It's funny, I have been thinking the same thing. I haven't heard the tapes and may be a little out of date from missing a few news cycles over the weekend. But the case has been bugging me almost from the beginning (once the glee over a Republican's difficulties wore off <g>). As you say, there was no proof of anything, not even intent. He may have just been fumbling around in a bathroom stall with no idea that his movements were being taken as signals. It also had a whiff of entrapment.

On the minus side, there have been rumors for a long time that he is a closeted gay. And the big one, of course: his guilty plea. Why would he do that if he was innocent? That doesn't make sense. Surely he wasn't foolish enough to think he could bury it.

What exactly does he want to do? Withdraw his guilty plea and take his chances in court? If he does, he better be innocent, because anything and everything is bound to come out. If he's innocent, though, that's what he should do.


>Except that to my knowledge, Craig never had any sexual contact in the restroom. No money exchanged hands and no verbal offer or acceptance ocurred either. Initially I trusted the police 100% and assumed he was completely guilty. After listening to the tapes I'm not convinced any longer. I'm not convinced he's innocent either. What does concern me is that he was going to be prosecuted based on supposed signals (commonly known to homosexuals who frequent restrooms supposedly, but I don't know that and never heard of these 'signals') when no real offer or acceptance or act took place. He pled guilty to a lessor charge (disorderly conduct) to avoid the publicity. It's the fact that he was brought up on charges based on these 'signals' alone that bother me. That is scary...
>
>Do signals exist between female prostitutes and their male customers? Can customers be brought up on charges for signals alone with no discussion of any act or money or any act taking place?
>
>
>
>>>I think you define deviant behavior as that which is outside the norm. Studies have shown homosexuals make up about 3-5% of the population in males. The act that defines them is one that makes my stomach turn, and I think it is clearly deviant. The population is not necessarily growing more homosexual, but more tolerant of whatever people want to do (in the privacy of their own home). Having said that, I don't think most people want a senator who is having homosexual or heterosexual trysts in a restroom. That, to me is also deviant.
>>
>>Then you've answered your own point. His having a homosexual affair is not seen as being as bad as Craig doing it in a public washroom. That's why Craig is out and he is not.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe, but it's hard to tell from that. Of course, it also depends on what you call 'deviant'. Face it. While I can't see the attraction myself, homosexuality is becoming more and more a 'normal' way of life. As long as it doesn't affect me personally, I couldn't possibly care less what consenting adults get up to - especially when they keep it private.
>>>>
>>>>After all, when a man and a woman have sex privately, it's not a big deal, but if they were to start doing it in public, it would be a different story. Same with homosexuality afaic.