Another One
These politicians and preachers just keep falling out of the closet, one after the other. I haven't commented on most of them -- mostly these are just sad personal stories, but now and then there's one where you just have to say something. Yesterday the media got the story that Republican Congressman Larry Craig from Idaho was busted for lewd conduct in an airport men's room back in June.
The thing is, Craig has made a career out of making life miserable for gay folks. According to Pam Spaulding, Craig:
Back in October of last year, Craig's office issued a statement that rumors he was gay were "absolutely ridiculous - almost laughable." The rumor was pretty solid, though, based on several people who had had experiences with him. This time he says it was all a big mistake, and he wishes he hadn't pled guilty.
Listen, I sympathize with the "glass houses" thing. Just because you're a leader or an elected official or whatever, does not mean you're a perfect person. Leaders and famous people screw up just like the rest of us. He isn't be the only person who's ever done something stupid.
Here's what makes it a big deal: the hypocrisy. Why does a gay person like him do all they can to make life hard for ... himself? If he likes guys, why would anyone care? I mean ... lewd in a men's room? That sounds pretty desperate to me. If people would just get over it, a guy like him could go to a nice place and meet another guy, if he wanted, not playing footsies between the toilet-stalls. But no, he's got to be creepy about it in a public restroom, because of people like himself. Because it would destroy him if people found out, because of people like himself who make life hard for people like himself.
More details than you probably actually want to know, HERE.
The thing is, Craig has made a career out of making life miserable for gay folks. According to Pam Spaulding, Craig:
- Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
- Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
- Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
- Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
- Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Back in October of last year, Craig's office issued a statement that rumors he was gay were "absolutely ridiculous - almost laughable." The rumor was pretty solid, though, based on several people who had had experiences with him. This time he says it was all a big mistake, and he wishes he hadn't pled guilty.
Listen, I sympathize with the "glass houses" thing. Just because you're a leader or an elected official or whatever, does not mean you're a perfect person. Leaders and famous people screw up just like the rest of us. He isn't be the only person who's ever done something stupid.
Here's what makes it a big deal: the hypocrisy. Why does a gay person like him do all they can to make life hard for ... himself? If he likes guys, why would anyone care? I mean ... lewd in a men's room? That sounds pretty desperate to me. If people would just get over it, a guy like him could go to a nice place and meet another guy, if he wanted, not playing footsies between the toilet-stalls. But no, he's got to be creepy about it in a public restroom, because of people like himself. Because it would destroy him if people found out, because of people like himself who make life hard for people like himself.
More details than you probably actually want to know, HERE.
posted by JimK at 7:31 AM
26 Comments:
This just goes to show... the biggest homophobes are usually the ones who hate themselves so much and can't come to the realization that this is just the way they are...are the ones who show the most hate and biggotry by discrimination against normal, healthy, and outstanding gay citizens. Now I can see where PFOX and CRC are heading! If the people at PFOX and CRC would just accept who they are and come out of the closet and stop discriminating against themselves, they may be a bit happier in life in general.
Jim writes,
If people would just get over it, a guy like him could go to a nice place and meet another guy, if he wanted, not playing footsies between the toilet-stalls.
You had me agreeing with you until you got to this point...to assert that all we as a society needs to do is "just get over it" is naive about the nature of sexual deviancy as a subset of human nature. And it is not just an issue with homosexuals, it is an issue with heterosexuals as well.
Frankly, I think he should resign...if not for the violation that got him in trouble in the first place, then for his "I should not have plead guilty" crap - what an idiot and a hypocrite.
ORIN: "You had me agreeing with you until you got to this point...to assert that all we as a society needs to do is "just get over it" is naive about the nature of sexual deviancy as a subset of human nature. And it is not just an issue with homosexuals, it is an issue with heterosexuals as well."
I can understand that it may not be so practical as a society today, but if we all actually DID "get over it," what then would be the problem?
ttt
"These politicians and preachers just keep falling out of the closet, one after the other. I haven't commented on most of them"
Oh yeah, we've noticed.
"-- mostly these are just sad personal stories, but now and then there's one where you just have to say something."
And why is that?
"Yesterday the media got the story that Republican Congressman Larry Craig from Idaho was busted for lewd conduct in an airport men's room back in June.
The thing is, Craig has made a career out of making life miserable for gay folks.
According to Pam Spaulding, Craig:
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)"
Jim dutifully reproduces the same "proof" of hostility to homosexuals that have been cited in the media the last few days. It should be noted, however, that all of the above are votes which an openly gay person could support. The press does this to try to manufacture their favorite type of story. Why Jim does is a matter of speculation.
"Back in October of last year, Craig's office issued a statement that rumors he was gay were "absolutely ridiculous - almost laughable." The rumor was pretty solid, though, based on several people who had had experiences with him. This time he says it was all a big mistake, and he wishes he hadn't pled guilty."
Who cares? Maybe he's gay and doesn't and want to tell people about it. So what?
"Listen, I sympathize with the "glass houses" thing. Just because you're a leader or an elected official or whatever, does not mean you're a perfect person."
So you think being homosexuality would make one imperfect?
"Leaders and famous people screw up just like the rest of us. He isn't be the only person who's ever done something stupid."
Just for the record, I never knew one could be arrested for tapping one's foot in a restromm stall.
"Here's what makes it a big deal: the hypocrisy."
What hypocrisy? I have yet to read any statements in the press where he denounces homosexuality and it's hard to believe if these statements existed that the press wouldn't be highlighting them.
"Why does a gay person like him do all they can to make life hard for ... himself?"
Quite the point. Assuming he is gay, how is he a hypocrite if he is willing to bear these supposed "burdens"? Maybe lack of special protections and privileges is not the misery TTF claims.
"If he likes guys, why would anyone care? I mean ... lewd in a men's room? That sounds pretty desperate to me."
It sure does. Hasn't this guy heard of the internet?
"If people would just get over it, a guy like him could go to a nice place and meet another guy,"
Actually, technically, he could do that even if people don't get over it.
"if he wanted, not playing footsies between the toilet-stalls. But no, he's got to be creepy about it in a public restroom, because of people like himself. Because it would destroy him if people found out, because of people like himself who make life hard for people like himself."
Oh brother!
Wow, flatjack bob really added a lot to the conversation. I'm glad I spent the time reading his perceptive comments.
Actually, flap makes an important seemingly missed by the media:
Opposing gay marriage while, at the same time, cruising public restrooms for gay encounters is not necessarily hypocritical. Each intent may be right or wrong, depending on your perspective, but they aren't contradictory. Marriage and elicit sex, regardless of the TTF view, aren't equivalent.
"Why does a gay person like him do all they can to make life hard for ... himself?"
Quite the point. Assuming he is gay, how is he a hypocrite if he is willing to bear these supposed "burdens"? Maybe lack of special protections and privileges is not the misery TTF claims.
Exactly the point. The answer to Jim's question is not Anon's spin about "special" (AKA equal) rights. The answer to Jim's question is "a gay person who suffers from homophobia and self-loathing is likely to work to make life harder for himself." Some of these self-hating people end up leading double lives, one in public and one in secret, like Ted Haggard, because people like Orin refuse "to get over it."
Some people are straight and some people are gay. Get over it.
I would feel safe saying that someone who opposes marriage but approves of anonymous sexual encounters in public restrooms is at least a despicable person.
Wow, the bigotry is really on parade.
Orin said "to assert that all we as a society needs to do is "just get over it" is naive about the nature of sexual deviancy as a subset of human nature. And it is not just an issue with homosexuals, it is an issue with heterosexuals as well."
Orin for someone who whined about the statment that a church reneged on its agreement to hold a funeral for a gay man its profoundly hypocritical of you to describe being gay as a deviancy.
You said they should have said the church "withdrew" their offer implying that there was nothing wrong in their doing so - renege was the appropriate word as the church was morally wrong to refuse a funeral to someone who hadn't hurt anyone with his gayness.
Calling gays deviant, on the other hand, IS a loaded word intended to demonize. Your suggestion that "society just getting over it" wouldn't stop this sort of demonstrates an ignorance of the reality of closeted gay men. These men seek anonymous gay sex in toilets precisely because society denigrates gays with words like "deviant", "sinner" and "not-good-enough-to-marry". Open gays who accept themselves aren't afraid to seek a partner openly because they know they aren't doing anything wrong. When people like you succeed in making gays ashamed of who they are they seek to hide their reality with anonymity and when strong sex drives can't be denied for a lifetime this kind of thing occurs. Your dismissing the vast importance to gays of "society getting over it" is what is truly naive, of course gays don't fit with your "ingroup loyalty", you don't want to "see yourself in the other", to you whatever happens to gays is acceptable as long as you and yours get what you want. Try putting yourself in a gay person's shoes for a change. Imagine society wouldn't let you get married, that society said you weren't good enough. Would you be content with people saying your desire to marry is simply a "political question" and that they're not they're not being "disagreeable" by denying you that right?
Flapjack Bob says "Jim dutifully reproduces the same "proof" of hostility to homosexuals that have been cited in the media the last few days. It should be noted, however, that all of the above are votes which an openly gay person could support.".
Don't be absurd. Only a gay person who's internalized homophobia would vote in such a way. While some self-accepting gays oppose hate crimes laws, they oppose it for all groups, religious, racial, ethnic and so on. No accepting gay person believes religious people should be protected by hate crimes laws but that gays should not. No self-accepting gay votes against his self-interest like this and for you to suggest that it would be reasonable for them to do so is either profoundly ignorant or profoundly hateful and probably both.
Flapjack Bob said "What hypocrisy? I have yet to read any statements in the press where he denounces homosexuality and it's hard to believe if these statements existed that the press wouldn't be highlighting them.".
Trying to deny gays equal rights and then expecting a gay to share his body with you is incredibly hypocritical - you're asking somone to do you a favour when you've gone out of your way to hurt them.
Flapjack Bob said "Assuming he is gay, how is he a hypocrite if he is willing to bear these supposed "burdens"? Maybe lack of special protections and privileges is not the misery TTF claims.".
See the preceding paragraph. Gays aren't seeking "special" protections or "privileges", they're seeking equality and the acceptance one deserves when one is hurint no one. Obviously the lack of equality and acceptance is hurting him when he feels forced into a sham marriage that doesn't meet his needs and is forced to seek sex in public bathrooms to maintain anonymity- this is not a man who is at peace withhimself. This is obviously a man who's been harmed by the very discrimination against gays that he's internalized. He makes these anti-gay votes for the same reason he has sex in public toilets - he's trying to deny and hide the fact that he's gay, if he were to vote for gay equality in his mind (and not without justification) that would raise suspicions that he is gay and threaten to reveal the secret bigots like you force such men to live twisted lives to keep that secret.
I should make one more comment regarding flapjack bob's statement "What hypocrisy? I have yet to read any statements in the press where he denounces homosexuality"
Voting against equal marriage for gays is denouncing gayness - its a statment that gays aren't good enough to marry, that there's something deficient and wrong with them.
Voting against giving gays the same hate crimes protection the religious have is a statement against gayness - its a statment that gays aren't as good as other people, that they are undeserving of the same protection granted to other groups.
"Voting against equal marriage for gays is denouncing gayness - its a statment that gays aren't good enough to marry, that there's something deficient and wrong with them."
No, it isn't. It's simply saying that homosexual relationships aren't as vital to society as marriage and, thus, not deserving of privileged encouragement.
As far as I know, Craig didn't aspire to a homosexual "marriage". If the charges against him are true, he simply showed a desire for indulging in some casual perversion. You don't have to defend such a desire to see that it isn't the same as marriage.
"Voting against giving gays the same hate crimes protection the religious have is a statement against gayness - its a statment that gays aren't as good as other people, that they are undeserving of the same protection granted to other groups."
Nah. Most sane people oppose hate crimes laws and some gays are sane.
Two things all the fanatics fail to see:
1. Craig hadn't denounced anyone for having homosexual feelings or for trying to pick up guys in a bathroom so if he is found to have felt or done this, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.
2. The actions the guy took, even if the police report is completely true, don't seem to be crimes. I fail to understand why the undercover police officer didn't allow the incident to develop to the point where the accused perpetrator unambiguously incriminated himself. It's actually a little susipcious. He'd never have been convicted.
Also odd is that a newspaper was actively and publicly accusing the senator of just this conduct. If Craig actually wanted to engage in homosexual encounters, couldn't he find a more discreet way to hook up with guys?
A Little psychology for Flapjack- I would say that Senator "I am not gay, I just like to have sex with men in public bathrooms" did this almost to be found out. After the Ted Haggard, Randall Tobias, New ORleans politician(David V?) wih the hookers in DC and New orleans- how can you ask why these people aren't more discreet? For one thing-they are arrogant and so figure they can say one thing and do another- and to hell with anyone who says they can't or that they actually did anything.
Andrea
OK, OK, Andrea. I think you made two points there and I think you're probably right on at least one. Still, maybe not.
And still, I do think one could conceivably be a person who doesn't go for all the gay-focused legislation and still be interested in these occasional illicit encounters. Not justifying it- just saying, again, it's not necessarily hypocritical.
It has nothing to do with "gay-focused legislation." If we didn't have discrimination and bigotry in this country, much of it religion-based, we wouldn't need the legislation, either for practical purposes or educational ones.
Sure, a guy who refuses to accept that he's gay or bisexual, and has occasional mano-on-mano sex on the "down-lo," doesn't think of himself as "gay" and would therefore not feel that he needs any protections.
I dare say that Larry Craig right now would be better off if there were an Employment Non-Discrimination Act to protect him from getting fired :-)
And if we had a Hate Crimes Law we could put that little Tucker Carlson away for beating up that guy in the bathroom.
I said ""Voting against equal marriage for gays is denouncing gayness - its a statment that gays aren't good enough to marry, that there's something deficient and wrong with them."
Flapjack bob said "No, it isn't. It's simply saying that homosexual relationships aren't as vital to society as marriage and, thus, not deserving of privileged encouragement.
Saying gay relationships aren't vital and deserving is the same as saying there is something wrong with them and that they are deficient - you just confirmed what I originally said, voting against equal marriage for gays is a statement against gayness and that's what Larry Craig said loud and clear. The fact of the matter is that all relationships that benefit individuals ultimatley benefit society by making the individuals happier and more productive. This is just as true of gay relationships as it is of straight relationships. To fail to encourage loving committed gay relationships through marriage is for society to shoot itself in the foot, for society to deprive itself of the best most productive citizens it can have. If marriage is good for straights its just as good for gays.
Flapjack bob said "As far as I know, Craig didn't aspire to a homosexual "marriage". If the charges against him are true, he simply showed a desire for indulging in some casual perversion. You don't have to defend such a desire to see that it isn't the same as marriage.".
He internalized the shame people like you put on him, he felt the need to hide his true self that's why he hid in a sham heteroesexual marriage. Its ironic that you would attempt to hold him up as some sort of honourable figure when its plain from the situation he was a man deeply troubled by the discrimnation people like you pushed on him, a man lying to his wife, cheating on her, engaging in risky sexual behavior, creating a broken marriage, and you're trying to say that though all this he was somehow reasonable and virtuous because he was anti-gay. That's just crazy, how about stopping to think about the absurdities you're spouting? Look how you'll rationalize and praise a man who's made a wreck of his and his wife's life because he took to heart the sort of bigotry you're spouting.
Flapjack bob said "Nah. Most sane people oppose hate crimes laws and some gays are sane.".
50 years of studies have shown that the typical gay is just as sane as the typical heteosexual. Your bald assertion that most people oppose hate crime laws doesn't make it so. Before you go making such statements try backing them up with a poll that verifies it. No doubt you didn't because you're full of it. Fact is that the federal hate crimes law has been on the books for decades and people like you never opposed it until it was proposed that gays be made the equals of christians and protected in the same way Christians are. You're a hypocrite - you never opposed the existing hate crimes law when it protected you, you only claim to be against it now that its been proposed to give gays the same rights you have.
Flapjack bob said "Craig hadn't denounced anyone for having homosexual feelings or for trying to pick up guys in a bathroom so if he is found to have felt or done this, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.".
He denounced gays with his actions in voting against the equal rights of gays. Some decent gay people oppose hate crimes laws, but NONE of them believe the current situation where Christians are protected but gays aren't should be allowed to continue. Now let's hear you be an honest and decent person and admit that if you oppose hate crimes laws that you want the existing law that protects Christians repealed as well. Or do you want to say nothing and acknowledge the realty that you don't oppose the hate crimes law, you only oppose giving gays the same hate crimes protection you have?
It was incredibly hypocritcal of Craig to live his life as he choose and then to attempt to deny gays the same ability to live their lives as they choose. Craig was a hypocrite, no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.
Flapjack bob said " I do think one could conceivably be a person who doesn't go for all the gay-focused legislation and still be interested in these occasional illicit encounters. Not justifying it- just saying, again, it's not necessarily hypocritical. "
He voted against gays because that's what he thought he needed to do to avoid suspicion that he was gay - he was thinking people would assume that surely anyone who votes to oppress gays can't be gay himself and that anyone who votes for gay equality is a suspect in being gay. There was no principle here, just the shame and internalized homophobia of the closet - a destructive place that lead this man to destroy his own happiness and that of his innocent wife. And you are applauding that, shame on you. If he wanted to live that way, that was the choice gays freely allowed him to make. For him to attempt to deny gays the same right to freely make their own choices is deeply hypocritical. For him to expect to keep his job but to vote against laws that would protect gays from being fired for anything other than job related performance, for being fired merely for being gay, is deeply hypocritical. If he wanted to hurt himself that was his right but for him to vote to harm gays is deeply hypocritical.
And talk about hypocrisy, lets not forget this guy is a Republican. A republican! The party of "values voters", of holier than thou morality, the party of "we believe in decency and the Democrats don't". The party of its a sin to be gay and don't "promote" gayness. Craig's actions couldn't be any more hypocritcal.
Interesting how one sexual scandal after another all involves republicans, you'd think the law of averages would through a few Democrats in there, but no, it appears that Democrats are the better labeled as the party of values and decency.
"Interesting how one sexual scandal after another all involves republicans, you'd think the law of averages would through a few Democrats in there, but no, it appears that Democrats are the better labeled as the party of values and decency."
You don't keep up with developments, do you, Randi? Most of these bloggers and investigators have said publicly they will not expose those who support anti-family positions. Democrats appear to enjoy an unequal level of impunity.
Wan't always that way, of course. In the past, the press was more open to reveal all indiscretion, without political motivation. Barney Frank, whose secret boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of his townhouse. Gary Hart, extramarital fling. Gerry Studd, homosexual affair with pages. Bill Clinton, using the power entrusted to him by the American people to take sexual liberty with a vulnerable young adult. What do these people have in common? They're Democrats!
1. Craig hadn't denounced anyone for having homosexual feelings or for trying to pick up guys in a bathroom so if he is found to have felt or done this, it doesn't make him a hypocrite.
Mike Huckabee disagrees with you Jack.
It "...very much concerns me. I think when you see public figures who have spoken in one way and maybe acted in a different way. Frankly Americans will forgive us for being sinners. They won't forgive us for being hypocrites."
What do the indiscretions of Frank, Studds, Hart and Clinton all have in common? They happened more than 10 years ago. Why stop there? You could take it all the way back to JFK and FDR.
For those more interested in current events:
-Representative Mark Foley resigned from the House on Sept 29, 2006
-Reverend Ted Haggard resigned from the New Life Church Nov 2, 2006
-Senator David (thank goodness I only frequented female whores) Vitter apologized on July 9, 2007
-Senator Larry Craig denied being gay on August 28, 2007
"What do the indiscretions of Frank, Studds, Hart and Clinton all have in common? They happened more than 10 years ago."
How about Jim McGreevey? You missed the point though. There is a large group of people, encouraged by radical Democrats, who are intensely focused on investigating pro-family politicians and who have said they won't disclose anything they find out about anti-family politicians. If you think there aren't indiscretions occurring among these lying, unreliable arrogant Democrats, you're crazier than the average TTFer.
Hey, Anon... I think I saw you in the bathroom tapping your feet yesterday. I am not into lewed bathroom conduct, thanks.
I was just listenin' to a particularly rhythmic tune on me I-pod.
Don't call the police!
Anonymous said "Most of these bloggers and investigators have said publicly they will not expose those who support anti-family positions. Democrats appear to enjoy an unequal level of impunity.".
Nonsense, no bloggers or investigators have said anything of the sort. Those people oppose anti-family actions just like I do and anyone else.
Anonymous said "
-Representative Mark Foley resigned from the House on Sept 29, 2006
-Reverend Ted Haggard resigned from the New Life Church Nov 2, 2006
-Senator David (thank goodness I only frequented female whores) Vitter apologized on July 9, 2007
-Senator Larry Craig denied being gay on August 28, 2007 "
Let's not forget the young republican head (no pun intended) official (I forget his name) who was caught performing oral sex on a sleeping man after a party.
And how about Newt gingrich cheating on his cancer ridden wife while hypocritically condemning Clinton - there's a classic republican for you.
Political Sex Scandal Rule No. 1: If you have to say 'I'm not gay,' you probably are.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/mcgintysmailblog.aspx
Ted
Let's not forget the young republican head (no pun intended) official (I forget his name) who was caught performing oral sex on a sleeping man after a party.
Thanks for pointing this one out, Randi. This August 2007 story didn't get much national press (who controls the media?). I did some digging and found this article about Glenn Murphy Jr., the chairman of the Clark County Republican Party published by the "NewsAndTribune.com: Your source for Hoosier News and Information:"
Published August 07, 2007 09:02 pm
UPDATE: Murphy resigns political posts; cooperating with police in apparent criminal investigation
Party chair says in letter resignation was for business reasons
By LARRY THOMAS
Larry.Thomas@newsandtribune.com
The chairman of the Clark County Republican Party — who last month was elected president of the Young Republican National Federation — has resigned both posts, apparently in the wake of a criminal investigation.
On Tuesday afternoon, Glenn Murphy Jr. e-mailed media outlets a letter announcing his resignation from both positions, citing an unexpected business opportunity that would prohibit him from holding a partisan political office.
However, the Clark County Sheriff’s Department on Friday began investigating Murphy for alleged criminal deviate conduct — potentially a class B felony — after speaking with a 22-year-old man who claimed that on July 31, Murphy performed an unwanted sex act on him while the man slept in a relative’s Jeffersonville home.
Murphy, a 33-year-old Utica resident, has not been arrested nor has he been charged with a crime. A copy of the police report has been posted on an politically focused Internet site and another was provided to a reporter with The Evening News and The Tribune on Tuesday evening.
Larry Wilder, Murphy’s attorney, said Murphy is cooperating with police and Prosecutor Steve Stewart. Wilder said Murphy contends the sex act was consensual.
A reporter was unable to reach Stewart on Tuesday evening.
In 1998, a 21-year-old male filed a similar report with Clarksville police claiming Murphy attempted to perform a sex act on him while he was sleeping. Charges were never filed in that case.
In the letter he e-mailed to a reporter on Tuesday, Murphy says that on Friday he learned that he had been awarded a contract he had bid on more than a year ago, and that one of the stipulations of the deal is that Murphy could not hold a partisan political office.
In the letter, Murphy wrote: “My company (Utica-based December Media) bid on a very large project more than a year ago. It was a job that I thought I would never get in a million years — one that could transform my company and do in one year what I could ordinarily do in five. Well, I got the job Friday
“... It was perfect timing for the county chairmanship that I was transitioning out of anyway, but terrible timing for my volunteer Young Republican position that I had just worked so hard to achieve.
“My family sat down with me Saturday evening to look at things from every angle. We determined that if I didn’t take the job, there could potentially never be that type of opportunity again and I would be shorting the security of my future and the future of my family. I prayed with my family, and we determined that I have to take this opportunity for my long-term security.”
Murphy spoke with a reporter via telephone only briefly after sending the e-mail. The conversation occurred before The Evening News and The Tribune obtained copies of the police reports from last week and 1998.
http://www.news-tribune.net/breakingnews/local_story_219210228.html
The fundamental problem is your childish insistence on the term "pro-family." That framing just won't fly anymore.
Who in the world is not pro-family? I don't know anyone, gay, straight or otherwise. My friends who grew up on the most socialist of kibbutzim were raised in a pro-family atmosphere, just a different kind of family.
As a matter of fact, the last time anyone was quoted who was anti-family that I can recall was Jesus, who asked his followers to leave their families and form a new one with him. Scandalous!
Post a Comment
<< Home