Wonders never cease to amaze me. Republican Mark Sanford has won the House Seat in a special election against Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert Busch who is a greenhorn in the political arena.
WASHINGTON — Disgraced ex-South Carolina governor Mark Sanford won his bid for redemption on Tuesday night, defeating Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch for his old seat in Congress.
Sanford, a Republican who admitted an extramarital affair in 2009, was ready to quit politics for good if he was not victorious in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District. He will replace Republican Tim Scott, who was appointed to the Senate.
The former governor — once a rising GOP star considered presidential material — was an early favorite in the Republican district, which Mitt Romney carried by 18 percentage points in the 2012 election. But the revelation that his ex-wife, Jenny, accused Sanford of trespassing at her home caused the National Republican Congressional Committee to withdraw its financial and logistical support and gave Colbert Busch an opening.
Sanford is due in court within the week over trespassing at his former wife’s home. So much for family values. Sanford, while pitiable, really left office in disgrace. Not only did he leave the country, he also left no way for anyone to get in touch with him while he was gallivanting back and forth to South America. Sanford lied to his wife and deserted his children at the time. Sanford failed to call his children on Father’s Day.
Before his fling, Sanford had been a family values politician. I am surprised the good people of South Carolina are willing to give him and his fiance another chance.
So much for family values, republican hypocrites. This speaks volumes about the people of South Carolina.
He will make a great member of the Foreign Affairs committee, bwahaha!
Its already pretty crowded …..
I guess they’d rather have a philandering trespasser than a Marxist rubber stamp. Doesn’t bode well for the far left loons taking back the House in 2014.
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/5/50/Waaambulance.jpg
Why would you think Elizabeth Colbert Busch is a Marxist rubber stamp?
That just sounds stupid. She is a neophyte to politics.
Hmmm, maybe Paul Boese was right: “Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.”
I think the WaPo article should have read “Ex-disgraced South Carolina ex-Governor…”.
The Sanford problem isn’t related to where he stands on the political spectrum. The problem is that he is representative of a far too common political type – self-absorbed politicians who are essentially scam artists and who view the electorate as marks whose purpose is to satisfy the pol’s psychological and, in some cases, employment issues.
But doesn’t it make you question the hypocrisy? I expect SOME of the folks who elected him will be in Church Sunday getting a good dose of family values that they will be trumpeting when they come out.
Sanford is in the eviable position of owning no one anything. The Republicans turned their backs on him. (and probably rightfully so)
He now goes to Washington as his own man.
Not long ago I debated a conservative republican on candidate “values”. I wonder now how he views his Republican brethren in South Carolina for voting for a candidate who sexually strayed. I wonder if he will now put down ALL republicans as flawed? Should be interesting to see how this plays out. But hey, I guess when conservatives like Newt and Rush blathering on and on about the sanctity of marriage, certain people will buy into any hypocrisy!
It does not surprise me that Sanford won back this seat. The district was redrawn in 2011 and is overwhelmingly Republican. Mitt Romney carried this district by a large margin last November. Did partisanship play a large role? Yes. As Moon pointed out, Colbert-Busch is a political neophyte. I guess it was a matter of “The devil you know, vs. the devil you don’t”.
I would have rather Sanford lost in the primary, to some other GOP candidate who has less baggage. In defense of the GOP: When a candidate secures the party nomination, the party has a responsibility to support the nominee. That said, the GOP did pull all of its financial support, after Sanford’s wife made her tresspassing complaint. The party’s patience does have its limits, and Sanford will not be afforded much “grace” should questions of ethics again arise in Sanford’s future. We’re not nearly as forgiving as Democrats, afterall.
Moon,
It’s rare that a comment here truely offends me, and even more rare when the comment is made by you…but this one does. Painting with a broad brush regarding Christians, aren’t we? Would it have been offensive if I made the same comments regarding those who attend predominately black churches on Sunday, voting overwhemlinly for Barrack Obama, Abortion and Gay Marriage supporter, on the following Tuesday? I think I would have been excoriated, and to top it off, called a racist.
No, only those who trumpet and you and I both know the types. I would call it selective trumpeting. Let me be more specific. Some folks will go to church and come out talking about Joe Blow who is cavorting around with Mary Sue and what skunks they both are. Some of these same folks turned a blind eye to Mark Sanford.
Somehow I don’t think of abortion and gay marriage as part of the family values package in all Christian Churches. My church certainly wouldn’t spend a sermon preaching against these things.
At any rate, I certainly did not mean to insult you. I absolutely don’t broad brush Christians. That would be rather self deprecating. I am sure people of all stripes are capable of turning a blind eye.
The comment I made reflects the clarification. BTW, not all churches are Christian, as I have had pointed out to me. In fact, I know of people who do not feel I am Christian and have written me letters telling me so. (Which I thought sort of took elephant nads.)
What truly offends me is Sanford’s actions while he was governor. He lied to everybody when he said he was hiking when in fact he was outside the country with his mistress Then he dumps his wife for his mistress. I find that type of behavior offensive. Apparently the folks down there find his behavior acceptable. There were 17 other republican candidates they could have chosen ,
But they wanted Mark Sanford to represent them
Isn’t it the case though that right-leaning Christians seem to excoriate Democrats who have extramarital affairs (Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy) but forgive their own more easily (Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc.)? I’m not looking to bash anyone by mentioining this; I just find human foibles interesting.
“Morailty” seems to be something used in the service of pragmatic goals more than used as an end unto itself, in my opinion.
You know Steve, you were quite judgmental of all Democrats when Gary Studds was re-elected after the page scandal in 1983. In fact, you suggested that all Dems were somehow morally deficient because they were willing to elect such a flawed candidate with no morals or values.
So, how do you feel about Republicans who were willing to re-elect such a morally flawed candidate.
The premise Moon was suggesting was that there are many who espouse holier than thou morals and yet don’t practice what they preach.
Ted Kennedy does take the cake though. A level of unfitness beyond the others mentioned.
@Rick
Fabulous points, I totally agree.
Rick,
Don’t forget Livingston, speaker of the house who resigned because his extramarital affair was going to be exposed.
Really, I don’t care about people’s marriages, that’s their own business. The only reason Sanford falls into a different category is because he went AWOL to HAVE his affair. What if there had been a horrible disaster in his state and he was no where to be found. THAT is a lack of leadership, NOT the affair.
Another interesting thing about the reaction to sexually-based escapades is the differing reaction when something “gay” is involved. A Democrat like Barney Frank can survive something as dramatic as fixing a parking ticket for his GAY HOOKER BOYFRIEND. Elena mentioned Gary Studds, who had a sexual relatiknship with a 17-year old male subordinate. But any Republican caught up in some legitimate public scandal with a hint of homosexual behavior to it is out the door.
For better or worse Democrats bend over backwards (no pun intended) to not appear or to be homophobic, and Repubicans make no bones about being homophobic if and when someone gets forced out of their closet.
Remember when a male prostitute was found to have access to the Bush White House? They kept that one quiet. Would love to hear Karl Rove talk more about that some time.
I remember Livingston, but we’re still not sure WHAT HE DID. Larry Flynt had some goods on him but Livingston’s wife asked him not to make them public, and he didn’t (after Livingston’s resignation). It has to be something more dramatic than a simple extramarital affair I think. One rumor is that it involved phone sex which one would presume is of a bizarre nature and that flynt had recordings.
Or maybe a “Morgan Freeman” scenario of some type. (Freeman has taken up with his step-granddaughter, E’Dena Hines).
(Freeman has eventually publicly denied the story but it’s an obvious thing. He seems to have broken up with the young woman in recent years, and at that point denied a romantic relationship with her).
@Elena
Elena,
Please do not take my comments as condoning Mark Sanford’s previous behavior. Were I an eligible voter in that district’s primary, I certainly wouldn’t have voted for him, and faced with a special election choice between him and Cobert-Busch, I would have stayed home. As I wrote on a previous thread, while I believe an affair is a personal matter between parties involved (provided they are of-age, and no laws were broken in the process) I have little tolerance for any elected official who flat-out lies to the people, regardless of their motivations, and regardless of their party. I don’t have a different yardstick for Dems and Republicans.
@Moon-howler
Thanks for the clarification. If no affront was intended, then I’ll retract my protest.
My point Steve was you must now think that there some deficiency with Republicans if they would vote a Sanford into congress. That was the point you made in lumping Democrats as lacking in moral character for re-electing Studds.
@Elena
I do think there was some deficiency with the voters, considering that he was the nominee to begin with. My guess is for all of his faults, he still had some loyal donors, and the biggest name recognition of the primary field. However, I am not surprised that he won the general. The district is very Republican, and Southern Republican at that. A lot of focus here has been directed at “what a terrible candidate Sanford was”, but we outside of the district know next to nothing about Colbert-Busch. “Anybody but Sanford” may have had some effect (he only got 54% of the vote, in a very safe GOP district) Here’s a pretty good opinion/analysis of the race: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/08/truth-about-sanford-victory/
Steve, you made this assertion:
I then came back with the example of Foley to which you replied:
Most democrats dropped John Edwards, Gary Hart, and Gary Condit like a hot potato once their piccadillos came out.
John Edwards is just a scum bag. gary Hart was running for prez. Gary Condit…well…not sure his name will ever be clear in our minds.
I am sure there are others. Kennedy could never run for Prez. Would he have become the lion of the senate if he came from any other state than Mass?
I don’t know. I would kind of doubt it.
@ Steve and Elena
@Rick
Yes, Ted Kennedy was a hell cat in his day and I spent much of my life disliking him. As he approached the twilight of his life, I grew more tolerant when I took him out of political contexts and looked at how he had personally reformed and the good he had done for others. I do believe in repenence.
I guess what I am trying to relay is that you asserted there was something wrong with Democratic voters because of their vote to keep Studds in office. My point to you was, and remains, that people vote partisan for a myriad of reasons, and to judge an entire group of people based on NOT voting for a candidate due to a sexual affair is unfounded.
@Elena
Ah, but you are taking the argument I was making on that thread completely out of context, which at that time surrounded Alcee Hastings assertion that pedophillia is an “orientation”. We weren’t arguing run-of-the-mill affairs, that morally-weak individuals in both parties succumb to (with an increasingly alarming frequency), the “this sort of thing” we were discussing was what the reasonable man (or woman) would classify as “deviant sexual behavior” involving adolescents, same-sex, and same-sex adolescents. If taken in this context, my argument stands….and I am sure that the voters in SC wouldn’t have elected Sanford had his affair been with an Agentinian teenager (as Senator Melendez of NJ has been accused of), Argentinian male, or male Argentinian teenager.
Once again, Alcee Hastings was not saying pedophilia was an orientation, but you can keep believing that. It doesn’t change your intent to discredit all Democrats because they re-elected someone who had an inappropriate affair. And the young page was 17, not 16. Not that it makes it any better. But my point to you was that you were more than willing to lump an entire group of people as deficient. If you don’t want to be “brushed with a broad stroke” I would suggest you not do it to other people.
@Elena
I never wrote “deficient”. I do believe the term I used was “tolerant”. Surely you can’t object to the use of the word “tolerant”…isn’t that what folks on your side of the isle are always calling for? “Tolerance”? Isn’t your argument that we on the right are “intolerant”?
And Alcee Hastings, in his remarks in opposition to the proposed ammendment to the bill (which would make it a federal crime for parents or therapists to attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation), and his opposition to the proposed ammendment, which specifically stated “pedophilia is not an orientation”, Congressman Hastings stated, and I quote “all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law”…. It doesn’t get any clearer than this: Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) believes that pedophilia is an ” alternative sexual lifestyle”.
I don’t believe pedophilia is an ‘alternative life style.’ It is an illegal act because it involves victimizing children.
I am not ready to say bank robbery is an ‘alternative career choice’ or that rape is an alternative sex choice either.
Can you direct me to those comments in context? I find it hard to believe that any responsible adult would suggest that.
@Steve
Heh…. I grew up in New Orleans. Re-electing crooks, adulterers, and incompetents….. you mean there are other types of politicians?
@Cargo
And we live right down the road from DC….need I say more??????
How are classes?
@Moon-howler
Done! Straight A’s!
Congratuations!!!!
How many teachers did you make quit? [just kidding just kidding]
@Moon-howler
Moon,
Here’s the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv-5AdqYrkk
I think we are missing something. There are all sorts of “phelias” including hemophilia. I don’t think he meant to include pedophilia and he doesn’t say he supports it. I am going out on a limb and say I don’t even think pedopheliacs even support it. From what I have read, they abhor that part of themselves–that sickness that creates the monster. Obviously I am not speaking of young under-age women and men who are on the cusp of being adults. That is something else.
I wish he had chosen a different ‘ending.’ However, if people are uncomfortable that some pedophile might use the amendment to trick society into accepting a crime that 99% of the population views with abhorence, then spell it out.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
In fairness, I don’t believe the average “Joe and Jane” Democrat believes pedophilia is anything other than deviance, and acting on it is a crime, in otherwords, sick. What I do believe is some on the left are so “open minded” that their brains have fallen out. Also, I believe that some on the right are so “close minded” that their brains have imploded. But, my original assertion still stands. Democrats are much more tolerant of less-than-stellar personal behavior. How else could one explain Marion Barry’s political career, or Alcee hastings being elected to congress, after being impeached and removed from the bench, as a Federal judge. Now, I am not saying the GOP never overlooks a past sin, but we have a tendency to shun those who bring discredit to the party, or the office. As the old saying goes, Democrats “circle the wagons” when one of theirs is caught doing something. Republicans eat their own.
I never thought I would have an arguement over pedophilia. I am not in the Democrat tolerance discussion but I will agree that in general they are far more tolerant, although not on pedophelia or other crimes against children. I would say that abhorence over these sick MFs pretty much crosses all political boundaries.
Pedophiles are sexual preditors. That isn’t a alternate life style any more than being a rapist is an alternative life style. It is being a sexual preditor on steroids.
Speaking of which, I would like to see that Ariel Castro man tortured as he did to those girls. He represents pure evil.
@Moon-howler
“Speaking of which, I would like to see that Ariel Castro man tortured as he did to those girls. He represents pure evil.”
Ironic, in a sense: Some of us, who oppose “enhanced interrogation”, who believe it to be torture, would permit the torture of a fiend like Ariel Castro, and someone like me, who is pro-life, wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep if Castro was to get the death penalty.
I told Elena the other day that the problem with the death penalty was that it didn’t include enough infractions to be able to put it to use. This Castro fiend deserves it.
As for torturing him, the only reason I wouldn’t do it is because I think people who torture lose parts of their soul. the act of torture strips us of part of our humaness or something.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
I recall a discussion I had with you a few years back, regarding “the line”, “the line” being what the majority of society agrees is “acceptable”, or in other words “local standards of decency”. Recall that I argued that something that might be perfectly acceptable in San Francisco, may not be acceptable in Old Town Manassas. At the time, we were discussing KK’s. I said, there are elements in our society that are always trying to move the line. Sometimes this is for “the betterment of society”, as was the case when Jim Crow and segregation was struck down. In other cases, the “betterment” is more debatable, as in the case of pornography/decency laws. I also pointed out that if the line were moved far enough in one direction, both you and I would find ourselves on the same side of the line, where we both agree, without equivocation that what is on the other side of the line is “bad”. So let’s look at marriage. I oppose gay marriage, you don’t see much wrong with the idea. So elements in society agitate for gay marriage, and after a time, the line is moved, and gay marriage is deemed “acceptable”. Now, the polygamists start agitating, that polygamy should be legal…., even though it is deemed unacceptable, and unlawful at this time, just as gay marriage was a few years ago, and before that, homosexual behavior. So, is it that much of a logical stretch to see NAMBLA advocating for the legalization of pedophelia, in yet another attempt to move the line? How about incest laws, where both parties are adults? Should that be legalized, especially in an age of reliable contraception and availability of abortion eliminates the biggest legal justification for prohibiting incest, that children born of incest have a higher chance of genetic defect? Sure, it wouldn’t happen overnight, but neither did “tolerance” of homosexuals, or gay marriage. No, it happened over time, with interested parties constantly applying pressure, in politics, in the media, in pop-culture, in our schools, until such time as public perceptions have been shaped to a point of acceptance, and then, legalization. Look at Pot laws. Same thing. So, when I see with my own eyes, and hear with my own ears, a congressma, not to mention a former federal judge, calling pedophilia an “alternative-lifestyle”, I can say we are indeed on a very slippery-slope.
I am not sure what the discussion is even about. I don’t think the ‘phelias’ he suggested meant pedophelia but it was a bad choice of words,, especially this week when Castro is on our minds, and we see three girls who were held prisoner for 10 years. Who actually thinks of bibliophelia, anglophilia or hemophilia at time like this. So I would be willing to put his reference of ‘phiias’ on that imaginary puff of wind that allows people to suck their words back in. Bad choice of words.
I absolutely do not think he meant to endorse child molesting.
I grew up in a time when the adults in my world all warned of the dangers of integration. The world would come to an end. Blacks and whites would date, marry, have bi-racial children (a different word was used back then) and other societal ills. Well, our better angels prevailed, segragation was made illegal, and some of those things prognosticated about came to be. Society adjusted and life moved on, to the point that one of those bi-racial children became president.
So looking at marriage, how does gay marriage possibly hurt you or impact you? I can’t see where it does. The state gives me a contract with my spouse and gives me certain (over 1000) benefits for being married. It doesn’t create a happy or productive marriage for any of us. I just don’t think that one group of people should be entitled to something another group is not entitled to. Latest polls suggest that more people at least have no objection to gay marriage than do. The thought that it would lead to legalizing multiple marriages at the same time is again, a stretch.
Polygamy already exists. The multiple marriages are church sanctioned just not state sanctioned. I guess as many people who want to can shack up together. Usually wife #1 is legally married and the others are ecclesiastical marriages. If the wives get too young or below the age of state consent, then the residence state should step in and arrest as was done when Warren Jeffs was put in the slammer.
Incest is another issue that shouldn’t really be an issue unless children are victimized. I don’t know what we really do about relatives who do whatever it is that they do. Restrictions differ from state to state. I personally don’t care about consenting related adults. nothing I can do about it anyway. I care about children.
So again, how does gay marriage really have anything to do with these things? Would you be more comfortable with civil unions for gay people? How does gay marriage hurt you or your family?
I simply will not stand silently by while you, Steve, suggest that to accept gay marriage is bringing us down a slippery slope of approving child abuse. Having know both a child molestor and various gay people, I can tell you, they have NOTHING in common.
Two consenting adults can love each other and its none of your business or mine. I would say that going to war over false pretenses is a hell of a lot more morally offensive than gay people!
Furthermore, what exactly does bringing Alcee Hasting into the conversation have to do with voters putting people like Sanford into office? What does that have to do with voting Studds into office? Why bring Hastings into the debate, what is the connection?
It’s an abuse of power to discriminate against one set of people on the basis that it puts a barrier up against a different group of people. I’ll call that a misuse of law and government.
IMO pedophilia is not going to gain acceptance in the US Anytime soon (despite differeng levels of acceptance in other countries). We should be able to discuss that issue rationally as we do any other form of crime or abnormal behavior.
And, it has to be noted that discrimination against gay people (I’m including opposition to gay marriage in that) is implicitly or explictly aimed at getting people to keep their sexuality shrouded “in a closet”. Closeted sexuality, inability to discuss sexuality, association of weird/deviant/alternate sexual behavior as “bad” – these are conditions that pedophiles thrive on.
Rick just brought up a very important point that needs to be discussed. Pedophiles thrive on secrets and closetedness. They are powerless in the open.
Pedophiles come in all varieties. The more openess, the less pedophilia.
“association of weird/deviant/alternate sexual behavior as “bad””
What I meant by that is that some molesters get away with things because they seem like “good people”. I worked with a guy like this – churchgoing, friendly, charitable guy. In that context people who knew him better than I presumably asked less questions about his behavior. And eventually he was found to have a huge stash of child porn. BTW when I knew him he was awaiting “full scope” clearance to work in CIA facilities.
My posts are becoming incoherent – wish I could re-edit the original post. But here’s what I meant. I do think pedophilia’s “bad”. But arguably someone who had those urges but didn’t act on them could be a “good” person. (Particularly, I would think, if they chemically castrated themself). I think that when we label alternative sexuality in general as “bad” that it enables a straight-laced looking pedophile to elude suspicion. Michael Jackson syndrome – millions of people can’t believe that the world’s most obvious pedophile had any sexual attraction to children.
Email me any time you want to edit. I appreciate your comments. You brought up the flip side of a serious problem. I have had several friends with pedophile relatives. The one I knew about the most closely….you would never suspect this guy.
@Elena
“Furthermore, what exactly does bringing Alcee Hasting into the conversation have to do with voters putting people like Sanford into office? What does that have to do with voting Studds into office? Why bring Hastings into the debate, what is the connection?”
Elena,
I didn’t bring Alcee Hastings into the conversation, you did,. See your comment (#29) above.
@Elena
I’m not the one calling pedophillia an “alternative-lifestyle” seeking to provide federal protection from parents and psychological professionals from attempting to treat it in a minor. Congresswoman Jackie Speer (D-CA) and Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) are. Documented. In the congressional record. Slippery Slope.
‘Latest polls suggest that more people at least have no objection to gay marriage than do. The thought that it would lead to legalizing multiple marriages at the same time is again, a stretch. ”
Moon,
You prove my point. There was a time (in my lifetime), when some states forbade interacial marriage. The equal-rights movement changed public perceptions over time, and in this case, states began aligning their laws to conform with the public opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man and woman of different ethnicities from marrying, and having children. There was a time when most gays remained closeted, as society didn’t accept gays, and gays were subjected to all kinds of abuse or discrimination. Gradually, societal perceptions have changed to where states have dropped laws prohibiting homosexual relations, gays have protected status under federal law, anti-hate crime legislation was passed, and nowwe have states that have legalized same-sex marriage. And while I doubt “accepting the pedophile” will be the next big push in the sexual revolution, please explain to me how once the One-man/One-Woman wall is struck down, so as not to exclude same-sex couples, how defending “marriage between two people” will be any more defensible? It won’t be, if the last 50 years of history are any indication. All it will take is one state, Utah or Nevada perhaps, to change their law, and the next big push is on, with no DOM act to stop it.
Alcee Hastings was part of the quote you used that I provided as context. In fact, I would add that he also wasn’t a part of the original discussion had on facebook either. Alcee Hastings was not suggesting that Pedophilia was an alternative lifestyle. It is republicans who continuously throw that into the same conversation as gay marriage, and I cannot stress this enough, gay people are NOT NOT NOT the same as pedophiles. Seriously, who thinks that? Who believes that a hate crime bill really needs clarification of sexual orientation?!
But, back to the real conversation, which was, why do you put down democrats for their vote of Studds and yet not put down the republicans who voted for Sanford. That remains my point Steve.
Watch the entire debate Steve and you will understand that the reaction of dems was to an amendment that repubs were submitting clarifying that sexual orientation did not include beastiality and pedophilia among other stupid examples of illegal acts.
Steve, why the fear of polygymy? It’s established practice in much of the world. I oppose it myself; it’s contrary to my view of what marriage is or should be actually. But if it were legalized, I don’t see that it would affect my life very much.
@Moon-howler
Moon, the word is “paraphilia”:
From Wikipedia
“Examples include sexual interests that can motivate committing sexual offences—such as pedophilia, zoophilia, sexual sadism, and exhibitionism—but also include many harmless sexual interests, such as transvestism. There is no consensus for any precise border between unusual personal sexual tastes and paraphilic ones, and multiple, overlapping definitions exist. There is debate over which, if any, of the paraphilias should be listed in diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases.”
You and Elena really should look at the congressional record regarding the debate on the legislation proposed by Jackie Speire. From the Bill SB 1172:
“‘Sexual orientation change efforts’ means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex”
Republicans offerred an ammendment, which stated:
“pedophilia is excluded from the protected behaviors or gender expresions”
Democrats defeated this ammendment, and Alcee Hastings stated:
“This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule,”
And if you don’t think there’s a movement to get pedophilia classified as an orientation, two psycologists Canada are arguing that it is. Their names are Hubert Van Gijseghem, and Vernon Lewis Quinsey.
And last but not least, Harvard Medical published this in 2010: :”Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
So we have legislators writing bad laws, creating all kinds of protected classes based on “orientation”, tearing down core societal institutions left and right and the medical community begining to recognize pedophilia as an orientation….slippery slope.
Yea Steve, you must be right, Democrats want to protect Pedophiles, you caught us.
FYI, DSM no longer listed homosexuality as a mental disorder so why do you continue to attempt to conjoin pedophilia with homosexuality?
@Elena
Elena,
Please go back and read my comments. I do believe I expressed disappointment with the SC GOP voters who chose Sanford in their primary. I also stated that had I been eligible to vote in that election, and my choice was vote for a Democrat or a former GOP governor who publically lied to hide an affair, I’d stay home.
I don’t “conjoin them”. Society has changed and now GLBT is “all good”. They even have laws and such that say so, and every day there’s a new law, just to drive the point home. But as I pointed out, in my comment # 58 above, it ain’t just NAMBLA starting to make the “pedophilia is an orientation” argument.
No Elena, “Democrats” don’t want to protect pedophiles. What they do is write well-intentioned bad laws, which create loop-holes that groups like NAMBLA will try to run through, all in an effort to legislate “inclusivity” “social justice” “economic justice”. Panem et Circensus…
Just Democrats write bad laws? Hmmmmmm…whatever happened to those committees that write and rewrite laws…you know the ones written by by parties in committees. Isn’t the House still under Republican control? Hell I was only gone about 6 hours yesterday.