Well, that goes a long way toward undermining my point, but you’d think that a hypothetical marraige committment would count for something.
When you’re gay, there’s 2 kinds of people you’re not supposed to have sex with: Teenagers and adults. It’s sort of like how exagerrating the dangers of marijuana can leave young people open to trying harder drugs. But that was a flimsy, throwaway point that I don’t stand behind.
What I am saying is that Foley had gotten married years earlier, then the equation that governs his personal life would have been different and might have led to a different outcome.
(btw, I don’t make any of these points in my essay; feel free to criticize those that I do in there as well.)
You know, I realize that being gay in our culture isn’t easy, but I still think that even people who are uncomfortable with the idea of it still can recognize the difference between two adults who can both give consent, and an adult/child relationship, especially one where the adult is in a strong position of authority. To equate the two as being equally illicit is just wrong, and frankly, doesn’t do much for your case, in my opinion.
Of course you are right. It’s just that if society sets boundries that cannot be respected, then some people will start acting as if there are no boundries at all.
There are those for whom the distinction between being gay and molesting children is lost. And there are those who react to this kind of extremism with extremist behavior of their own. More than likely Foley would have acted like a perv no matter what. But society should do better, more precise job in defining what constitues normal sexual behavior given the realities of sexuality and sexual orientation.
Being a gay guy who can’t legally get married and an occasional child molester, I think this seems like a very convenient excuse and I intend to use it in the future.
Actually, no. I think this is the most ridiculous line of reasoning I’ve ever heard, and I think it’s blatantly offensive as well. Whatever my culture tells me, I can certainly tell the difference between children and adults. I have no desire to have sex with children, but if I did, I’d certainly know that it was wrong and I wouldn’t do it. Whatever social opprobrium there may be surrounding homosexuality, I can certainly tell the difference between right and wrong, whether I’m married or not. And I don’t think that you even start from valid precepts; as much as there are probably still people who think gay sex should be outlawed, it’s silly to think that the same social condemnation attaches to consenting gay adults and men who prey on male children. For one thing, there are substantial legal penalties attached to the latter.
The Republican Party may not be fond of either gays or ephebophiles, but with the exception of a tiny number of loonies out there (ones the mainstream GOP probably doesn’t look upon too fondly) the Republicans certainly dislike sexual predators way more than your friendly neighborhood homo. This entire argument is stupid; it rests on ridiculous assumptions and it depends on a ridiculous line of argument - if someone is willing to pursue sex to the point that he risks his job, his reputation, his political ambitions, and criminal sanctions (or at least civil sanctions for sexual harassment), why in the world would a little thing like marriage vows stop him?
All right, let’s talk legal penalties. All Congressional pages are 16 years or older. The age of sexual consent in the District of Columbia is 16 years.
The latest talking point from the Republican leadership in Washington is that since Foley has resigned from Congress, they are no longer his subordinates, and he is no longer subject to Congressional discipline. Only legal penalties. And since they were over the age of consent, those may not apply, either.
He’s resigned so I’m not sure what other discipline Congress could have doled out, unless perhaps firing him would have meant that he forfeited his pension, etc.
Nonetheless, he’s out of a very cushy job. He’s publicly disgraced. I doubt he’ll be invited to many cocktail parties in Washington this holiday season. Legal penalties would be icing on the cake. I’d be surprised if we didn’t see some civil lawsuits here in the near future.
I recall reading a psychiatric explanation of the priest-child molestations that said that since these priests had chosen celibacy at a young age, and thus never had any experience in dealing with sexuality at an adult level; their understanding of sexuality remained at an infantile level, and so they were attracted to people they perceived as being at the same inexperienced level (children).
I have no idea how well this theory is accepted in the psychiatric world.
Personally, I have some doubts about it.
And I think it was said to apply to both gay and straight priests.