The WSJ: More Flawed Logic

Andrew Sullivan's blog brought to my attention this editorial about the Mark Foley scandal:

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. 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. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

This argument rests on several incorrect premises, including two deeply offensive ones: First, that liberals who espouse tolerance for "private lifestyle choices" would not generally distinguish these from the predation and abuse of underage boys.

Second, the remark about the Boy Scouts shows that the editorial board believes that gay men are somehow the only ones likely to abuse their charges. Alas, it is patently clear that heterosexual men are equally likely to commit hideous abuses. A small percentage of each, at that - though any percentage that is not zero is too large, no matter what the orientation of the abuser might be.