Exactly!!

I've another buddy coming back in a few weeks also. It's time for big 'ol party. Poor guy lost over 20lbs without all those empty alcohol calories. No strip club though, the man needs laid, not shimmied and ground. Luckily, a few of the morally liberated women in the crowd are already throwing elbows to see who takes first crack at him. After all, he's spent the last year or so spanking the weasel and thinking about how he's going to unload. He's a chubby chaser too. This should be interesting.

Sadly, the only action a vet can expect from the chicken hawks is a blow job from an old senator in the airport can.

Pretty objectifying, eh? The mere fact that women now say things like that indicates that feminism has come a very long way from where it started. Perhaps "post-feminist" is more an indication that the goals and paradigm have shifted. Back then feminism was the right to vote, to not get beaten by a husband, for a non-prostitute to make her own way through life as a single woman, etc. Now the fight is for income equality, reproductive control, and shattering the glass ceiling. By all indications, that too is imminent victory. Women outnumber men at universities. Young women in large cities out earn young men.

Perhaps "post-feminist" should be accepted as an homage to all the work, suffering and relentlessness of earlier feminist generations.

Did we're there post-suffragettes?

Also "panties" a bad term? I hope that one doesn't catch on. I can't imagine saying "Take off you garment". "Panties" has that little hint of naughtiness that some situations require.

But it is arrogant to believe that you have a special dispensation for determining rightness and wrongness. It is also arrogant to dismiss people as stupid. Most people are not stupid. They just believe other things. Understanding their beliefs doesn't mean agreeing. It can be the precursor to battle.

You implied that no one should try learning from Hitler. Try reading Mein Kampf. Hitler was a fascinating, nuanced monster. He was pathogical and brilliant. The most horrific thing, to me, inside those pages is that the mob is so controllable. It is Mein Kampf that helped me understand the drumbeat to war in 2003.

Regardless, I'm also pretty arrogant. Welcome to the club.

1) they're wrong

2) they're stupid

3) they're weak.

Queer National, you're reached the 2nd level.

The reason these guys are nuanced and fascinating is because they have chosen to "become a walking punchline." Do you think they don't realize it? Do you suppose they don't spend a lot of time alone agonizing over their chosen path?

I will always admire the personal strength of someone strong enough to knowingly face rejection. I don't have to like someone to find them nuanced, fascinating and at least partially admirable. I don't even have to agree with them. Anyone with a logical framework to support they're actions and beliefs deserves an ear. There's the outside possibility they'll make sense.

Please don't misinterpret me.

Yes, a lot of what I'm reading in these forums implies a perception of "core gay beliefs". I by no means support that perception. I'm glad you don't either. I wish no one supported it, but a lot of the people posting in these forums seem to think that Craig is gay and must therefor believe and support certain things. They then point out the hypocrisy of his voting record because it doesn't align with what they want.

As mizblinky pointed out, it isn't his conservatism that's the problem, it's his high horse.

Do you believe that every gay who is not openly out is self loathing? If not, how about those who are out to family, friends and adult children but not to the community?

Also, do you believe that a gay supporting DOMA loathes everybody or just himself?

A guilty pea does infer an admission that every element of the charged crime was violated. However, there are defenses against it like coercion, failure to understand the charges, etc. So, a guilty plea can be taken back but it can still serve as evidence.

Good points. I was concentrating on what Craig's voting record and not his image building/maintenance. I agree that if he says gay sex is wrong, criminal, and deplorable whilst have cum breath, he is a hypocrite.

As for the demonizers. The hypocritical right wingers are those doing the push-pull thing by claiming Craig sexual escapades are not an issue and then saying he should resign.

The hypocritical left wingers are those who claim to be open minded and not homophobic but appear to have a preconceived notion of what laws and what life style every gay man should seek. As liberals, they seek to define all gays as liberal. As such they also think that a gay republican is worse than any other republican because he doesn't support those gay liberal ideals as well as not supporting other liberal ideals.

15 years ago, I too thought gay implied liberal. I was wrong. I know a lot of out and proud gay conservatives. Even a neocon or two. No christian fundies though(yet). Have a few drinks with a log cabin republican. Odds are you'll find a very nuanced and fascinating individual who disagrees with you about a lot of things.

Why must every homosexual be against DOMA etc? Is it to support fellow gays or because every gay must want a homosexual marriage?

Is it possible for a gay man to sincerely believe that he should marry a woman and raise a family? Is it also possible for that gay man to believe that only heterosexual child producing couples should be enjoy the label "married"?

Yes, I know the counter arguments. Gays can (could?) adopt. Many straight couples can't bear children. etc etc

I'm just wondering if Craig's conservative beliefs can be internally consistent with his orientation. A lot of what I'm reading essentially says that a gay man must hold certain beliefs.