# John Walsh/Foley/Gays & Gay Bashing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272 "2006-10-04T16:38:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2006, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/41 "2006-10-06T06:07:42Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] I’ve never heard “popular usage” calling anyone a pedophile because they talk to 16 year olds. Such a person is usually called a perv or a dirty old man, but a pedophile is in another class. Pedophiles are guys like the Maytag man in that Very Special Episode of Different Strokes. [/quote] Let’s remember that Mr. Foley did more than just talk (or IM, as the case may be) with these underaged pages. The stuff that’s been released so far – which is to say, not counting the _really_ hair-raising stuff ABC claims it has kept under wraps – already suggest weekend trysts in San Diego and alcoholic parties at Foley’s domicile. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2006, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/42 "2006-10-06T12:07:02Z")
So I typed pedophilia into [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) and none of the definitions said anything about the child being prepubesent. They are things like “sexual desire in an adult for a child.” Child is defined as a “person between birth and full growth.” American heritage dictionary defines it as between “birth and puberty” - that appears to be the medical definition of child as well. The Meriam-Webster Dictionary of Law is “a person below the age specified in law.” There is a more accurate term. And this is not the correct medical term. But I don’t think this is gross misuse of the word. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2006, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/43 "2006-10-06T22:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Can you explain how that helps to fight ignorance? [/quote] By avoiding diversion into nitpicking sidetracks. > [@](#): > > As far as this thread is concerned, that is the debate. As far as the \*real world \* is concerned, the debate is about the extent of the Republicans’ coverup and hypocrisy. \*You \* can try to debate whatever you want. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/44 "2006-10-06T23:42:17Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] By avoiding diversion into nitpicking sidetracks. As far as the \*real world \* is concerned, the debate is about the extent of the Republicans’ coverup and hypocrisy. \*You \* can try to debate whatever you want. [/QUOTE] Ah yes, anyone who frames the debate differently than you want is engaging in a sidetrack. :rolleyes: And yet, had Foley had sex with any of the 16 year old pages in Wash DC, that would be perfectly legal. He might have been guilty of sexual harrassment, but that would be true if the pages had been 18, 21 or 30. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2006, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/45 "2006-10-06T23:54:27Z")
Indeed, its crucially important that we used precisely the correct terminology for the repulsive stuff Foley did. “Cover up” will probably serve quite well for the more important issue. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/46 "2006-10-07T00:01:30Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Indeed, its crucially important that we used precisely the correct terminology for the repulsive stuff Foley did. “Cover up” will probably serve quite well for the more important issue. [/QUOTE] Given the complex nature of state and federal laws on the matter, it’s almost certain that Foley can be prosecuted for something, and might receive a considerable prison sentence, too. As for the alleged cover up, it’s almost certainly not criminal in nature, but it does have very real poltical consequences. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/47 "2006-10-07T00:18:52Z")
> [@](#): > > …but it does have very real poltical consequences… You’re probably on pretty safe ground with that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/48 "2006-10-07T16:42:29Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] You’re probably on pretty safe ground with that. [/QUOTE] Ya think? Actually, you might have misunderstood me. I don’t think this will make much of a difference in the Nov election, but if the Pubbies maintain their grip on the House, Hastert might be replaced as Speaker afterwards. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/49 "2006-10-08T21:53:28Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] And yet, had Foley had sex with any of the 16 year old pages in Wash DC, that would be perfectly legal. [/QUOTE] I’m not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it have been statutory rape? After all, legal adult + legal minor +sex (consensual or not) = statutory rape, as far as I know. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/50 "2006-10-08T22:04:25Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] I’m not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it have been statutory rape? After all, legal adult + legal minor +sex (consensual or not) = statutory rape, as far as I know. [/QUOTE] Nope, statutory rape is intercourse with someone under the age of consent. It’s considered to be rape whether or not the person gave consent because, well, that person can’t legally give consent. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/51 "2006-10-08T22:43:27Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] Sorry, but that right-wing fantasy/talking point has already been punctured: [Longtime Republican was Source of Foley E-mails](http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html) [/QUOTE] According to one of the people I heard interviewed who was connected with the leak, the story had been shopped around to various news outlets for about a _year_ before ABC decided to air it. One wonders if they’re not trying to compensate for airing the 9/11 “mockudrama.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/52 "2006-10-08T22:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] According to one of the people I heard interviewed who was connected with the leak, the story had been shopped around to various news outlets for about a _year_ before ABC decided to air it. One wonders if they’re not trying to compensate for airing the 9/11 “mockudrama.” [/QUOTE] I doubt it, but I certainly hope not. Besides, wasn’t it the IMs that made this a “real” story, and didn’t they only come to light recently? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/53 "2006-10-08T22:54:58Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I doubt it, but I certainly hope not. Besides, wasn’t it the IMs that made this a “real” story, and didn’t they only come to light recently? [/QUOTE] IIRC, the person said that the leaker had a bit of the information, which they gave to various news outlets, who didn’t do anything, then when ABC got the piece, other information surfaced from folks who’d heard that ABC news was going to be airing the story. It doesn’t seem unlikely to me that someone tried to get the information out there, since it was apparently an open secret on the Hill that Foley liked the pages (and he’s _not_ the first, so the folks on the Hill had to know what the reaction would be when/if word got out). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/54 "2006-10-08T23:01:53Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] IIt doesn’t seem unlikely to me that someone tried to get the information out there, since it was apparently an open secret on the Hill that Foley liked the pages (and he’s _not_ the first, so the folks on the Hill had to know what the reaction would be when/if word got out). [/QUOTE] Actually, what’s amazing is howt this story didn’t get out there earlier. Were all the pages just too embarassed? These guys mught be fairly sharp to get into the program, you’d think, and it seems surprising that none of them turned him in. Doesn’t everyone want his 15 minutes of fame these days? Didn’t anyone think “book deal”!!?? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/55 "2006-10-08T23:26:47Z")
He was a powerful congressman of long tenure. He used his power to have sex with boys ,many who were kids away from home and scared, too . When he offerered rides from the airport ,it wasnt a delivery service. He was gay and lived a life of lies. He ran on a reiligious agenda and was a hypocrite. For his own gain he was a dispicable character and sadly just another politician. Wonkette says that Hasterts living with a man for years is suspicious. She says a lot more. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/56 "2006-10-09T00:10:41Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] He was a powerful congressman of long tenure. He used his power to have sex with boys [/QUOTE] Hold on, you have evidence that Foley had sex with boys? Foley has denied having sex with any page, and no one has contradicted that. And by “boys” do you mean those under the age of consent? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/57 "2006-10-09T00:32:56Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] The only people drawing “gay = pedophile” in this Foley mess are the conservatives using it as an excuse to attack homosexuals. [/QUOTE] Not true. Here’s [Democratic strategist Bob Beckel](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy_5UNuQN3w) suggesting that Republicans should have suspected Foley of sexual impropriety with minors because he’s gay. Bigotry exists on both sides of the aisle. You’re not helping stamp out that bigotry when you pretend otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/58 "2006-10-09T00:37:11Z")
Only kids saying so. I wasnt there.He set it up when they were kids. He had sex with one later when he was 21.There are more revelations every day. Hold tight. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/59 "2006-10-09T01:27:16Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Bigotry exists on both sides of the aisle. You’re not helping stamp out that bigotry when you pretend otherwise. [/QUOTE] You’re not helping stamp it out by pretending that Republicans and Conservatives in general aren’t the ones by and large fanning the bigoted flames in our culture. The WSJ published an editorial in which it described molesting boys as something on a ‘scale of homosexuality’ for goodness sakes. The idea that gay people are perverts who are actively trying to recruit healthy children into anal sex is common paralance on the socially conservative right. Can you just quit the ruse and admit that not EVERY bad thing is equal on “both sides of aisle” (except of course for all the things you think are just Democrat problems)? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272/60 "2006-10-09T02:44:12Z")
[QUOTE=Walloon] Hold on, you have evidence that Foley had sex with boys? Foley has denied having sex with any page, and no one has contradicted that. [/QUOTE] Except that it was on tonight’s news that one ex-page said that he **had** had sex with Foley, after leaving the page program. He was 21 at the time. Although that doesn’t spin into “Foley had sex with underage pages,” it also puts a quick damper on “Foley never had sex with any of the pages who have accused him” too. It will be **very** interesting to see what lurks under the next bunch of rocks the investigators turn over. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/john-walsh-foley-gays-gay-bashing/375272.md?page=4)