<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gay ex-congressman shuns politics in Florida</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/gay-ex-congressman-shuns-politics-in-florida/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/gay-ex-congressman-shuns-politics-in-florida/</link>
	<description>the gay community&#039;s news source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 00:39:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank J Troia</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/gay-ex-congressman-shuns-politics-in-florida/#comment-43012</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank J Troia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=35022#comment-43012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What a time warp...... In the face of a changing nation this guy is stuck in time. Such a limited
view of social justice. Shows how mediocre  these congressional conservatives are.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a time warp&#8230;&#8230; In the face of a changing nation this guy is stuck in time. Such a limited<br />
view of social justice. Shows how mediocre  these congressional conservatives are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JosephW</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/gay-ex-congressman-shuns-politics-in-florida/#comment-43005</link>
		<dc:creator>JosephW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=35022#comment-43005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe Mr Bauman needs to do a more thorough investigation into the REAL history of marriage, not just the religious BS brainwashing that he&#039;s accepted.  At one time, &quot;commoners&quot; (that is, the overwhelming majority of people) were NOT allowed to enter into &quot;marriage&quot;--not even if the couple in question was that &quot;sacred&quot; one man and one woman; marriage, at that time, was the sole province of the nobility (they were, after all, the only ones who had enormous property and estates that needed protection; yes, believe it or not, marriage was based on ECONOMIC considerations--many of the &quot;married&quot; couples would first meet each other on their wedding day).

Then, of course, there was the LONG tradition of polygamy--look at the Bible, for instance.  The story of Jacob who &quot;fell in love&quot; with Rachel but ended up marrying her older sister Leah,after having worked 7 years as &quot;payment&quot; to marry Rachel (then, after another 7 years, he finally got to marry Rachel but he did NOT divorce Leah).  And, there&#039;s the supreme barnyard rooster, Solomon--a man who had roughly 1000 wives AND concubines (not ONE wife and nearly 1000 concubines--MULTIPLE wives, in the hundreds at least, plus hundreds more concubines).  And the concept of multiple marriages was prevalent in many societies (it still is, even today--Islamic custom allows a man to have up to 4 wives, provided he can care for and treat all his wives equally; naturally, this tends to limit the custom to the more well-off men).

And, there&#039;s also a long tradition of adulterous marriages.  Usually it&#039;s the husband who engages in sexual relations with other partners (perhaps just one regular long-term partner, perhaps a number of different people over the course of the marriage), frequently with the tacit approval of the wife; especially among the upper classes, there was an understanding that as long as the &quot;relationship&quot; was kept reasonably discreet or did not cause undue embarassment for the wife, the husband was free to do as he wished.  (And the French, of course, raised this to a veritable art form.  During the 19th and well into the 20th century, it was considered de rigueur for a man, especially in an esteemed profession such as the law or banking or a successful merchant to have not only a wife but a mistress whom he &quot;kept&quot;; and it wasn&#039;t completely unheard of for such a man to have a male lover rather than another woman--such men could view themselves as being &quot;completely&quot; faithful to their wives and it was often easier to go out in public with a man than to be seen with the &quot;other woman.&quot;)

But, if Mr Bauman wishes to persist in his silly idea, perhaps he can explain why he CHOSE to violate the bonds of his &quot;religious&quot; marriage by engaging in sexual activity with another person.  I seriously doubt that anyone FORCED him to marry a woman so, by indulging in ANY extramarital relationships, he VIOLATED the very religious notions that he uses to delineate the idea of marriage.  There&#039;s a word for that:  Hypocrisy.  Reconcile that with your &quot;conscience&quot;--if you can.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe Mr Bauman needs to do a more thorough investigation into the REAL history of marriage, not just the religious BS brainwashing that he&#8217;s accepted.  At one time, &#8220;commoners&#8221; (that is, the overwhelming majority of people) were NOT allowed to enter into &#8220;marriage&#8221;&#8211;not even if the couple in question was that &#8220;sacred&#8221; one man and one woman; marriage, at that time, was the sole province of the nobility (they were, after all, the only ones who had enormous property and estates that needed protection; yes, believe it or not, marriage was based on ECONOMIC considerations&#8211;many of the &#8220;married&#8221; couples would first meet each other on their wedding day).</p>
<p>Then, of course, there was the LONG tradition of polygamy&#8211;look at the Bible, for instance.  The story of Jacob who &#8220;fell in love&#8221; with Rachel but ended up marrying her older sister Leah,after having worked 7 years as &#8220;payment&#8221; to marry Rachel (then, after another 7 years, he finally got to marry Rachel but he did NOT divorce Leah).  And, there&#8217;s the supreme barnyard rooster, Solomon&#8211;a man who had roughly 1000 wives AND concubines (not ONE wife and nearly 1000 concubines&#8211;MULTIPLE wives, in the hundreds at least, plus hundreds more concubines).  And the concept of multiple marriages was prevalent in many societies (it still is, even today&#8211;Islamic custom allows a man to have up to 4 wives, provided he can care for and treat all his wives equally; naturally, this tends to limit the custom to the more well-off men).</p>
<p>And, there&#8217;s also a long tradition of adulterous marriages.  Usually it&#8217;s the husband who engages in sexual relations with other partners (perhaps just one regular long-term partner, perhaps a number of different people over the course of the marriage), frequently with the tacit approval of the wife; especially among the upper classes, there was an understanding that as long as the &#8220;relationship&#8221; was kept reasonably discreet or did not cause undue embarassment for the wife, the husband was free to do as he wished.  (And the French, of course, raised this to a veritable art form.  During the 19th and well into the 20th century, it was considered de rigueur for a man, especially in an esteemed profession such as the law or banking or a successful merchant to have not only a wife but a mistress whom he &#8220;kept&#8221;; and it wasn&#8217;t completely unheard of for such a man to have a male lover rather than another woman&#8211;such men could view themselves as being &#8220;completely&#8221; faithful to their wives and it was often easier to go out in public with a man than to be seen with the &#8220;other woman.&#8221;)</p>
<p>But, if Mr Bauman wishes to persist in his silly idea, perhaps he can explain why he CHOSE to violate the bonds of his &#8220;religious&#8221; marriage by engaging in sexual activity with another person.  I seriously doubt that anyone FORCED him to marry a woman so, by indulging in ANY extramarital relationships, he VIOLATED the very religious notions that he uses to delineate the idea of marriage.  There&#8217;s a word for that:  Hypocrisy.  Reconcile that with your &#8220;conscience&#8221;&#8211;if you can.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaydad05</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/gay-ex-congressman-shuns-politics-in-florida/#comment-43002</link>
		<dc:creator>gaydad05</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=35022#comment-43002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow. Once a self-hating conservative, always a self-hating conservative. After all this time to reflect back on his life, he still can&#039;t countenance the idea that he&#039;s as good as straight people and deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. On the one hand, poor guy. On the other hand, what a jerk.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow. Once a self-hating conservative, always a self-hating conservative. After all this time to reflect back on his life, he still can&#8217;t countenance the idea that he&#8217;s as good as straight people and deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. On the one hand, poor guy. On the other hand, what a jerk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.washingtonblade.com/2012/01/31/gay-ex-congressman-shuns-politics-in-florida/feed/ ) in 0.25194 seconds, on May 25th, 2013 at 10:17 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 25th, 2013 at 11:17 am UTC -->