First Openly Gay Congressman dies... hero or villain?

Sorry to start a topic when I am likely to be gone for the next 3-4 days, but something came up that is relevant to a previous thread which is now closed. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay congressman has died.Normally deaths of prominent "first" figures are celebrated with retrospectives and the like by the minority communities they represent. I am interested in how people will approach this particular case.The fact is that his being gay was made public in nearly the exact same way as Rep Foley's orientation was, through a sex scandal with underage pages. While Foley is getting lynched in the media for merely using sexually oriented emails and IMs with pages, Studds went much further than that.Studds had sex with the page, who was underage at the time, and even took him to Morocco to engage in the acts so as not to break US laws. Under current law that itself would be a crime.While some liberals are actively denouncing people tying Foley's activities to homosexuality, Studds' spouse has tied the two together... Surely Hara has a point and it is something I tried to raise in the Foley thread.Studds ignored congressional censure for engaging in sex with an underage page, never apologizing, and was rewarded by his constituency with a return to office for many more years. Does that mean something? And if so, then why should this precedent not have counted for Foley, or even been allowed?So is this guy a hero, or a villain? Should he be celebrated, or his case reinspected in light of the Foley incident, and what were once considered contributions viewed with the same scorn shown to Foley?I'll be back to address any replies, I just wanted to make sure I got this in before I left so I wouldn't forget it (or it became lost in the news). AbE: I am not interested in debating what people should think, but more to understand how people think this should be handled. My only questions are likely to be consistency issues between handling of Studds and Foley. Edited by holmes, : AbEEdited by holmes, : typo

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think the political sideshow needs to stop, that's what I think. Its not about "Us-versus-Them". What's really at the heart of the issue is whether or not crimes have been commited. If they have, then let the Law deal with both parties. Injecting some kind of political spin simply because they are political figures doesn't cover up the fact that some alleged crimes have taken place.As far as Studds being lauded by his contemporaries, despite a sex-scandal, doesn't shock me anymore than the National Endowment of the Arts considers looking into a woman's cervix with a flashlight and a speculum on stage would be called 'art.'Crazy times we're livin' in, eh?Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : italics

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

It's not that it happens that makes it art, it's HOW it happens.

Yeah, I don't even want to speculate. So, what part of Portland do you live? East or West? I live in East County which is pretty damn ghetto. I think its time to move.

I think it comes down to age-of-consent laws and were they not adequately enforced against Studds. Let's remember he established a relationship with this person for some period - he wasn't just trying to diddle a bunch of pages.Anway, how is it you can marry someone 13 or 14 in some of these states, and yet having sex with someone under 18 is considered "statutory rape"?But the difference ot me is a matter of integrity.
Studds was open and honest about his HS'y from the beginning.
He wasn't a sleaze-bag like Foley.
The real shame for Forley (to me) is his hipocrisy.So he's gay and likes boys. So what?That he harassed so many of them with lewd emails and used his position of influence to try and consume them in bunches like grapes - THAT is creepy and tells you he is an asshole.That he was recently a co-author of new anti-pedophile legislation that may just provide the grounds for his own conviction - beautiful irony. (I can probably dig up a link on that if needed).

Oh dear. Perhaps if it was more situational or personal to you, you might think differently on this matter. What if we sent your sons to Uncle Foley and Auntie Stubbs for summer vacation-- would that effect your frivolous disposition?

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

If I had a son who decided he was gay, I think I would accept that.If I had a son who was at a summer camp where one of the counsellors was gay, that would not necessarily bother me either - any more than if I had a daughter (I have 2) at a summer camp with a bunch of horny young hetero guys hanging around.ABE: What would concern me is a counsellor who took advantage of one of his charges while in a position of responsibility for them, regardless of his/her sexuality.The implicit assumption is that people in positions of authority, and educational responsibility, supposedly providing examples to younger people, do not take advantage of that position for base personal gratification. That's what Foley did. I am not convinced that is what Studds did, although I don't have enough info to make a determination.Take for example this story with more perspective here from Vancouver, BC.The male teacher seduced a series of young. underage, female students using many ploys and created a whole exclusive camping/adventure club for selected students for this purpose.
That's the sleaze factor I'm talking about.
Gay or hetero, sleaze smells the same.Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.Edited by EZscience, : (additional link)

there's a difference between liking boys and liking "little" boys.when you manage to realize the difference (and the prevalence of child molestation in the christian church), please open your mouth again.

I agree with your first premise that it isn't the gay factor, its the sleaze factor that is troublesome. But you dismantled your own argument by saying that it wouldn't bother you if your sons or daughters were approached sexually by a bunch of horney guys. Its a little disheartening that you think grown men should have sexual relations or even be allowed to make sexual innuendos to your own children, but you refer to two politicians for doing the very thing you condone for your own children. I don't understand that. What does their status have to do with it? Say a 19 year old camp counselor was making sexual advances toward your daughters. Would that be worse than, say, a 63 year old man who lived nearby? So, you don't object to two grown men hitting on boys but its no longer okay when they are in positions of power and don't disclose their sexual preference beforehand? That's backassward to me. Can't argue with that.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

What's the difference in your mind? How about the prevalence of child molestation, period? Its disturbing. I don't care where child molestation comes from because its all wrong. Whoever is commiting it should find their way on Dateline NBC with Chris Hansen as far as I'm concerned. But I couldn't help but noticing the bigotry in the matter. If I said that Asians have a penchant for little kids would that be unduly singling out a group or would I be spot on in my assessment? That would probably be unfair to all Asians, eh.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

the difference lies in the general use of the word boy. i'm sure you'd say "sorry fag, i like girls". does this mean you're a pervert? no. it means you used the word girl in reference to the female sex. if you'd said "i like little girls" then we would have a problem. then why did you fail to acknowledge the difference between gay and skeeze?
i brought up the christian church because that's where almost everyone i know got theirs and they're all about sexual suppression. half of the problem with sex crime is supression. the other half is power... and that may stem from rebutting the suppression.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

Even though I'm assertive in my opinions, I refrain from childish antics whenever possible. Sin is sin. And though I recognize that certain denominations tend to think of homosexuality as being somehow worse than, say, their own teenagers having premarital sex, I'm not one of them. I can't argue with that. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't. I made a concerted effort not to distinguish the two. Heterosexual pedophilias is the same as homosexual pedophilia if you ask me. In other words, sleeze, not sexual preference. I would say that suppression if not channeled through a healthy avenue can have these effects, but I wouldn't hesitate to clarify that pornography is 99.8% the culprit. And having said that, that doesn't automatically mean that people that look at porn are going to become sexual deviants. What it does mean is that pornography is the stepping stone for virtually all the cases of this.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Did I say that?
I don't think so.
I merely equivocated across sexual orientations - I did not defend abusive sexual behavior - although simply propositioning someone sexually should not be considered a crime, provided they are not a child. That would be positively Orwellian. No, not really. But you do bring up a valid issue.
But should it be an issue of age differential?
Or abuse of responsibility inherent in one's professional position? Not if they are of legal age. Anymore than I would prosecute old men for hitting on younger women, provided they were of legal age.ABE: Not that 'legal age' is in really scientific (people mature at different ages), but I would agree we have to draw the grim line of 'pedophilia' somewhere.Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.Edited by EZscience, : No reason given.

like a gateway drug?*scene from harold and kumar*
*puts shotgun in mouth*
omg i'm so fucking high right now.. nothing can hurt me!really? you mean the fact that sexual urges are natural and normal has nothing to do with it? and the fact that expressing these healthily and openly makes one well-adjusted and that hiding them in the dark and feeling guilty about how god made you leaves you completely psychologically messed up has nothing to do with it?porn causes nothing. it just introduces people to a world they were wrongly kept from. if these people were allowed to even whack it without feeling ashamed, then maybe the shame that they naturally feel from boning the nearest four year old would be as monumental and convicting as it ought to be.

in the same manner that milk is a stepping stone to alcoholism. clearly, every last alcoholic has consumed milk at some point in their lives prior to becoming alcoholics.

---