From what I gather he fancies himself a libertarian of sorts, but he is inconsistent in it. If he were a true libertarian he would not beat up on gays. That's within the purview of the fascist right. So basically he has no real discernible point of view.

He does however consistently show two traits.

Distorting facts to fit his anti liberal agenda
And
2) A really sadistic cruel streak.

He takes great pleasure along with his acolyte and frequent guest Willie Geist putting down vulnerable people. He begins to glow when he is humiliating a starlet that has gotten in trouble with the law or really anyone who has suffered a misfortune.

Apparently that kind of thing is all the rave at MSNBC and other news channels. That's in keeping with the tone set by the Bush administration .

So it does not surprise me in the least that Mr. Carlson would brag about beating up a homosexual. Sadistic personalities are often incredibly naive about how others perceive their public behavior--at least the dumb and immature ones like Tucker are.

Why the laughter? How about Tucker Carlson is about as Gay as it gets? He's a total closet case! Look at the ties for God's sake! What a friggin hypocrite! The line of Republicans of this ilk seems to grow almost daily.

He and Senator Craig need to sign up for therapy in a real hurry IMHO.

Tucker beat the guy all right, and yes, he used his fist, but it wasn't head shots. It was in fact a reach around and they both thoroughly enjoyed the exchange in the bathroom.

I'm sure there was that, and I imagine others found the idea that Carlson got hit on in a men's room quite amusing as well. Also, to be fair to Carlson, I'm not sure he's claiming to have assaulted someone because they were gay - it was because this person was harrassing people in a restroom.

But I agree with Reed's rhetorical question. There's nothing especially funny about the anecdote; regardless of your sexual orientation, being harrassed in a men's room is basically unpleasant. And I actually have some respect for Carlson for confronting the person - whether slamming heads was warranted in the circumstances is another matter, but no issues with his taking a stand.

But yeah, it's not that funny. Unless there's some inside-the-beltway joke that we're not supposed to get.

I don't know if Tucker was solicited, but I find it hard to make a case that soliciting a woman should get a man beat up by said woman. Similarly, getting solicited by the same sex is not grounds for assault. Last I heard, asking for sex is legal, if crude. And why should being thought gay be a career-killer? In what way does sexual orientation cloud someone's judgement?

Would it be OK if Sen. Craig opposed legal marijuana but smoked it at home? Would it be OK if he opposed handgun ownership but kept them at home?

I don't care if he stays in office, but I think it's fine to call him a hypocrite. I leave it to his constituents to not re-elect this person whose "choice" goes against his constituents wishes.

"Kickin' with Senator Larry Craig"
www.ilovepoetry.com/viewpoem.asp?id=93229
This 'splanes' all?

Uh... no a person doesn't have the right not to be the "victim" of unwanted sexual advancers. The advancer doesn't know they're unwanted until they try, after all. Of course, they have the right not to have those advances repeated or to be threatened but that's a different question.

Carlson got a friend, went back after the incident was well over and attacked the guy.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Thank God one person in this thread can recognize the obvious, and point it out to Reed and the rest.

Maybe WWF can host an ultimate smackdown between Carlson and Anderson Cooper, with a pre-show match between Michael Kinsley and Jonathan Turley.

Tucker seems to be kid in school who run to tell the teacher on everyone. I believe he was boasting and cannot hit a fly; he is fibbing!

Fibbing about hitting gays is much worse than doing it!

Rumor has it that gays are no longer going to squirt.org for the latest cruising hot spots. They're just calling Republican members of Congress.

The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon

Yeah, what you said.

Tucker Carlson - too dumb to see through Bush's pre-Iraq war BS, has ruined the good name of bow ties forevever, and, to top it all off, he can't dance. Why does this guy have a TV show?Tom

I don't know if Tucker was solicited, but I find it hard to make a case that soliciting a woman should get a man beat up by said woman.

 Ha. I don't. Men can be lewd and will grope women after their unwanted advances are rejected. I wish women could beat the crap out of some of those assholes to bring a halt to that demeaning behavior. I wish there was a posse of female male beaters for that type individual. Those type actions on the part of men make the victim feel powerless, alter their self-esteem and can result in limiting the places they go to and the peace of mind they have as an individual in a free society. It is no different than any other socially reprehensble behavior.

Similarly, getting solicited by the same sex is not grounds for assault.

 No it isn't. Which is why I posed it from the opposite gender point of view to prevent having it misconstrued as advocating against gays, by saying that there are probably lots of women who would love to pulverize men who engage in unwanted sexual advances repeatedly.

And why should being thought gay be a career-killer?

The same way adultery, domestic abuse, obnoxious or any other behavior outside the norms of the corporate culture are negative. That is how it is.

What people do not need is to risk the problems of whatever the negative behavior is that impacts their career, when it is not of their own choosing. Women who are promiscuous or garner reputations for such also have that impact their careers. That is the way our society functions. Engaging in certain behaviors carries a set of negatives and unless that is something you want in your life you avoid the behavior. Accusations are worse than behavior as there is no way to defend against character defamation of that sort, realistically. The same goes for drinking excessively or driving under the influence. Numerous behaviors when they are alleged against an individual impact their career.

As to why being gay is a career killer, you need to ask all those people in Idaho or on TPM who are calling for Craig to resign. I personally think it is hypocritically. Whatever he did legally sexually should not be used against him professionally. In this case it is alleged that pandering for sex in public bathrooms is lewd conduct and a misdemeanor...which I do not think should end a career but then DUI's are misdemeanors and they are career killers as well.

 Would it be OK if Sen. Craig opposed legal marijuana but smoked it at home? Would it be OK if he opposed handgun ownership but kept them at home?

 Yes, if that was the political platform he ran on and was elected to represent. Politicians often vote in support of their majority consituency. That's why it is called politics. Just like catholics should be able to vote pro-choice if their constiuency is primarily prochoice. Elected officials are not to vote their personal views as representative of the electorate they represent.

I don't care if he stays in office, but I think it's fine to call him a hypocrite.

Craig is not a hypocrite, he is entitled to his own personal values and behaviors which need not be aligned with the political views he represents as a politician for his consituency.

 After all, Craig did not change his behavior to represent a particular view point. He continued with his same behavior independent of votes that represented his constituency. He was anything but a hypocrite. Just a plain ol politician is all he was.

does that mean it's ok for the guy to shoot tucker afterwards?

They know they are initiating the advance.

when people are horny, I don't their behavior is totally intellectual.

To boldly go...

does that mean it's ok for the guy to shoot tucker afterwards?

So are you suggesting that the assailant has a right to kill the victim for defending themselves?

when people are horny, I don't their behavior is totally intellectual

Even more reason to beat some sense into them.

"It's quite appropriate for there to be laws against exploiting the peculiar circumstances of a public bathroom."

Yes.

"If a man gropes a man, and gets the crap beat out of him, that's way beyond appropriate."

In principle, yes. However, if you were cornered in a cubicle by a pervert, and you punched his lights out, I'd give you a pass. Call it the "peculiar circumstances of a public bathroom".

And I guess haven't been clear enough about my interpretation of Carlson's story - I expect he's exaggerating his machismo, and given the shifting chronology as outlined by Dan K above, I doubt very much we've gotten an accurate version of what happened. What clearly triggered an adverse response from some people is my stated respect for someone who would confront a restroom cruiser.

Whatever the specifics of Tucker's Toilet Heroics, I've got no issue with someone prepared to confront these perverts. Gratuitously beating anyone up is obviously wrong, but that's not my point here.

all I can say is: "I totally disagree."

for example, i supported the impeachment and/or censure of bill clinton because "if an ordinary person did the same thing, he/she would have gone to jail."

as far as I can tell, larry craig betrayed the civil rights of gays. i.e. just like women got the vote, I believe that gay marraige stands on the same ground and craig had the constitution to understand that fact.

your arguments make me believe that you'd accept a senator taking away the right for women to vote if his/her district wanted it that way...

on some issues, the road less traveled is the right one.

To boldly go...

your arguments make be believe that you'd accept a senator taking away the right for women to vote if his/her district wanted it that way...

Your arguments make me beleive that you think it is OK for a Senator to vote his or hers own belief if it is your view. The people calling Craig a hypocrite are pro-gay marriage. They seem to feel that if Craig engges in homosexual acts that he should vote for gay marriage or he is a hypocrite. I disagree.

Right now we have a majority Democratic Congress but cannot stop the war because many southern Democrats will not vote to oppose Bush or to end the war funding. Many of those Democrats represent districts which do not oppose the war. Those politicians can be heard to personally lament the war ye they will not vote to end it.

I was saddened by Craig's public display insistence not just on having done no wrong but on not being gay. It played over and over, and I couldn't help thinking it was helping mark homosexuality as the crime or at least a sin as much as it was damaging Craig.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

that was a hardcore website. I had to leave pretty quickly!

To boldly go...

I don't know if anyone else noticed this but Craig keeps denying he's "gay". Maybe someone should ask if he bisexual.

Uh... there's a right to freely associate and an equal protection clause. What more do you need?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I can't watch Tucker Carlson for more than 5 minutes, he's as childish as Hannity.

As to his story of the gay encounter, I don't believe it.

Wait! I might believe it if the gay guy was a dwarf. Then I can visualize Tucker going for some help to beat the gay up.

I my eyes, he became a hypocrite when he starting pretending to "be one of his constituients."

How so? He is married and has children. He supported family values based on that. If anything, he recognized that he was a fallible human being and that his transgressions did not warrant elevating them to public policy positions.

There are lots of people who have had abortions who are pro-life. Are they hypocrites too?

 Your example would be self-defense against rape

Rape should not be the definititive act to defend oneself against perverts. They could be licking your face, which is well short of rape and highly offensive enough to warrant a beat down.

 he isn't defending himself from his political opposites; the liberals, Democrats or gays, he's defending himself from Republicans and his constituents.

I think it is far bigger than partianship. Craig is defending his right as an individual to decide who and what he is. The people who seem to be the most angry at him are those who want him to support the gay rights agenda on gay marriage based on his engaging in homosexual acts. Which is no different from catholics having to defend themselves against the pro-life agenda and the pope in determining if they are catholics.

The point seems to be you cannot engage in homosexual acts if you are not gay and you cannot support abortion if you are catholic.  Same damn thing.

he was a hypocrite and a fake if you believe that he wasn't true to his core values. as a senator,

At worse, that makes him a normal human being in our society. Many people have behaviors that do not seemingly match their core values..there is a word for that in religion..it is called sin. The world is full of sinners. At best, what Craig did was not foster his sin upon the public which could possibly be the true core value he adhered to. His belief that gay marriage is not in the interest of the public good based on his value system.

he has the moral burden of being a leader, not a follower--

Perhaps, he was a leader based on his own moral beliefs, you simply do not have his same values. Craig voted against gay marriage, Craig renounced being gay and Craig engaged in homosexual acts. Maybe he decided that sex was a private behavior and not an identity to be fostered on the public in the form of 'gay rights' or gay marriage, because he simply does not beleive in them.

For that you call him a follower and hypocrite?  I think not. Seems that he had the courage of his convictions and the ability to discern between private sins and public policy.

Craig's problem is that he did not have the good sense to acknowledge his fallibility as a human being and still support that not being public policy. Had he done so he would be in a far better position. As it is no different from LogCabin republicans who support the GOP agenda despite it not supporting gay rights. If Craig had stood up and taked responsibility for his character flaws while having the judgment not to make it political agenda he would be far better off. Afterall, that is what the LogCabin republicans do, isn't it?  Rove understood that.

Marriage is a state issue

Agreed.

There is nothing in the constitution giving the federal government any authority over marriage,

I agree and opposing it is not unconstitutional either.

Craig was not serving Idahoans when voting to nationally ban same-sex marriage--Idaho already prohibits same-sex marriage--he was violating the constitutional principles that were his sworn duty to uphold in an attempt to impose the views of Idahoans on those living in other states.

I agree, as there is nothing in the constitution that supports it either...it is not unconstitutional.

Furthermore, cheating on your spouse is not hypocrisy. Failing to live up to standards is not hypocrisy. Failing to live up to standards that you're publically pretending to live up to IS hypocrisy.

Married people who engage in infidelity are not upholding the standards of marriage, so by your definition that is hypocrisy. Or are you contending that because their infidelity is not public they are upholding their values and committment to marriage?

Drinking is not hypocrisy. Wanting laws against drunk driving while you engage in drunk driving is not hypocrisy. Conveying that you yourself never drive drunk when you actually drive drunk all the time IS hypocrisy

Are you contending that people who drink and drive do not uphold the DUI laws? Legislators drink and they drive and they support DUI laws...according to your reasoning that is hypocrisy.

I think not. I think that people have the judgment to discern between private behavior and public policy.

I think I found the link on an economics blog, but I didn't go past the home page. You are a brave soul.

The worst thing you can do to a dogma is give it an empire. Anon

whiterosebuddy said:

Craig is defending his right as an individual to decide who and what he is.

Then he's either defending himself as a hypocrite or he should be defending himself as a gay or Bi person.

I was echoing Eddie-george's comment, below. "However, if you were cornered in a cubicle by a pervert, and you punched his lights out, I'd give you a pass."

Why is that not rape, or at least attempted? Maybe you misunderstood the example; I meant a forceful sexual assault. 

Suggest waterboarding to catD, below; she's looking for something beyond the wussy slap for a groper. 

Whiterosebuddy,

Your claim that lawmakers can do anything that isn't expressly forbidden by a written clause in the consitution is too ridiculous to merit reply (I doubt you believe it yourself), but you don't also get to pretend words mean what they don't mean.

Hypocrisy refers to insincerity. Not success or failure at living up to standards or promises. Not advocacy or opposition to public policy. Not obeying or breaking laws one voted for or didn't vote for.

If you feign beliefs, convictions, passions or virtues that you don't have, you are a hypocrite. This is not MY definition. This is what the word means.

Craig is not a hypocrite for violating the principles of Federalism in order to trample on the rights of the citizens of other states--that just makes him a Republican.

Nor is he a hypocrite for spouting the mindless blather about 'traditional family values' being virtuous and worthy of emulation. That just makes him a conservative.

Craig is a hypocrite for conveying to the public that he lives in a manner that he does not live and meets standards that he does not meet and does not break laws that he actually breaks.

Argue that hypocrisy doesn't matter, argue that closet non-heterosexuals need to be hypocrites to survive, argue that everyone's a hypocrite, but don't make up definitions of words.

So are you suggesting that the assailant has a right to kill the victim for defending themselves?

I don't think so. based on what your wrote, that's what you're seeming to advocate. "violence begets violence" as MLK wrote.

Even more reason to beat some sense into them

and then do they have the right to rough you over? if you really don't want contact, I'd just walk away if i were you!

To boldly go...

There are lots of people who have had abortions who are pro-life. Are they hypocrites too?

no, as long as they have enough courage to affirm that life is more diverse than a Disney movie.

I'm "prolife" but I understand that I don't have the resources to save every aborted child; some conservatives recognize this dilema.

To boldly go...

Married people who engage in infidelity are not upholding the standards of marriage, so by your definition that is hypocrisy.

well, catholics go to church and annul their marraiges and pretend they never really happened (read "that it was sanctioned by god").

Legislators drink and they drive and they support DUI laws...according to your reasoning that is hypocrisy.

absolutely. especially if there is a cover up like how kennedy claimed that the accident was caused by medication not alcohol.

To boldly go...

Your arguments make me beleive that you think it is OK for a Senator to vote his or hers own belief if it is your view.

ultimately, a senator has to be able to defend their vote, regardless of how it's made.

The people calling Craig a hypocrite are pro-gay marriage.

I just don't think that Craig should imply that same sex couples are outcasts when he enjoys gay sex himself.

In general, I don't believe that Craig is gay but he makes comments that suggest "if you have gay sex, then you're gay." The term "erotic massage" best describes my opinion here since people often have sex for pleasure only and never think about love for a single moment.

Those politicians can be heard to personally lament the war ye they will not vote to end it.

and that's why congress has an 18% approval rating...

To boldly go...

I don't think he's bisexual. he was just horny and would use a sheep if there was a barn at the airport.

i.e. was he soliciting a male because you can't get a male pregnant?

To boldly go...

he hides them, then he lies about them.

and that disturbs me the most because our kids shouldn't be seeing people like like this....

To boldly go...

None of that made sense

<blockquote><p>Your claim that lawmakers can do anything that isn&#39;t expressly forbidden by a written clause in the consitution is too ridiculous to merit reply (I doubt you believe it yourself), but you don&#39;t also get to pretend words mean what they don&#39;t mean. </p></blockquote><p>

I am not pretending words mean what they don&#39;t mean. I am contending that because an individuals behavior is not consistent with their words that does not make them a hypocrite when they are a politician I am contending that private behavior often does not match an individuals public life yet they understand that does not necessarily dictate the public policy they support.and can vote accordingly to uphold.

Hypocrisy refers to insincerity

While I agree that the perception is insincerity, the definition is one who petends to have publically approved attitudes, beliefs, or principles they do not believe. That is not the case with Craig. Craig is married, he has a family so he does in fact adhere to the to public policies, attitudes and beliefs he has supported He also asserts he is not gay which is consistent with those beliefs and principles.. Just because he as an individual has behavior which trangresses those beliefe, principles and values does not mean that he is promoting that which he does not believe. It only means that he, himself, was unable to measure up to those beleifs and principles

. Who amongst us can say that they are any different? Whether it be infidelity, drinking or drug use, individuals are fallible. Nevertheless, they are capable of seeing how there own personal indiscretions should not hold true as public policy.

If you feign beliefs, convictions, passions or virtues that you don&#39;t have, you are a hypocrite

 I disagree. A sinner is no less sincere for opposing their own sin. That is why they say";hate the sin, not the sinner", because  we all as human beings are fallible. that is the essence of religion and the very reason for redemption.

Craig is a hypocrite for conveying to the public that he lives in a manner that he does not live and meets standards that he does not meet and does not break laws that he actually breaks

Craig does live in a manner that he conveys he is a married man with family and he does meet those standards. That he also engages in homosexual acts does not make his public life any different other than what he conveys. Yes, he does choose in his private life to engage in homosexual acts, but since when are a persons sexual proclivities public vs. private?. I think that is a critical distinction here.

 What Craig does privately as long as it is legal should not be a matter for public consumption to ridicule or discriminate against him. That he chose to engage in lewd behavior in a public restroom is illegal and he has been charged and pled guilty accordingly but he should not be subject to scorn and harassment because what he did became public nor should that make him a hypocrite. Craig did not pledge to break lewd conduct laws and who are we to judge him having done so?. Simply engaging in homosexual acts should not condemn an individual to living a gay lifestyle or proclaiming they are gay as an identity.

Argue that hypocrisy doesn&#39;t matter, argue that closet non-heterosexuals need to be hypocrites to survive, argue that everyone&#39;s a hypocrite, but don&#39;t make up definitions of words.

I didn';t make up any definiton nor is living in the closet to survive my argument. My argument is that he is not a hypocrite and that he has a right to define who and what he is whether people who identify themselves as gay agree or not. Craig gets to choose whether being gay is his identity. Not people who have decided their identiyt is gay and insist that he has to do so for their political agenda

On what do you base the assertion that "being gay is a choice."?

I base it on the fact that sex is a behavior and that human beings have free will ang get to choose what behavior they will engage in unlike animals who are compelled to act on their urges. Additionally, there is not scientific or genetic basis for sexual preferences/proclivities...there is no gay, bi or heteo gene...humans choose what they prefer sexually.

I agree, the catholic church doesn't make sense;

In a catholic church, marraige is viewed as a sacrament and holy.

So, if one of the partners breaks the vow, the marraige is annuled and the community is told that the marraige wasn't really blessed by god-- perhaps the couple was deceived into it by satan.

thus, if the wedding wasn't truly a sacrament, then it should have never taken place and it can be dissolved... (wikipedia description of annulment)

this psychology is pretty healthy since both partners can move on without the burden of blaming each other. instead, they can blame satan's illusions.

I know that sounds goofy, but I find that annulment is both a powerful and effective way to let go of the past-- i.e. if you love something, set it free!

and, since Craig is a republican, I don't think that whiterosebuddy should be assuming that the marraige isn't viewed as a sacrament. her comments seem to assume a secular marraige instead.

when I look at the photograph of Craig's wife, I see a woman who is both embarrassed, on behalf of her husband's behavior, and a woman who deeply cares about the welfare of her husband. i.e. based on a superficial inspection, I truly believe that Craig and his wife have a deep bond that's beyond human understanding.

To boldly go...

The courage of his convictions?  What are you smoking????

James M. Martin,

Tuckerwad plays the same role on MSNBC that Juan Williams plays on Fox Noise: token ideologs for conservatism and liberalism respectively.

Not quite.  For the concurrent role as MSNBC token liberal, see Keith Olbermann two slots down the lineup from Tucker.  MSNBC's dominant ideology is as conservative as FOX (or CNN).  Carlson, Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, Joe Scarborough are the Mt. Rushmore of MSNBC for the same reason all infotainment conglomerates remain predominantly conservative in ideological content.  It is a comfortably deregulated industry that will do what it must do to stay that way.

Many married people engage in infidelity yet they do not believe that infidelity is good for the public. They recognize that it is a personal transgression and should not be public policy if they were given an opportunity to make infidelity acceptable in marriage. The same goes for people who drink. They do not beleive that public policy should support drinkers when they drive. Are they hypocrites as well?

YES YES YES and YES!!!!

They're all hypocrites and only the most intellectually and morally bankrupt could think otherwise!!!

humans choose what they prefer sexually.

what sort of sexuality does a person have after have intercourse with a blow up sex doll?

in my mind, many people have sex simply because they're horny.

To boldly go...

, since Craig is a republican, I don't think that whiterosebuddy should be assuming that the marraige isn't viewed as a sacrament. her comments seem to assume a secular marraige instead.

What are you saying here?. WRB posts only say that the man is married.

right. you talk about concious sexual behavior and to me that is sexuality and, to me, having same sex encounters sometimes implies sexuality but always that you're horny. some guys have sex with sheep when nothing else is around.

To boldly go...

I think you and a couple of others in this thread have the right idea: it's entirely possible that this whole story was made up by Carlson. Apparenly, a police report of the incident has yet to be produced. But even if it is true, everyone seems to be forgetting that at the time the incident was said to have occured, Carlson was a teenager. To describe a teenager as a "gay basher" for responding in this way to an aggressive adult male groping him seems wrong-headed.

Carlson, who is clearly quite bright, may have invented this story deliberately, with an anti-progressive effect in mind. And it's working... After all, when progressives attack him on this issue, what they will appear to be doing is defending an adult male who made aggressive and physical unsolicited sexual advances to a teenager in a public bathroom.

If the story involved an unprovoked attack on a gay person the story would be entirely different, but that's not the story we have here; the adult made aggressive moves. Think of those independent voters who we must convince to stand with us in the election next year. How many of them have teenage kids? How many of them, even if they are not at heart anti-gay, will feel appalled at this story and the progressive response to it? How would such a person react to an aggressive adult approaching one of their own children?

I think the progressive community foolishly took the bait on this one...

Note that I am not defending a physical attack on anyone; I think that's entirely unacceptable, as Dan does. And I happen to think Tucker Carlson is an awful person, and even worse journalist, a view I held long before hearing of this (real or made-up) incident. And if you're inclined to think my comments here represent evidence of my "homo-phobia" let me point out that I think the progressive reaction in this case also hurts the gay cause as well.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

mcs,

some guys have sex with sheep when nothing else is around.

Speak for yourself.

Rating: *****

How did I miss that one!

Perhaps because you missed the overall point all together?

It's amazing that for as long as that list was you missed the point. Kinda like not being able to see the forests for the trees.

I interpret WRB's statement to mean that the individual is not the sum of their sexual behavior that it is not an identity. That what they do is not who they are...is how it is often stated.

I agree that someone missed the point, but might dispute who.

Which, since we are talking about sexual orientation, reminds me of a limerick concerning

A gay fellow -- one must presume --
Took a lesbian up to his room.
But they squabbled all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, and to whom.

(Maybe WRB has a point about sex being funny. Or maybe you don't find this funny. I must say I do.)

Did you ever have a crush on that cute little blond/tomboyish/curly-haired/skinny/whatever boy or girl (depending on your gender and orientation) in third grade? Did you likewise have a crush on member of the OTHER gender? Chances are very good that the answers are "yes" and "no," respectively unless you are bisexual. How did you develop a preference with no prior sexual experience -- no chance to be conditioned as in WRB's cockeyed hypothesis? The simplest answer, a good bet according to Mr. Occam, is innate sexual orientation.

Another slice of evidence: If inexperienced people have no built-in orientation and sexual behavior is determined by early pleasurable experience, why isn't about half the world homo? Random selection of early partners would seem to predict such a distribution. In fact, given that gay opportunities in pre-adolescence certainly out-number hetero, shouldn't we have more queers than straights?

There is no such thing as a idiotic bigot. There are only individuals who utter ridiculous, meaningless, hateful dogma, such as Unlike race, being gay is a choice. Engaging in sexual activity is a choice. One's preference for the gender of one's partner is not.

I ref

Another option for Tucker:

5-Get blown by an expert.

Then he could exercise one of the other options anyway. You know that happens.

:-) :-) an option I forgot

There is no such thing as TPM, there is only a site that engages in TPM oriented activities.

The fact is there is not a gene for sexual preferences in partner. That is a fact not an opinion. There is not a gene that pre-determines sexual behavior. That is a fact not an opinion.
A) Inasmuch as these are facts, I find it interesting that you have no links to experts in the field of genetics to support your argument. No priests, now. No Republican politicians. Geneticists, please.

B) If it were true that these were facts rather than opinions, it still would not make your point. Is the dominant use of the left hand not a behavior? Could a left-handed person not choose to use his right hand in order to conform with the majority and disregard his discomfort and relative incompetence? Then why do you not condemn left-handed people?

C) I do not claim that there is such a thing as a gay gene. I said that sexual preference (I know, I know, there is no such thing as sexual preference but let's pretend for just a moment that there is, OK?) is known to be determined BEFORE sexual activity starts. That knocks your conditioning argument into a cocked hat.

D) It is the role of a person asserting a fact to support the assertion. It is not required for someone questioning the so-called fact to disprove it.

Individuals can be celibate or promiscuous as well as choose the partners and sexual acts they will engage in.
Finally! a fact, albeit an irrelevant one. Most people -- those who are not largely sexually ambivalent -- find the prospect of sex with the "wrong" gender repugnant. This is also a fact. Don't take my word for it, ask your straight and gay friends.

Look, I don't know whether or not you are a bigot. I do know that the arguments you use about gays are the same arguments that bigots use to persecute them. You have lain down with dogs and may therefore expect others to perceive you as being infested with fleas. You may consider that to be one more fact for you to ponder.

I do not engage you because your posts are typically full of name-calling and labels. That pattern of posts is generally indicative of shallow thinking and an inability to engage in critical thinking not to mention it being a trait of bullies who also use derision in an attempt to cover their feelings of inferiority. None of that is conducive to cogent discourse.
I do indeed deride risible statements and do so rather well, IMNSHO. When I label someone or something, I am expressing an opinion. You have a problem with that? I reject your suggestion that I engage in gratuitous name-calling, but I do calls 'em as I sees 'em. For example, I called your posts bigotted because it is my opinion that they were and are bigotted.

Your low opinion of my ability to reason, argue, and think may very well be accurate. If it is, however, you have not yet demonstrated its accuracy; and I rather doubt that you will be successful in doing so given the quality of your argumentation so far.

If you feel that I bully you, you may want to take the orthodox advice and stand up to me rather than diagnose my inferiority complex, Dr. Buddy. Running away from a bully only reinforces the behavior. As an esteemed Freudian, you must be familiar with that concept. Or are you Skinnerian? In any case, people who are being battered with superior arguments are the ones who normally complain about bullying. How's that for pop-psych?

BTW, you seem to suppose that your failure to engage me is somehow punishing. Well, please consider this to be a coupon entitling you to one more supposition, which the universe owes you having provided you with a defective one. This is also a fact.

You might be wise, in fact, not to engage me in the future in this thread or others and thereby avoid additional ignominy. That's an opinion that you would do well to consider.

I have to apologize. I didn't realize this was a matter of fundamentalist Christian religion for you. Had I known that you were thus poisoned, thus deluded, I would have treated you with more tenderness. I understand now that all the arguments, all the science, all the facts in the world won't change your mind.

I admire your courage in providing a link to an article written by three proud Creationists -- an anatomist, a microbiologist, and a theologian -- and cite it as an authority on genetics. Was this because the logic in the article written by the organ grinder and used-car salesmen was weaker?

The page to which you link describes evolution as "pseudo-science" and links it both to Nazisim and to Socialism. It implies, nay, states outright, that we now know everything there is to know about the X and Y chromosomes. It calls homosexualty immoral and defends society's right to criminalize it. It denies a gay person's right to equal treatment under the law. It lumps gayness with alcoholism and schizophrenia (both of which are diseases if you weren't aware) and compares gay people to rapists.

Other articles on the same site claim that the age of the earth is about 6,000 years; that the story of the Great Flood is literally true, that the flood covered the entire earth, and that all existing land animals on earth decended from the pairs on the ark; and that plants existed before the sun existed.

I said in my last comment that I didn't know whether you were a bigot or not. I still don't; but this I do know: Anyone who supports the conclusions drawn on the page to which you linked page is indeed a bigot. IMNSHO. Anyone who agrees with their contempt for research into the sources of homosexuality, evolution, and cosmology is a Luddite. Anyone who swallows the superstitious nonsense on that site is additionally a fool.

I would appreciate it if you would please remove all the "5" ratings you have given me. I really would not care to admit to anyone that you and I share any positions (no pun intended, believe me) whatsoever.

amike was quite right to disown any association with you and your hurtful, hateful beliefs. Another reason to be suspicious of all beliefs and religion in particular.

Tank,
Here's a different site, which cites many of the same studies. It appears there is a limited body of evidence on the topic.

http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm

Facts are facts no matter who is citing them.
I am sincerely sorry to have gotten you so upset. You obviously take your faith very seriously. To make amends, let me just offer this two little pieces of advice. Take 'em or leave 'em.

1) While it is true that a fact is a fact regardless of who states it, this is also true: If you find a little brown morsel floating in a cesspool, you would be well advised not to swallow it in the hope that it is a piece of TootsieRoll.

2) If a Creationist site and a gay hookup site are the best you can do in the way of evidence, you may wish to stick to your original strategy and simply keep repeating "There is no such thing as sexual orientation." It makes a nice mantra.

And don't worry, I won't impose my bluster, whining, dishonesty, or illogic on you any more.