…the Republicans wouldn’t be in so much trouble right now.
Anyway, here’s a brief essay on gay issues:
http://www.squeakywheelsblog.com/gays/gays.html
. . . Because married men don’t cheat on their spouses. And when they do, it’s not with younger, cuter things.
Ya know, it galled me to no end that that prick Foley suddenly pipes up with “I am a Gay man.”
Bullshit, asshole…you are a borderline pedophile piece of slime.
Alcohol and any real or imaginary incidents at a Catholic school as a kid are no excuse for your reprehensible behavior, so don’t pretend to run for cover in the Gay community. You aren’t one of us, so just call it like it is and register as a (potential until proven otherwise) sex offender.
I can’t get married so I’m going to sexually harrass kids? Sorry, not following the logic.
I don’t get this line of reasoning, either. Not being able to be married, or simply not being married, doesn’t make a person any more inclined to chase after teenagers, or be promiscuous in any other way. I’m willing to bet that if he had been married, he would have still been doing the exact same thing.
This OP would have been so much better if it had said something along the lines of “If the GOP leadership hadn’t developed a culture where being gay was considered a shameful thing, then maybe things would have been different.”
It was developed by the GOP? Huh!
Well, they didn’t create it but they pander to it. And I would argue that the pandering itself affords an air of legitmacy to it whilch allows certain attitudes to thrive and develop even more.
Not that any of that is an excuse for Foley, and he does the gay community no favors by suggesting that his sexual orientation made him chase after kids.
Let me recall now, was it a Democratic president or a Republican president who signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military policy and the Defense of Marriage Act into law (with the support of the majority of Democrats in Congress*)?
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: House Roll Call 565, 223 Democats for, 15 against. Senate Roll Call 380: 51 Democrats for, 4 against.
Defense of Marriage Act: House Roll Call 316: 118 Democrats for, 65 against. Senate Roll Call 280: 32 Democrats for, 14 against.
Oh for fuck sake. There is certainly a culture within the GOP Leadership that being gay is something to be ashamed of. This also exists in many other groups too but that is not germaine to this discussion.
What the fuck do the Democrats have to do with this? I’m not a Democrat either by the way so the lame argument that the Dems do this too is irrelevant.
Hey, hajario, this isn’t the Pit. Watch it.
Or what?
Hi.
It’s not the Pit. Please keep your tone under control. Thanks.
But surely married people are to some degree less likely to look to the “field” for sex. “Maybe” is all I’m saying.
I considered that, but I don’t see how acceptance of gayness in general as opposed to steady gay relationships in particular is what would have made a difference. OTOH, I contend that lack of acceptance of homosexuality compels some young men to pursue the structured celibate lifestyle offered by the Catholic priesthood–with well-known results.
Yes, but the “field” for adults of Foley’s age isn’t supposed to include high school students, regardless of their sexual orientation or marital status. Nor, incidentally, is it to include their direct reports.
And while I’ll certainly agree that the wacky religious zealots are pulling the puppet strings of the Republican party, the Democrats are not immune. One of the reasons I am so disenchanted with the Democratic leadership is that they refuse to go out on a political limb and actually stare down the religious fundamentalists. If the democrats are pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion rights, why in the hell did both John Kerry and Al Gore not say so when they were asked? Because they kowtow to the religious right, just like the Republicans.
Personally, I think the leaders of BOTH parties would be much better served if they quit pandering to the religious right of this country and started serving ALL their constituents, not just the loudest ones.
Maybe, but how would being married take away the desire for teenagers? If it was just about sex, he could have gone after adults, or he could have been in a long-term relationship, even without marriage.
I’m just saying that if you’re gettin’ plenty, you’re gettin’ plenty, but if you’re “looking”, then you’re going to be looking at what comes around. I also might say that if it’s all defined as illicit, then what’s the difference?
I don’t know where to start with the logic here.
So what you are saying is that the only choice he had were the pages? He didn’t have any ideas of where to meet adults?
You don’t know the difference between teenagers and adults?
Ex-Rep. Foley has had an adult male same-sex partner for many years.
That doesn’t appear to have prevented him from chasing after teen-age pages.
P.S. Since Florida law doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, I suppose he can’t be charged with adultery. But his partner might have something to say about it in private!