Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 29
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Politics, Money, Heroes and Cads

Perhaps the difference is

MBA Fellow
Department of Labor
Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:25 AM

Post Reply

Consent. Foley's behavior would have been bad if it had been heterosexual. Studds', bereft of the homosexual angle, would have been in poor taste but not against the law. That is the difference.

Also, timing. Studds is dead and it's bad to speak ill of the dead. Also what he did seems a lot less shocking now than it did then. Foley is now and isn't dead, so it's very shocking and new. It was also completely inappropriate since he was doing the same as Studds (hitting on underaged pages) only his advances were apparently not returned.

Consent and timing. Those are the differences. If we can wait fof Foley to die, we might be able to tease out which is most important.

Re: Perhaps the difference is

LR Specialist
DHS
Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:37 AM
"Consent and timing" - perhaps we should also throw geographic location into the mix. Inasmuch as the age of consent in DC is reported to be 16, one can say that Gerry Studds' sexual relationship with a 17 year old was legal. It seems odd that a person who is not old enough to vote would be considered legally old enough to enter into a sexual relationship. But no one ever said that the law had to make any sense. So now, let us reason together and admit that what Mark Foley did was not the same thing as what Gerry Studds did. Mark Foley sent inappropriate emails. Gerry Studds had sexual relations with someone who was not old enough to vote at the time. If we cannot see the difference here, we have entered into an intellectual void and lost all sense of moral discernment.

Re: Perhaps the difference is

Emp
Agency
Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:16 PM
Call me stupid, but I don't see any difference. And your explanation confuses me even more.

Re: Perhaps the difference is

LR Specialist
DHS
Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:21 AM
Sorry for the confusion but I don't think the source of confusion is in my explanation. But perhaps we can clarify the point by considering the difference between murder and conspiracy to commit murder. In the first case the actual deed is accomplished. In the second case it never goes beyond the planning stage so no actual deed is ever done. Both acts are reprehensible, but in the assessment of a proper penalty who should receive the harsher punishment; the murderer or the one who wanted to commit murder but did not? If you do not see a difference here then you have already enetered that intellectual void and lack moral discernment.

hero or disgrace

IT Specialist
Treasury
Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:33 AM

Post Reply

One was also a hypocrite. Perhaps that is the difference.

Re: hero or disgrace

LR Specialist
DHS
Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:21 AM
So you are saying that on the continuum of moral offenses it is more evil to be a hypocrite than to be a pedophile.

Politics, Money, Heroes and Cads

Manager
SSA
Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:33 AM

Post Reply

I'm shocked to discover politics is involved more so than noble rhetoric (not.) However, there is actually a significant difference between Studds in the 80's and today: for the past 15 years or more one political party in particular has made moral outrage into a political weapon and has claimed that all domestic and foreign issues pale before "family values and morality." And since they have turned personal moral rectitude into a wedge political weapon, focusing on their hypocrasy - Mr. Moral Outrage Against Pedophiles Foley turned House page pervert is but one example among many - is just reaping what they have sown.

Re: Politics, Money, Heroes and Cads

LR Specialist
DHS
Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:48 AM
I agree that there is a significant difference between Gerry Studds and Mark Foley. Gerry Studds actually had sexual relations with an underage peson. Mark Foley sent inappropriate emails to underage persons seeking to have similar relations. So who are the bigger hypocrites? The Republicans who hold up the standard of Family Values, and when they find a wolf in sheep's clothing in their mix they boot him out and condemn his behavor. On the other hand, the Democrats celebrate the actual sexual behavior of one of their own, but condemn somone outside of their party who wants to engage in that same behavior but never does.

Politics, Money, Heroes and Cads -- STUPID

Program Analyst
DOL
Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:34 AM

Post Reply

Whether one man is held up as a hero (and this is debatable) and another is not--is not the point--whether they are both gay and one "came out" is not the point--the point is that these men are both in a positions of power and they are using these positions to exercise their perverse sexual needs--one thing they both are is they are CHILD molesters--and these type of people--either gay or straight--should rot in JAIL---neither are heros. Oh and by the way---I do not think domestic partners should have benefits--not gay ones and not straight--there should be benefits for those who live within the confines of marriage--and gays can not and should not marry!

Studds/Foley Domestic Partners' Benefits

Analyst
USDA
Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:59 AM

Post Reply

Why is one man a role model held up as a hero and the other is a disgrace?
Because---------------
Consent in the first case; Unwanted attentions in the second
Because--------------
One man came out accepted himself took responsibility; The other blames alcohol, abuse by a priest, made statements and passed laws against gays, is a hypocrite, and now is just beginning to come to terms with his own self hatred. It takes years.
The result? closets, bigotry, exploitation, harm, lies, hypocrisy

Good article

ES
EPA
Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:01 AM

Post Reply

I am a gay man and can't relate at all to their behavior. Child molestation, gay or straight, is reprehensible. Stubbs should have been put under the jail for child molestation. Foley did the right thing by resigning (but a better idea would to have never done this to begin with).

Par for the course

Program Analyst
GSA
Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:23 AM

Post Reply

Loved the article. Just another example of how fickle and hypocritical American society has become. It's PC when it suits our needs but the blasphamous when it doesn't.
As far as congressional response is concerned...they are never interested in doing more than damage control or finger pointing and no longer care about real issues...only in making the other party look bad and ensuring their party controls Congress our the White House. Damn the issues...full steam ahead to the next elections.

Total Comments: 29
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.