to get zero results has been to get really detailed, and even that sometimes doesn't work.

Of course, you don't want to try looking at the results unless you have a strong stomach, sometimes...

Having the faith that I do in our elected "public servants" ... very little surprises me.
However, I also noticed the glee exhibited by the MSM is pretty commensurate with the boredom they exhibit when the perp is a liberal. Homosexual? Who cares? Sending business to her husband's company? Yawn. $90k in the freezer? zzzzzzz. Sexual harassment in the Oval Office? Depends on what the meaning of is is.
I find the description of the offence offensive ... but, otoh, I automatically assume politicians are guilty of whatever they're accused of and more. Throw the bum out. Throw ALL the senators out and lets elect a bunch that have read the constitution.

I don't know jack about Senator Craig. He may or may not be a hypocrite. But, if the charge is true, it is also true that expousing family values + gay cruising in a restroom does not - in and of itself - make him a hypocrite.

Oh yeah it does.

Unless adultery has become a "family value" in the last few weeks and I was not informed, a married man who claims to believe in family values and goes cruising for gay sex is the very definition of a hypocrite.

The point that Matt Foreman was trying (and failing) to argue was that Craig is a hypocrite because he voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment. It assumes that all gay people are in favor of legalizing gay marriage on the federal level. Apparently Mr. Foreman did not consider the possibility that Craig is gay, but thinks gay marriage should be left up to the states. It's called "federalism". Mr. Foreman should look into it some time.

My (disputed) point is this:

We don't know if Larry Craig is a hypocrite. We cannot see into his heart and into his marriage.

Look: this guy might be the most hypocritical sumbitch on the face of the Earth. I don't know. But he is not automatically a hypocrite, as Matt Foreman alleges.

Re: adultery/homosexuality/public cruising of restrooms. People are fragile. We succumb to temptation. Craig might be analogous to an alcoholic who believes in sobriety, yet succumbs and drinks anyway. That's not a hypocrite. That's a fragile human. I can relate to that fragility and weakness.

I don't want to defend Larry Craig. He deserves punishment for his misdemeanor, and his public statements seem suspicious. I hope he resigns his position for the good of his party.

I am focused on Matt Foreman's logically fallacious leaps. Larry Craig's actions do not automatically equate to hypocrisy. Foreman is making an illogical leap in order to advance a political agenda.

If the allegations are correct, Craig is indeed a hypocrite. Not for attempting a gay adventure, but for attempting adultery after suporting the DOMA. He either believes in his martial compact, or he doesn't. Unless mama's on board with that adventurism in advance, he's a hypocrite for seeking sex outside of his marriage, the gender of the target being not relevant to that point.

A hypocrite for making a gay proposition because he's nominally straight? Don't know, can't see into his soul. Could just be a fallen sinner. Not being able to live up to one's ideals makes not one hypocritical, just weak.

Re: adultery/homosexuality/public cruising of restrooms. People are fragile. We succumb to temptation. Craig might be analogous to an alcoholic who believes in sobriety, yet succumbs and drinks anyway. That's not a hypocrite. That's a fragile human. I can relate to that fragility and weakness.

I don't buy that.

For one thing, alcoholism is a chemical addiction. People who try to quit suffer real, physical symptoms, which is why some of them give in and start drinking again. That's why the cardinal rule of Alcoholics Anonymous is to get every drop of alcohol out of your house and to stay away from situations where you might be exposed to it.

Sex is hardly the same thing. I don't believe for a second that Craig was sitting up at night in a cold sweat and popping pills to try and calm the shakes because he was desperate for some man love. Unless you're a nymphomaniac, no one can say they have an "addiction" to sex. Maybe if Craig hadn't had sex in a long time and he got into a "one thing led to another" kind of situations, then I could see this as simply "succumbing to human weakness".

Matt Foreman's argument was wrong. Craig is not a hypocrite because he supported the Federal Marriage Amendment even though he is (apparently) gay. No more than I am a hypocrite for opposing all attempts to regulate video game violence, even though I don't personally approve of violence, myself.

Craig is a hypocrite because he bills himself as a "family values" kind of guy, yet is also an adulterer.

We all understand each other, and are merely quibbling over the definition of "hypocrite".

BUT, the definition has large political significance. Every time a Repub crosses a line - as humans inevitably will - Dems sing "hypocrite".

Why?

Dems assertion: a smart Repub knows a Dem policy position is correct, and is only taking the opposite position so as to fool the rubes and get elected. To wit: Craig knows Repubs are bigots, and only supported DOMA so as to fool the rubes and get elected.

Now: no one knows the truth of that assertion about Craig. It could easily be true - and therefore Craig would be a bigot. My point is: NO ONE CAN KNOW IF IT IS TRUE.

I say Craig could believe in DOMA, yet still have slipped in the face of his desires. You guys are kind of arguing that men rarely succumb to their desire in that fashion. I say thousands of years of history disproves your argument. I think you are both guys - so I ask this: don't you personally know men who cheated on their wives(repeatedly), lost their marriages, and regret their actions more than anything in the world - and subsequently cry on everyone's shoulders about their pain? You have to know guys like that! To varying degrees, those guys were weak in the face of their desires. In some of the cases I know of, I think these guys believed in their marriage vows, and yet were weak and selfish. I think of them as weak and selfish. I do not think of them as hypocrites.

Finally, tiny points on the margins:

1) For all we know, Craig believes in the DOMA yet has an open marriage. We just don't know his personal circumstances. I didn't mention this earlier, cause it is a bit out there. But Tully did touch on it.

2) Some people do believe sex is an addiction, and attend therapy for their addiction. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this(heh), and I have no opinion about the validity of their belief.

3) Maybe I am slicing the definition of hypocrite too thinly - such that the word loses its common vernacular meaning. If this is so, I must look for another way to address the Dems political charges of hypocrisy. I sense that their charges are manure, but maybe I haven't yet reasoned out why...

I say Craig could believe in DOMA, yet still have slipped in the face of his desires. You guys are kind of arguing that men rarely succumb to their desire in that fashion. I say thousands of years of history disproves your argument.

I disagree.

Any man that has a wife but is still getting a little on the side can only be one thing. A sleaze who wants to have his cake and eat it too. This kind of guy knows he shouldn't be cheating on his wife, but he doesn't care. In other words, he doesn't truely believe in his marriage vows.

I think you are both guys - so I ask this: don't you personally know men who cheated on their wives(repeatedly), lost their marriages, and regret their actions more than anything in the world - and subsequently cry on everyone's shoulders about their pain? You have to know guys like that!

I know guys who have claimed that they were all broken up about their affair after they fessed up to it, but I've never met a man who regretted cheating on his wife while he was still cheating on her.

Repenting your sins after the fact does not make you a hypocrite.

In some of the cases I know of, I think these guys believed in their marriage vows, and yet were weak and selfish.

If they were weak and selfish enough to cheat on their wives then they obviously didn't believe in their marriage vows as much as they thought, did they?

1) For all we know, Craig believes in the DOMA yet has an open marriage. We just don't know his personal circumstances. I didn't mention this earlier, cause it is a bit out there. But Tully did touch on it.

I assume by DOMA you mean the Defense of Marriage Act. In which case, I agree with you. It's entirely possible that Craig believes in that but has an "open marriage" as you call it, or is full-on gay. That certainly does not make him a hypocrite.

What DOES make him a hypocrite is the fact that throughout his political career he's tried to bill himself as a politician who believes in "family values", yet we now find out that he is an adulterer. If he has an "open marriage" then he clearly isn't a believer in family values by any commonly accepted definition of the term.

2) Some people do believe sex is an addiction, and attend therapy for their addiction. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this(heh), and I have no opinion about the validity of their belief.

Sex is certainly a biological impulse (and often a strong one, at that) but to say it is an "addiction" is simply wrong. I don't have any numbers to prove this, but I would bet that the number of people who have cheated on their spouses is far, far smaller than the number of people who have been totally faithful. If sex were truely an "addiction", one would expect it to be the other way around.

3) Maybe I am slicing the definition of hypocrite too thinly - such that the word loses its common vernacular meaning. If this is so, I must look for another way to address the Dems political charges of hypocrisy. I sense that their charges are manure, but maybe I haven't yet reasoned out why...

This one is easy enough to puzzle out.

Oxford American Dictionary defines "hypocrisy" as "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform". For example, Al Gore is a hypocrite because he says that Americans should give up their SUVs and reduce their individual carbon footprints, yet he owns his own private jet and his multiple homes eat up more electricity in a day than most people do in a year.

Now, the Democrats say that Craig is a hypocrite because he is apparently gay, yet he also voted in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is false, since simply being gay does not automatically make one a supporter of gay marriage. As I suggested earlier, Craig could well be gay yet feel that gay marriage should be left up to the states, as the Founding Fathers intended. Or he could be gay but simply feel that there is no need for gays to get "married". After all, every single benefit you get with a traditional marriage can also be set up by a paralegal.

On the other hand, Craig has claimed in the past that he believes in "family values". Yet we now know that he is an adulterer. He claims to hold certain morals (family values), yet his behavior does not conform (adultery). Therefore, he is a hypocrite.

What DOES make him a hypocrite is the fact that throughout his political career he's tried to bill himself as a politician who believes in "family values", yet we now find out that he is an adulterer.

"Family values" is buzzwording. He is for or against specific policies and proposals and legislation. Everyone claims to be for "family values." Well, except for Barney Frank.

As another blogger once said, "Given a choice between the real thing and a faker, I'll take the real thing anyday. But more and more that's not the choice I'm given. When I have to pick between the slimy pretenders and the people proudly trumpeting their vice to the world, I'll take the slimeballs...Hypocrisy is indeed a vice, but in the long run it's preferable to shamelessness."

How hypocritical is it for the left to scream about profiling and gay rights the right to privacy, yet work so hard to make sure a Larry Craig is exposed and crucified?