Congressional Page Scandal

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation to begin with. It is criminal behavior, like rape.

But criminal behaviors are something society believes people can receive rehibilitaion for. I am yet to see a doctor who is an authority in the area say that Pedophilia is actually curable.

I know emotions tend to run high when children are involved (as they probably should), but the objective scientist in me wants to put emotions and politics aside and ask...

Do people choose to be pedophiles?

What are its origins, whether biological or environmental?

Is it curable?

They are not questions i've seen brought up in this discussion, one wonders if they are thought to be irrelevant. Maybe we don't want to ask them. Its simple to just call sometihing EVIL and be done with the debate, the GLBT Community knows this all too well. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to be reduced to such simplicity.

Vortex

[Giancarlo]

Originally Posted by Vortex

But criminal behaviors are something society believes people can receive rehibilitaion for. I am yet to see a doctor who is an authority in the area say that Pedophilia is actually curable.

Society believes that? So that's why they have life without parole huh? I think you have your facts down incorrectly about what society believes.

I do not believe serial killers are curable.

Do people choose to be pedophiles?

What are its origins, whether biological or environmental?

Is it curable?

Where did I say it was curable or anything of the sort? If anything, it isn't and those who commit such acts should be sent to jail. That's as simple as it'll get.

I'm not going to debate the merits of pedophilia, and I will not give it any time of the day. I have no sympathy for those who commit the acts and I feel they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Maybe we don't want to ask them. Its simple to just call sometihing EVIL and be done with the debate, the GLBT Community knows this all too well. You'll have to forgive me for not wanting to be reduced to such simplicity.

Vortex

Why the heck should we ask them in the first place? Those questions are totally ridiculous in my mind. We cannot be grouped with child molesters. Pedophilia is not curable, and it is a criminal behavior.

And just because I hold these opinions I am less capable of being objective than you are? Really? Says who?

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by Vortex

I know emotions tend to run high when children are involved (as they probably should), but the objective scientist in me wants to put emotions and politics aside and ask...

Well, I for one appreciate the objective scientist. Just as I don't want every international adversary labeled a terrorist, I don't think every individual who violates the age of consent should automatically be labeled a pedophile. In states where the age of consent is 18, wouldn't this greatly increase the number of people defined as pedophiles? I just don't think that is helpful in trying to understand who is a pedophile and what can be done about it to protect children.

Mark Foley is losing his career in Congress over his actions, and I think most Americans agree that is the proper initial punishment. A consensus also seems to have been reached that an investigation is necessary to determine if Mr. Foley ever attempted to solicit sex from a minor. From the evidence available at the moment, does that instant message (see my previous post for link) qualify as soliciting sex from a minor?

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

I don't think every individual who violates the age of consent should automatically be labeled a pedophile. In states where the age of consent is 18, wouldn't this greatly increase the number of people defined as pedophiles?

I would think that a lot of 19yo's would become pedophiles on their 19th birthday.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

Society believes that? So that's why they have life without parole huh? I think you have your facts down incorrectly about what society believes.

I do not believe serial killers are curable.

Allow me to rephrase that. Christian society in this country believes in redemption. They do not believe anyone is beyond saving. They still do make up the majority don't they? Now I readily agree with you that the laws do not always reflect these beliefs, but the death penalty and war don't in my mind reflect Christian beliefs either, but yet we have them.

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

Where did I say it was curable or anything of the sort? If anything, it isn't and those who commit such acts should be sent to jail. That's as simple as it'll get.

I was merely drawing a distinction between a behavior that can be corrected by learning a new behavior, and something that may be biological and can't be reprogrammed.

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

I'm not going to debate the merits of pedophilia, and I will not give it any time of the day. I have no sympathy for those who commit the acts and I feel they should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.

Why the heck should we ask them in the first place? Those questions are totally ridiculous in my mind. We cannot be grouped with child molesters. Pedophilia is not curable, and it is a criminal behavior.

Because when you stop asking questions, things just stay as they are. This seems to me to be a systemic problem within our society,(teachers,priest,neighbors,etc). Sure we can just wait until after they've committed an act, and put them in jail and throw away the key, but won't there be another to take their place. Does this really fix anything.

Criminal penalties(inprisionment, death penalty) in our society are not meant to resolve criminal problems within society. They are a means of retribution, and satisfying high emotions. Making us feel better about ourselves because "we've fixed the criminal problem" or "they are getting what they deserve" but yet they still exist. Crime can only really be resolved through both economic and social reform, but that raises too many questions so lets just throw them in jail and be done with it. But are we ever done with it?

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

And just because I hold these opinions I am less capable of being objective than you are? Really? Says who?

I know I used your quote to start off my post, it was really just a jumping point for what I wanted to express. I was really addressing everyone and everything in my post was NOT meant to be directed at you personally. I'm sorry if this is the impression you got.


Vortex

[Giancarlo]

Originally Posted by Vortex

They still do make up the majority don't they? Now I readily agree with you that the laws do not always reflect these beliefs, but the death penalty and war don't in my mind reflect Christian beliefs either, but yet we have them.

I would sure hope that would you recognize that this is a secular society. Maybe it is difficult to recognize that with the present administration, but that is the way it is.

Criminal penalties(inprisionment, death penalty) in our society are not meant to resolve criminal problems within society. They are a means of retribution, and satisfying high emotions. Making us feel better about ourselves because "we've fixed the criminal problem" or "they are getting what they deserve" but yet they still exist. Crime can only really be resolved through both economic and social reform, but that raises too many questions so lets just throw them in jail and be done with it. But are we ever done with it?

Imprisionment and the death penalty are not retribution, they are punishment. And yes they do solve something. They keep the person off the streets. That simple. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. It isn't meant to change anyone else, but just keep the person off the street. Crime can be solved through a variety of a methods, and more law and order is one of them. This is proven by Colombia, where the crime rate has dramatically dropped because of both improving law and order and economic conditions. So to say that only economic and social reform will fix things is wrong.

I know I used your quote to start off my post, it was really just a jumping point for what I wanted to express. I was really addressing everyone and everything in my post was NOT meant to be directed at you personally. I'm sorry if this is the impression you got.

You were misquoting me and misstating what I said for one thing. I really don't appreciate that.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

I would sure hope that would you recognize that this is a secular society. Maybe it is difficult to recognize that with the present administration, but that is the way it is.

The money you spend has In God We Trust on it.
We pledge allegiance to a nation under God.
The Supreme Court building has depictions of Moses and the 10 commandments.
The Congress of the United States before every session says a prayer.
And countless other examples.

Now whether this is right or wrong is not what I am debating. I'm just pointing out what IS. I do not think we live in a secular society, and it didn't stop being secular with the current administration. It never was.

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

You were misquoting me and misstating what I said for one thing. I really don't appreciate that.

Okay then we just disagree, sorry for the offense.


Vortex

[Giancarlo]

Originally Posted by Vortex

The money you spend has In God We Trust on it.
We pledge allegiance to a nation under God.
The Supreme Court building has depictions of Moses and the 10 commandments.
The Congress of the United States before every session says a prayer.
And countless other examples.

What is said is quite different than what is done. The Chinese government calls themselves communist but their economic system is hardly that. You're simply incorrect in this regard. I can cite plenty examples showing this country is secular.

Christianity is not the official religion of this country.

And we say the pledge allegiance? Who? I don't say it. The last time I said it was in kindergarten years ago (that would of been 1990 or 1991).

Prayer has been banned in classrooms.

What Supreme court building are you talking about? Because from what I remember it was removed...

And the currency will be next. Many of these things were the result of the 1950s and the red scare, when all atheists were associated with communists.

Now whether this is right or wrong is not what I am debating. I'm just pointing out what IS. I do not think we live in a secular society, and it didn't stop being secular with the current administration. It never was.

I think you're just flat out wrong in that regard. I think we live in a highly secular society, that has become more secular overtime. A more accepting society too. It is proven that younger generations are more accepting of gay marriage, then previous generations.

[NathanATX]

Foley is expected to announce he was abused by priests as a child.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

What Supreme court building are you talking about? Because from what I remember it was removed...

The Supreme court building I was referring to is The Supreme Court of the United States of America. You can read Wikipedia's article on the Supreme Court where they mention the depiction of Moses and the Commandments. Also Muhammad for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Su...Court_building

Originally Posted by Giancarlo

I think we live in a highly secular society, that has become more secular overtime.

A highly secular society that still opresses the GLBT community mostly on the basis of what? Religion. I don't see where an orginization such as Soulforce would be necessary in such a society.

Look you're preaching to the choir on secularism with me(I'm the most secular person I know ). As Agnostic I often wonder whether society would be much better off without religion, but that is not for me to decide. Religion is very important to many people I know and my friends here at Soulforce, so I stand with them to end Religious oppression but NOT to remove Religion from society.


Vortex

[Giancarlo]

Originally Posted by Vortex

The Supreme court building I was referring to is The Supreme Court of the United States of America. You can read Wikipedia's article on the Supreme Court where they mention the depiction of Moses and the Commandments. Also Muhammad for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Su...Court_building

Okay, well that's something that in my mind should be removed like prayer from public schools. Either way, this country is moving away from the religious fundamentalism it was stuck in the 1950s. This process has been taking place since the 1960s and 1970s.

I can prove that this country is secular based on Chapter 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli signed and ratiified by the US Congress in 1797. This treaty specifically stated that christianity is not in any way the basis for the US government. Many of the founding fathers, as we describe them, who endorsed this document, were in fact deists.

A highly secular society that still opresses the GLBT community mostly on the basis of what? Religion. I don't see where an orginization such as Soulforce would be necessary in such a society.

And you think I'm arguing for the oppression of the LGBT community? I'm gay myself. But I think it is wrong to state that we live in a religious society. We live in a society where people are free to practice whatever religion they want. However, the problem rises with the fact that some people think it is their right to push legislation (like the "defense of marriage act") that is beneficial for their religion and themselves.

Look you're preaching to the choir on secularism with me(I'm the most secular person I know ). As Agnostic I often wonder whether society would be much better off without religion, but that is not for me to decide. Religion is very important to many people I know and my friends here at Soulforce, so I stand with them to end Religious oppression but NOT to remove Religion from society.

I'm an atheist so I don't think we can really argue merits here. However, I'm also pragmatic and understand that a moderate form of religion that is non-threatening and non-infringing is perfectly acceptable.

[revtj]

I would just like to thank God for the best b'day present ever. His son may be a republican, but the old man just tossed a bone(r) in Foley to the Dems & that has me giddy. I can't wait to see what Betty Bowers has to say about it. This scandal couldn't be better if I dreamed it up myself.

And look, nobody really gets hurt. America is saved by getting at least one branch of government from the nitwits, Foley will write a book and be embraced by the gays and find a young (legal) boyfriend, probably several, it's sooooo not fair. Bush may even try to get binLadens' head on a platter because nothing less could pull them out of this....it's a win-win situation if ever I saw one!

OH, and just so you know, I've been being molested by a clergyman about once a month since my ordination. He tells me things like, 'nobody will know,' and 'it's better than bar trash' and 'hurry before the cat comes back in here.' So now I have an across the board excuse for whatever public sins I may commit (such as this post itself!)

[Jamie McDaniel]

While channel surfing I saw on Scarborough Country that Joe Scarborough (a former congressman from Florida and a very conservative Southern Baptist) is saying he knew Mark Foley since 1994 and was friends with him. Joe is also claiming that he knew Foley was gay the moment he met him. What does that say about the closet for gay Republicans and their involvement with a party that is hostile to GLBT equality? Is their closet a glass one?

It should also be noted that in the same 60 minutes, Scarborough is asking viewers if Oprah crossed the line with her recent "lesbian show."

Update: Scarborough says it doesn't add up with Oprah. Guests suggest Oprah and Gayle are in a lesbian relationship. Guest says having gay parents is the ultimate form of child abuse. Guest says Oprah should have Exodus and former homosexuals on the show. Scarborough says yeah right, good luck. All a big reminder why I don't watch Scarborough Country.

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

While channel surfing I saw on Scarborough Country that Joe Scarborough (a former congressman from Florida and a very conservative Southern Baptist) is saying he knew Mark Foley since 1994 and was friends with him. Joe is also claiming that he knew Foley was gay the moment he met him. What does that say about the closet for gay Republicans and their involvement with a party that is hostile to GLBT equality? Is their closet a glass one?

It should also be noted that in the same 60 minutes, Scarborough is asking viewers if Oprah crossed the line with her recent "lesbian show."

Absolutely amazing, I was watching as well when he said that. And on Larry King they were reporting that his being gay was an 'open secret in congress. I wonder if he would have served 6 terms if his voters knew he was gay. Were the Republicans keeping his secret? I really don't understand politicians.

Thats a great book title, "The Glass Closet" Just give me credit when you write the book Jamie .


Vortex

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by Vortex

Thats a great book title, "The Glass Closet" Just give me credit when you write the book Jamie .

Actually someone beat me to it. I saw the "glass closet" phrase in an interview with author Kevin Jennings. Here's that thread.

Also, very funny post rev tj.

[revtj]

I think I could feel a liitle more sorry for Foley if he hadn't been the sponsor of all the sexual predator legislation.

[OK, sorry, but one more thing had me laughing out loud: Katherine Harris says she had no idea Foley was gay. Wonder if she'll let him vote this year?]


Foley is exhibit A for what the religious right creates out of a gay man they can use & respect. They probably got tips on hair and home decorating from him all the time.

Did everyone hear Newt Gingrich and James Dobson say that the reason nobody acted on the prior knowledge they had about Foley was because they didn't want to be homophobic/politically incorrect? Gimme a break!

[midtnscott]

Read this very interesting article from the Drudge Report:

http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/20...ist_of_gay.php

[jlgosnell]

So, here is the straight dope, we have a republican congressman (Mark Foley) who like it or not went against the core values of American's and humans by having ill phone converstations and instant messanges sent to congressional pages who are underage. So why is it that now he is pulling the "Gay Card" the problem isn't that he is gay, the problem is that he is a pedophile. However, sadly this smells of political spin due to the fact the Conservative Neo-Con's whom are in charge of our government are setting up the stage to affirm their claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles or worse... So, I say cut crap.. this man is just proof that the republicans care more their image than the hardworking Americans they are sworn to speak for.

[BruceChris]

"The issue here isn't whether a politician is gay, the issue is whether the politican is a liar and a hypocrite" -- Mark Aceto, a gay man, on National Public Radio today.

P&L, BC

[Daniel]

Kirk Fordham's recollection (he is a former member of Foley's staff and who recently resigned from the staff of a NY Rep) regarding Foley's conduct is a key issue in the retention of of Hastert's seat in Congress.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...ck=1&cset=true

And this gentlemen has an interesting take on the matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawren...-_b_31040.html

The Republican base--the Evangelical get-out-the-vote troops--are going to be devastated when they discover how many closeted gay Republicans were involved in policing Mark Foley in the House of Representatives. Republican House members know this. That's why momentum is building for a very quick House cleaning and a new Speaker by next week.

Oh...and guess what? T'he GOP may be ramping up an anti-gay purge. I think this means Mr. Fordham in particular.

http://365gay.com/Newscon06/10/100506hastert.htm

"Gay Americans have watched this scandal unfold like everyone else, but unlike other Americans, we have found ourselves targeted once again by extremists in the Republican Party trying to shift responsibility. Members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community are part of the fabric of our country and to demonize them in the name of politics is disgraceful," Solmonese said in his letter to Hastert.

"Mr. Speaker, when extremists in your party go on national television and assert claims that a person’s sexual orientation is responsible for immoral and inappropriate conduct, it sends a clear signal to the American people that they are more interested in pushing their anti-gay agenda than they are in holding our elected officials accountable."

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman also called for the GOP stop targeting gays in the inquiry and stay on the issue of abuse of power.

"The GOP has only one response when it’s in trouble — ‘blame the gays,'" said Foreman in a statement.

"First, they floated the excuse that past complaints about Foley weren’t pursued because Republicans didn’t want to look like they were ‘gay bashing.’ Then, they dispatched henchmen like Tony Perkins and Pat Buchanan to offer the blood libel that gay men are prone to pedophilia. Now — in another signal of desperation — it is clear they plan to poison the debate further with allusions to a shadowy network of closeted gay Republicans who closed ranks to protect Foley," said Foreman.

"The parallels to McCarthyism are chilling. Here it is gays, not communists, ‘operating at the highest levels of government.’

And if you haven't had enough, you can find out more here:

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_540/foley.html