Skip to main content

View Diary: Republican House Underage Sex Scandal: Thread III (335 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Late night, I phrased the comment poorly. (0+ / 0-)

    I understand that pedophilia is not an orientation specific flaw.  It appeared to me that what I was responding to was what appeared to me to be an attempt to say that sexual orientation didn't have implications in this particular case.  It clearly does.

    Foley was a gay/bi congressman preying on boys.  Because he is a Repub, and was in fact in the leadership, and was in charge of protecting the nations boys/girls/kids, and that his orientation was so anathema to Repubs and their national message, his orientation IS the/an issue.

    To me it was like saying that a priest pedophile isn't relevant to discussions of the priesthood, or that a hetero pedophile isn't relevant to the discussion of protecting your daughters (in the vast majority of cases).

    If this all seems unenlightened then I plead unenlightenment.

    One of my major pet peeves in the general political discussion is saying something isn't relevant that clearly is relevant.  In other words, "Are you going to believe me, or your own lyin' eyes?"

    To be clear, I did not, and do not castigate gay folks on this or ever, but sexual orientation IS an issue here.  I appreciate your chastizement.

    It's full of stars...

    by ritzl on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:22:50 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site