<p>There are some gay conservatives who have very reasoned and principled opinions as to why gay marriage should not be legal. Most gay activists deliberately paint anyone who opposes gay marriage as anti-gay or homophobic. This is done deliberately, of course. Gay conservatives, it seems to me, have the right to their views and to keep their private lives private just as much as anyone else does without the threat of gay activists “outing” them. I believe one must look very carefully at sources in stories such as these–to me “gay Republicans say” or “on condition of anonymity” just doesn’t cut it. There is a difference between gay activists and people who are gay and not interested in activism. In my experience, one has to be very careful in reading stories such as these. The majority of the American public opposes gay marriage. This is very tough for gay activists to accept. They’ve made inroads, but they still have a long way to go apparently.</p>
<p>“As for Pro-life, that is a politcial stance”</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree with that statement.</p>
<p>There is a great column by Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501548.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501548.html</a></p>
<p>This is the lead:
"Let’s deal with the circumstance that dares not speak its name: How much of the Mark Foley scandal’s impact is due to the fact that he’s a gay man who preyed on young boys?</p>
<p>“The basic story line – powerful man exploits children – would be the same if Foley were straight and underage girls had been the subject of his lurid attentions. But would the intensity of the scandal be the same? Would there be all this unseemly finger-pointing and hand-washing among the House leadership? Would Dennis Hastert be fighting to keep his job; would Christian conservatives be so apoplectic; would the whole Republican Party look as if it were on the verge of a nervous breakdown?”</p>
<p>Interesting column, dmd, thanks for posting it.</p>
<p>I don’t think there would be too much difference. It might even be worse for the average person as they consider gays a little bit outside the mainstream to begin with and expect some bad behavior while a powerful 50+ person going after 16-18 year old girls is just not acceptable in any way.</p>
<p>anti choice is a political stance, and is pro-choice…it has to do with the law…and medical care</p>
<p>Why would the Post even print that column? There is not one piece of research in it, or even reference to research other than “most new research has tended to support the idea…” followed by his opinion. How can these people think they can have it both ways?–call Republicans anti-gay homophobes while at the same time blaming them for not doing more when Foley sent “overly friendly” emails to a page as well as implying they should have done more when they knew he was gay and maybe liked young men? They don’t seem to realize they are making themselves look ridiculous.</p>
<p>If Republicans would allow representatives and staffers to be gay–not forcing them into the closet–would Mark Foley have had a normal, dating life? Maybe he could have gone to bars and clubs and met people? I don’t know. I just know it’s sick to force people to hide who they are. </p>
<p>Or are there some troglodytes here who ignore science and still choose to believe that gay people “choose” the “lifestyle”?</p>
<p>Joining CGM in blaming Republicans for Foley’s proclivities is probably not a good move, farawayplaces. According to the LATimes article someone posted above, Foley was seen quite often around town with his “partner” - a dermatologist. No one expressed any shock, dismay or alarm about it among the Republican ranks. As I said, trying to blame a political party in any way, shape or form for this is just shameless. As for those troglodytes, as our friend Mr. Robinson (who has labeled all GOP members as bigots in his column) said in the Post “most new research TENDS to support the IDEA that homosexuality is more a matter of nature than nuture.” If you disagree that there no definitive research on the matter, I guess you can take it up with Mr. Robinson!</p>
<p>“I think reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of what male-male sex means.”</p>
<p>I think reasonable people can disagree about many, many things…but this particular element does not seem very ambiguous to me at all.</p>
<p>A bit more history…in the preFoxDrudgePeople era there was a congressman (dem) from NY tossed in jail for ‘tax evasion’ as a cover to a sexual solicitation charge. Is anyone’s life worse off for not having had these events plastered on the press for weeks? I think not. I don’t think this incident will serve as any sort of ‘lesson’ in the sense of change of a meaningful nature within either political party. I don’t think moral ambiguity is a particular area of focus in either party…</p>
<p>
Mark Foley did what he did because of pressure from Republicans?!</p>
<p>Get off it–my lord!..he did what he did because of his degenerate sexual urges.</p>
<p>-Not because he was gay.
-And certainly not because he was a Republican.
…because he was a degenerate pervert who victimized young boys…not because he was a poor-lil-victim himself.</p>
<p>…stop with the ‘victim-hood’ shtick. Oy vey! He’s a 50 year old man for God’s sake!</p>
<p>A little late to say he’s being a naughty boy because he didn’t get enough hugs from mommy or daddy–or those ole meany law & order Republicans…or because people just didn’t understand him and his needs. </p>
<p>His “Truth” is that he is a pervert who preyed on hot-stuff teen-age boys.</p>
<p>As to being “victimized,” it sure as hell didn’t keep him from becoming one of the most powerful men in one of the most powerful states in America (poor guy)…and using that power, as a gay Republican congressman to fantasize about and pursue cute page-boys under his charge. </p>
<p>Enough already!</p>
<p>After being presented as a Democrat several times on Faux News, 37% of Americans polled believe Congressman Foley is, in fact, a Democrat. :D</p>
<p>…probably the whining.</p>
<p>Pu-leeze–don’t pretend that Republicans would have accepted Foley as a gay representative. Let’s see, hmm, how many Republican representatives are known to be gay? Is that none? Still waiting for the number . . . . (Only one, who is conveniently retiring this yearl) </p>
<p>Someone tried to “out” Foley in 1996, and he denied the rumors.</p>
<p>I guess I missed the part where the Republicans are responsible for babysitting all of their members. </p>
<p>If Foley were chasing cute 17-year-old girls, this wouldn’t be an issue. Sad thing is, in politics, you’ll get trashed the most for doing things “bad” that cannot be understood. No one criticises JFK for being with Marilyn Monroe; Clinton got a lot of garbage (at least before the perjury) because Monica is fat and not very attractive. High school boys? Not something most Americans wish they could have (or could have if they were male). </p>
<p>As for pro-life v. pro-choice: pro-life people do not see what they are doing as political so much as a basic requirement of civilised society; pro-choicers (regardless of whether or not they would have an abortion) see the debate as one of sexual politics.</p>
<p>as I said: probably the whining. </p>
<p>…and now, we have more whining. </p>
<p>It’s not daddy’s fault. It’s Mr. “I like hot young boy’s”, fault. </p>
<p>Occam’s Razor strikes again…</p>
<p>Janet Jacksons shows a booby and all heck breaks lose, a congressman approaches pages in a sexual manner, and it naughty…male or female, I don’t care</p>
<p>When I first heard the story, it was jsut “page”- I assumed a girl as no name was given, and as most people are straight, it was a natural assumption, after reading more details, I understood it was a male page</p>
<p>If he was an ole guy chasing minor girls, etc., still as bad</p>
<p>And the members of his party knew he was crossing the line of ethics by approaching pages as he did, and just let it slide, while not even reading the emails in questions</p>
<p>what, these guys never heard of redacting? its what the government is famous for…</p>
<p>I am so surprised CGM has not focused on the scandal of having more pages chosen by Republicans than by Democrats. Yet! </p>
<p>The horror. The horror.</p>
<p>Not a scandal. Shrug. The majority has more staff, the majority has more perks, the majority by definition has more members who can sponsor. Perhaps soon the foo will be on the other shoot.</p>
<p>
Yes. Next case. (And in fact pro-Life Democratic candidates are running for Senate in Pennsylvania and Governor in Colorado. During the Kerry campaign, some Jewish friends were stunned to find that their colleagues included Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. It shouldn’t have been a “stun” but that’s some of the mythical narrative. Hell’s bells, Kerry got a third or better of the evangelical vote…maybe even 40 percent, I don’t have 2004 data at my fingertips. The notion of homogenous blocs is greatly oversold and overbought.)</p>
<p>TheDad, CGM, and others,</p>
<p>Of course everyone is welcome under the Democrats’ big tent. Ask Joe Lieberman … he knows.</p>