|
Oh it's a thoroughly shitty thing to do, that's for sure. And it isn't in any way 'ok' because he was a kid when he did it. And if he was a twenty-five year old man approaching his first political venture, I'd say it might be relevant.
But as PH said, it was 47 years ago. It may speak to some fundamental aspect of his nature. or it might not. But I don't think it can be safely used to read a man either way.
It may speak to the thoughts he harbours, but frankly, as long as they stay harboured that's his own affair. They're probably no different to those harboured by many religious conservatives. I'd honestly be more shocked to discover he has no negative views of homosexuality than otherwise.
I'm kind of with Pam on this one. On the one hand I agree with much of what the article says, but I don't think it should have been written if that makes sense? Some things should, I think, be off-limits. Unless there's a definate case to be made for public interest. If, for example, he was overseeing legislation that made it harder for gay kids to seek redress for bullying then this incident would be directly relevant and of interest.
Otherwise, I think the childhoods of public figures should be off-limits except by permission. Once that can is opened things can get ugly fast and I don;t think it helps the tone of political discourse.
|