I still don't understand why the Dems and the left are suggesting gay relations are immoral. If they were smart they'd sit back and welcome Foley's demise from his own party.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff? When did the Dem's say a gay relations are immoral? Don't be retarded Salty. They said that Foley going after minors is immoral. Do not confuse the two.

 

Your point? What does that have to do with anything? The democratic party never painted itself as the moral leaders of the US. **** the democratic party is the party that supports gay marriage.

 

Do you think I was talking about his actions with a 21 year old?

 

because that is what the republicans have said and done over and over again..

Which camp did the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage come from again?

The religious right and its *****es (the gop) are all about *** hating...

So i find it funny when all of a sudden half this forum is sporting celebrate diveristy flair in their posts..

You guys are truely ****ing wastes of protein, the least you could ****ing do is acknowledge your contradictions. Instead you try to pawn them off..

A++ to you ***s

 

Statute

§ 22-3502. Sodomy.

(a) Every person who shall be convicted of taking into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of placing his or her sexual organ in the mouth or anus of any other person or animal, or who shall be convicted of having carnal copulation in an opening of the body except sexual parts with another person, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 10 years. Any person convicted under this section of committing such act with a person under the age of 16 years shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding 20 years. And in any indictment for the commission of any of the acts, hereby declared to be offenses, it shall not be necessary to set forth the particular unnatural or perverted sexual practice with the commission of which the defendant may be charged, nor to set forth the particular manner in which said unnatural or perverted sexual practice was committed, but it shall be sufficient if the indictment set forth that the defendant committed a certain unnatural and perverted sexual practice with a person or animal, as the case may be: Provided, that the accused, on motion, shall be entitled to be furnished with a bill of particulars, setting forth the particular acts which constitute the offense charged.

(b) Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime specified in this section. Proof of emission shall not be necessary. (June 9, 1948, 62 Stat. 347, ch. 428, title I, § 104; 1973 Ed., § 22-3502.)


now stfu.. and stop contradicting yourself in posts on this forum...

In the other foley thread you stated that you knew it was a felony.. and now you are saying the exact opposite..

MAKE UP YOUR ****ING MIND IDIOT

 

You're missing the point once again!

We all know where the Republican party stands which is irrelevant. Instead, Liberals and Democrats seem to be going after a guy that's guilty (thus far) being a homo trying to cover it up. Wtf?

 

See thats where you are wrong. The Democrats are going after a guy that went after a child. Yes a child, no matter what Oaf says, by law. The fact that the MORAL right tried to hide it for around three years (possibly longer than that) I believe is also a main reason. Where did you think being gay came up in this for the Democrats? In fact I don't think that matters at all. Had it been a Republican who was striaght going after underage tail it would still be the samething. You are the one fixated on the fact that he is gay. Get it straight. The only role that being gay plays is the fact that he is in a party that historically disapproves of gay rights such as marriage. Which is ironic.

 

Listen, I'm in no way trying to defend the guy. I think he's a sick SOB regardless. If he had relations with this guy in D.C. at sixteen, then it's not a legality issue but rather a morality issue. Dre's point on sodomy is weak.

The only issue here should be why the **** people kept it secret. The Republican party should have told him to step down a long time ago. It's a ****ing mess in that respect. The legality issue dre keeps feeding us is groundless (thus far).

And there IS a sense of truth to this, Unregistered. A Democrat or Republican lawmaker pursuing boys is bad period. Your career is over. But the Democratic party would - without question - defend the rights of a 40yr old gay man with a 16yr old gay male in DC. That's where the Republican party differs for the most part and why it seems like going against Foley is homo-witch hunt for the sake of exposing a Repiblican.

 

No, Dre's point is right. He was not just in D.C. doing this so it is very likely that it is a felony.

Both are issues not just one or the other. The fact that the Republican party tried to hide it is the more prominent one. I will not try to even deny that one. Yet, if the page was ever in Florida and something did go down it would of been a felony. I am sure as time goes by more and more information will come out. Pages don't stay long as pages. I will take a guess that this page was not the first one to be sexually harrased.

No. You are wrong. This is NOT a homo-witch hunt. You are the one who is making an issue about him being gay. I have yet to see any Democrat coming out and saying because he is gay he should be prosecuted. The only individuals bring that are up are Republicans. One of them that threw me for a loop was Pat Buchanan who actually stated that the reason Foley went after children was because he was gay. (No I am not making that up.) Don't you think the biggest exposure is the fact that the Republican leaders hid this for so long? Why would the Democrats push away one of their most loyal base for the sake of one seat? (However many they think they can win.) Explain to me why they would even considering doing that. I am sorry but you are just plain wrong.