Really!?!?

We have democrats committing acts of treason – visiting terrorist nations – negotiating with our enemy’s – badmouthing the US – yet bathroom sex deserves a scarlet letter of resignation.
Really! Gimme a break.

Splunge on October 8, 2007 at 12:38 PM

They’ll be objecting to glass ceilings and mirrored floors next…

If he is truly guilty, then he is the worst type of hypocrite, if not, then he is still guilty of outright stupidity for pleading to it.

Both accounts should preclude him from public office.

Actually, one of the more interesting objections to gay marriage is the appearance of a tendency for gays to want to alter marriage in the direction of “open marriage,”

I’m not familiar with the specifics of what they are asking for, but I do know heterosexual couples who alter the terms of the marriage with a prenuptial. Also, having an open marriage is something that many heterosexual men claim to have, at least when they are traveling and meet a young woman.

Actually, one of the more interesting objections to gay marriage is the appearance of a tendency for gays to want to alter marriage in the direction of “open marriage,” citing this as “reasonable accommodation” to their differences from the heterosexual culture. Also see the speech of one G. Michael, on emerging from the woods. “This is my culture!”

Quite similar to the way that the inclusion of women in the workplace (which I’m rabidly in favor of, just so you know) happened: Step 1: Just let us in, we can be just like you. Step 2: Take down that calendar and stop talking like that, you’re creating a “hostile work environment.”

I kinda liked that, but it doesn’t really make any sense. Are they trying to say that without marriage couples can’t commit to each other?
…

Esthier on October 8, 2007 at 10:05 AM

I’ll explain it, but you have to not get your hopes up about the humor. The idea is that the more gays marry, the fewer are still single and therefore available to Sen Widestance for bathroom encounters. Therefore, ha ha, he’d naturally oppose gay marriage to keep the supply of handwave-recipients high.

They briefly mention Barney Frank, but the next bit of patter has “true story”, “really true” etc. Is the viewer intended to not put any stock in the Frank reference because it didn’t have “really true” intros?

Or was Lorne on the sideline waving Seth off? It did really interrupt the rhythm. Other than that, not a bad bit.

REALLY!

Many liberals don’t seem capable of understanding that sometimes principles come before selfishness (or what the Left would perceive as self-interest).

It seems that gays would have to do without a principled lifetime commitment to one another for some to indulge their own selfish notions of marriage.

I don’t believe that your concept of other people’s marriage supercedes their right to live their lives as fully as you do yours.

If you can be divorced, old, unhealthy, drug-addled and/or Britney Spears and get married without permission, I don’t understand the value of discriminating against homosexuals.

Many liberals don’t seem capable of understanding that sometimes principles come before selfishness (or what the Left would perceive as self-interest).

I still don’t see how some quickie gay bathroom sex relates to a heterosexual long-term commitment, though.

Wouldn’t he only be hypocritical if he proposed to the cop instead?

Yeah, that’s a fallacious line of attack, and I’m sure most people who throw it around know it, but it’s one that Craig left himself open to.

I liked “Maybe you’re only opposed to gay marraige because then there would be less single gay guys to have sex with in an airport bathroom.”

e-pirate on October 8, 2007 at 8:43 AM

I kinda liked that, but it doesn’t really make any sense. Are they trying to say that without marriage couples can’t commit to each other?

Gays should just admit they have no more right to live on God’s green earth than a weasel, and be done with it.
[/exasperated satire]

Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 9:33 AM

What?

When it’s a lisping Democrat with a gay whore in his townhouse — ok. When it’s a creepy married GOPer — not so much.

Jaibones on October 8, 2007 at 9:13 AM

To be fair, the part about him being married is really awful. His wife doesn’t deserve that. Gay or not, it’s still cheating.

Sorry.

but I don’t understand why he was elected in the first place.

ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:39 AM

Because like Vitter from Louisiana he ran on family values, defense of marriage act, and the GOP is the moral authority forever and ever amen. While he was waving his hand under stalls, Vitter was picking up madames in the French Quarter.

Then the party faithful get mad because it seems the Dems are being “hypocritical”. Endless story, to be continued with the next “scandal” involving a GOP pol.