Republicans want Obama appointee fired because he's gay

[Phrost]

You've lost me here. Since when does homosexual specific education mean separate schools for gay kids?

I must have misread something, I understood that this was one of the things the nominee was proposing.

Let it be clear that I hate bigots and resent the fact that a large number of them exist in the Republican party.

 

[Just thinking]

It's not true for the most part. Jennings says that in 1988, a 16 year-old male student spoke to him about a relationship he was having with an older man. At the time, 16 was the age of consent in Massachusetts, where this took place. Even if the age of consent hadn't been 16, an adult having consensual sex with a 16 year-old would constitute statutory rape but not child abuse and certainly not pedophilia, as some have charged. In any case, Jennings argues that he was not aware of any sexual victimization of the student.

OK ... buying that, the student was 16, statutory rape isn't victimization?

Again ... I would clearly stand on my original comment that one should err on the side of caution and take this issue to higher levels.

 

[oldhat]

OK ... buying that, the student was 16, statutory rape isn't victimization?

Again ... I would clearly stand on my original comment that one should err on the side of caution and take this issue to higher levels.

So if you ignore the fact that there was no statutory rape, it still stands that Jennings should have done something about the statutory rape. Which didn't exist in the first place and he didn't commit. And should be fired.

 

[Peephole]

There's more to the letter than homophobic content. They also raise the issue of this teachers drug consumption. Maybe some of the signatories had something against that...

When you sign a letter, you're telling the world you agree with its full contents.

Evidence?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

(By the way, if you're the one who is slinging around accusations, you're the one who is supposed to provide the evidence.)

 

[Pardalis]

When you sign a letter, you're telling the world you agree with its full contents.

Says who?

 

[oldhat]

Says who?

Every custom and law in the Western hemisphere.

 

[David Wong]

Says who?

Any sane line of thinking.

 

[Darat]

Says who?

Why would you sign a statement you didn't agree with?

 

[Pardalis]

Why would you sign a statement you didn't agree with?

You can agree with it in part, sufficiently enough to sign it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Says who?

Well, it's not quite Emily Post, but he'll have to do.

In other words, if you really don't think leading with anti-gay and moving on to child abuse slander is a good thing to do, you don't sign the letter.

 

[Pardalis]

In other words, if you really don't think leading with anti-gay and moving on to child abuse slander is a good thing to do, you don't sign the letter.

I guess you're right, a lesson learn the hard way by Van Jones.

 

[DC]

You can agree with it in part, sufficiently enough to sign it.

would you be that tolerant if it was about signing a new 9/11 investigation letter?

 

[Peephole]

I think the predictability meter just exploded.

 

[oldhat]

You can agree with it in part, sufficiently enough to sign it.

Sure you weren't singing a different song when the Van Jones thing went down?

 

[Pardalis]

See post 51.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I guess you're right, a lesson learn the hard way by Van Jones.

And thank you for graciously overlooking my snark.

In thanks, I shall laugh at DC for watching the point sail over his head, loop around, and bite him in the rear.

 

[WildCat]

I couldn't care less about Jenning's "homosexual agenda", but Jumpin' Jesus, do we need a Czar for every social ill?

 

[DC]

And thank you for graciously overlooking my snark.

In thanks, I shall laugh at DC for watching the point sail over his head, loop around, and bite him in the rear.

didnt read the posts yet when i postet mine

 

[Lurker]

OK ... buying that, the student was 16, statutory rape isn't victimization?

16 was and is the age of consent in the state in question, thus the charge of statuatory rape is moot.

 

[quixotecoyote]

16 was and is the age of consent in the state in question, thus the charge of statuatory rape is moot.

And even if it wasn't and he was 15 (as I was referring to in my earlier post), it would only be statutory rape if the man was 26 or older.

Although, in fairness, it would still have been sodomy and thus illegal at that time.