billvon 3,132 #1 August 12, 2011 Another anti-gay lawmaker. ============================ Anti-Gay Marriage State Rep. Accused Of Offering Young Male Money 'For A Really Good Time' August 12, 2011, 11:21AM An Indiana state Representative, who recently voted for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, has been accused of using Craigslist to offer an 18-year old male $80 for "a couple hours of your time tonight" plus a tip "for a really good time." The Indianapolis Star obtained e-mails sent from Rep. Phillip Hinkle's publicly listed personal address, responding to a Craigslist posting by Kameryn Gibson that said "I need a sugga daddy." Gibson told the Star that the post was in the "Casual Encounters" section under m4m, or men for men. He used his sister Megan's e-mail address -- and she later sent the e-mails to the Star. "Cannot be a long time sugar daddy," says the e-mail response from what is allegedly Hinkle's address, "but can for tonight. Would you be interested in keeping me company for a while tonight?" "I am an in shape married professional, 5'8", fit 170 lbs, and love getting and staying naked," the e-mail says. Another e-mail says: "If u want to consider spending night u might tell ur sis so she won't worry. Would have u back before 11 tomorrow. No extra cash just free breakfast and maybe late night snack." The young man told The Star that they met, but that he tried to leave after the man told him he was a state lawmaker. He said the lawmaker at first told him he could not leave, grabbed him in the rear, exposed himself to the young man and then later gave him an iPad, BlackBerry cellphone and $100 cash to keep quiet. Gibson had his sister pick him up, who says that she then received a number of calls, and one was from a woman who claimed she is Hinkle's wife. "I was like, 'Your husband is gay,'" Megan Gibson said. "And then she was like, 'You have the wrong person.'" When Gibson reportedly read back the e-mail address used for the Craigslist ad, the woman asked her not to call the police. Megan Gibson told the Star that later that evening she went back to the JW Marriott to show Hinkle's daughter the e-mails. She soon after received another phone call from the woman claiming to be Gibson's wife, who offered her $10,000 not to tell anyone. Still another call came from Hinkle himself later, and she told him what she had told his family members. "You just ruined me," she says Hinkle responded. Hinkle did not deny the e-mails in response to the Star's request for comment, but said: "I am aware of a shakedown taking place." He did not elaborate on what "shakedown" meant, nor did his attorney. Hinkle recently voted for an amendment to the state's constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #2 August 12, 2011 I don't see why his positions are contradictory. Marriage is clearly to be only men and women. Tawdry internet affairs with teens, however, are obviously better between men.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 August 12, 2011 True. Perhaps a bill outlawing gay marriage, with a rider legalizing gay prostitution, would be something all anti-gay politicians could get behind (if you catch my meaning.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 August 12, 2011 QuoteTrue. Perhaps a bill outlawing gay marriage, with a rider legalizing gay prostitution, would be something all anti-gay politicians could get behind (if you catch my meaning.) And they should, if that is what their contituency (you know, the people they're supposed to REPRESENT) want.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #5 August 12, 2011 >if that is what their contituency (you know, the people they're supposed to >REPRESENT) want. Good point. The "older-antigay-married-secretly-gay-politicians-who-want-young-gay-hookers-but-don't-want-anyone-to-know" constituency is surely a big one. Of course, that presents a problem when they become the "older-formerly-married-gay-politicians-who-now-want-gay-rights" constituency - which seems to be happening with remarkable regularity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 August 12, 2011 Quote>if that is what their contituency (you know, the people they're supposed to >REPRESENT) want. Good point. The "older-antigay-married-secretly-gay-politicians-who-want-young-gay-hookers-but-don't-want-anyone-to-know" constituency is surely a big one. Of course, that presents a problem when they become the "older-formerly-married-gay-politicians-who-now-want-gay-rights" constituency - which seems to be happening with remarkable regularity. Nice spin, Bill....not that I expected anything different.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #7 August 12, 2011 No crime was committed, except 18 years ago when Mr. and Mrs. Gibson named their child Kameryn. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 August 12, 2011 Oh, come on, Bill! This is getting ridiculous! Don't you see he is already married? Allowing gay marriage would cause him to have to choose between his wife and the 18 year old twink. He should NOT have to make that choice. He also is opposed to gay marriage has stated his aversion to even long-term gay relationships. "Cannot be a long time sugar daddy," he wrote. So opposition to gay marriage isn't in opposition to a hardcore one-night stand! I mean, this is the sort of thing that should cause Democrats to be alarmed. The GOP is the party of the gay man! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #9 August 12, 2011 >The GOP is the party of the gay man! I'm teling ya. If you're a gay man on the prowl, there can't be a better place to meet a partner than in the buffet line at the local "YES ON PROP 8" fundraiser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 August 12, 2011 Absolutely. It's the perfect front. I mean, if you're a gay man looking for some action, all you get at a No on 8 rally are granola chicks and heterosexual Hollywood actors and actresses who publicly say that they won't get married until gay marriage is allowed but don't end up getting married even when it is allowed because they are actually anti-marriage but don't want to offend both sides by saying it sucks. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #11 August 12, 2011 QuoteAnother anti-gay lawmaker. ============================ Anti-Gay Marriage State Rep. Accused Of Offering Young Male Money 'For A Really Good Time' August 12, 2011, 11:21AM An Indiana state Representative, who recently voted for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, has been accused of using Craigslist to offer an 18-year old male $80 for "a couple hours of your time tonight" plus a tip "for a really good time." Rep. Phillip Hinkle's publicly listed personal address The Indianapolis Star obtained e-mails sent from , responding to a Craigslist posting by Kameryn Gibson that said "I need a sugga daddy." Gibson told the Star that the post was in the "Casual Encounters" section under m4m, or men for men. He used his sister Megan's e-mail address -- and she later sent the e-mails to the Star. Hinkle recently voted for an amendment to the state's constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. Just because someone chooses to engage in sinful behavior doesn't mean they don't know what is right. If the sinful activity of law makers is used to justify what laws they pass, it wouldn't take long for this country to completely collapse. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #12 August 12, 2011 >all you get at a No on 8 rally are granola chicks and heterosexual Hollywood actors and actresses . . . And the freakazoids. Don't forget them. Not much of an issue in terms of partner material, but colorful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #13 August 12, 2011 Quote >all you get at a No on 8 rally are granola chicks and heterosexual Hollywood actors and actresses . . . And the freakazoids. Don't forget them. Not much of an issue in terms of partner material, but colorful. Do Bert and Ernie qualify as freakazoids? They are men of color and well they are puppets. They have not yet personally come out of the closet, but there is no shortage of people who are demanding that the creators of Bert and Ernie have them enter into a same sex marriage ... despite as I repeat ... they are nothing more than puppets. So therefore Bert and Ernie must also be freakazoids. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #14 August 12, 2011 >Do Bert and Ernie qualify as freakazoids? Yellow felt people with roly poly eyes and stick-operated arms definitely qualify as freakazoids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #15 August 13, 2011 QuoteJust because someone chooses to engage in sinful behavior doesn't mean they don't know what is right. If the sinful activity of law makers is used to justify what laws they pass, it wouldn't take long for this country to completely collapse. You should probably just worry about youself. What the grown ups do on their own time is their own business. For the lawmaker; Live by the sword die by the sword. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #16 August 13, 2011 QuoteJust because someone chooses to engage in sinful behavior doesn't mean they don't know what is right. Uh, that's exactly the point: he does know what is right, so he's being a hypocrite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #17 August 13, 2011 Uh, that's exactly the point: he does know what is right, so he's being a hypocrite. emmm, that's my point. Why is this any different than all of the other laws that are passed and then broken by the lawmakers who passed them? Does that somehow invalidate what was right about the original law? Or maybe this case is special because it has something to do with gays? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #18 August 13, 2011 I thought this was another Ernie and bert threadWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites