Clinton did it with a young intern (female) Monica.
Is the law homophobic
Is the congress homophobic.
What is the gay oppinion - its legal isnt it?
I am not gay just looking for logical answers.
2006-10-12 22:58:29 · 9 answers · asked by ian d 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think it would have had a different spin on it.
2006-10-12 23:09:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There has always been homophobia. There have always been witch-hunts. There has always been hypocrisy. There will always be persecution by the majority of the minority.
I truly believe that without black skins, without gays, without different religions, red-headed people would be stigmatised, dwarfs would be shunned, very fat or very skinny or even very freckled people discriminated against.
It is part of human make-up.
The more sexual behaviour is accepted and understood, the better. The only deviant from the "norm" that represents a threat is padeophilia, because its victims are too young and defenceless to be victims.
Why don't we concentrate our efforts on trying to understand or cure that?
2006-10-13 06:37:39 · answer #2 · answered by simon2blues 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reaction? No. There is a "line in the sand" at age of consent.
"Is the law homophobic[?] Is the congress homophobic [?]"
I don't like the word "homophobic" in this context. It isn't about an irrational fear of homosexuals/-ity. It's about moral disapproval. I am gay and I have often tried to argue to other gays that we've got no business referring to moral disapproval as a "-phobia."
The law used to be a reflection of moral disapproval. The law is being gradually changed. But the change is TOO gradual to suit some impatient people. "I don't want to wait," one lesbian tells me. Even those gays who think of themselves as "conservative" (i.e., Andrew Sullivan and the Log Cabin Club) are quite impatient.
I don't know how to answer your last question -- "Its legal isn't it?" -- because I don't have any clue what you mean by "it."
2006-10-13 07:05:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do believe we would get the same reaction. I do not believe that Foley is a pedaphile, because the young men were more mature than that. Pedaphile's like children. But he was very much out of line and should have quit. as he did.
2006-10-13 06:07:05 · answer #4 · answered by mamadixie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He would have deserved the same heat Clinton got. The fact that he was after underage teen boys makes his case ten fold worse than Clinton. In the meantime it sounds nostalgic and we wish the good ol' times back when the elected officials only had sex with consenting adults. The Republicans managed to drag their party down to levels never imagined before.
2006-10-13 08:13:09 · answer #5 · answered by The answer man 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Foley exhibited Predatory actions and behaviour over state lines... outside of D.C..
That makes him a Predator and possibly a Pedophile if he did anything else.
Hastert appears to be covering her...his azz.
Lewinski was a consenting adult.
Need I post Foley's words again.......?
2006-10-13 06:04:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, he would not because an 18 year old is legally an adult. He was into illegal activity with minors, no matter which sex they were.
2006-10-13 06:09:37 · answer #7 · answered by missingora 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
thanks to the Internet degenerated bastards are everywhere,Congress is all degenerated freaks of sickness,gay is OK ,but its degenerated and sick . why because god says so and if you want to get to heaven,degeneration and repentance wont do it .congress will be in hell with bush..girls are to be lusted for always,but not young ones ,that's just more perversion and sickness.
2006-10-13 13:42:38 · answer #8 · answered by CIVILIAN 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no!!!
2006-10-13 06:09:16 · answer #9 · answered by x 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋