ANOTHER GOP sex scandal, this time with blackmail

[ViolaLee]

This one votes against gay rights, yet has gay sex. Why are these Republican leaders such hypocrites? He's another one that declares he's not gay, like Larry Craig. Why can't they just admit that their gay? Why such self loathing? This is getting ridiculous.

GOP State Rep Resigns Amid Sex Scandal
By RACHEL LA CORTE – 1 hour ago

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A state lawmaker who has voted against gay rights resigned Wednesday, days after he was quoted in police reports as saying a man he had sex with after they met at an erotic video store was trying to blackmail him.

Rep. Richard Curtis, 48, said he was resigning immediately to spare his wife and children more public embarrassment. In a written statement, Curtis said, "Events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people. I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused."

Curtis, a Republican, told a newspaper in his southwest Washington district on Monday that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt. He also declared he was not gay.

But in police reports, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he had sex with at a hotel room in Spokane, where Curtis was attending a GOP retreat. The other man, Cody Castagna, 26, contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.

Neither Curtis nor his lawyer, John Wolfe, have returned messages left by The Associated Press.

There have been no arrests in the case. Spokane County prosecutor Larry Steinmetz said Wednesday that a decision about criminal charges regarding the extortion accusation was weeks away.

Curtis was among state GOP lawmakers in Spokane Oct. 24-26 for meetings to discuss the upcoming legislative session. He went to the erotic video store early Oct. 26 and met Castagna, police documents said.

The two went to a hotel and had sex, according to police reports released Tuesday.

Curtis alleged Castagna took his wallet and later offered to return it for $1,000. Curtis said he had only $200 and left an envelope with the money at the hotel desk, according to the documents. Castagna said Curtis gave him the wallet to hold as collateral "for the money that he promised me."

Police reports said Castagna called Curtis and demanded an additional $800, and threatened to expose Curtis' "gay lifestyle to his wife unless Richard Curtis provided the disputed money."

Castagna's attorney, David Partovi, said his client's actions didn't rise to the level of extortion, which is a felony.

According to the police reports, Curtis told police that he wanted the wallet back and "wanted to keep the incident as low key as possible." He did not want to pursue charges against Castagna, the reports said.

Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, Curtis has voted against bills that would grant civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures are now part of state law.

House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt said that as more details began to emerge, it was clear that Curtis "can no longer effectively represent the constituents who elected him."

A successor will be chosen by county Republican leaders, and will serve until the 2008 election.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi5eZOrtHs2NAhldX5tp4so8EROgD8SKHU800

[Labrocca]

I wonder why you are so concerned about the private sexual life of gays or republicans. How is this any of yours or my business?

So he voted against gay rights...so what. Notice how you don't condemn the illegal act committed by a blackmailer (probably a liberal) but are so quick to execute a gay republican that's in the closet. The only person one see that's a hypocrite is you.

And I believe him when he says he isn't gay. It was a GOP retreat and for all we know they were just partying with too much coke and things got outta hand.

[lily]

So he voted against gay rights...so what. Notice how you don't condemn the illegal act committed by a blackmailer (probably a liberal) but are so quick to execute a gay republican that's in the closet. The only person one see that's a hypocrite is you.

Actually if Curits is gay and in the closet........I think that makes him a hypocrite

And I believe him when he says he isn't gay. It was a GOP retreat and for all we know they were just partying with too much coke and things got outta hand.

Ok......so first the guy that Curtis picked up is probably a liberal and now you have them doing coke?

Whew!

[Elrathin]

It was a GOP retreat and for all we know they were just partying with too much coke and things got outta hand.


Out of hand? At a GOP retreat? Yeah, I can tell that atmosphere makes Bob want to whip out the willy and insert it into Peter. LOL

[underdawg]

If this guy were openly homosexual, I wouldn't care, but because he is closeted and tries to pass legislation that would hurt other homosexuals then it is a big deal.

[AnnEsthesia]

I will have to ask my gay friends if they have ever been drunk or high enough to have sex with women...

[ViolaLee]

I wonder why you are so concerned about the private sexual life of gays or republicans. How is this any of yours or my business?

It's in the news. Should we be ignoring it and sweeping it under the rug? He claims his lover is blackmailing him. Do you think it's OK for political leaders to be blackmailed?

So he voted against gay rights...so what. Notice how you don't condemn the illegal act committed by a blackmailer (probably a liberal) but are so quick to execute a gay republican that's in the closet. The only person one see that's a hypocrite is you.I guess if I executed him I'd be a hypocrite since I'm against the death penalty, but since you are exaggerating, your little diatribe is meaningless.

My title mentions the blackmail and my quote does as well. I figured blackmail being bad was a given. I didn't realize you needed me to condemn it for you. Sorry.
And I believe him when he says he isn't gay. It was a GOP retreat and for all we know they were just partying with too much coke and things got outta hand.
He resigned over his gay lover's blackmail. I think he might be gay.

Is being gay worse than partying with too much coke?

WOW! I'm speechless.

[Buck Laser]

I'm beginning to think this thing with Republicans and sexual scandals may be very much like Roman Catholic priests and sexual scandals. I don't know if it's th repressive atmosphere or what, but there's just gotta be a link somewhere. Maybe it's about power.

The smartass me would just love to say "See? I told you so" in a Limbaugh-like smarmy voice, but that doesn't cut it. I do hope it will make some republicans of a libertarian bent think twice or three times about the "virtue of selfishness."

[Labrocca]

1 conservative reply
6 liberal replies

I can't fight against 6 people all by myself. So you win again. Those damn GOP closet gays...they should know better. It's great that person blackmailed him. He deserves it right?

[ViolaLee]

Labrocca, if you have the truth on your side, it doesn't matter how many people oppose you.

Sorry but when a Republican who votes consistantly against gay rights, gets caught being a closet gay man himself, there is really no defense you can give him. He's a liar, a hypocrite, a coward and he doesn't deserve to be a leader in the US government, State or Federal. He put himself in the position to be bribed. The police report says he had sex with a man at a hotel at a GOP retreat and then that man bribed him. That's dangerous for a politician to be in the position to be bribed. Think of all the harm he could do.

These gay closeted Republican men need to come out of the closet and stop voting against gay rights.

It's pathetic and obnoxious and shameful.

There seems to be some kind of a connection with the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church *Ted Haggert* in condemning homosexuality as evil and the closeted gays who join these groups. They are self loathing people.

[ViolaLee]

1 conservative reply
6 liberal replies


Don't blame us that you have the best board on the internet ;)

[Scorpion]

It was a GOP retreat and for all we know they were just partying with too much coke and things got outta hand.


Out of hand? At a GOP retreat? Yeah, I can tell that atmosphere makes Bob want to whip out the willy and insert it into Peter. LOL


:clapper::madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh:

It also another bit of proof that Republicans are cheapskates and stupid. Had he paid the $800. that he owed he would have gotten his wallet back and the whole mess would have likely gone away. What a dumb ass.[hr]
1 conservative reply
6 liberal replies

I can't fight against 6 people all by myself. So you win again. Those damn GOP closet gays...they should know better. It's great that person blackmailed him. He deserves it right?


The conservatives are probably down at the gay porn video store. It seems to be where most of them hang out. Give them a call and have a few log on to liven up this discussion. :madlaugh:

[I Like Beer]

And I believe him when he says he isn't gay. It was a GOP retreat and for all we know they were just partying with too much coke and things got outta hand.


Hilarious. I also believe he's not gay. He's just like Haggard, Craig, and the others - he's not gay, he just likes to f*** men.

I mean really. What's so gay about that?

[Alonzo]

An anti-gay congressman who fucks men. Too bad I wasn't a mind reader, it would be interesting to know the percentage of gay and lesbian congressman who pretend to be straight and denounce others like them vs tolerant gay and lesbian congressman. Also would be interesting to know the party breakdown.

[Wndrtch]

This one votes against gay rights, yet has gay sex. Why are these Republican leaders such hypocrites? He's another one that declares he's not gay, like Larry Craig. Why can't they just admit that their gay? Why such self loathing? This is getting ridiculous.

GOP State Rep Resigns Amid Sex Scandal
By RACHEL LA CORTE – 1 hour ago

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — A state lawmaker who has voted against gay rights resigned Wednesday, days after he was quoted in police reports as saying a man he had sex with after they met at an erotic video store was trying to blackmail him.

Rep. Richard Curtis, 48, said he was resigning immediately to spare his wife and children more public embarrassment. In a written statement, Curtis said, "Events that have recently come to light have hurt a lot of people. I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused."

Curtis, a Republican, told a newspaper in his southwest Washington district on Monday that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt. He also declared he was not gay.

But in police reports, Curtis said he was being extorted by a man he had sex with at a hotel room in Spokane, where Curtis was attending a GOP retreat. The other man, Cody Castagna, 26, contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 for sex.

Neither Curtis nor his lawyer, John Wolfe, have returned messages left by The Associated Press.

There have been no arrests in the case. Spokane County prosecutor Larry Steinmetz said Wednesday that a decision about criminal charges regarding the extortion accusation was weeks away.

Curtis was among state GOP lawmakers in Spokane Oct. 24-26 for meetings to discuss the upcoming legislative session. He went to the erotic video store early Oct. 26 and met Castagna, police documents said.

The two went to a hotel and had sex, according to police reports released Tuesday.

Curtis alleged Castagna took his wallet and later offered to return it for $1,000. Curtis said he had only $200 and left an envelope with the money at the hotel desk, according to the documents. Castagna said Curtis gave him the wallet to hold as collateral "for the money that he promised me."

Police reports said Castagna called Curtis and demanded an additional $800, and threatened to expose Curtis' "gay lifestyle to his wife unless Richard Curtis provided the disputed money."

Castagna's attorney, David Partovi, said his client's actions didn't rise to the level of extortion, which is a felony.

According to the police reports, Curtis told police that he wanted the wallet back and "wanted to keep the incident as low key as possible." He did not want to pursue charges against Castagna, the reports said.

Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, Curtis has voted against bills that would grant civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures are now part of state law.

House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt said that as more details began to emerge, it was clear that Curtis "can no longer effectively represent the constituents who elected him."

A successor will be chosen by county Republican leaders, and will serve until the 2008 election.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi5eZOrtHs2NAhldX5tp4so8EROgD8SKHU800


What? Just because he's gay, he's automatically supposed to be a looney Lefty? Gays can't be Republicans? He obviously doesn't need any special "Rights" to be gay.

[Deadshot]

So if a gay guy fucks a woman, he's not gay? I'm just asking because that seems to be the Conservative standard for if a person is gay, i.e. he says he's not gay, because it was only the one, or a few, times.

If that's the case I'd like to advise all gay men, women and transexuals to fuck their opposite number and not be considered gay because you once had a heterosexual encounter!

[Wndrtch]

An anti-gay congressman who fucks men. Too bad I wasn't a mind reader, it would be interesting to know the percentage of gay and lesbian congressman who pretend to be straight and denounce others like them vs tolerant gay and lesbian congressman. Also would be interesting to know the party breakdown.


You guys are tools!

So, all gays are Liberals and must suck-deep on the straw to the Kool-aid? I guess to you hacks out there, all gays think the same, and can't have an original thought.

You Libs have such low expectations for them.[hr]
1 conservative reply
6 liberal replies

I can't fight against 6 people all by myself. So you win again. Those damn GOP closet gays...they should know better. It's great that person blackmailed him. He deserves it right?


2 Conservative now.

[Deadshot]

But, Wnd, it is the Right - NOT the Left - the universally condems Homosexuals and there lifestyles.

It's not a question of painting Homosexuals as one way or another. As a Liberal I have no doubt that there are plenty of homosexual Conservative/Republicans. The problem is that at the Con/Rep get together, should they be "outed" they would be orsterchiszed by the majority of the people there.

It is the Right, not the Left, who have painted a Bulls-eye on the Gays.

[Labrocca]

Labrocca, if you have the truth on your side, it doesn't matter how many people oppose you

Call me spineless then.

Sorry but when a Republican who votes consistantly against gay rights, gets caught being a closet gay man himself, there is really no defense you can give him. He's a liar, a hypocrite, a coward and he doesn't deserve to be a leader in the US government, State or Federal.

So says you and so it must be true.

He put himself in the position to be bribed.

How did blackmail now become a bribe? So now instead of him being a victim of blackmail over his PRIVATE SEXUAL MATTER he is becoming a corrupt bribable senator? He is the one that went to the police. Over $1000 too. Personally...I would reelect him. Here is a guy that over $1000 just trashed his career in politics and embarassed himself in front of his family. Seems like a stand-up guy actually.

I think your problem is not how he voted but instead that he isn't a proud gay. You have yet to even prove he is gay. According to many experts just about everyone has homosexual thoughts...so is everyone gay? So what he acted on them one night with a stranger. Are you AGAINST sexual experimentation? As a liberal I bet you don't give a shit but since we are discussing a conservative well..they aren't allowed to have sexual experimentation. It's only for proud gay liberals right?

So he voted against gay rights...maybe that's because it's bad legislation? Maybe because we shouldn't give special rights to people based on a sexual preference.

I hate replying to you Viola. I know for certain you won't reply with any intelligent argument for your case. Instead you will attack attack attack..that's fine. I won't be reading this thread any longer.

Bye.

[Deadshot]

Hmmm...Getting into trouble, politically, over a PRIVATE SEXUAL MATTER...never heard of that....BWAH-HA-HA-HA:madlaugh:

[Alonzo]

You guys are tools!

So, all gays are Liberals and must suck-deep on the straw to the Kool-aid? I guess to you hacks out there, all gays think the same, and can't have an original thought.

You Libs have such low expectations for them.

They're fair game if they work against the rights of homosexuals, democrat or republican it doesn't matter.

How did blackmail now become a bribe? So now instead of him being a victim of blackmail over his PRIVATE SEXUAL MATTER he is becoming a corrupt bribable senator? He is the one that went to the police. Over $1000 too. Personally...I would reelect him. Here is a guy that over $1000 just trashed his career in politics and embarassed himself in front of his family. Seems like a stand-up guy actually.

Stand up guys usually don't cheat on their wives.

I think your problem is not how he voted but instead that he isn't a proud gay. You have yet to even prove he is gay. According to many experts just about everyone has homosexual thoughts...so is everyone gay? So what he acted on them one night with a stranger. Are you AGAINST sexual experimentation? As a liberal I bet you don't give a sh1t but since we are discussing a conservative well..they aren't allowed to have sexual experimentation. It's only for proud gay liberals right?

Lab, so maybe he's not 100% gay. Maybe he's bisexual, maybe he's primarily straight but something happened here. I don't know. But the point is that here is someone who works against rights for people like himself.

There's some truth to your statement, but I disagree that it goes for all democrats and liberals. To me it's about what the person does as a congressman, not their party. If Dick Cheney were a senator and I had proof he had sex with men I would not release it, and I don't think anyone should release that info. I hate the man, but it's a private affair and, to my knowledge, he has never tried to actively harm the rights of homosexuals and he certainly no longer makes such attempts. He may aid people who do, like Bush, but he himself has never contributed directly and has even distanced himself from such efforts publicly.

It would be grossly immoral to take advantage of a bigotry that someone never tried to foster. And honestly that's what happens here. Senators, presidents etc. don't resign and lose their career because they cheat (clinton, gingrich, giuliani). They usually only lose their career because of the publics intolerance of homosexuals. Unleashing that on someone is wrong unless they aided it, in those cases it's merely using their own weapons against them.

[AlanC]

Here's the bottom line. These idiots are scum who deserve what ever happens to them including and espically the end of their political careers.

The facts are that Republicans as a party and as a group of voters don't re-elect these individuals. Democrats on the other hand have a consistent track record of electing, re-electing and then applauding their sexual deviants.

[Deadshot]

"grossly immoral" sadly a description of politicains on both the left and the right.:unreal:

[Wndrtch]

[color=#0000FF]But, Wnd, it is the Right - NOT the Left - the universally condems Homosexuals and there lifestyles.


So, if I don't want my kid to read "Heather has two Mommies" in class, somehow I'm condemning Homosexuals? If I speak out against some gay folks, who show up to my parish throwing condoms around, I'm a Homo-phobe? Or, if I fight a court order, allowing a Gay Pride float in my privately funded, ST Patrick’s Day Parade, I'm an enemy to gays? What about OUR right to speak out? Don't Conservatives have a right to be for, or against something without being labeled a homo-phobe?

It's not a question of painting Homosexuals as one way or another. As a Liberal I have no doubt that there are plenty of homosexual Conservative/Republicans. The problem is that at the Con/Rep get together, should they be "outed" they would be orsterchiszed by the majority of the people there.

In each of the mentioned scandals of gay-Republicans, the Politician was busted for breaking a law, not for being gay. THAT is why they will loose their jobs and be thrown out of office.

If a person showed up to that Republican get-together, and came out respectfully, he would be greeted and accepted. I know you won't believe that, but there it is.

And just so you know I live in Ma, and I have friends that are gay. I have enjoyed many summer days down in Provincetown. And, I even have a close relative who is dear to my heart, and a Lesbian. We're both fanatic Pats fans! I just wanted you to know, I'm not speaking from inside a bubble.

[gemosological]

I will have to ask my gay friends if they have ever been drunk or high enough to have sex with women...


LOL!!! Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker, right? And things go better with coke, right? What really cracked me up was reading how Curtis gave that guy his wallet as collateral for a thousand dollar debt in a sleazy low-rent (well, maybe a high-rent at taxpayer expense) motel rendezvous. How stupid was that??? Most of the liberals I know - gay or otherwise- would never do anything that stupid. You'd think Curtis had never been around the block, lol! No..basic..street..sense..what..so..ever! That's a good reason for voting leftists and liberals into Congress and the Oval Office- they may not be perfect but at least they've got better sense, lol!

And, yes, Curtis has shown himself to be a total hypocrite- especially when it comes to his sexual habits versus his public votes and views.
Did ya get that, Labrocca? :D

RRD
:madlaugh:[/size][hr]Quoting ViolaLee:

There seems to be some kind of a connection with the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church *Ted Haggert* in condemning homosexuality as evil and the closeted gays who join these groups. They are self loathing people.

Precisely. That's probably the reason they have this desperate need to be "saved", lol! That's worth a greenie.....

RRD
:-)

[Deadshot]

So, if I don't want my kid to read "Heather has two Mommies" in class, somehow I'm condemning Homosexuals? If I speak out against some gay folks, who show up to my parish throwing condoms around, I'm a Homo-phobe? Or, if I fight a court order, allowing a Gay Pride float in my privately funded, ST Patrick’s Day Parade, I'm an enemy to gays? What about OUR right to speak out? Don't Conservatives have a right to be for, or against something without being labeled a homo-phobe?

What right do you have to legislate or speak out against how someone conducts their sexual life? These aren't pedophiles. These people are not conducting beastiality rituals. There are two consenting adults in homosexual relationships. It hurst no one.

If you want to speak out, fine. We still have people who speak out against people of different races being married. We still have people who speak out against women in the work place. But we've shouted them down in the name of common decency and the clause in the Constitution that states a person has the right to pursue happiness. So if you want to scream and shout, go ahead. Just don't get mad at me and the rest of the world when we delagate you and your behavior to the fringes of society.

It's not a question of painting Homosexuals as one way or another. As a Liberal I have no doubt that there are plenty of homosexual Conservative/Republicans. The problem is that at the Con/Rep get together, should they be "outed" they would be orsterchiszed by the majority of the people there.

In each of the mentioned scandals of gay-Republicans, the Politician was busted for breaking a law, not for being gay. THAT is why they will loose their jobs and be thrown out of office.

Larry Craig was not thrown out of office. It was fear of Republican back lash that caused the problem.

Put these people in a "Blue" suit, i.e. Democrats, and you have a Senator that never worries about the blackmail because being Gay doesn't mean anything to us. Larry Craig is simply embarrassed and takes his arrest and conviction to the public and says how Gays shouldn't have to meet up in a Bathroom to hook up. That one minister gets help for doing crack and loses some people, but for drug abuse, NOT being Gay. That's the difference between you and me, Wnd, being Gay doesn't effect my judgement of you. As you've proven above, it does mean something to you.

If a person showed up to that Republican get-together, and came out respectfully, he would be greeted and accepted. I know you won't believe that, but there it is.

But you just stated above that you wouldn't let your child read about the Republicans gay life style in the two mommies book...you just stated above that if he wanted to express his "gayness" in a St. Paddy's day Parade that you would petition to stop him. You just stated above that it was your RIGHT to speak out against Gays! How could that person be greeted and accepted by you?

Take this back 75 years and make him black instead of gay. Do you see the problem now? Because then people didn't want books that portrayed blacks in a positive light in schools; they didn't want people who were black or showing pride in their race marching in a parade; those same people talked about their right to speak out and keep blacks in their place...see the coorelation?

And just so you know I live in Ma, and I have friends that are gay. I have enjoyed many summer days down in Provincetown. And, I even have a close relative who is dear to my heart, and a Lesbian. We're both fanatic Pats fans! I just wanted you to know, I'm not speaking from inside a bubble.


Yet you would have no problem telling your Lesbian relative that you would fight her should she try to read the book "My two mommy's" to your children, correct? Yet you would tell your Lesbian relative that you would fight her should her and her freinds wish to enter a Gay Pride float in a private St. Paddy's day Parade? Yet you would tell your Lesbian relative that you feel it your Right to protest and speak out against her chosen lifestyle?

Well how nice of you massa...You's let me know when I can come out and talk and I'll's be good. I's won't say nothing tells you allows me too....thank ya massa, thank yee.

I'm sure your Lesbian relative would love the fact that you trot her right out there to argue how "in touch" you are, all the while telling the world how horrible she is...:fight:

[gemosological]

Quoting Labrocca, post #9...#9? #9?...

So you win again.

Labrocca, US liberals have been winning since the beginning. You haven't noticed the trend over the last 7+ years? Why do you think US liberals and lefties have been winning, again and again? Think we might have something on our side that the conservatives, Republicans and the "Faith-Based" Christian Fundamentalists don't? What do you think that "something" might be, Labrocca?

RRD
:-)

[BoogyMan]

The way I look at this is that there is 1 less hypocritical cheating closeted homosexual in the party.

So, if I don't want my kid to read "Heather has two Mommies" in class, somehow I'm condemning Homosexuals? If I speak out against some gay folks, who show up to my parish throwing condoms around, I'm a Homo-phobe? Or, if I fight a court order, allowing a Gay Pride float in my privately funded, ST Patrick’s Day Parade, I'm an enemy to gays? What about OUR right to speak out? Don't Conservatives have a right to be for, or against something without being labeled a homo-phobe?

You just about summed up the whole of the usual argument there Wndrtch. I have long pointed out that disapproval does not equate to fear or a phobia, but the term "homophobe" comes out in EVERY one of these discussions sooner or later.

[Deadshot]

Again your post, YOUR words show the folly of your attitude.

You stated "I have long pointed out that disapproval does not equate to fear or a phobia, but the term "homophobe" comes out in EVERY one of these discussions sooner or later. "

Yet how do you describe the individual in question? Again, Boogy's words "hypocritical cheating closeted homosexual " Why is homosexual even in the description? If you have no fear or phobia of it, why mention it? I simply can't imagine you saying that a person was a "hypocritical cheating heterosexual".

Your words betray you, young padewon, you have much to learn...

[gemosological]

Hmmm...Getting into trouble, politically, over a PRIVATE SEXUAL MATTER...never heard of that....BWAH-HA-HA-HA:madlaugh:


You're not going to bring the Clinton/ Lewinski affair up again, are you, lol?

RRD
:madlaugh:[hr]Quoting Alonzo, post # 21:

Stand up guys usually don't cheat on their wives.

Most "stand up" guys don't hide who and what they actually are either.

RRD
:-)

[BoogyMan]

Again your post, YOUR words show the folly of your attitude.

You stated "I have long pointed out that disapproval does not equate to fear or a phobia, but the term "homophobe" comes out in EVERY one of these discussions sooner or later. "

Yet how do you describe the individual in question? Again, Boogy's words "hypocritical cheating closeted homosexual " Why is homosexual even in the description? If you have no fear or phobia of it, why mention it? I simply can't imagine you saying that a person was a "hypocritical cheating heterosexual".

Your words betray you, young padewon, you have much to learn...


Pssst, DS, I hate to tell you this, but the word "homosexual" is not a dirty word. It is a descriptive word. Your own party faithful in this thread are calling the man a homosexual, the determination that by using the term in my commentary by correlation means fear is so sophomorically desperate that it is hard to describe. Once again, disapproval does not equate to fear or a phobia.

[Alonzo]

Quoting Labrocca, post #9...#9? #9?...

So you win again.

Labrocca, US liberals have been winning since the beginning. You haven't noticed the trend over the last 7+ years? Why do you think US liberals and lefties have been winning, again and again? Think we might have something on our side that the conservatives, Republicans and the "Faith-Based" Christian Fundamentalists don't? What do you think that "something" might be, Labrocca?

RRD
:-)


No offense, but 7 years is a very small time period.

[gemosological]

Quoting Labrocca, post #9...#9? #9?...

So you win again.

Labrocca, US liberals have been winning since the beginning. You haven't noticed the trend over the last 7+ years? Why do you think US liberals and lefties have been winning, again and again? Think we might have something on our side that the conservatives, Republicans and the "Faith-Based" Christian Fundamentalists don't? What do you think that "something" might be, Labrocca?

RRD
:-)


No offense, but 7 years is a very small time period.


True, 7 years isn't a long time actually but the trend has been undeniably apparent in even that short a span of time. I did mention that in the Abizaid says we'll be in the Middle East for Fifty years thread that it was too bad that the Repubs- or should I say the Repubs- and conservatives hadn't been listening to what the lefty libs and environmentalists have been saying for the last 50 years. That's half a century. Would that be long enough to discern a trend?

RRD
:)

Proper names RSR.

[Elrathin]

Pssst, DS, I hate to tell you this, but the word "homosexual" is not a dirty word.


It is to conservative candidates. Can you show me at least 5 openly gay (Meaning they admit to being gay) Republican Candidates that have campaigned with it being know they are gay?

Homosexual is indeed a dirty word within the conservative party. I won't lie, I think it is one in the Democratic Party as well. I don't see very many openly homosexuals (in fact I don't know ANY) getting into office with it being known their gay.

[lily]

The facts are that Republicans as a party and as a group of voters don't re-elect these individuals. Democrats on the other hand have a consistent track record of electing, re-electing and then applauding their sexual deviants.


The Republicans don't re-elect these individuals because of their main voting base, the same reason that the Democrats have no problem re-electing them. It has nothing to do with sexual deviants and everything to do with in the Republican corner the religious right and in the Democrats corner, tolerance.[hr]


LOL!!! Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker, right? And things go better with coke, right? What really cracked me up was reading how Curtis gave that guy his wallet as collateral for a thousand dollar debt in a sleazy low-rent (well, maybe a high-rent at taxpayer expense) motel rendezvous.

Pffffttttt........collateral for a thousand dollar, my ass.......come on, call it like it is.......they guy was a male hooker and the congressman only had $200.00 on him until he hit an ATM.......he had "buyers remorse" and didn't want to pay up!

[BoogyMan]

It is to conservative candidates. Can you show me at least 5 openly gay (Meaning they admit to being gay) Republican Candidates that have campaigned with it being know they are gay?

How does this have anything to do with DS's allegation that I must be a homophobe by using the term "homosexual" El, especially in a thread where the party faithful of the left are using the term in the same way? :ponder:


Homosexual is indeed a dirty word within the conservative party. I won't lie, I think it is one in the Democratic Party as well. I don't see very many openly homosexuals (in fact I don't know ANY) getting into office with it being known their gay.

That may be true, but as I have said before, I can only speak for myself, and the charge was specious at best.

[Elrathin]

How does this have anything to do with DS's allegation that I must be a homophobe by using the term "homosexual" El, especially in a thread where the party faithful of the left are using the term in the same way? :ponder:

Sorry was only commenting in the context I thought you were saying it in. I wasn't commenting about you, only that politically it is a dirty word for candidate IMO. Once you are found to be a homosexual and trying to get into office, say goodbye you're gone.


That may be true, but as I have said before, I can only speak for myself, and the charge was specious at best.


Like I said, read above, I was talking about politically which I thought you were speaking of.

[Alonzo]

Quoting Labrocca, post #9...#9? #9?...

So you win again.

Labrocca, US liberals have been winning since the beginning. You haven't noticed the trend over the last 7+ years? Why do you think US liberals and lefties have been winning, again and again? Think we might have something on our side that the conservatives, Republicans and the "Faith-Based" Christian Fundamentalists don't? What do you think that "something" might be, Labrocca?

RRD
:-)


No offense, but 7 years is a very small time period.


True, 7 years isn't a long time actually but the trend has been undeniably apparent in even that short a span of time. I did mention that in the Abizaid says we'll be in the Middle East for Fifty years thread that it was too bad that the Repubs- or should I say the Repubs- and conservatives hadn't been listening to what the lefty libs and environmentalists have been saying for the last 50 years. That's half a century. Would that be long enough to discern a trend?

RRD
:)

Proper names RSR.


7 years is nothing in terms of trends.

In terms of conservatives listening to the left, the left has been wrong there a lot to. Take a look at books, or even vinyl records, from that time and you'll find liberals advancing lost or bad causes. Communism, Mao (my favorite 60's singer, phil ochs, devoted the back of an entire record to poems from Chairman Mao, attempting to show that he's a good guy, and Ochs didn't even agree with communism or the soviets), busing, open relationships etc. a host of things that have either lost or are in the process of being done away with.

Sure, liberals ideals tend to, over time (though the trend may take 30 or 40 years), become dominant, particularly on tolerance. But liberals have been wrong too, socially as mentioned above, and science, as can be seen in eugenics (which was prominent in liberal circles before it was used for real evil).

I agree liberals are correct more often, but it's not entirely lopsided.

[gemosological]

The facts are that Republicans as a party and as a group of voters don't re-elect these individuals. Democrats on the other hand have a consistent track record of electing, re-electing and then applauding their sexual deviants.


The Republicans don't re-elect these individuals because of their main voting base, the same reason that the Democrats have no problem re-electing them. It has nothing to do with sexual deviants and everything to do with in the Republican corner the religious right and in the Democrats corner, tolerance.[hr]


LOL!!! Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker, right? And things go better with coke, right? What really cracked me up was reading how Curtis gave that guy his wallet as collateral for a thousand dollar debt in a sleazy low-rent (well, maybe a high-rent at taxpayer expense) motel rendezvous.

Pffffttttt........collateral for a thousand dollar, my ass.......come on, call it like it is.......they guy was a male hooker and the congressman only had $200.00 on him until he hit an ATM.......he had "buyers remorse" and didn't want to pay up!


I agree with you, Lily- but I still say Curtis obviously doesn't have a lick of street sense- regardless of the reason why he gave his wallet to that guy. I do know this- I'd never hire Cutis (Hell, I'll keep that typo!) to sell my jewelry- God knows what would happen to it, lol!

RRD
:D

[I Like Beer]

The way I look at this is that there is 1 less hypocritical cheating closeted homosexual in the party.

Thank you. The voice of reason. If a man, on one hand condemns homosexuality, while at the same time sleeps with men, he's a hypocrite (and there have been far too many of them).

(Boogy - is this what you referred to as self-loathing on the left?)

If someone is just gay (and doesn't condemn homosexuality) their preference is their own business whether they're liberals or conservatives. It's irrelevant. It ONLY becomes an issue when these people begin to TELL us how we should live our lives and what is right and wrong. The Log Cabin Republicans are a-okay.


You just about summed up the whole of the usual argument there Wndrtch. I have long pointed out that disapproval does not equate to fear or a phobia, but the term "homophobe" comes out in EVERY one of these discussions sooner or later.

Okay, I can see what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong). You don't like the homosexual lifestyle (for whatever reason) but you don't hate or fear them. Hate the sin, love the sinner, is that right?

I think there are two reasons it dissolves into homophobia labeling.

The first is, there are many on the right, who would use this to deny rights to homosexuals (perhaps not you). For example, not allowing them to 'marry' or enjoy some kind of 'civil union' that would give them the same rights as heterosexual couples. This denial of rights gives them a certain kinship with how certain racial groups were treated in the past. Racism equates to homophobia. It's an argument, I agree with. The denial of rights isn't acceptable in a liberal western democracy that prides itself on individual rights. Wouldn't you agree?

Homosexuality is not a choice. No one wakes up one day at 13 and says, "hmmm, I think I'll be gay". Since it's so taboo, many who come to terms with their choice and come out, have a lot of political baggage. The sentiment, "hate the sin, love the sinner" is ridiculously paternalistic and condescending. They don't want your 'love', it means nothing to them. They want to live their lives like the rest of us. All they hear is, "I disapprove of the way you live your life" for something that they didn't choose and, likely, had a long, difficult journey to come to terms with. If it were me, I wouldn't give a shit about your sentiment, I'd label you a bigot and move on. You wouldn't be worth my energy to try to convince.

I disapprove of the way many people live their lives, so I think I understand where you're coming from. I disapprove of the way Jehovas' Witnesses live (especially when they come to my door to sell Watchtower and bring their children with them), that doesn't make me a Jehovaphobe but I feel a moral superiority. When I see them I think, "You poor soul, how misguided you are, and I feel so bad for your children having to endure this indignity". Do you feel morally superior to homosexuals?

The Witnesses might tell me to go fuck myself, if they could ever get that ridiculously beatified smile off their faces. In fact, I wish they would and I got in on camera.:)

Disapproving of someone because of something that isn't a choice and that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, may not make you a homophobe but it makes you marginally intolerant.

I admit, I'm intolerant towards the Witnesses. I tell them 'do not comeback'. Of course, it never works.