Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » By the way, and this deserves its own topic... Foley is not necessarily a pedophile (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: By the way, and this deserves its own topic... Foley is not necessarily a pedophile
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What he did is wrong, but lusting for a 16-17 year old is NOT pedophilia. Wanting to bang an age of consent post-pubescent individual is a totally different thing than lusting for pre-pubescent or even pubescent children. Degrees are important even when the subject lends to high emotion.

Now, the reason the title is qualified is we don't know the extent of Foley's mess. If the youngest of his targets of predation was 16, and there's no indication that he turned his sights any lower, then he's not a pedophile.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's no suggestion that somebody who's into "young studs" is a pedophile; but there is equivalent evidence that he is an ephebophile.

Unfortunately the age-of-consent laws we have are irresponsible and childish [Wink] , and provoke immature judgments from prudes.

IMHO, Foley is actually guilty of only one thing: hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is to my mind worse than child-molestation. I think the case will oxydize the Republicans in November; OTOH, I'm so angry at the Republicans that I hope they vaporize in November.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BOTH sides want to paint him evil, RB. You're raining on two parades at once. The Dems aobviously want this to look as black as possible, period, and the reps want to appear willing to confront inner blackness and expel it into outer darkness.

God forbid he be deemed just a confused dirty old man.

Altogether now. POint our fingers at Foley and holler 'Evil-doer! Evil-doer!'

How like our enemies we become.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
IMHO, Foley is actually guilty of only one thing: hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is to my mind worse than child-molestation. I think the case will oxydize the Republicans in November; OTOH, I'm so angry at the Republicans that I hope they vaporize in November.
Many others seem to agree, and that makes me sad. I think pedophile is more important than hypocrisy. I think child molestation is more dangerous than hypocrisy (in general). I think that rape is more important than hypocrisy.

[ October 04, 2006, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Burn her already!"

...

"A duck!"

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing, Jav, is that based on what we currently know, he's not guilty of any of those. A 16+ year old is not a child. Not practically and not legally. So pedophile and child molester go out the door. As for rape... where'd that come from?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure that hypocrisy is less damaging overall than pedophilia and even rape. Hypocrisy fuels a host of evils.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
The thing, Jav, is that based on what we currently know, he's not guilty of any of those. A 16+ year old is not a child. Not practically and not legally. So pedophile and child molester go out the door. As for rape... where'd that come from?

Sorry, generalizing, not talking about Foley. I completely agree that, given what we know, Foley is not guilty of any of those things.

Sorry for being unclear.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish our culture preferred precision of terms. It would make things so much better.

Didn't Confucious say that if he came to power, the first thing he'd have was a reconciling of names of things? (paraphrasing from memories of reading in high school, outside of any classes of course.)

If the people were 16+ in age, and they're calling him a pedophile... it gives the wrong impression, and is actually a lie. A slander.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pedophile, maybe not, from what we know so far. I said "predator" earlier, but that is too strong, again, given what we know so far. At a minimum, the words "creep" and "troll" apply. Even if that's all it is in the end, he shouldn't be giving leadership to any impressionable group, and he certainly shouldn't be leading commissions on Internet indecency.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, the guy is at minimum a creep. And the irony of his leading commissions on internet indecency... what humor there is in that fact!

I agree with you, Dave. But even though I wouldn't let this guy around my (nonexistent) children, I wouldn't call him a pedophile. (based on the info I've seen.)

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would agree with Omeg, but who 'they' are is a marvelous example of adultery [Wink] because those who have willingly and intentionally sought to conflate pederasty with ephebophilia are right-wing Christianists and left-wing Feminists. They are both deeply involved in taking back the night; hell, they can spend their nights in Hell with Satan for all I care [Smile] .

I use the term adultery here advisedly; but, if we cannot determine what an adult is, how can we determine what a child is? Very interesting philological study from Christians: http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/latinlit.html

One of my objections to the term 'natural law' was our inability to look to nature in the fact and admit that what passes for 'natural law' is, the bulk of it, unnatural law based on unnatural law ad infinitum.

To me, if adult and child have any antonymical value in our language at all, it is that an adult can breed, ergo a child cannot breed. That's why I draw the natural line at menses and ejaculations.

Let's all hear it for menses! Let's all hear it for ejaculations! [FootInMouth]

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DaW:

"All men are predators." - Squeeky Fromm, my favorite feminist! -

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
errr, that's DaveS, Richard not "Dave at Work"
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Foley somebody who denounces homosexuality? I don't know much about him, now, but him being Republican isn't synonymous with him being a gay-basher.


"At a minimum, the words "creep" and "troll" apply."

Not necessarily, from what I learned about gays growing up, it is pretty common for them to be attracted to younger men; not sure why that is, though. So unless if you want to say anyone who is attracted to young (people) is a creep or troll, you would have to include many gays; and I've met my fair share of old men who would act just as shamelessly around Britney Spears (even a few years ago) if they had her e-mail address.


"I would agree with Omeg, but who 'they' are is a marvelous example of adultery because those who have willingly and intentionally sought to conflate pederasty with ephebophilia are right-wing Christianists and left-wing Feminists. They are both deeply involved in taking back the night; hell, they can spend their nights in Hell with Satan for all I care ."

*Sigh* I'll ask. Okay Richard, how do Christians promote pederasty? (Because I know you're dying to say it.)

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Not necessarily, from what I learned about gays growing up, it is pretty common for them to be attracted to younger men; not sure why that is, though. "

Probably a similar impulse to why older men are attracted to 16-year old virgins. Sound biology in the case of heterosexuals; probably just crried over instinct in the case of queers.

I mean, whilke respecting the juvenile estates of 16/17-year old pages, I lost my virginity at 17 and wanted to many years before thaqt. There pages aren't prepubescents. I;m not endorsing sex with minors for Congressmen, just pointing out that... look. right here. See this here pitcher of this here reasonably attractive person of your gender of erotic choice? Rosy skin? Firm buttocks? Are you gonna tell me they don't turn you on simply because they're under 18?

What Foley did was wrong and hypocritical. Let's not make hypocrites of ourselves in the process of his chastisement.

17 year old boys and girls are just plain sexy. And EXTREMELY Ahorny. Let's please pu this in some at least biologically accurate perspective.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Let's all hear it for menses! Let's all hear it for ejaculations!"

Yee-HA!!! Fruitful and mutiply!!!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"At a minimum, the words "creep" and "troll" apply."

Not necessarily, from what I learned about gays growing up, it is pretty common for them to be attracted to younger men; not sure why that is, though...

IMO you need to take a step back. If you look at the IM's, this is an extreme "sport" version of basic attraction of older men to boy/men. He may or may not be criminally liable, but I hope you agree he shouldn't have been allowed to hold the positions of responsibility he had. If you do, I don't see why you wouldn't agree that he is a creep and a troll.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"IMO you need to take a step back. If you look at the IM's, this is an extreme "sport" version of basic attraction of older men to boy/men. He may or may not be criminally liable, but I hope you agree he shouldn't have been allowed to hold the positions of responsibility he had. If you do, I don't see why you wouldn't agree that he is a creep and a troll."

Like I said, he was extremely irresponsible- especially considering these kids were under his wing. He should step down, because it was irresponsible.

But he isn't a monster. He just screwed up, badly. I'm sure most of us have said something stupid when our blood wasn't concentrated in the big head. Just most of us are fortunate enough to:
A.) have enough control to not actually say anything, or at least say it to some sort of spouse in bed, or
B.) not be attracted to young adults.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
C) be a member of Congres during a tight election season

D) be DUMB enough to do it in text rather than in private verbiage.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people (many, in fact) say things online that they'd never say to someone in person.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"C) be a member of Congres during a tight election season"

At least that's what Foley was hoping. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tight erection season?

Fall is the rutting time...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Dave S; I did read DaW! Now see, even we pedants miss citate [Embarrassed] !

Tommy:

Conflate, not inflate [Big Grin] ! The right wing has indeed been conflating pederasty and ephebophilia. "Under age" is endlessly equated with "statutory rape" is equated with "child-molestation". Indeed, these same people, and I should have kept a list, equate "child molestation" with "statutory rape" and "sexual molestation". They are not the same thing.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, oh I lament that Confucious's wisdom is not something commonly held by most people.
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hypocrisy. Inappropriate behavior. Illegal (if he acted) behavior.

But worst of all exercising his position of authority to pressure these kids. Mental/emotional rape. Sick bastard.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not sure which thread this belongs in, but Barney Frank has an interview in Newsweek. A quote:
quote:
Do you think the House Republican leadership turned a blind eye toward Foley’s behavior involving pages?
The hypocrisy of the Republicans is that they have more concern for a gay man who misbehaves than for fair treatment of gays who don’t misbehave.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Errrrmmmmm

Just in the interest of clarity...

"troll", in this context, means something different than what it means when playing D&D or insulting another poster...

It's Gay slang for older men who desperately persue young and atractive men. It's a serious insult.

No evidence here that he's a pedophile. Doesn't mean his behavior is legal or should be.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin] I thought that's always what it meant, Jesse! It's not easy being young and beautiful; I knew that 50 years ago [Embarrassed] . Now M puts herself in that frame of mind every morning in her dressing room for hours -- sometimes making it out for a noon drink and sometimes not!

I do have a theory on this, of course, but I'm still researching it all, and it's not quite ready for PT. That won't stop me from shoving it in the public's face, however ...

* 13-y-o boys wake up sexually and are attracted to what? Oh, maybe 14-15-y-o girls. Why would that change over time? I don't think in most men it ever changes.

Drag me into your hareem, and insist I make a choice between a 15-y-o or a 51-y-o (combinatorially my age today), and I'll take the younger.

I suppose that there are men who prefer experience, but not most of them. Men mature sexually between 13 (I was 12) and 17 (the supposed 'peak' of virility) (I repeat, I was 12). Women are twice that age before they 'peak'.

With females, I think it's probably quite the reverse. They want experience, predictability, money, protection, and comfort -- things few men give a damn about in sexual relationships.

"Women don't find their interest in sex until it's too late." -- J. Burns --

I think there's some real truth in that; and women, knowing all these things, resent the fact that men they want actually want females who are younger than they've suddenly become. Women resent it as much as 14-17-y-o boys, who are at their sexual peak, resent the fact that females aren't anywhere near as interested in them as they are in men who are 35-45.

If men really wanted 'age and experience' in women, there would be no premium on virginity or youth, and women wouldn't spend $13 billion on cosmetics and beauty treatments in the US or waste so much of their time on clothing, accessories, and falderal.

If women really were interested in masculine beauty, the single ones wouldn't be romancing middle-aged men of means. They'd be out protecting all those 'young studs' that all these trolls are trolling.

Why don't we deal honestly with these dominant heterosexual preference differentials in our society? Because they're true? And because they aren't very attractive?

The one says men are sexually superficial in their tastes, attracted to novelty and naivete; and the other says that women are vain (English women with cavities the worst, according to Jay Leno), social-climbers, and avaricious.

By suggesting, as we do, that men are attracted to beauty and women attracted to success is really only imposing the amorality of the one upon the other.

I look at those overriding tendencies in heterophilic society, and I have no problem at all explaining male teenaged violence in our society -- to myself. I comprehend it.

I can't imagine that gay men, in short, are any different than straight men in these preferences for youth; and they wind up just like old straight men begging for sex from roadhouse bimbos by strutting their success and charging it all on their platinum cards.

Just what is it that Foley has done that I haven't seen Ted Kennedy on St John? Nothing different but the sex/and/or/gender. Indeed, Uncle Ted is worse by strutting into Skinny Legs with teenaged girls on both arms; at least Foley did it in an area where he might have expected some privacy -- emails, instant messaging, phone calls, whatever.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"By suggesting, as we do, that men are attracted to beauty and women attracted to success is really only imposing the amorality of the one upon the other."

This seems to make sense to me based on how natural selection usually works; for a lot of species, two men fight for a woman and the stronger gets her, I doubt humans are that far removed from biology.


"I can't imagine that gay men, in short, are any different than straight men in these preferences for youth; and they wind up just like old straight men begging for sex from roadhouse bimbos by strutting their success and charging it all on their platinum cards."

I feel it might be more visible with gay men because of the psycological affects gays go through coming out of the closet. My dad said he questioned everything he had learned and been taught and came out of it with very different answers. So it's possible their social stigmatism of not being attracted to young men might vanish as well.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
[QB] Is Foley somebody who denounces homosexuality? I don't know much about him, now, but him being Republican isn't synonymous with him being a gay-basher.

Apparently he was fairly moderate on most issues. He was pro-choice (and part of Republican Majority For Choice). And on gay-rights issues he got the thumbs up from the Log Cabin (although the Log Cabin's so desperate that they'll endorse pretty much any Republican as long as he's slightly less homophobic than crazy nutbars like Keyes or Santorum, so a Log Cabin endorsement doesn't mean too much).

Unless I've missed something, the one area where he made a serious effort to get some street-cred with the family values crowd was by staking his reputation on "think of the children" issues like kidnapping, pedophilia, and child pornography. Which makes his requests for nude photos of minors deliciously ironic [Smile]

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's Gay slang for older men who desperately persue young and atractive men. It's a serious insult."

Called 'em 'chickenhawks' back in the 70s.

Times change.

No moral rhyme or reason to be made of the Foley thing. It's just bad news for the reps, 's all. Boeing military contract scandal? Ho-hum. Torture? Yadi yada.

Dirty messages to pages?

BLASPHEMY!!! HANG 'EM HIGH!!!

[ October 05, 2006, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
¶ TS says: "... for a lot of species, two men fight for a woman and the stronger gets her, I doubt humans are that far removed from biology."

Mmm. And she takes him!

One presumption in Natural Selection which UnNatural Selection does not buy is that the female choses the male -- as if bower birds were some universal model. In fact, it is the male in most species who choses the female(s) or why risk his tusks to obtain her? and what choice does a hippopotama really have if a hippopotamos decides she's tonight's desert?

How removed from biology are we really indeed!

¶ I'm not defending this rep from FL or the former gov of NJ, but I really don't think that in this climate a gay politician is obliged to 'come out' to the public at all.

That's what Hitler did. He allowed the homosexuals to come out of the closet under the Weimar laws, then managed to get homosexuality recriminalized, and was able to round up tens of thousands of them and have them sent to the Konzentrationslager. The exact same thing happened under Josef Stalin who recriminalized homosexuality in 1933, just months before Hitler got it recriminalized in 1934.

Today, however, there are outers amongst the left-wing effeminists who won't even allow their own to maintain their seats. If gay politician isn't out, he will be outed by his own. This is thought by some a social sea change. To me it's social cannibalism and political treachery.

The effeminists provoke in me the same unease that French intellectual communists did a generation and two ago. Gayness for them is just a political tool, not an historical and honorable way of life.

So if I had to choose between the NJ governor and the Israeli who outed him, I would most certainly go with the NJ governor. The lover betrayed him, and betrayal is a great deal less attractive to me than living a lie that ultimately is not one's own lie but society's lie.

The lie isn't the gay part. The lie is the homophobic part. It was homophobia that was the lie. What the Israeli did, and I'm informed that he is indeed gay, was treacherous in the same vein as Hitler was; and Hitler wasn't even gay.

¶ DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. If one obliges somebody else to lie (to save his life, maintain his job, or serve his country), one is a liar -- and the person that one is calling a liar is relieved of any and all moral responsibility to tell the truth about anything. That's why the game doesn't work in the army, that's why it doesn't work in politics. It is grotesquely immoral.

It wasn't the governor of NJ who was responsible for the lie about being gay; it was the Roman Catholic Church that told him he was going to burn in hell if he acted upon it. That was the lie, and the Church was the liar. If the NJ public wants to believe that, well, they were the largest slave-owning state in the North and the weakest supporters of the American Revolution and to hell with them. New Jersey's history on moral matters has always been dubious.

In the Florida case, I don't know; but I would suspect, its being central Florida, that the real liars are the Florida voters -- for lying to themselves. The representative was fine with them so long as he was straight; but the minute he is gay, he's a liar and an embarrassment to America. Again, it wasn't his lie.

In any event, America has been lying so long about this issue that they wouldn't know the truth for the simple reason that they don't want the truth. They prefer the lies.

I loathe to think it, but Gore Vidal may be right.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if gay marriage is deemed bad, how bad is gay pursuit of young men by old men?

"disgusted": the word of the week. I'm disgusted by their disgust.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's just it, Oz. In all these cases the no-no-ista has made its own beds; let them turn out the lights on civilization -- and eff in them. [Mad] They created the rules; let them live with their failures.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incidentally, according to Cal Thomas (who is, n.b., very right-wing)
quote:
Former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) ... had an affair in the early '70s with a 17-year-old male page. Studds was censured by the House in 1983, but famously turned his back to the Speaker in an act of disrespect and rejection of the judgment by his colleagues. He refused to resign and was re-elected to several more terms. A homosexual organization donated $10,000 to his campaign.
So maybe Foley isn't "morally" required to resign if he didn't actually break the law. (Note that Thomas thinks Studds should have been punished more than he was.) Of course, Foley has revealed himself to be too creepy for me to vote for him, if I could; and who knows if he's done anything worse?
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The facts of this matter are still overwhelmingly obscured by the rush to judge, to join the blacony brigade vomiting over the railing in shared communal self-righteous nausea, to condemn with excess a matter still mostly mysterious.

While I relish watching the repubs do this to themselves as a party, I abhor it being done to individuals.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good gods, I agree!

In the Studds case, he married the guy, bought a house on the Cape, and lived happily ever after. It wasn't his standards that were lax.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love happy endings, don't you?

Gerry Studds and the Caped Cod.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin]

Oz:

Are you by any chance referring to that cartoon of the mobs in front of Buckingham Palace rioting for food and day care ...? and Liz II barfing over the balcony rail? The Labour Party really should restrain itself! [Big Grin]

The cod is the sacred fish of Massachusetts, you know; but I don't think it gets caped like those statues in Catholic churches.

Not a very good picture http://www.kathimitchell.com/Boston2002/sacredcod.jpg but there he is. I wonder if The Sacred Cod constitutes an attempt to establish a religion. Maybe it should be banned.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1