Comments on: Did Foley Deserve To Go Down?

By: ajax

ajax — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:55:58 +0000

Chris, I think you need to go back and familiarize yourself with the nature of Foley’s folly. He did far more than check out the pages. Foley was on the (barely) legal side of statutory rape and the (barely) legal side of sexual harassment. I happen to think he didn’t manage the legal boundaries as well as his Congressional cronies apparently do.

I have no problem with you taking on the role of Devil’s Advocate, but, as the DA, you don’t have license to change facts. Foley used his (elected) position to take advantage of young men.

By: Mr C

Mr C — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:48:43 +0000

Bottom line,

Old goat was in the closet and now he’s been pulled out due to his own indiscrections. Now just be proud and Gay and find a nice Man to settle down with.

But this just in the Man who won his seat is now in big trouble himself over sexual indiscretions

read for yourself: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003682

By: Brandon

Brandon — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:21:05 +0000

Where was the Repubs sympathy when they spearheaded the take down of Bill Clinton over consensual sex w/ another adult?

This is so stupid, I mean what’s next? All those guys on “To Catch A Predator” who were just talking dirty online and over the phone and never got the chance to fuck the kids deserve our sympathy b/c they may have had trumatic childhoods? BS.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:14:36 +0000

Ajax, don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating having sex with underage guys. But I’m seeing something here where it’s OK for us to lust after young guys (or, as you euphemistically put it, “check out their beauty”. Puh-leeeze!), but it’s not OK for Tom Foley to do it. It’s either OK for ALL gay guys to check out young guys, or it’s not OK. Do we now have to pass a political litmus test before we can enjoy our sexuality?

And what about the whole Gerry Studds affair back in the 80′s? That was pretty darn similar to this. The idea that it was OK for Studds because he had a “D” after his name just doesn’t wash for me.

I should emphasize that I’m generally on your side here. I’m just playing devil’s advocate so that we don’t fall into our own trap of hypocrisy. But I think I’m bringing up valid points, and I hope it makes people think about WHY it was wrong for Foley to have done what he did.

As far as your distinguishing between just looking and actually doing something, I agree, there is a real difference.

By: ajax

ajax — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:28:25 +0000

Chris, are you for real? There is a difference between “checking out a cute young guy” and goading the cute young guy into sexually provocative behavior.

If I pass by my neighborhood bakery and look at the pretty, cakes does that make me fat or diabetic? Of courese not.

Checking out beauty – in a wholesome or unwholesome sense is human. Using one’s age, rank, or power to sexually manipulate another is sick.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:48:03 +0000

The righteous indignation here would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. I mean, c’mon, how many of you have checked out a cute young guy without worrying a whole lot whether he was 18 or not? Or are we now the “protectors of youth”? Give me a break.

When you use the weapons of your enemy (in this case, righteous indignation), you BECOME the enemy.

By: osocubano

osocubano — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:31:05 +0000

Wasn’t the whole idea to “go down”?

By: dvlaries

dvlaries — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:26:16 +0000

” Brethren ” is the word that got me too. Please, Mr. Kirchick, before our ‘brother’ got found out -while on duty as an elected civil servant- chasing 17-year-old same-sex ass, give me a goddamn example of when he did or said ANYthing to the benefit of his gay ‘family.’

By: ajax

ajax — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:18:54 +0000

“and he was apparently the victim of childhood trauma. Shouldnâ€™t gay men and lesbians, of all people, have a bit of sympathy for such an individual?”

No, goddamit, we shouldn’t. While such childhood trauma might explain Foley’s behavior, it DOES NOT excuse his behavior. To infer that Foley’s behavior should be tolerated by our community is even more reprehensible than Foley’s actual act. Mr. Kerchick, in my view, you have just given us a look under your own skirts and exposed yet another pederast. Get thee to a psychotherapist.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:06:36 +0000

Foley, like Craig, was never about homophobia or even the closet, it was and remains about hypocrisy.

By: NG

NG — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:57:06 +0000

Never mind the kids part – that’s just caca talk. Many of the “kids” eventually got themselves a hefty pay day from it and secured their futures in the political arena.

Foley The Congressman put a Sword Of Damocles over the entire gay community which to this day is still there. That can’t be forgotten no matter what.

By: blake

blake — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:40:56 +0000

Uh, the guy went after kids. He got what he deserved. Why should we feel sorry for this guy? The electronic messages made it clear what he was trying to do.

By: ChristopherM

ChristopherM — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:18:12 +0000

Our “brethren”? Closeted sexual predators who troll for sex with men while voting against our civil rights are not my brethren. He deserved worse than what he got.