Craig attempts to change Guilty plea

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

Just to clarify my last post making a connection between Larry Craig to Al Gore ... I know that global warming and gay/lesbian rights are very different issues and distinguishable in many many ways. What I think Craig could have done was become a distinguished voice and face on this political issue. He has for many years been well-respected and it would probably open up a lot of people's minds if he came out. My comparison to Al Gore was that Gore gave America a face and voice of someone relatively mainstream as a proponent of concern over global warming. Having a recognizable face people can associate with a cause is very powerful in politics, and Larry Craig had an opportunity to spearhead what could have been a meaningful national debate on the issue.

I think we're not really speaking the same language here. I mean . . .

He's not a face for gay America, because Larry Craig a.) doesn't do anything positive for gay communities or even represent their interests when he's getting head in a bathroom and b.) HE LIKELY ISN'T EVEN GAY, IN SPITE OF HIS ACTS

[skylark]

ASSUMING the rumors that had circulated around Craigs sexuality for decades are in fact true (I think there is no question, based on the fact that the rumors come from completely independent sources) then I think that IF Craig had taken the opportunity to come out, saying something to the effect of how embarrassing it is that because of his position in the government he felt that he had to hide his true sexuality, that it would have been good for the gay rights political movement. I think it would have been positive because:

a) people in conservative religious regions of the US might realize that people they know and respect are gay (the stereotypical effeminate san francisco spandex wearing gay man is something that a lot of people still think of in communities where being openly gay is not an accepted lifestyle). Breaking down stereotypes is a very powerful thing.

b) it would be easier for future gay political candidates to seem more legitimate because Craig, who was all but untouchable as a successful politician in Idaho for decades, did a good job and proved that being gay doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-gun or any of the other things that republicans tend to stand for (besides being against gay rights).

c) individuals who are living in areas that are more conservative, like Idaho, might feel more comfortable coming out and talking about their sexuality if their senator had come out in a respectful way.

I realize I am being totally optimistic, but my comment was meant to be an optimistic reflection on how Craig could have turned this into a positive thing for America and lesbian/gay rights and, quite frankly, his own life, since now the questions and looks will always be there. (Assuming he is gay) wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop fighting the rumors and finally embrace who he is, even if initially it might be difficult for his family and loved ones? Arguably, his family and loved ones are probably going through worse right now because of all the questions and scrutiny.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by skylark

ASSUMING the rumors that had circulated around Craigs sexuality for decades are in fact true (I think there is no question, based on the fact that the rumors come from completely independent sources) then I think that IF Craig had taken the opportunity to come out, saying something to the effect of how embarrassing it is that because of his position in the government he felt that he had to hide his true sexuality, that it would have been good for the gay rights political movement.

Again, though, this is assuming that he self-identifies as gay, whether way in the back of the closet or not. From what I have seen, though, I don't believe that he self-identifies as gay; I think he truly believes it when he says "I'm not gay."

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, though, this is assuming that he self-identifies as gay, whether way in the back of the closet or not. From what I have seen, though, I don't believe that he self-identifies as gay; I think he truly believes it when he says "I'm not gay."

I think skylark's failing to recognize that having sex with a man doesn't make you gay anymore than eating vegetables makes you a vegetarian.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I think skylark's failing to recognize that having sex with a man doesn't make you gay anymore than eating vegetables makes you a vegetarian.

Having sex with a man once? probably not

Having sex with men for over 30 years? While there are exceptions, I'm sure, I think most men who have sex with other men for decades are probably either bisexual or gay... although I do acknowledge that it is something everyone has to decide for themselves... maybe it appears that I am unfairly labeling Larry Craig without his consent but how else do you have a conversation about it?

[skylark]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Again, though, this is assuming that he self-identifies as gay, whether way in the back of the closet or not. From what I have seen, though, I don't believe that he self-identifies as gay; I think he truly believes it when he says "I'm not gay."

Agreed. In my optimistic hypothetical "coming out" speech I think am assuming that he would have some self-reflection that would require him to identify with being gay. I agree that in reality, he may be engaging in some denial games in his own mind to the extent that he can believe his "I am not gay" statement.

Also, to Sugar08, the risk of being lumped in with sex offenders is a danger... I don't think an insurmountable challenge, though. It isn't like he was trying to become part of an orgy or something beyond regular, gay sex... he was just seeking it anonymously, which is something I think any person might be driven to after a lifetime of denying yourself your true sexuality. It is just one more example of why homophobia presents unfair circumstances to closeted gay men.

I personally do not think the fact that he was seeking anonymous sex in a bathroom is all that odd (bear with me on this and read the rest of my post before attacking me) ... Heterosexual people (without horns or tails) seek anonymous sex, too, and quite honestly there are even "signals" used as well. I just don't think we immediately think about it because it has become (relatively) socially acceptable to meet someone in a bar, buy the other person a drink, etc. and then go home with that person. If the men who frequent the Minneapolis airport had a socially acceptable option to find sex in a bar with minimal judgment, who is to say that many of them (including Larry Craig) might be doing that instead of passing signals underneath a stall. Heterosexual people (from at least what I've heard) don't have elaborately signal-based bathroom sex, but maybe that is because there are other (relativelly) socially acceptable options.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by skylark

Agreed. In my optimistic hypothetical "coming out" speech I think am assuming that he would have some self-reflection that would require him to identify with being gay. I agree that in reality, he may be engaging in some denial games in his own mind to the extent that he can believe his "I am not gay" statement.

It might be denial, or it might be an honest self-assessment. He very well may see himself as a heterosexual who just likes a little same-sex action from time to time, or (put another way) a bisexual with predominantly heterosexual leanings.

I can think of a few people on the Hill who might have the potential of being good role models like you describe. But I don't think Craig is one of them.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It might be denial, or it might be an honest self-assessment. He very well may see himself as a heterosexual who just likes a little same-sex action from time to time, or (put another way) a bisexual with predominantly heterosexual leanings.

I can think of a few people on the Hill who might have the potential of being good role models like you describe. But I don't think Craig is one of them.

I don't agree that Craig, as he has lived his life up until now, is one of them either... all I ever said was that he had an opportunity to turn it around both politically and personally.

I also agree that him saying "I am not gay" might also be an accurate self-assessment... but saying "might" is not the same thing as saying "probably." Something about the situation, the fact that the rumors (both publicized and behind closed doors in Idaho) have been constant and pretty specific throughout the years tells me that is probably not the case.

Craig is someone who is from a small, rural Idaho town where there is probably not a single "out" individual, he loves politics and sought a career in politics, and (I believe) had to choose back in his earlier years whether to live true to his sexuality or true to his chosen career. If this is all true (I'm not saying it is... who could know for sure), it is unfortunate he had to make that choice back then, but now after gaining prestige on the hill and in Idaho politics, I think he had the opportunity to come out in a positive way and force a serious discussion in Idaho and nationally about sexuality.

[Sugar08]

Originally Posted by skylark

ASSUMING the rumors that had circulated around Craigs sexuality for decades are in fact true (I think there is no question, based on the fact that the rumors come from completely independent sources) then I think that IF Craig had taken the opportunity to come out, saying something to the effect of how embarrassing it is that because of his position in the government he felt that he had to hide his true sexuality, that it would have been good for the gay rights political movement.

Or, it may have confirmed the belief some conservatives hold: that gays are sexual offenders who get down in airport bathrooms. I think there's no way for him to have spun this any better than he did.