<p>1) Gays = bad. And some adult gay men exhibiting exactly the same sort of attitudes towards younger men that some adult straight men exhibit towards younger women proves it, by gum!</p>
<p>2) Only gays get HIV or AIDS.</p>
<p>3) Gays aren’t victims; if some ■■■■■■ gets beaten up for being gay he probably deserves it. </p>
<p>Anything else I need to know?</p>
<p>P.S. I am paying attention, you know. Quite astute of you to only mention gays in your adult-adolescent examples. No need to bring the likes of Phil Crane or John Mark Karr. And while we’re at it - here’s to Loretta Lynn (married at 13)! </p>
<p>If you ever get over your fixation with pederasty you might take the time to google “child brides”. </p>
<p>One last time: these issues have nothing to do with the sex of the individuals involved, and everything to do with their age.</p>
<p>Wow, people like Matt Drudge are lying about whether Foley sent the IMs, and whether the kids were under 18 at the time? ABC confirmed days ago that Foley admitted they were his, and numerous pages have come forward to talk about his approaches to them while still minors.</p>
<p>Amazing. I guess Drudge and his ilk think if they say it enough times, we’ll believe it.</p>
<p>If the Repubs were as blameless in this as they make out, they would have no reason to lie.</p>
<p>kluge: Like I said: hitting a brick wall. It does have to do with the sex of the person, and people like you have probably caused more gay teens’ deaths than people ilke me who would like to give them the real info. Of course it’s too much trouble for you to go to CDC websites and read the real, unwhitewashed statistics. The real info does not jibe with your life in la-la land. Anybody who can read my posts and conclude I think “gays=bad” has a REAL problem connecting with reality.</p>
<p>Loretta Lynn. You are hilarious, kluge.</p>
<p>Don’t take the time to further spin your wheels with me; I won’t be paying attention. As I said, I went through this with my enlightened school district three years ago and do not care to revisit this argument again.</p>
<p>I have seen this same finding replicated numerous times over. Link has lots of eye opening statistics. It’s simply not accurate nor fair to conflate sexual exploitation of minors with homosexuality. They are plenty enough exploiters out there for both teams.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, I know you’re a nice person, but I don’t find anything hilarous about 13 year olds marrying or being impregnated by adult males…and deep down, I don’t think you do either.</p>
<p>As a registered Republican and parent of a Page who served on the Majority side, I find the whole thing reprehensible. No Representative (male or female) should be contacting ANY Page (male or female ) on a “social” basis.</p>
<p>hereshoping, we have several family members who teach in the U.S. and I can assure you that it isn’t the unions who are preventing sex ed in schools. It is most definitely pressure exerted by religious conservative groups. Teachers want to educate their students so that they may be informed to the extent that they can be safe. Some groups, unfortunately, have a problem with teachers providing information on this subject and, naively, feel that the less kids know, the better.</p>
<p>I’ve been involved for much of my adult life with groups associated with gay activists. I have yet to meet anyone who feels that they should be a specially protected group. What they want are equal rights, not special rights. As kluge has previously posted, I’d be interested in your concerns more when the day comes that a group of gay boys beat up a straight boy, just because he’s straight. I’m not holding my breath. </p>
<p>You are showing your true colors with comments like ‘GSAs being all the rage’. It’s a sad fact that GSAs are necessary in today’s world. I was a parent sponsor for one at one high school that some of my daughters’ attended. I’m curious what you mean with your snide comment about them ‘teaching them all the facts’. Do you even know what a GSA is all about? What they’re trying to teach is tolerance, in an attempt to make high school a safe place for everyone. Perhaps you should visit a meeting at your local school and see what goes on at these gatherings. You might actually learn something.</p>
<p>What gay teen deaths are you talking about in your accusatory comment to kluge? Would appreciate a link. It’s a rarity that a teen dies of AIDS, and those who have, are almost all individuals who contracted the virus as babies.
I have no problem connecting with reality but I do have a problem with your thinly veiled hateful statements. They have gotten progressively worse since this discussion began.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, the only thing you get out of statistics on children being raped is that any resultant “pregancy = life”? That is truly tragic. Child rape is very destructive, and can also result in untimely death; despairing kids turn to drugs and alcohol and die from that; they commit suicide, etc. Again, there’s nothing hilarious or life-affirming about child rape, whether it’s done by a man, woman, gay or straight.</p>
<p>Hmmm . . . so things have now gotten to the point where one CC poster is accusing another of “causing . . . gay teens’ deaths.”</p>
<p>I’m sure glad that Xiggi and the other student interlopers don’t spend too much time in the Parent Cafe. Just imagine how those unrefined young 'uns would sully this otherwise lofty debate!</p>
<p>“Wow, people like Matt Drudge are lying about whether Foley sent the IMs, and whether the kids were under 18 at the time? ABC confirmed days ago that Foley admitted they were his, and numerous pages have come forward to talk about his approaches to them while still minors.”</p>
<p>conyat, I think you missed a step or two in the news cycle. I’m not aware of Drudge ever saying that Foley didn’t send the messages. Forgive me if I’m wrong. And the age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16, not 18. By law, at least in the District, all pages are consenting adults. I think that sort of troubles most of us parents, but it’s a fact. Unfortunately, the age of consent is the law’s little way of telling us parent’s that our children’s sex life is no longer any of our %$#@ business anymore.</p>
<p>BTW, conyat, are you saying that Foley lied about sex? My, this sounds more and more like the way people rationalized Clinton’s troubles by the minute. Everyone lies about sex. Did I get that right? It’s been a while since I heard anyone explain the “it was only sex” thing and I’m probably rusty. I know, intern, page, page, intern, but isn’t that spliting hairs if they’re both consenting adults?</p>
<p>Motherrdear, you don’t have to be a Republican or a Democrat to agree whole heartedly with you. I can only imagine your distress at hearing this. I’m sorry.</p>
<p>I’m not worried on a personal level. I’m not concerned about the heterosexual or homosexual aspect of the Foley case. What bothers me is people of a position in power taking advantage of underlings who are not in power. </p>
<p>My kid is fine. Most of her Page classmates are untouched. It is a tragedy that at least one of them is involved with this.</p>
<p>You’re right. I confused a post by someone here who tried to cast doubt on that with what Drudge did, which was to call the teenagers “beasts” and try to dismiss this whole thing as a prank. I was so annoyed about both things, I mixed them up. Thanks for setting the record straight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, as far as I know, Foley doesn’t even seem to have said very much. The lies I was talking about are the obvious contradictions between statements made by Shimkus/Hastert, Hastert/his former chief of staff, etc. They are blaming each other, and there is no way that they can all be telling the truth.</p>
<p>MD, you nail it: it’s not about sex, gay or straight, though there’s the delicious irony of this happening to the Official Gay-Bashing Party. (OGP? GOP? coincidence? I think not.) It’s about abuse of power and having turned a blind eye and then a cover-up regarding who knew what when.</p>
<p>Jeez, this thread may surpass the Duke thread in length.</p>
<p>Btw, AllMusic, look at the flashing blue light in the mirror. (Of course it wouldn’t be Red.) I’m sorry, but as a member of the Word & Grammar Police, I have to pull you over. “Mendicant” means “beggar,” with associations relating to certain orders of monks. While I agree that the Republicans may be beggars in a narrow slang sense (“stone the beggars!”), I think you mean “those who are mendacious.”</p>
<p>Gee TheDad, the ugly irony of the official party of gay rightsconflagrating gay sex with pedophilia, condemning the Republicans for hesitating to investigate gay sex between consenting adults and threatening to out every gay who disagrees with them sort of makes you wonder who’s the real gay bashers now.</p>
<p>It’s about dirty political tricks, a total indifference to the pain inflicted on the innocent and twisting the truth for political advantage rather than an abuse of power. Foley’s already started paying his debt on this and will pay more. When will the people responsible for the lies about what happened going to start paying theirs?</p>
<p>“It is a tragedy that at least one of them is involved with this.”</p>
<p>I shudder to think how it might turn out for him, if the past is any guide.</p>
<p>Strick, as best I can tell, the “age of consent” (colloquial term, not legal) in DC is 16, except that “statutory rape” (ditto) only applies if the older person is at least 4 years older than the younger. In addition, there is a provision for penalties for a person in a position of authority over the minor, such as a scout master, teacher, coach, etc. who commits a sex offense with someone under 18. As to whether the latter provision would apply to Foley with regard to the pages I’m not sure. And as to what it all means, eh. But I doubt that the ultimate resolution of this matter will result in a determination that Foley broke no laws, not that I necessarily think that that is the most important issue here.</p>
<p>Two new pages came forward today to charge Foley solicited them to spend time at his house in return for sexual acts. This happened allegedly in 1998. Then pages were talking about inappropriate behavior in 2001. Last fall the e-mails that started all this, and no one is alleging that was a prank. Etc. etc. And one pages claims that he answered Foley’s IM’s as a joke. All of a sudden all the other issues fade, and it becomes one prank. I really don’t see why that one page who was almost 18, and who answered as a prank, changes a pattern with innocents over the period of 8 years or more.</p>
<p>Strick, I’ll take serious exception to your characterizing Foley’s grooming of 16 year old boys from his position of authority for sexual engagements as “gay sex between consenting adults.” Frankly, I’m appalled. I don’t care if the “age of consent” is 16, or 12, and if the child is a boy or a girl: This is not “consenting” and it’s definitely not “adults.”</p>