your probably dont think blacks should vote, or muslims should be welcome - your tone and prejudice masked by intellectual dishonesty is staggering,

your a bigot my friend, in every sense of the word - and if it was still ok to speak that way about other minorities i am sure you wouldnt hold back either!

fortunatly no one really buys what your selling, and thank god for that!

>>>Homosexual agenda (?)

Do we really want homosexuals setting the nations agenda. Staffers are the ones who do the real work of the Congress. If homosexuals are a majority or a large minority they will push deals and legislation that reflect their interests, even if unconciously. I can't see this as a good thing.

A mature homosexual man sees a 16-year old adolescent male as the epitome of sexual attractiveness, just like we heteros see an attractive teenage girl. The homos are just less inhibited about it. Since homosexual sex is inherently unsatisfying because the brain and body are not truly in sync, an insatiable longing results that can never be really satisfied. What else explains the rampant promiscuity and rapid spread of STD's? Do we want these sorts of people in the prime position to make our laws and regulations?

-- Anonymous

But Bruce Carroll, an openly gay Republican who runs the conservative blog GayPatriot, says "This is such a personal choice that I can't even fathom why anyone would want to force that choice upon them."

Since you don't understand it Bruce, let me explain it to you.

If a Jew worked for the Nazi party, it would be news. If a person of color worked for the KKK, it would be news. If a gay person works for the most homophobic organization in the US, an organization that raises money and stays in power by maligning gay people over and over and over again ... it is news.

Do you get it?

Foley & his gay supporters illustrate why it is so important to out homosexuals in Boy Scouts. Thesecrecy that Foley encouaged gave him the opportunity to sneak up on hetero boys and "soften them up" over time.

And, yes, Foley supporters, 16 is the age of consent. Yes, Foley supporters, it isn't a crime. But if it is so normal, so legal, so acceptable, why not tell the kids that wander into their offices to keep their backs to the wall and guard their booty, rather than letting them get set up and preyed upon. Because that is precisely the reason the Foleys of this world love the closet.

The value of the closet for guys like Foley and other homosexual predators is to get close enough to fresh meat so they can make a play, gradually, over time, with seemingly harmless behaviors: an innocent squeeze here, a hand on the waist there, a slightly off-color email. Behaviors that over time gradually violate boundaries. So much so that when they feed their prey some booze and go for their booty, if initially rejected they can act hurt and say "but young boy, you led me on!"

The Boy Scouts has the same problem. It is a perennial problem trying to identify men who are booty bandits. And I don't know whether to call them homosexual or not since hundreds of thousands of them that fill our prisons and love the booty call themselves heterosexual. They hide in the closet because the secrecy of the closet lets them do things they could never hope to get away with if everyone knew. All the little fanny pats and tickling would be seen for what they actually are: a hustle, a seduction, or "grooming" as the British call it. We would immediately know what was up when they offered to go on campouts with boys, or have all the boys over for a "fun night" in their basement.

So by all means, kick them out of the closet. Tell us who they are before we let our children get anywhere near them. Take away their secret and you take away their hustle, their con, their ability to groom young people for sex when other adults aren't watching.

Hillary Clinton opposes the normalization of same-sex marriage, and both she and her husband (who signed the bill into law) support the Defense of Marriage Act.

Would it therefore be permissible, fair, and accepted by the Salon readership if Republicans outed Senator Clinton if there were information that she was a lesbian? How about if the outing occurred in September of 2008?

So, there are openly gay congressmen and republican staffers - but the media all collude to keep the secret. Why? Because it isn't relevant? Nonsense - nobody worries about the relevance of the most private details of a heterosexual politician's life. Does he have an ex-wife? An adopted child? Heck - those details don't even have to be related to marriage - his religion, financial matters, employment history, drinking habits, drug use, and medical history are all fair game in the eyes of the media. Why does homosexuality stand out as the one thing that can't be discussed? Is it because the media are buying into the "gay is shameful" myth? Is being gay more of a character flaw than being a habitual drinker? A multiple divorcee? Smoking pot? The Republican party has been actively cultivating anti-gay bigotry in order to win elections. I'm sure that most of the media people who worry about "outing" openly gay political aids/policiticans aren't anti-Gay, they simply recognize that any connection to Gay people is bad for the campaign of any Republican candidate, and they don't want to "bias" the public against the candidate. The irony is that if Republicans didn't constantly feed anti-gay hysteria, it wouldn't matter if they worked closely with gay people. The media are enabling the right to play a sick little game with the anti-gay public where they reinforce their prejudices while secretly supporting the behaviour that they are condemning.

Thanks Anonymous. That was just brilliant. Salon -- Is there anything you WON'T print? Advocacy of genocide? Disclosure of nuclear secrets? Cary's home phone number?