Via an email, I was sent a link to a post by Matt Sanchez about the latest Republican gay sex (at least I guess it involves sex) scandal. I agree with some of what Sanchez says, and some of it I disagree with.

The piece is titled "Hypocrisy or Decency? The Left's Dirty Little Secret" and I think it's worth a close look in its entirety.

In case you haven't heard, another gay sex scandal has hit the news cycle as Washington state Representative, Republican Richard Curtis, announced his resignation after the details of his sexual encounter with a male escort were aired.

During a segment on MSNBC, Dan Abrams, accused the representative of "hypocrisy" for voting against "legislation for gay rights." Of course, we heard the same whining after the Senator Larry Craig and Mark Foley incidents.

With so many liberals crying hypocrisy, it's obvious the charge has much less to do with reason than it does with desperation.

Cody Castagna, a self-described male-escort and pornstar, claimed Washington Representative Rick Curtis was a sexual "freak". Abrams warned the encounter between the legislator and the callboy could not be described on TV, "but let's just say it involved lingerie, rope and a stethoscope."

Why am I supposed to care?

Another segment commentator, Laura Flanders, a British born mouth-piece for Air America--yes, apparently they still are on the air--accused Representative Curtis and closeted Republicans of being "chickens" for not standing up for "who they are."

Or am I supposed to be shocked?

Lingerie? Rope? Stethoscope? I'm tempted to ask how much assembly is required. But I'm sure the snarkier types have already been through it and through it.

"Being chicken that disqualifies you from holding office," said Flanders, so proud that someone was actually listening to what she had to say.

For this liberal loon, Larry Craig's bathroom tap dance, Mark Foley's love texts to teenage interns and Representative Curtis' fetish for female nightwear is "who they are" and therefore these legislators should vote for "gay rights" or else they're hypocrites.

Let's stop and consider how ridiculous this statement is.

Hmmm... "Duty bound" sounds a little dirty. Maybe just feeling a little roped in.

I don't think it's hypocrisy. The problem is that public officials are subjected to scrutiny that private citizens are not, and when they and their party are seen as having an anti-kinky-sex ideology, this puts them in a difficult position when kinks in their personal lives are discovered -- whether by blackmail or not. (It's a bit like a greenie scold being caught as an energy glutton.)

I'd love to see a Republican stand up against this nonsense, but apparently that is not allowed. Things like this force me to wonder whether things have reached the point where Republican office holders are forbidden to be gay.

Is that a question anyone is allowed to ask?

When a chain smoker afflicted with cancer votes for anti-smoking legislation, he probably has good reason for at least attempting to shield the public from what he is already suffering. Why would Foley, Craig or the latest, Curtis, be so proud of their wayward behavior that they would want to pass legislation to validate it? Were these men showing hypocrisy and denial or just insight and concern?

Even today, if a well-known anti-cigarette crusader were discovered to be hooked on cigarettes, I don't think it would hurt his credibility, nor would he be accused of hypocrisy. But on the other hand, if the head of an "Ex-Gay" ministry were busted in a mens room for soliciting an undercover officer or photographed doing something compromising in a gay bar, he'd be laughed out of the "Ex Gay" business.

What's the difference? Is it that there aren't any militant smokers who run around "outing" furtive closeted cigarette puffers? Or is it that cigarette smoking does not generate moral indignation, but gayness does? No, that can't be it, because being gay is good, and smoking cigarettes is bad. Maybe neither one is a moral issue. No, that can't be right either, because lots of people on both sides believe very passionately that morality is involved.

While I've complained about the conflation of morality with health, there's a lot of it going on anyway. The anti-gay activists like to compare homosexuality to smoking, but I've examined the comparison carefully, and it just doesn't withstand logical analysis. Whether anti-gay activists like it or not, cigarettes are still seen almost solely as a health issue and the only morality involved has to do with where people should be allowed to smoke.

Like it or not, the moral issues draw the hypocrisy charge, not the health issues.

Granted, there are a lot of people who want cars and cigarettes to be as inherently immoral as homosexuality once was, but it hasn't happened yet. (And I hope it never does.)

On television, radio, print and now even in the public schools, the purveyors of perversion have forced sexual issues onto prime time airwaves like raw sewage into a city water reserve--completely bypassing the filters and waste treatment plant. Things that have always existed, bondage, sadism, public and group sex have steadily become matters for public consumption. It gets to the point were it all seems, common, normal and harmless.

For the life of me, I do not understand how a seller can force an unwilling buyer to buy anything -- especially sex. If I don't like the idea of being tied up (and believe me, I don't), no amount of Madison Avenue advertising will change my mind. If they put it on TV and I don't like it, I'll turn it off.

Of course, if I really thought they had used force to get it on TV, I'd be concerned, but again, I think this is largely hyperbole.

My generation of Americans are numb to the "freak factor". Experts agree that kids who have been sexually abused are more promiscuous and often have an unhealthy sexual relationship. The sexual revolution, as exemplified through the gay agenda, has been molesting the American public for nearly three decades.

What does the term mean?

During the whole Abrams piece no one, besides old-school conservative, Pat Buchanan, even questioned if hiring a self-described male-escort for sex or cheating on one's wife was shameful.

Obviously, opinions vary. I don't think it is shameful, and if Matt Sanchez does, then we have different views of what should constitute shame. (Obviously, I do not know what he thinks is shameful, and he does not spell it out.)

For liberals, sex in public bathrooms and inter-office relations with interns is just being open and honest. Freak sex behavior is fine, as long as you tow the homosexual party line for the Eldorado of legitimacy: Marriage.

"When you're trying to tell people how to live their lives you'd better be sure you're walking the straight line." Warned Laura Flanders, who probably would be tolerant if her husband had been caught having sex in her black sequin dress. After all, no one is perfect.

And here is what is at the core of the syphilitic liberal brain.

I think it is very foolish of the Republicans to present themselves as standard bearers of sexual morality, much less moral scolds, because we are all human, and all of us fall short at one time or another. What Sanchez seems to be forgetting is that many liberals also acknowledge that falling short is wrong. Is it smart politics to have ordinary voters think liberals are more forgiving of sexual peccadilloes? (I knew a serious lifelong conservative in California, an original Reagan man, who did a 180 degree flipflop over the Clinton sex scandal, as he couldn't stand the moralistic posturing on sexual matters.)

Conservatives realize human beings are imperfect, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing the right thing. Of course, the term "right thing" leaves liberals confused and wondering if this is discrimination against those who can only use their left hand.

Sorry, but I have regular discussions and arguments with my liberal friends, and I just don't get this from them. Believe it or not, many liberals are married and monogamous people.

And they don't like being told they're not.

Most Americans have a sense of fairness about personal preferences, and this extends to sexual preference. The libertarian branch of conservatism considers sexuality a private matter intimately linked to the pursuit of happiness, or as liberals call it "Girls gone Wild, without the guilt trip."

"As long as you're not hurting anyone and it's between two consenting adults, the government should have no say in the matter," is what many people on both the right and left will say, but this gesture of civility is wasted on a pick-and-choose tolerance driven campaign for radical social change.

The dirty little secret is that the gay lifestyle is marginal and most Americans know it.

Go to San Francisco, the Mecca of the gay rights movement and you'll find a city where public sex is not only common, but encouraged by a city council that when convened, looks like stand-ins for the statuettes that represent the Seven Deadly Sins.

As to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I agree with Sanchez, although I think their anti-military policies are far more egregious than their pro-sex stance.

In a city where civil unions have been accepted for over a generation, the City by the Bay, San Francisco is anything but a gay paradise. It boasts the highest HIV infection rate in the country; so much for the pipe dream the official recognition of gay relationships would somehow encourage monogamy and stability.

Folsom Street hosts the homosexual version of a county fair where there are public displays of leather bondage and a wide-array of anal plugs for sale. You'll probably want to skip the bobbing for apples, horseback ride and the kiss the girl for $1 booth, but the fisting demonstration is proof of diversity.

It is an undeniable fact is that there are a lot of people who really don't care what other people do sexually, as long as they aren't bothered. The problem for them is that there are people who care very much, and the existence of large numbers of people who don't care outrages them. I'm in the unusual category where I don't care, but I do care enough to get pretty pissed off if people are trying to make me care.

I understand there's a right to care, but who shall speak for the people who simply want to be left alone and exercise their right to not care?

Oh sure, supporters of homosexual marriage and gay rights will insist on love and commitment as the grounds for their "right to equality." This is window dressing for the pink Trojan Horse, but like the rear ends of the senior citizens wearing leather chaps at the fair, there's too much hanging out for the public not to notice the hideous truth.

While producing and filming adult gay films, I thought sex on film was edgy, counter-culture and most of all a black eye for prudish American hypocrisy. This was my way of acting out and showing how little respect I had for the public, friends and most of all family. I felt like a rebel, an outsider that truly enjoyed pretending I was indifferent to criticism, but I was just one person on the fringe.

Again, what about the right to not care?

Seriously, I worry that there are so many activists demanding that people care that pretty soon, the right to not care will have to be fiercely defended by the "not caring" activists, lest it be lost! (Yes, I know how surreal this sounds.)

Boy, look how much "progress" we have made. The marginal lifestyle I espoused is quickly being packaged as a human rights campaign. No homosexual rights advocate will ever denounce lewd public behavior, pornography or promiscuity. They are too busy trying to get the terms "mother" and "father" banned from school textbooks and insisting junior high school kids benefit from live demonstrations on how to properly put on a condom.

For a relatively small interest group, the gay lobbyist and their enablers in high places have come a long way, nevertheless, Americans reject the homosexual agenda and it's not just for conservatives anymore. Representative Curtis, who opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, was elected with over a 10 point lead in hopelessly liberal Washington State.

Oregon, New Jersey and New York, also liberal states have just said no to "gay rights". If given the chance to vote, the citizens of Massachusetts would repeal gay marriage, because they realize same-sex wedlock would be reduced to the status of Representative Barney Frank's roommate.

The keyword tolerance can trace it's Latin roots back to the verb for endurance, so how much will the American public take? We'll have the answer to that question, when no one dares to object to what should obviously be objectionable behavior.

"I sincerely apologize for any pain my actions may have caused." Representative Curtis said, after stepping down. It's nice to know someone has a sense of decency, or as liberals call it, hypocrisy.

I think it's also important to remember that some, even many, straight people have gay friends whom they believe are decent people. If it becomes locked in as the official conservative position that homosexuality is incompatible with decency, I think this could cause an erosion of GOP support well beyond the "gay vote."

I'm not much of a believer in the hypocrisy meme, and I think Sanchez makes some good points in that department. Naturally, he's thought of as a hypocrite himself for his past involvement in a business he now condemns. (This is not new; "Deep Throat" star Linda Lovelace condemned the porn industry years ago despite her involvement in it.) Sanchez has just as much right to condemn the sex industry despite his involvement in it as do, say, a former tobacco executive -- or a former slaughterhouse employee -- to condemn their respective industries. Such positions do not constitutes "hypocrisy." But should such former occupational status lend additional logical or moral weight?

Obviously, opinions will vary.

All in all, it's a very thought-provoking post. Some of the comments are great too.