Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

Parent Cafe
881

<p>Strick I agree with you about a couple of things: First, I agree that the gay marriage thing has been handled clumsily. My suggestion (had anyone asked) would have been to have the state govenrments go out of the “marriage” business altogether. Marriage does have a religious connotation, and all the bad things thta hapen when you mix religion and government pertaining thereto. So the Kluge plan would have been this: No more government-issue marriage licenses. Anyone who wants the legal relationship, rights, responsibilities, burdens and benefits we’ve attached to marriage heretofor now has to get a civil partnership, The CP would carry all of the current attributes of a marital status, and all people with “marriages” get grandfathered in. Anyone previously eligible to get married is now eligible to form a CP, with the exception that the sex of the parties no longer is a factor.</p>

<p>Wanna get married? Fine! Go to church. They can marry you in the eyes of God, under whatever rules your church chooses. Some churches will marry all comers, other won’t. Fine. That’s why they’re churches and not the government.</p>

<p>…But nobody asked me.</p>

<p>As to Bill and Monica, I wasn’t there, but from what I’ve read Monica was the solicitor, not the solicitee. But sex in the workplace is always complicated, and rarely advisable.</p>

<p>Hereshoping, there’s dangers in all sex. How about we teach our kids safe sex, not that some sex is evil and other sex isn’t?</p>

882

<p>As I said the party that CARES.
Keep in mind gays = 2% population when reading stats. Not comparable to tobacco related deaths in the overalll population. Kluge keeps forgetting (?) this fact.</p>

883

<p>kluge: I’m just skimming over your posts at this point, sorry. I believe you are the one who is irrational. I just posted the stats in case anyone is interested, including you. It’s obvious you have no intention of keeping an open mind.</p>

884

<p>HH:
I really don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Unprotected anal sex is high risk behavior?</p>

885

<p>I can’t even remember anymore, gla! :slight_smile: I think it started with the idea that the gay population statistically is responsible for more abuse of adolescents (backed up by xiggi’s Eskimo explanation), which in turn led to kluge and others rationalizing this by saying that adolescent girls are preyed upon also, which led to me posting the AIDS figures to point out that for a group that is 2% of the population a lot of teens have been infected over the years. (I think!)</p>

886

<p>OK. Gays are a high risk population. But please don’t send any Eskimos to Gitmo :)</p>

887

<p>“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html[/url]”>http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

888

<p>I guess trying to explain that comparing the number of “homosexual” molestations to the percentage of self-identified gays was a waste of time since many, if not most “homosexual” molestations are perpetrated by men who self-identify as straight was pretty much a waste of time, eh? </p>

<p>I think Xiggi got it, though.</p>

889

<p>

</p>

<p>Because I abandoned this illuminating discussion? Or because I wrote “and is it not all about power?” 437 posts ago? </p>

<p>:)</p>

890

<p>

Understatement of the year award!</p>

891

<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>Where was that confirmed? The only confirmation I personally saw was of the emails. Which doesn’t mean that the confirmation doesn’t exist, only that I haven’t seen it.</p>

<p>“Amazing. I guess Drudge and his ilk think if they say it enough times, we’ll believe it.”</p>

<p>Just like Matt was wrong about the semen on the blue dress? Your side said the same thing about that till the DNA was done. Why not wait this time to see what the FBI concludes?</p>

892

<p>“For heaven’s sake it’s no secret that the Republican party is anti-gay!”</p>

<p>Tell that to the Log Cabin Republicans.</p>

893

<p>That was an interesting link, conyat, but it is not a scholarly paper. It was written by Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. who also has a blog called beyondhomophobia.com. (He has a lot to say on his blog about the Foley scandal, btw.) This man has a definite pov, if not agenda, to say the least. He has a lot of animus toward a researcher named Cameron, who he claims bases his research on the “fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals.” This is also kluge’s big complaint about the numbers pointing to 1/3 of molestations being perpetrated by some members of 2% of the population.</p>

<p>I suppose this is why the CDC uses the term “male-male” sex in their numbers. Herek makes a huge deal about the fact that many of these men self-identify as straight, are in or have been in marriages, have had previous heterosexual contact in their lives, and do not self-identify as homosexual.</p>

<p>It seems that interpretation of the numbers hinges on how one interprets male-male sex. People such as the man who wrote this “study” consider use of the term homosexual for male-male sex to be homophobic, or worse.
I think reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of what male-male sex means.</p>

894

<p>just because you have Log Cabin Republicans does not mean that the republican party is inclusive</p>

895

<p>drudge said the IMs, some anyway were a prank, NOT that Foley did not participate in them…the pranksters even said, according to Drudge, that Foley WAS a part of those IMs, just that the males on the other end of the conversation, well, those guys said there were just pulling a prank on Foley, but fully seemed to participate…</p>

896

<p>“just because you have Log Cabin Republicans does not mean that the republican party is inclusive”</p>

<p>We include pro-lifers and pro-choicers, we include religious and non-religious . . .</p>

<p>Can you say that pro-life people and religious Christians are welcome in the current democratic party?</p>

897

<p>Just because the best & brightest–the future–of your party thinks this is, if not completely appropriate, a good time <a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/hom...9-d47d479b1ab9[/url]”>http://www.columbiaspectator.com/hom...9-d47d479b1ab9&lt;/a&gt; does not make the whole of your party hate free speech, tolerance and diversity.</p>

<p>They just ‘seem’ to.</p>

898

<p>Why won’t Foley name his abuser, a priest who could still be out their hurting children? He said he will not share the name until he is out of treatment…</p>

899

<p>read some of the Log Cabin Republicans comments in the news…interesting stuff…they don’t often feel included themselves</p>

<p>Gay is who a person is, not what they believe</p>

<p>As for Pro-life, that is a politcial stance, not a type of person, ie gay or black or white or whatever</p>

<p>As for Christian, you would be suprised how many democrats are religious in all faiths,</p>

900

<p>Log Cabin or no, it’s not easy being a gay Republican:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gaygop6oct06,0,4392400,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines[/url]”>http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gaygop6oct06,0,4392400,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Quote from the article:</p>

<p>"“Obviously, the far right has kind of got a stranglehold on the Republican Party,” said Minnesota state Rep. Paul Koering, a Republican who came out publicly last year. “The very first time I ran, I literally almost made myself sick worrying about somebody finding out I was gay.” </p>

<p>Congress has three openly gay members, one of them a Republican — Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who is retiring when this term ends. Kolbe acknowledged his sexual orientation in 1996 after a gay magazine was about to “out” him for voting against government recognition of same-sex marriages.</p>

<p>Staffers from both parties say they think that several other Republican members of Congress are gay but, at least officially, in the closet. </p>

<p>“It’s kind of like a secret society,” said a gay former congressional staffer who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.</p>

<p>One reason for the secrecy, gay Republicans say, is that their party has grown more hostile to gays in recent years. The trend began with the 2002 congressional election, when GOP leaders made the strategic decision to use religious conservative groups’ opposition to gay marriage to turn out voters. For those groups, which consider homosexuality a deviant “lifestyle,” few issues rile their membership more.'</p>