SPQR

So if he'd been a Democrat, would they be "The Party Of Pedophilia", proving that all Democrats are lustful, child endangering monsters? And do you see the difference between being "gay" and being a "pedophile"?

A 54 year old man attempting to seduce a 15 year old girl would not be referred to as a "heterosexual", but rather a pedophile, a predator and someone really unworthy of a lot of sympathy, other than therapy in a place where he can't threaten other children.

I'm waiting to hear that it's not his fault, he was born this way, and figure out how that makes homosexuality a lifestyle choice.

Maybe he'll play it like Jim McGreevy and turn the case away from the crime, and just focus on that he's a "Gay American" which is not illegal.

My favorite quote of this whole thing came when I was discussing it with my government students and one boy exclaimed, "Wait, he's a pedophile AND a Republican?! But I thought they were the good guys and can't do that stuff!"

He hasn't said that it isn't his fault yet, but locally everyone says his checking into rehab for alcohol is a ploy, evidenced by his spokesman saying all of the incidents only occured while intoxicated.

Maybe I'm just cynical about it all.

The really unconscionable part is that the house (Republican) leadership KNEW they had a pedophile in the house and KNEW that he had been having extremely inappropriate communications with underage and yet decided not to do anything to avoid a vote losing scandal.

How in God's name is this the action of the party of "values"?

How is this not endangering children to avoid loss of political power?

How much more craven could it possibly be?

it is kind of eerie how similar Jeff's questions are to your student. In light of that, the party leadership certainly becomes culpable

It's good to know we're all on the same page on this issue. I think Foley is a sicko and I think Speaker Hasbert should resign his leadership position, as should anyone, Republican or Democrat, who knew about this but didn't speak up until now.

I do have one question I want to ask. The Drudgereport is reporting that the page was 18 years old at the time of the explicit exchanges. To me, this is a distinction without a difference. The page could be 17 or 19, Foley is still a sick man and should not be in a position of power. But it got me thinking: What is it about a man with immense political power having IM sex with an 18 year old boy that is so much worse than a man with immense political power having actual physical sex with a 21 year old girl?

Before now, I'd taken the position that Clinton's affair with that 21 year old intern was "just sex, she was over 18, not a big deal". Generally, I kind of liked Clinton as a person. This incident has turned me completely around and I am now stunned that he got away with it and shocked that we give this sexual predator anything resembling honor rather than the disgust and revulsion with which we rightly treat Foley.

Matthias

I thought you people found moral relativism repugnant. To compare an of- age, heteresexual affair to an underage, homosexual pursuit is really, really disingenious. It reminds one of the arguments that Abu Graib was no problem since some terrorists cut people's heads off. Do you have no interest in the moral high ground?

Your posted comments include this, which sort of invalidates your talking points. Good try, though. From Drudge-

"A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday. "

I thought the homosexual/heterosexual issue was of no concern to you, Jeff. It certainly is of no concern to me. I find both repugnant. However, I very clearly said that I don't think Foley should get off the hook even if the page was 19... what he did is still repulsive.

What you seem to be saying is that, if the page was 17 years and 360 days old, Foley is a gross pervert and, if the page was 18 years and 2 days old, Foley is a healthy member of society (unless I'm wrong about where you stand on the gay issue). I'm saying that it is sick for any politician to take advantage of their power in order to have any sexual contact with a page or an intern or any young person in a subservient position. That is predatory sexual behavior, using power for sexual gain and it is sick.

Perhaps I should clarify: The way I got to this position started when I saw the Drudgereport say that the explicit IMs were sent when the page was 18. This could very well mean that Foley didn't start sending explicit IMs to the page until AFTER his 18th birthday. Legally, that would have made all the difference.

I started thinking, "Should this make any difference to how I view Foley?" and the answer was unequivocally "No, he's still a sicko." Then I started thinking, would I repulsed by this kind of behavior is the page was 19? I would. 20? Well... yes. 21? It was at this point that I realized that a huge part of my revulsion was that an elderly man would use his position of power as a leverage point for sex. The fact that I would be in favor of Foley's resignation even if he had explicit IM chats with a 20 year-old page made me reconsider my previous position on Clinton, who did far more than explicit IM chatting with a girl all of a year older than 20. Can you see where I'm coming from here?

Matthias;

I just want to weigh in here to say that yes, your argument is sound, and lucid, and there is an immense problem when people in power engage sexually wiht underlings, regardless of who pursued whom. But context does matter, and so, as Jeff was indicating, here is a simple up or down vote for you:

Do you approve of Gay sex inside of Marriage?

That is my extrapolation from your comment of finding both Gay and hetero sex repugnant under certain (apparedntly out of marriage, at the very least)situations.

So that you do not later feel BUSHwhacked, my poin is that IF there is a difference inherently in Hetero vs Homo sex, then, what Clinton did was as different than what Foley did, as Homosexuality is from Heterosexuality. Yes...its still asking for a sliding scale where you might want to say sin is sin, and there is no difference. So just tell me, is Homo sex within the context of marriage sin or not?

I believe that there is no point is differentiating between sexual sins. I don't feel that a gay man who has sex outside of marriage has done anything better or worse than a heterosexual man who has sex outside of marriage. Therefore, I don't think that what Clinton did (abuse power for sex) was substantially different than what Foley did (abuse power for sex).

In this context, the issue of homosexual sex within marriage is a complete non sequiter, neither here nor there. If your point is that since we, as Christians, think that homosexual sex is wrong in all contexts, we should therefore despise Foley more than we despise Clinton, I would disagree completely. I think taking that kind of stance against homosexual sex (as a sin uniquely different than heterosexual-type sins) is a horrible thing to do and goes a very long way to alienate those who struggle with homosexuality from the church.

Let me also say (upon further reflection) that I'm not trying to fully equivocate Clinton and Foley. If you follow my logic in reverse, you might come to a point where you equate Clinton with a guy who sexually abuses 6 year olds, which is far worse than what Clinton or Foley did.

On a scale of -10 to 10 (-10 being pure and unmitigated evil actions (gleeful rape and murder), 0 being morally indifferent actions (buying an orange soda), 10 being saintly actions (being the pope)), I'd put Foley's actions at -7 and Clinton's at -5. But my point is that I've moved from a place where I was saying to myself, "Yeah, sure, Bill Clinton had oral sex with Monica and then he bought an orange soda" to a place where I'm saying "What Bill Clinton did was actually a really bad thing and I think that he deserves a certain level of disgust for doing it".

for what it's worth
i think the issue here is what nat's student brought up with his question.
the republican party has put itself up on a pedistal, with their family values platform and disgust at clinton's affair and so forth
this scandal is such a big deal, as i hear about it nonstop, because it wasn't a consentual affair
(though i do think clinton was inappropriate)
but this was a man allowed to pursue not one, but different adolences, the pages were warned about foley ebing a little friendly
they allowwed this to go on, and only now see it as a problem because the media got wind of it
that is what is sick and twisted

i don't think you can rank sin matthias, it's a dangerous road to venture down
you are setting yourself up

Actually, I really appreciate your response, Matthias, and your further clarification. Period. You answered my question.

Anne: I think that Matthias' scale is a really good way to talk about it. The stark line is
"0", but we have to realise that there are indeed levels of depravity, and levels of better behavior.

It is important to state again here that the message of the Gospel applies to each of us ONLY as we evaluate ourselves. In that evaluation, to borrow from Matthias' scale, I want to say that I am about +4 on the scale. Actually, my actions have ranged from +4 down to ... well, probably past Clinton, but not quite to Foley. But Like the Cop said, when I said for 90% of my trip I had stayed within the speed limit, the law gets me where I cross that line. So I am Far worse than I want to consider myself, or my fellows. But the only hope I have is the second part of the gospel message: I am loved much more than I deserve, or can even imagine hoping for. And a way has been made, motivated by love for ME ( stinking rotten me) that paid any dues, and paved the way to a relationship that I was craving, and searching for my whole life.

So now I can speak of SIN as something we all indulge in at some level...and so I suppose even the hypocricy of the Republican leadership is no worse than my being angry and impatient with my son today ( except for maybe the fact that I stopped it and apologised as soon as I was made aware of it). BUT the consequences are. And you, Anne, have pointed out the wink and nod to keep a seat ( like Reagan said, "You can't argue wiht success")That needs to be addressed. The reality is that it is political suicide to acknowledge anything until the press gets ahold of it. That is one reason a free press is crucial to a free society.

As to this being everywhere, we heard a blub, spoken in English, then overspoken in Spanish translation saying that the American Nazi party was hopiong people would consider voting for them in the coming election, and wanted to assure prospective voters that they did not endorse, nor had they had any contact, with Foley.