Political Crossfire Forums

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

I have been following the coverage of whole Foley page scandal. I am shocked to be honest at how much stick the gay community is getting for something that a senator did with 16 year old boys. At the rate this is going, I believe this will represent a huge setback for the homosexuals in the US as they are being associated with this behaviour. :-|

And this also raises another question for me: how can a gay person be part of a homophobic party? Is it because they don't care about being repressed based on their sexual orientaiton and care about other stuff more?

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 13517

I am concerned too. As I observed in a "P and G" thread, this has set back the casual understanding of the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia to a tragic extent, I think.

The majority of pedophiles are heteros, not homos. But for those who barely pay attention and couldn't really care less, now homosexuality has once again been unfairly linked to pedophilia. Sickening.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:04 am Post subject:

If you think it's bad now, just wait. Foley may turn out to be exactly the sort of 'poster boy' the anti-gay crowd have been waiting for.

Is anyone taking odds on whether Foley will do the 'ex-gay' thing next? Wouldn't come as any surprise to me.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8242

F'losrix wrote: If you think it's bad now, just wait. Foley may turn out to be exactly the sort of 'poster boy' the anti-gay crowd have been waiting for.

Is anyone taking odds on whether Foley will do the 'ex-gay' thing next? Wouldn't come as any surprise to me.
I wouldn't be surprised either. Then the right-wing crowd will claim that because Foley "can be cured," then the rest of us can.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

Enoch wrote: F'losrix wrote: If you think it's bad now, just wait. Foley may turn out to be exactly the sort of 'poster boy' the anti-gay crowd have been waiting for.

Is anyone taking odds on whether Foley will do the 'ex-gay' thing next? Wouldn't come as any surprise to me.
I wouldn't be surprised either. Then the right-wing crowd will claim that because Foley "can be cured," then the rest of us can.

Cured of what? Alcoholism?

The shield that has been placed is that former Representative Foley was drunk when he typed those comments. The issue present is his alcoholism, not his homosexuality.

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 505 Location: Raleigh, NC

Quote: how can a gay person be part of a homophobic party?

You fail at understanding the republican party. Keep judging people based on their registered party, though. It's really helping your cause.

But, let's be honest. Most of you are probably "democrats" or at least left leaning. Democrats are about to destroy a man for having conversations of a sexual nature with an 18 year old male. It's not illegal.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:09 pm Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: Cured of what? Alcoholism?

The shield that has been placed is that former Representative Foley was drunk when he typed those comments. The issue present is his alcoholism, not his homosexuality.
No, the issue is his having been a person in a position of political power, and allegedly taking advantage of that position to engage in inappropriate communications of a predatory sexual nature. He didn't resign his seat in Congress because of alocholism. It may have been a factor in loosening his inhibitions and clouding his judgment, but it's not the primary cause.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject:

LDA wrote: Quote: how can a gay person be part of a homophobic party?

You fail at understanding the republican party. Keep judging people based on their registered party, though. It's really helping your cause.
Really? No, I think I have a pretty good understanding of where the party stands on issues I consider to be of importance. Ultimately, if you're going to be a supporter of a political party, then expect to take some heat for its positions, whether you agree with all of them or not.

Quote: But, let's be honest. Most of you are probably "democrats" or at least left leaning. Democrats are about to destroy a man for having conversations of a sexual nature with an 18 year old male. It's not illegal.

I hardly think you'd be arguing the legal technicalities if the shoe were on the other foot.

You want honesty? I don't recommend you look for it from political parties.

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 505 Location: Raleigh, NC

F'losrix wrote: LDA wrote: Quote: how can a gay person be part of a homophobic party?

You fail at understanding the republican party. Keep judging people based on their registered party, though. It's really helping your cause.
Really? No, I think I have a pretty good understanding of where the party stands on issues I consider to be of importance. Ultimately, if you're going to be a supporter of a political party, then expect to take some heat for its positions, whether you agree with all of them or not.

Quote: But, let's be honest. Most of you are probably "democrats" or at least left leaning. Democrats are about to destroy a man for having conversations of a sexual nature with an 18 year old male. It's not illegal.

I hardly think you'd be arguing the legal technicalities if the shoe were on the other foot.

You want honesty? I don't recommend you look for it from political parties.

If you believe that the republican party represents homophobia, then you are wrong. I'm not a religious person, and I don't hate gays or the gay lifestyle. If you want to insist that Republicans are all homophobes, whatever. I'm not the one being judgemental here, in any case.

The shoe has been on the other foot. You may remember a man named Bill Clinton who had sexual relations with a certain woman. I didn't have a problem with that, other than the fact that it made him a bad person. He, however, never took responsibility for his actions, he didn't resign, and he broke the law by lying in court. There's a damn good chance that Foley hasn't broken any laws.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: I have been following the coverage of whole Foley page scandal. I am shocked to be honest at how much stick the gay community is getting for something that a senator did with 16 year old boys. At the rate this is going, I believe this will represent a huge setback for the homosexuals in the US as they are being associated with this behaviour. :-|

And this also raises another question for me: how can a gay person be part of a homophobic party? Is it because they don't care about being repressed based on their sexual orientaiton and care about other stuff more?

I don't see it as a problem for gays as some others do. Just another guy that is trying to hide his sexuality (hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri - whatever it is) to support his political party and livelihood. To me, it is a testament as to how much "...being gay is/was looked down on needlessly, that a man must try to hide it. Therefore, is it really wrong? Are we [society] so ignorant that we must continue to look down on it?". Additionally, it should make people take note that not all gay guys (in this instance) are single and many are married to women. Why? Because of society, not because they think it is necessarily wrong.
Perhaps I didn't look at it strictly enough, but I just don't see it as being any more detrimental to gays than any other scandal is to anyone else.

F'losrix

toddytodd wrote: Perhaps I didn't look at it strictly enough, but I just don't see it as being any more detrimental to gays than any other scandal is to anyone else.
The potential danger is in people making the illogical leap to proclaim that homosexuality = pedophilia, or homosexual = sexual predator, or homosexual = corrupters of vulnerable teens. All the hype is just going to reinforce some peoples' entrenched opinions about homosexuality, and possibly persuade many others who have been straddling the fence to leap off and stand on the anti-gay side.

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 4546 Location: Fairfax, VA

F'losrix wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps I didn't look at it strictly enough, but I just don't see it as being any more detrimental to gays than any other scandal is to anyone else.
The potential danger is in people making the illogical leap to proclaim that homosexuality = pedophilia, or homosexual = sexual predator, or homosexual = corrupters of vulnerable teens. All the hype is just going to reinforce some peoples' entrenched opinions about homosexuality, and possibly persuade many others who have been straddling the fence to leap off and stand on the anti-gay side.

I've already heard the "this is what we get for allowing known/suspected homosexuals in our party" line.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject:

LDA wrote: If you believe that the republican party represents homophobia, then you are wrong.
Depends on how closely one associates political pandering with actual representation, I suppose.

LDA wrote: I'm not a religious person, and I don't hate gays or the gay lifestyle. If you want to insist that Republicans are all homophobes, whatever. I'm not the one being judgemental here, in any case.
If you judge homosexuality to be a 'lifestyle', then just maybe you are being judgmental, whether you realize it or not. 'Lifestyle' is one of the favorite buzzwords of the anti-gay crowd, who use it to conjure an image of gay men as effeminate, outrageously promiscuous, mentally defective spreaders of disease. The elements that make up the overall lifestyle of one gay person may vary widely from that of the next. I should think that how I treat my partner, my monogamy, and the influence that being in a stable relationship has on my life would be far more important that the gender of the person I sleep with at night. But apparently not if you can call being gay a 'lifestyle' in and of itself.

LDA wrote: The shoe has been on the other foot. You may remember a man named Bill Clinton who had sexual relations with a certain woman. I didn't have a problem with that, other than the fact that it made him a bad person. He, however, never took responsibility for his actions, he didn't resign, and he broke the law by lying in court. There's a damn good chance that Foley hasn't broken any laws.
There's a darn good chance that he acted with impropriety, whether he broke the law or not. I don't make excuses for Clinton's bad acts, and I think comparisons between Clinton and Foley are fairly pointless. Whether or not Clinton should have resigned, whether or not the case against him should have ever been pursued to begin with (the two commonly opposing viewpoints on the matter) is irrelevant to what should happen in the Foley case. It's water under the bridge. We aren't going to travel back in time to prosecute Clinton all over again in the hopes of a different outcome, and the more Republicans resort to bringing up Clinton, Studds, etc. the more suspicious I become of the motives for doing so.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

F'losrix wrote: toddytodd wrote: Perhaps I didn't look at it strictly enough, but I just don't see it as being any more detrimental to gays than any other scandal is to anyone else.
The potential danger is in people making the illogical leap to proclaim that homosexuality = pedophilia, or homosexual = sexual predator, or homosexual = corrupters of vulnerable teens. All the hype is just going to reinforce some peoples' entrenched opinions about homosexuality, and possibly persuade many others who have been straddling the fence to leap off and stand on the anti-gay side.

This would happen even is a gay person cured cancer, AIDS and world hunger. (Many) People don't like gays because they are gay, regardless of what they say or where they go, etc.. Human nature is to find the bad thing and expound on it, relating the one bad thing (or person) to the whole group. This doesn't make it right, but reality often isn't 'right' or just.
I can see what you and others are saying, however. I just looked at it from another angle.

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 4546 Location: Fairfax, VA

Nice to see some decent Christians standing up to those using the Foley scandal to scapegoat gays.

UCC News wrote: UCC leader criticizes Family Research Council's use of Foley scandal to scapegoat gays, lesbians
Written by J. Bennett Guess
Thursday, 05 October 2006

The Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, is condemning remarks by Tony Perkins, president of the right-wing Family Research Council, who is using the Mark Foley congressional scandal to scapegoat the larger gay and lesbian community.

“Perkins recent remarks are destructive to gay and lesbian persons and their families and distract the nation’s attention from the real issue at hand, which is protecting young people from sexual predators,” said Thomas.

On October 2, Perkins issued a statement claiming "the real issue" in the Foley scandal was a "link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse.” On Oct. 3, Perkins made similar accusations on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” where he likened homosexuals with “sexual deviants.”

Thomas said the former congressman’s sexual orientation should not be part of the public debate. The American Psychological Association, in addition to numerous other reputable medical and scientific groups, has found that “gay men are no more likely than heterosexual men to perpetrate child sexual abuse.”

“To suggest that gay and lesbian persons should be barred from public service, as Perkins has implied, is akin to suggesting that white, straight males should be kept out of politics because of Bill Clinton’s sexual misdeeds,” Thomas said. “To attach this debate to sexual orientation is not only ludicrous, it’s dangerous. Many gay and lesbian persons serve honorably in public office.”

“If anything, this nation’s culture of silence with respect to gay and lesbian people has taught us that hiding, shame and denial, as in Foley’s case, are not healthy ways to live as a gay or lesbian person — not for them as individuals and not for us as a society,” Thomas said.

Thomas also called for a full investigation into the unfolding scandal, saying the nation deserves to know if congressional leaders attempted to cover up for the sake of preserving political power.

“As we say in the church, those who care for young people must be committed to creating an ‘envelope of safety,’ where the systems of care include levels of accountability and oversight,” Thomas said. “There must be a full investigation by the Congress, not only into Mark Foley but how the leadership handled reports of his behavior.”

Thomas said the church’s support of the gay and lesbian community is in keeping with its concern for the safety and well-being of young people.

“In the United Church of Christ, we have encountered this nation’s culture of silence and shame with a distinctive Christian message about the need for “extravagant welcome,” Thomas said. “And with that message of ‘extravagant welcome’ comes an attentiveness to the safety and security of children.”

The Rev. Robert Chase, executive director of the UCC’s Office of Communication, Inc., the church’s historic media watchdog group, said the mainstream media should also be scrutinized for how it is reporting on the scandal.

“One of the tragic elements in the recent incident involving Mark Foley is the way the media give credence to those who make the unfortunate, salacious and inaccurate leap that Mr. Foley’s behavior is rooted in his sexual orientation.” Chase said. “Such characterization slanders an entire group of citizens and fuels the forces of suspicion and division that plague our country.”

The United Church of Christ, formed in 1957 with the union of the Congregational Christian Church in American and the Evangelical and Reformed Church, has more than 5,600 congregations across the United States. The UCC’s national offices are in Cleveland, Ohio.

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

toddytodd wrote: This would happen even is a gay person cured cancer, AIDS and world hunger. (Many) People don't like gays because they are gay, regardless of what they say or where they go, etc.. Human nature is to find the bad thing and expound on it, relating the one bad thing (or person) to the whole group. This doesn't make it right, but reality often isn't 'right' or just.

You know it's amusing when a gay person does something good, their sexuality rarely is mentioned and is ignored most of the time, but when a gay person does something bad, there is a rush to highlight the fact that he/she is gay ...

gemma · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 142 Location: AZ

StrangerWitCandy wrote: “If anything, this nation’s culture of silence with respect to gay and lesbian people has taught us that hiding, shame and denial, as in Foley’s case, are not healthy ways to live as a gay or lesbian person — not for them as individuals and not for us as a society,” Thomas said.
:clap:

This also kind of made me smile (sardonically of course):

Ellen Goodman wrote: Indeed, in a dizzying move, the right-wing spinmeisters are trying to blame Foley's pathological follies on ``political correctness." Newt Gingrich was first to suggest that Hastert held back from chastising Foley out of fear he'd be ``accused of gay-bashing" because Foley was long assumed to be gay. Who knew that Hastert was a closet liberal?

After days of stunned silence, the religious right found its familiar voice. They chimed in to blame, yes, ``tolerance." Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused ``a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity" and a Republican leadership that puts ``political correctness . . . ahead of protecting children." Said Perkins, ``when we hold up tolerance and diversity . . . this is what you end up getting."

Who would have dreamed that the same party that ran the 2004 campaign as a crusade against gay marriage would suffer from an overdose of acceptance for homosexuality?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/10/06/courtesy_of_gop_voters_finally_get_it/

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: toddytodd wrote: This would happen even is a gay person cured cancer, AIDS and world hunger. (Many) People don't like gays because they are gay, regardless of what they say or where they go, etc.. Human nature is to find the bad thing and expound on it, relating the one bad thing (or person) to the whole group. This doesn't make it right, but reality often isn't 'right' or just.

You know it's amusing when a gay person does something good, their sexuality rarely is mentioned and is ignored most of the time, but when a gay person does something bad, there is a rush to highlight the fact that he/she is gay ...

The only reason this happens is because many people considering being gay 'wrong' because they don't truly understand it, and fear anything that is not understood. Fear eventually leads to hate if left to an uneducated mind.

LDA · Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 505 Location: Raleigh, NC

Sorry it took a while to respond, I think I made this post in class and forgot all about it.

Quote: If you judge homosexuality to be a 'lifestyle', then just maybe you are being judgmental, whether you realize it or not. 'Lifestyle' is one of the favorite buzzwords of the anti-gay crowd, who use it to conjure an image of gay men as effeminate, outrageously promiscuous, mentally defective spreaders of disease. The elements that make up the overall lifestyle of one gay person may vary widely from that of the next. I should think that how I treat my partner, my monogamy, and the influence that being in a stable relationship has on my life would be far more important that the gender of the person I sleep with at night. But apparently not if you can call being gay a 'lifestyle' in and of itself.

It's a lifestyle, or at least, it affects your lifestyle. I live a "heterosexual" lifestyle. There are plenty of other things that define my lifestyle, but that's one of them. It's not meant to be judgemental, but I can see why it could be interpreted that way.

Quote:
There's a darn good chance that he acted with impropriety, whether he broke the law or not. I don't make excuses for Clinton's bad acts, and I think comparisons between Clinton and Foley are fairly pointless. Whether or not Clinton should have resigned, whether or not the case against him should have ever been pursued to begin with (the two commonly opposing viewpoints on the matter) is irrelevant to what should happen in the Foley case. It's water under the bridge. We aren't going to travel back in time to prosecute Clinton all over again in the hopes of a different outcome, and the more Republicans resort to bringing up Clinton, Studds, etc. the more suspicious I become of the motives for doing so.

Meh. Alright, we're not going to go back in time, but that's hardly the point. Democrats are coming out, as we speak, accusing members of the Republican party of covering this up. Is there proof? No. They're not saying, "Hey, maybe someone knew about this, and let the investigation continue so we can find it." It's more like, "Republicans KNEW what was going on and they didn't say anything for political reasons." Is there any basis in fact for this? Absolutely not.

My favorite argument from the left, thus far, has been, "Well, well...the republicans knew he was gay!" You've heard this, haven't you? So, the republicans knew he was gay. Was this enough to go ahead and report him to authorities? Is being gay a crime now?

I'm sorry, but if those of you that consider gay rights to be of great importance in this country, how can you turn a blind eye to what's going on here?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

LDA wrote: Sorry it took a while to respond, I think I made this post in class and forgot all about it.

Quote: If you judge homosexuality to be a 'lifestyle', then just maybe you are being judgmental, whether you realize it or not. 'Lifestyle' is one of the favorite buzzwords of the anti-gay crowd, who use it to conjure an image of gay men as effeminate, outrageously promiscuous, mentally defective spreaders of disease. The elements that make up the overall lifestyle of one gay person may vary widely from that of the next. I should think that how I treat my partner, my monogamy, and the influence that being in a stable relationship has on my life would be far more important that the gender of the person I sleep with at night. But apparently not if you can call being gay a 'lifestyle' in and of itself.

It's a lifestyle, or at least, it affects your lifestyle. I live a "heterosexual" lifestyle. There are plenty of other things that define my lifestyle, but that's one of them. It's not meant to be judgemental, but I can see why it could be interpreted that way.

Quote:
There's a darn good chance that he acted with impropriety, whether he broke the law or not. I don't make excuses for Clinton's bad acts, and I think comparisons between Clinton and Foley are fairly pointless. Whether or not Clinton should have resigned, whether or not the case against him should have ever been pursued to begin with (the two commonly opposing viewpoints on the matter) is irrelevant to what should happen in the Foley case. It's water under the bridge. We aren't going to travel back in time to prosecute Clinton all over again in the hopes of a different outcome, and the more Republicans resort to bringing up Clinton, Studds, etc. the more suspicious I become of the motives for doing so.

Meh. Alright, we're not going to go back in time, but that's hardly the point. Democrats are coming out, as we speak, accusing members of the Republican party of covering this up. Is there proof? No. They're not saying, "Hey, maybe someone knew about this, and let the investigation continue so we can find it." It's more like, "Republicans KNEW what was going on and they didn't say anything for political reasons." Is there any basis in fact for this? Absolutely not.

My favorite argument from the left, thus far, has been, "Well, well...the republicans knew he was gay!" You've heard this, haven't you? So, the republicans knew he was gay. Was this enough to go ahead and report him to authorities? Is being gay a crime now?

I'm sorry, but if those of you that consider gay rights to be of great importance in this country, how can you turn a blind eye to what's going on here?

No matter the 'scandal', one party automatically accuses the other party of wrong doing. Democrats may say republicans knew about it prior and are covering it up; republicans are accusing the democrats of hampering the "pledge's system" (whatever that means), so the pointing of fingers does nothing to rectify the situation - it needs to stop.
This real issue isn't about being gay or not, it is about improper behavior of a well paid representative of the people. If he was straight, it shouldn't be seen any different, but it would. Why? Because people don't truly understand what it is to be gay (or straight for that matter) and the creates fear, which leads to hatred.