What's new
By:

Minnesota Dem pulls a McGreevey

PearlWatson

PearlWatson

Well-Known Member
Minn. Rep. Kerry Gauthier caught with zipper down... literally. Admits to having ‘no strings attached’ sex with 17-year-old boy at rest stop, police say

The Minnesota Democrat posted Craigslist ad trolling for anonymous sex partners. State Democratic leaders are asking him to withdraw from re-election bid in wake of scandal.

Read more: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/na...boy-rest-stop-article-1.1140833#ixzz24OPPKIhM

He did withdraw...from the race.
 
Ok, I read the article and I have a question: what's the crime?

My takeaways:

1. He's not married. So it's not like he cheated on his wife or did anything else that has the tint of immorality.
2. He didn't try to cover it up. So it's not like he lied to his constituents or anything else.
3. The 17 year old was over the legal age of consent in Minnesota. So he didn't break any laws.
4. The kid acknowledged he lied to the guy about his age. You know, in case you're a hard core purist on the 17 vs. 18 years old debate that should at least take some of the sting off of it.
5. Being gay isn't illegal or immoral.
6. Having sex isn't illegal or immoral.
7. Having gay sex isn't illegal or immoral.

So seriously, what's the problem? Is it about the sanctity of the truck stop?
 
Sirkickyass said:
Ok, I read the article and I have a question: what's the crime?

My takeaways:

1. He's not married. So it's not like he cheated on his wife or did anything else that has the tint of immorality.
2. He didn't try to cover it up. So it's not like he lied to his constituents or anything else.
3. The 17 year old was over the legal age of consent in Minnesota. So he didn't break any laws.
4. The kid acknowledged he lied to the guy about his age. You know, in case you're a hard core purist on the 17 vs. 18 years old debate that should at least take some of the sting off of it.
5. Being gay isn't illegal or immoral.
6. Having sex isn't illegal or immoral.
7. Having gay sex isn't illegal or immoral.

So seriously, what's the problem? Is it about the sanctity of the truck stop?
Click to expand...

I just expect our elected officials to have a little more class than that. Stupid me right?
 
Sirkickyass said:
Ok, I read the article and I have a question: what's the crime?

My takeaways:

1. He's not married. So it's not like he cheated on his wife or did anything else that has the tint of immorality.
2. He didn't try to cover it up. So it's not like he lied to his constituents or anything else.
3. The 17 year old was over the legal age of consent in Minnesota. So he didn't break any laws.
4. The kid acknowledged he lied to the guy about his age. You know, in case you're a hard core purist on the 17 vs. 18 years old debate that should at least take some of the sting off of it.
5. Being gay isn't illegal or immoral.
6. Having sex isn't illegal or immoral.
7. Having gay sex isn't illegal or immoral.

So seriously, what's the problem? Is it about the sanctity of the truck stop?
Click to expand...

That it was in a public setting? That's my best guess as to why his party is upset about it.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Ok, I read the article and I have a question: what's the crime?

My takeaways:

1. He's not married. So it's not like he cheated on his wife or did anything else that has the tint of immorality.
2. He didn't try to cover it up. So it's not like he lied to his constituents or anything else.
3. The 17 year old was over the legal age of consent in Minnesota. So he didn't break any laws.
4. The kid acknowledged he lied to the guy about his age. You know, in case you're a hard core purist on the 17 vs. 18 years old debate that should at least take some of the sting off of it.
5. Being gay isn't illegal or immoral.
6. Having sex isn't illegal or immoral.
7. Having gay sex isn't illegal or immoral.

So seriously, what's the problem? Is it about the sanctity of the truck stop?
Click to expand...

I'm confused why you would insist that 5, 6, and 7 are not immoral, yet cheating on his wife would be. Seems subjective, unless I'm missing something.
 
bordelais7 said:
I'm confused why you would insist that 5, 6, and 7 are not immoral, yet cheating on his wife would be. Seems subjective, unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

You could just as easily say "partner he's in a relationship with" in place of "wife" in #1. He wasn't cheating on anyone (that we know of). Sorry Kicky if I'm making incorrect assumptions about your post.
 
He didn't break any laws, but I don't personally approve of his actions. If he wants to be a leader then stop having sex with people 40 years younger than him off the internet.

When you serve you should hold yourself to a higher set of standards.
 
Revolution 9 said:
He didn't break any laws, but I don't personally approve of his actions. If he wants to be a leader then stop having sex with people 40 years younger than him off the internet.

When you serve you should hold yourself to a higher set of standards.
Click to expand...

This x 1,000
 
nightmare3983 said:
You could just as easily say "partner he's in a relationship with" in place of "wife" in #1. He wasn't cheating on anyone (that we know of). Sorry Kicky if I'm making incorrect assumptions about your post.
Click to expand...

That's fair. Obviously when I specified wife I was being a bit heteronormative.

I went for "cheating on your wife" just because I can understand to some degree why breaking your commitment to your lifetime companion would leave a bad taste in voters mouths. To be honest, I don't think it's particularly relevant to job performance but whatever. I can get why it would be distasteful. Cheating on spouses has, since time immemorial, been looked down on.

As to 5, 6, and 7 I just kind of doubt that those are fireable offenses in 2012.
 
Revolution 9 said:
He didn't break any laws, but I don't personally approve of his actions. If he wants to be a leader then stop having sex with people 40 years younger than him off the internet.

When you serve you should hold yourself to a higher set of standards.
Click to expand...

If both people validly consent and no one got hurt then who cares?

The guy got outed. That sucks. He got caught having sex at a truck stop. That's embarassing. Unfit to hold public office because we don't like his totally legal sexual proclivities? Not seeing it.
 
Stoked said:
This x 1,000
Click to expand...

Aren't Rev's and your reactions more emotional than anything though? Two consenting "adults" wanna bone. Is there really a problem with that? Like Kicky said, "it's not particularly relevant to job performance." My initial reaction is disgust as well but when I take a step back and consider everything (thanks Kicky), who really gives a ****?
 
Sirkickyass said:
That's fair. Obviously when I specified wife I was being a bit heteronormative.

I went for "cheating on your wife" just because I can understand to some degree why breaking your commitment to your lifetime companion would leave a bad taste in voters mouths. To be honest, I don't think it's particularly relevant to job performance but whatever. I can get why it would be distasteful. Cheating on spouses has, since time immemorial, been looked down on.

As to 5, 6, and 7 I just kind of doubt that those are fireable offenses in 2012.
Click to expand...

Extra-marital sex is becoming as much a social norm as pre-marital or homosexual sex. Geez, you liberals are so socially awkward. What is this, 1990? Get with the times, kicky, get with the times.
 
I'm agreeing with the majority here. Whether I elect a guy or hire him to a key position in my company, I want to know that he's got a certain focus and dedication. Somehow, I'm not seeing that in a guy that takes the time to troll craigslist for young girls to have sex at truck stops. Legally wrong? No. Do I trust him to make sound decisions on a daily basis? Likely not.
 
Sirkickyass said:
If both people validly consent and no one got hurt then who cares?

The guy got outed. That sucks. He got caught having sex at a truck stop. That's embarassing. Unfit to hold public office because we don't like his totally legal sexual proclivities? Not seeing it.
Click to expand...


It's only a personal belief. I think elected leaders need to be just that leaders. They should be held to a higher standard. I don't want my elected leaders having sex with people a fraction of their age at rest stops. It could have been a 17 year old girl, and I'd feel the same way. It's not the fact that it was a homosexual encounter. I would prefer if our politicians didn't solicit sex on the internet with young teens a fraction of their age.

Should he leave office? That's up for debate, but I personally don't approve of his actions.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
Aren't Rev's and your reactions more emotional than anything though? Two consenting "adults" wanna bone. Is there really a problem with that? Like Kicky said, "it's not particularly relevant to job performance." My initial reaction is disgust as well but when I take a step back and consider everything (thanks Kicky), who really gives a ****?
Click to expand...

Very possible.

I could care less (lol dumbasses) that he is gay or even banging men half his age. Show some respect for the people that voted you into office and stop doing it in public at truck stops. Do it in your home or somewhere private.

To me it shows a lack of respect, class and judgement on his part. Unfair or not, emotional reaction or not, I expect... no I demand more from elected representatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top