It is typical of a white, heterosexual, upper middle class male to think that things were so much better in the past, they weren't. And if that's not enough to convince you, GK, would be you be happier in a society that shuns higher education?

You can say how Bush compares very badly to JFK. You can say how the people running the country now are not as good. But when you start saying there is something wrong with our culture, that people were better forty years ago, that is just plain ridiculous. This is like those who say there is something depraved about German culture itself that it could produce the Third Reich. The fact is that leaders come to power for reasons that historians write books about, not because human nature has fundametally changed. It's that conservative mentality (things were better when I was young) that gets people to support Bush.

I don't know why people are down on the Dems for doing this. They have rolled over easily in the past and it is time for them to fight back, even if they won't win this battle. Yes, they have to show the electorate how they care about this issue, but also they need to show the pro-War group that they will fight back, and that they won't stop with this vote.

... to take the the very essence of manliness, strip away all it's mystery and magic and beauty and use it to put down men.

Puh- leeeze!

"The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades."

As one of those evil homosexuals that was planning on going to New Orleans, I think I should give some detail. It's not so much a parade as an extended week of events called Southern Decadence. It occurs every year over Labor Day and there was nothing monumental about 2005, except that it promised to be better than all previous ones, just like any other event gets bigger and better each year.

But here is the thing. Katrina did not occur during Southen Decadance, but early enough for everyone to change their travel plans. So, I missed out on a vacation, while the god-fearing Christians of the gulf lost their homes and their livelihood. The French Quarter "sin central" suvived the hurricaine much better than the areas below sea level. This leads me to the same conclusion I have of Intelligent Design -- if God planned this, he can't be very smart.

I am not a fan of politicians who vote against gay rights and then have sex with men, but I'm not going to let that stop me from saying this is ridiculous and unconsequential. If Congresspeople need to leave for commiting adultery, there would be a lot of empty seats. And yes, sex in public is wrong, but the man was seeking privacy, so to me this is only some bad judgement. It only shows to me that beneath the sleazy exterior America is a puritanical country.

"self-hating gays who crusade against gay rights are sick"

I do wish people would stop using the word sick like this, it demeans people who actually are sick, physically or mentally. Self-hating gays who crusade against gay rights are bad people, just like straight people who do that same. Denial is not a sickness, and nearly every gay person has gone through a period of denial, some even expressing homophobic feelings. It may be a destructive state of mind, but not a mental illness.

As for Mr Anonymous with his definite evidence about St. Paul, if such evidence is out there, you should write a book. In fact if such evidence existed, I am sure someone already would have.

Mr Hannaham knows of what he speaks, but I have to wonder do straight people need to know this? I've seen gay men talk about their cruising behavior to straights or to lesbians and it usually gets a puzzled look. Either people are grossed out, or they are secretly envious. Well, Salon readers, now we learn just how liberal you really are.

In reply to Anonymous who seems to be writing so many negative messages here. While there may be some thrill about possibly being caught, aside from a few nut cases, the idea is to do it as privately as possible and that no one who isn't involved in the act is aware of it. Most of the excitement is actually from the hunt and the anonymity, often involved no conversation, sometimes not even seeing the other person's face.

I've never cruised a public bathroom but have had anonymous sex in (safer) places that would be considered "public" and believe me, the last thing I wanted was to be noticed by anyone who wasn't there for the same reason.

I have to disagree with the premise. I think people are Republican because of their political beliefs. It is easier for a Democratic politician to be openly gay than a Republican one, but even then, how many openly gay democrats are there in Congress? The fact is that about 10% of men are gay and this pretty much includes all political parties. On the other hand, some calling that requires celebacy as a lifestyle is likely to attracted closeted homosexual men. Can you think of one?

BTW, notice my use of the word homosexual. "Gay" refers to a homosexual who identifies as such, to him/herself at the least.