Homosexual scandals vs heterosexual scandals

[Estro Felino]

There would have been a reaction, but probably not much different from the reaction we saw with this incident. As I recall, the staffers involved were fired, which would likely happen to a man and woman couple caught doing the same thing.

Being fired is not enough.
In my country that would result in a civil trial.
(and maybe even criminal trial).

The fact that no trial has followed clearly shows the juridical doublestandardism...that is even the judiciary has psychiatric bias...
because if a senator had had sex in the Hearing Room with a woman, he would be in jail by now.

Compare this other story I found:

Brazen couple has sex romp in packed NYC park in full view of kids: ‘Society is so f—king gross’

“I want to see them be hit with sex offender charges for having sex in front of children,” one outraged viewer raged.

nypost.com

This case is different since it was in a public park where there were kids present.

The issue here is that they profaned a state-owned establishment. An institution.

But my point is not about the legality, but about the public reaction, which seemed to be mixed:

Here's another older article which outlines similar events:

Sex in public: Churches, court rooms and a clock tower - strangest places lovers were caught romping

You'll never believe some of the places these overly amorous couples have beenpictured with their pants down

www.mirror.co.uk

One couple even got caught having sex on the Queen's lawn back in 2009. I don't get the impression that very many people were particularly outraged over these things, but maybe just slightly amused and perhaps even titillated by these somewhat humorous events. Most people are just giggling teenagers at heart when it comes to stories like this.

The point here is the difference of reaction: what if a senator and his mistress had had sex in that room.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well then, that makes it OK.
It also doesn't say that "poopy" is an insult.
Your thread is poopy.

As Oriana Fallaci said, truth hurts. But it heals.

 

[Argentbear]

It's obvious that what happened one year ago or something didn't cause any reaction in the electorate of the Democratic Party.

I mean, the Senate Hearing Room, one of the most sacred places of democracy, has been turned into a squalid porn movie set. Homosexual porn, to be precise.

U.S. Capitol Police decline charges against Cardin staffer who filmed Senate sex video

The U.S. Capitol Police said Thursday that they will not bring charges against a former congressional staffer who was filmed having sex in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room in December.

www.washingtontimes.com

But I didn't see any puritans from the Democratic Party denounce that scandal...
and the problem was not, I guess, that it dealt with an intern of a congressperson...and not with a congressperson.

The problem is that homosexual sex is considered "locker room, comradely fun between hunks" and not something scandalous.

Every time a congressperson or a politician has a heterosexual intercourse (vaginal intercourse), the feminists have an inhumane reaction (you know similar to the reaction many had when Trump was elected)...

I think there is a serious psychiatric issue here...in the mind of those who consider heterosexual sex something scandalous. Because...if the persons in that Senate Hearing Room had been a man and a woman having sex, I am totally sure that an army of angry feminists would have beaten up that man.

Explain me this difference in reactions.

Warning: only serious answers please. If you elude questions, please, don't reply. Thank you for your cooperation.

Wow you REALLY hate women don't you

 

[Argentbear]

Because who cares.
Oh wait...the Italians care about such things.

I doubt 99.9% of Italians care

 

[Estro Felino]

Wow you REALLY hate women don't you

I don't hate them.
I hate the women who spread the lie that all women hate men.
Because I love men, and I have never been raped, mistreated or disrespected by a man.

So...if the feminist movement has been taken over by a group of masculine misandric lesbians, well...yes...that bothers me.

 

[Argentbear]

The question was eluded: why didn't the Democratic Party publicly condemned what happened in the Senate Hearing Room?

Why didn't the Republican Party publicly condemn the incident?

 

[Stevicus]

Being fired is not enough.
In my country that would result in a civil trial.
(and maybe even criminal trial).

The fact that no trial has followed clearly shows the juridical doublestandardism...that is even the judiciary has psychiatric bias...
because if a senator had had sex in the Hearing Room with a woman, he would be in jail by now.


The issue here is that they profaned a state-owned establishment. An institution.

The point here is the difference of reaction: what if a senator and his mistress had had sex in that room.

If it was a senator, then that would be different either way.

 

[Argentbear]

It's not true.
If the consensual act in the Senate Hearing Room had been between man and a woman (let's say senator and intern), I guess there would have been an inhumane reaction among the feminists.

Do you really think there would have been no reaction at all?

do you have anything but your own obvious hatred of feminists to base that guess on?

 

[Estro Felino]

If it was a senator, then that would be different either way.

It's illegal to have sex in the Senate Hearing Room. Period.

The fact that the Judicial System did nothing proved that the nature of the the sex (homosexual sex) makes them apply double standards.

I think that if it had dealt with a male intern and a female intern having sex, they would both be in jail, now.


There some psychiatric bias involved, here.

 

[Argentbear]

The fact that no trial has followed clearly shows the juridical doublestandardism...that is even the judiciary has psychiatric bias...
because if a senator had had sex in the Hearing Room with a woman, he would be in jail by now.

If the sex was consensual why would he be in jail?

The issue here is that they profaned a state-owned establishment. An institution.

The point here is the difference of reaction: what if a senator and his mistress had had sex in that room.

You do get that it was a staffer having sex not an actual member of congress right?

about a year ago Anthony D’Esposito, a New York Republican was caught having an affair in the capital and...nothing happened about the sex. He faces censure for giving the woman a job on his staff but that is a different story

 

[Estro Felino]

do you have anything but your own obvious hatred of feminists to base that guess on?

I asked a question. You elude my question.

Question: if the two interns having sex in that Hearing Room had been a man and a woman, do you think people would have had the same reaction?

 

[Argentbear]

I don't hate them.

Your many posts say otherwise

So...if the feminist movement has been taken over by a group of masculine misandric lesbians, well...yes...that bothers me.

Like right here.

 

[Estro Felino]

about a year ago Anthony D’Esposito, a New York Republican was caught having an affair in the capital and...nothing happened about the sex. He faces censure for giving the woman a job on his staff but that is a different story

Is there the evidence they had sex at the Capitol or is it just speculation?
Nobody doubts he hired his mistress...but where is the evidence they had sex there?

 

[Argentbear]

It's illegal to have sex in the Senate Hearing Room. Period.

Your own OP link says it is not illegal:

"“After consulting with federal and local prosecutors, as well as doing a comprehensive investigation and review of possible charges, it was determined that — despite a likely violation of congressional policy — there is currently no evidence that a crime was committed,” the law enforcement agency said in a statement."

 

[Argentbear]

I asked a question. You elude my question.

Question: if the two interns having sex in that Hearing Room had been a man and a woman, do you think people would have had the same reaction?

Yes

 

[Estro Felino]

Your own OP link says it is not illegal:

"“After consulting with federal and local prosecutors, as well as doing a comprehensive investigation and review of possible charges, it was determined that — despite a likely violation of congressional policy — there is currently no evidence that a crime was committed,” the law enforcement agency said in a statement."

I repeat it: if the video was about a man and a woman having sex in that hearing room, do you think the conclusions would have been identical?

Don't elude the question.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes

Thank you for answering.

I doubt it...seeing how many male politicians have been crucified for having an affair with a woman.

 

[Stevicus]

It's illegal to have sex in the Senate Hearing Room. Period.

The fact that the Judicial System did nothing proved that the nature of the the sex (homosexual sex) makes them apply double standards.

I think that if it had dealt with a male intern and a female intern having sex, they would both be in jail, now.


There some psychiatric bias involved, here.

Saying what would have happened is speculation. We don't really know for sure.

 

[Argentbear]

Thank you for answering.

I doubt it...seeing how many male politicians have been crucified for having an affair with a woman.

It wasn't a politician and no crime was committed.

 

[Estro Felino]

Saying what would have happened is speculation. We don't really know for sure.

The way Bill Clinton was crucified shows it's not speculation.

Again...I believe homosexual sex is considered comradely fun between gentlemen...