The problem ain't that he's gay - it's that, like Bill Clinton, he abused his power to take sexual advantage of an underling. And in his case, it was a minor underling.

They Boy Scout analogy has no logical connection to Foley. The Boy Scouts want to exclude folks who have never done anything wrong; Foley, on the other hand, did some obviously wrong, probably criminal things.

That's not to argue that the Boy Scouts are wrong, by any means - to my mind, they're a private organization and can do what they want. I'm just pointing out that a community-minded gay guy running a scout troop isn't anything the least bit similar to a known predator soliciting sex from a minor.

From your block-quote:
Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys.

I can tolerate private lifestyle choices and condemn soliciting sex from minors over whom one holds power. Where exactly is the irony?

If the Dems were principled like you, and if gays were similar to heterosexuals in their proclivities, there would not be much irony.

But for the Dems and "gay rights" organizations, the scoutmasters are just the next step in a long process of hoped-for deconstruction. They have much worse things planned for us, including legalizing gay sex with teenagers.

And while there are undoubtably fine and reliable gay scout leaders, you are being disingenuous to imply that they are not a high-risk situation. Far riskier than, say, having straight men leading girl-scout troops...

Mr. Hahn, The Senator was removed the minute the soliciting was caught by the Republicans. The Democrats are asking why he was not removed before, when the only evidence was that he was gay and enjoyed the company of young men. That's why Mr. Weidner is calling the Democrats out. Gay Scout leaders are gay, and enjoy the company of young men. If that's enough to remove a Senator from office, it's enough to remove a Scout leader. Pick one side, you can't have both, as you choose.

No, Mr. Mitchell, the Democrats are not saying "Foley was gay, you knew it, and you should have removed him." They're saying Foley committed crimes, Hastert knew it, and he should have removed him. Big difference. In fact, all the difference in the world.

Now, the more I read, the less I believe that Hastert knew anything actionable, although the jury's out on that. I'm not calling for his resignation. What is certain is the the Democrats are very slimily saying "Hastert knew about the emails; look at these creepy IM's; Hastert did nothing about the emails; he should resign!" That's nonsense, and I disagree with it entirely.

But that's a separate issue. All I'm saying here is that gay does not equal pederast. That's all. And being pro-gay does not make one pro-pederast. And be pro-gay and anti-pederast is no irony at all.

Mr. Hahn;

Did Foley take advantage of his underlings as you claim? My understanding is that all of the communications in question happened after the other person was no longer a Congressional page. Is that inaccurate?

John writes:

"And while there are undoubtably fine and reliable gay scout leaders, you are being disingenuous to imply that they are not a high-risk situation. Far riskier than, say, having straight men leading girl-scout troops..."

Ehhh.....

John, I don't find homosexuality any more appealing than you do-- the "euww, yuck!" factor is pretty high for me, too.

And the Boy Scouts are perfectly within their rights to ban gays as scoutmasters.

That said, why are gay men supposed to me more susceptible to pederasty than straight men? The passage I've quoted implies just that. In both situations, the scoutmaster is surrounded by "pretty young things" (if he indeed had thoughts along those lines), and so the level of temptation would be identical, or so I would think.

So, why would a straight male Girl Scoutmaster (are there such men? I suppose there could be-- you'd have to be pretty secure in your manhood) be less tempted by his charges than a gay male Boy Scoutmaster?

I was working with the Boy Scouts (at a summer camp; and even the appearance of impropriety was so avoided that I couldn't go on to "Staff Hill") when the gay scoutmaster case came up, and I knew at the time that there was no way that the BSA could win. If they won the case, as they did, the court of public opinion would excoriate them, as it did.

If they lost and were forced to accept homosexual Scoutmasters, they would immediately lose half to one third of their membership.

I think I have to explain that one. A quarter to a third of the Boy Scouts is made up of Latter-Day Saints; all teens have to join an approved youth organization, and the Boy Scouts is one such organization. The Mormon leadership had publicly stated that they would not tolerate such a ruling, and if the Boy Scouts were forced to accept homosexuals into their ranks, they'd leave. Start their own organization. And with the religious protections, they'd be able to do what they wanted.

Now I also have to state that there have been gay Scouts and gay Scoutmasters, and nobody cared because they didn't make an issue of it. It was sort of an informal don't-ask-don't-tell situation. I think somebody pointed out the major reason it matters at all, and that is that the Boy Scouts provides one of the few non-sexualized activities left in the world. If a Scout is gay but doesn't make a big deal of it, it's the same as the straight kid not making a big deal about looking at the girls.

But if a Scout or Scoutmaster starts making a big deal about it, it's like bringing "locker-room talk" into an inappropriate situation, and, unfortunately, it makes people uncomfortable.

One more thing: there are female Scoutmasters, just as there are male Girl Scout leaders. They're rare and not particularly encouraged. It's not that they're worried about pederasty; it's that the kids react differently around adults of the opposite sex. As one of the definite minority, I saw it for four years, and it applies even when the kids doesn't have a crush on you.

"That said, why are gay men supposed to me more susceptible to pederasty than straight men? "

If we are going to get into this, we should be careful of terms. I think "pederasty" is being used as a PC term to avoid criticizing gays, but pederasty, at least in common parlance, is sex with young children, and that's not the issue. The problem is gay men and teenage boys.

At least that's the case in the problems the Catholic Church has had. (Here are some stats.)

Would there be a similar problems or worries if straight men were leading girl scout troops? I have zero evidence, but my experience of life says no. Not one tenth the problems.

My armchair theorizing—feel free to ignore it—is NOT that straight men (or women) are intrinsically any better than gay, but that our psychologies are better ordered when we orient ourselves towards pleasing the opposite sex. We modify our thinking and behavior, mostly unconsciously, to be pleasing to the other sex, and a lot of things work better.

Annoying Old Guy:

Did Foley take advantage of his underlings as you claim? My understanding is that all of the communications in question happened after the other person was no longer a Congressional page. Is that inaccurate?

He hasn't been tried and convicted of anything, no. But it sure sounds like it, given the fear the pages had that Foley would torpedo their careers if they turned on him (why anyone would still think that these days is tragic).

John:

If we are going to get into this, we should be careful of terms. I think "pederasty" is being used as a PC term to avoid criticizing gays, but pederasty, at least in common parlance, is sex with young children, and that's not the issue. The problem is gay men and teenage boys.

I used the term "pederasty" because that is, to my understanding, the accurate term. Folks have been throwing "pedophilia" around, when it's absolutely incorrect. Here's a wikipedia entry on Pederasty in the Modern World, which says:

In the classic and academic sense, it refers to the erotic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent boy. Such relationships may be sexually expressed or not, consensual or nonconsensual, sentimental or commercial, and their legality will vary depending on local age of consent laws and prohibitions on homosexuality. The term can also be employed of the attraction of the man to the boy, whether or not reciprocated.

...and that's precisely the term to describe this situation.

Regarding your armchair theorizing, that's really quite interesting. I'm sure that focus on being appealing to women does broadly influence the straight population in a way that it doesn't influence the gay population, and I do wonder in what ways specifically. For many, losing the pretense of interest in monogamy is one specific example that comes my mind off the bat...

Wow...even in our disagreements, you still have such fascinating ideas! What a fun blog this is...

Ooops, I was wrong. I got the two words mixed up.

This article is not without interest: "Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered: The taboo against sex with children continues to erode (the article is actually about pederasty)

I got the two words mixed up.

Hell, I was the guy who discussed the pre-civil rights era prohibitions on misogeny a few weeks ago!

For the misogenists, FLAMING CROSSES!

It seems fairly obvious that there are two direct losers in the Mark Foley page scandal, gays and moderate/liberal Republicans. While it is true that Republicans will more than likely lose the House this year, it would behoove us to note 'which' Republicans lose. Anti-gay Republicans like Rick Santorum are in a good position. After all, aren't they the ones who vehemently oppose gay marriage? Who in their right mind would accuse him with attempting to cover-up for Mark Foley?

Also, it has been rumored that the instant messages were actually released by a Republican aide. If true, I can't imagine it would be in the best interest of a pro-gay aide to do such a thing. The anti-gay forces would like nothing better to decrease the influence of pro-gay politicians within their ranks.

My guess is the Republicans will not lose the House, at least not over this. Because even if they are low in the polls, people are still going to be chosing between two particular local candidates, not voting in a referendum on which party they prefer.

Ad this isn't really an issue where, if there is intense scrutiny, the Dems are going to look very good. Pelosi, I read recently, marched in an SF Gay Freedom Day parade next to Harry Hay, a notorious advocate of "man-boy love." Now she professes to be shocked that Republicans should even tolerate e-mails on such a heinous sin...