View Full Version : Another Right-Wing Gay Prostitution Scandal
Haven't seen a thread on this one (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998?source=email), so I'll go ahead. Seems that the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a man who backed Amendment 43 to ban gay marriage in Colorado, may have been paying another man for sex. (Instead of resigning for alcoholism or to spend time with his family, he's resigning because of "a cloud of accusations." Give him points for not using one of the usual excuses ...)
Is this the first right-wing gay prostitution scandal since Jeff Gannon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27730-2005Feb15.html)? Or has there been one in between them?
Pastor takes leave amid allegations of gay sex
New Life Church's Ted Haggard, a backer of Amendment 43 to ban gay marriage in Colorado, says he could "not continue to minister under the cloud" of accusations.
By Eric Gorski, Felisa Cardona and Manny Gonzales
Denver Post Staff Writers
Facing shocking allegations that he paid a gay prostitute for sex, prominent Colorado Springs pastor Ted Haggard placed himself on administrative leave Thursday from his church position and resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a platform that made him a rising star in conservative politics.
Haggard, 50, said in a statement released by his 14,000- member New Life Church that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations made on Denver talk radio this morning."
In interviews over the past two days with KHOW talk radio, 9News and The Denver Post, Michael Forest Jones, 49, of Denver alleges he had sex on a monthly basis with Haggard over three years. Jones claimed Haggard used the name "Art," admitted he was married and used meth before the two had sex.
In an interview Wednesday with 9News, Haggard denied he'd used drugs or had gay sex, saying he's been faithful to his wife. Haggard, who has five children, could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Late Thursday, The Associated Press reported that the acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted some of the accusations were true, but Parsley didn't elaborate.
The timing of the disclosure has stirred controversy, coming days before Colorado voters will decide on two measures related to gay rights and marriage. Haggard is a chief supporter of Amendment 43, which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and he has taken no position on Referendum I, which would grant domestic- partnership rights to same-sex couples.
Haggard is unquestionably a national figure. Since founding New Life Church in his basement in the 1980s, the son of an Indiana veterinarian has ascended the ranks of evangelical leaders, taking part in White House conference calls, counseling foreign leaders and being named by Time magazine as one of the nation's 25 most influential evangelicals.
Martin Nussbaum, New Life Church's attorney, emphasized that Haggard's leave and an imminent inquiry into the matter by an outside church board should not be construed as an admission of guilt but rather in keeping with church policies.
Under church bylaws, an outside "board of overseers" investigates allegations of immorality, financial misdealings or teaching heresy, Nussbaum said. The board has authority to discipline the senior pastor, remove him or restore him to ministry.
"I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity," Haggard said in his statement. "I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date."
The overseers board is made up of the Rev. Larry Stockstill of Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, La., where Haggard worked as a youth pastor more than two decades ago; the Rev. Mark Cowart of Church For All Nations in Colorado Springs; the Rev. Tim Ralph of New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur; and the Rev. Michael Ware of Victory Church in Westminster.
"We want to know the real truth," Ware said. "We obviously hope it's not true. We want to be open, independent. There's always two sides to a story."
Ware said the group has not met and has no timetable, and it's unclear what exactly the inquiry will involve.
Haggard was replaced on an interim basis by Parsley, who has worked in senior ministry in the church for 15 years. "People need to be patient and allow this process to unfold as it was designed to," Parsley said in a statement.
In a prepared statement Thursday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson rapped the news media for reporting a rumor "based on nothing but one man's allegation," referred to Haggard as a friend and suggested the timing of the story was meant to influence the outcome of the Amendment 43 vote.
"(Haggard) has shown a great deal of grace under these unfortunate circumstances, quickly turning this matter over to his church for an independent investigation," Dobson said. "That is a testament to the character I have seen him exhibit over and over again."
Later Thursday, a news conference in downtown Colorado Springs that was to feature civic and religious leaders voicing support for Haggard was canceled for reasons that are unclear.
For 2 1/2 hours Thursday night, church elders met to discuss the situation. One man, who did not identify himself, said the congregation expects Haggard will address them during weekend services.
At Haggard's home just a short drive from the church, a gate blocking the driveway was locked, and television crews set up across the road.
Jones told The Post that Haggard contacted him about three years ago through an ad Jones placed in a gay newspaper or on the website Rentboy.com.
Jones said Haggard introduced himself as being from Kansas City, but Jones said he later knew otherwise because his caller ID showed the calls as coming from Colorado Springs pay phones. But he said he didn't confront him because Haggard was a client.
They met at least once a month at Jones' Denver apartment, and Haggard paid cash, Jones said. "He was very nice and very soft-spoken," Jones said. "We never talked about anything heavy-duty."
Jones alleged Haggard snorted a small amount of methamphetamine that he brought with him at least a dozen times to enhance the sexual pleasure. Haggard told 9News he's never done drugs.
About six months ago, Jones said, he was watching TV when he saw a History Channel program on the Antichrist that included Haggard as an expert. He researched Haggard on the Internet. "Once I pulled him up, I'm going, 'He's big."'
Rob Brendle, an associate New Life pastor, said Haggard fought to make Amendment 43 only define marriage, breaking with other evangelical leaders who favored a broader measure barring domestic partnerships. Haggard has said marriage deserves special status, while civil protections should be a separate issue.
"He has been the person within the evangelical community in Colorado Springs, more than any other leader, been the defender of the rights of homosexuals with his work on the language of the amendment," Brendle said. "If there is a hammer who has been driving this nail, it's not Ted."
As for Jones' allegations, Brendle said, "I have no question in my mind that everything this man says is false. I know Ted to be a man of the utmost integrity and the highest moral character."
With teeth like that you are asking for trouble
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2006/1102/20061102_032450_ol02haggard_300.jpg
More details. (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=:ePkh8BM9E2IF2mHACrEFyE4yYAFRJUAKZn6qEAOKNUYCnBq8f8_HtSwyXbBTa9uhGB4ATVsOJg/0-0&fp=454b051c769d2944&ei=WGFLRd_KLIvCwQGG-JSPBg&url=http%3A//www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4307773.html&cid=1110834516&sig2=Hr0YBK_2cguWWhde9spYFg)
"It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex," he said.
Jones claimed Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month over three years. He said he advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and was contacted by a man who called himself Art, who snorted methamphetamine before their sexual encounters to heighten his experience.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/haggardposter.gif
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 16:43
The council of elders at his church have launched an investegation. Apparently, Pastor Ted has allowed that some of the allegations are true, though not the main one that he repeatedly paid a prostitute for gay sex. This means either Pastor Ted:
-Paid a prostitute for straight sex
or
-Had consenusal gay sex.
Either way, he's toast.
I feel really bad for this guy's wife. It's always the wife that ends up suffering in these public sex scandals.
whats terrible is that if he was honest about it from the start...no problem (apart from he might never of had a wife - but she suffers most from this anyway) :no:
I always have found that alot of the people that take extreme conservative positions when it comes to sex and "morality" are hiding something and overcompensating for it....
well....something for the psychiatrists to ponder...
is there a Sigmund Freud in the house??? :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2006, 17:07
A polygraph says his accuser is a liar:
Haggard's accuser fails lie detector
By Mike McPhee
Denver Post Staff Writer
Ted Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test early this morning about the truthfulness of his accusations that he had had a three-year homosexual affair with the influential Colorado Springs minister.
The test was given to Michael Jones, 49, an admitted male prostitute, who made the allegations on the Peter Boyles Show on radio station KHOW Thursday morning.
The shocking allegations were denied by Haggard, who told KUSA-9News he never took part in a homosexual affair and had always been faithful to his wife, with whom he has 5 children.
So Boyles invited Jones to take a polygraph test at 5 a.m. this morning.
The test administrator, John Kresnik, said Jones' score indicated "deceptions" in his answers. However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep, according to KHOW producer Greg Hollenback.
Kresnik suggested that Jones be re-tested early next week after he was rested.
Seems somewhat likely its just some filthy liar trying to smear a guy because of his prominence and gay marriage opposition.
CR
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:08
So your point Scurvy is that the minister is a liar because he's a homosexual but doesn't support gay marriage?
Does the homosexual community support gay marriage 100%? Serious question... I went to Pew, Zogby and a few others, didn't see the question broken out by 'openly gay'.
A polygraph says his accuser is a liar:
Well this is interesting! I can understand why a nobody would accuse a prominent man, certainly. But if that's the case, why did Haggard resign? Normally people who are being unfairly accused stick it out. I expect there's going to be more emerging, and I haven't got a notion what the upshot will be ...
Ser Clegane
11-03-2006, 17:13
Perhaps this part of the article should be emphasized:
However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep
It's always a bit disgusting though how things like this always come up shortly before elections - go figure...
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:15
Well this is interesting! I can understand why a nobody would accuse a prominent man, certainly. But if that's the case, why did Haggard resign? Normally people who are being unfairly accused stick it out. I expect there's going to be more emerging, and I haven't got a notion what the upshot will be ...
You know, I always hate this argument, from any side, yours or ours. If the guy resigns, everyone jumps up and says "see, he was guilty". If he doesn't, the rhetoric becomes "See, he's circling the wagons. He should resign and let the congregation/congress/whatever get back to normal until the investegation is over". It's a no-win argument.
The pastor said he was stepping down until the investegation is concluded. That's far from resigning his position in disgrace, Lemur, but 2 points for trying to milk it.
That being said, be really careful there, CR. The minister who stepped up for Ted Haggard has already said that the Haggard admitted some of the allegations were true, but wouldn't specify which ones.
Does the homosexual community support gay marriage 100%? Serious question... I went to Pew, Zogby and a few others, didn't see the question broken out by 'openly gay'.
A good friend of mine is gay, seems to run in the family somehow, he for one does not. You should hear him about gay parades and that girly fag behaviour, he hates it with a passion.
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:18
The sad fact is, we shouldn't need constitutional marriage ammendments. If the courts would quit arbitrarily dictating to the rest of the country, the elected body politic included, we wouldn't have to have such divisive ballot measures.
You know, I always hate this argument, from any side, yours or ours. If the guy resigns, everyone jumps up and says "see, he was guilty". If he doesn't, the rhetoric becomes "See, he's circling the wagons. He should resign and let the congregation/congress/whatever get back to normal until the investegation is over". It's a no-win argument.
The pastor said he was stepping down until the investigation is concluded. That's far from resigning his position in disgrace, Lemur, but 2 points for trying to milk it.
If I'm going to be a good Wisconsinite, I have to know how to milk. That should be obvious.
Hey Don, if I were writing for the general public, or if I were engaged in this issue in any substantial way, I would be much more circumspect in how I addressed the particulars. But in situation after situation this year we've had people resigning, signing into rehab, or needing to spend more time with their families, and the vast majority of them have been found guilty. Some are now in jail.
I understand how the resigning issue feels like dirty pool to you, but it's hard not to take it into account when the "he said/he said" starts up.
Honestly, I feel bad for Haggard and his family. My best guess is that he was deep in the closet, and engaging in risky, self-destructive behavior, which is far from uncommon when people are in denial. And there's something tragic about a closeted gay man who makes anti-homosexual rhetoric a centerpiece of his career. Think Roy Cohn.
The closet = bad.
The sad fact is, we shouldn't need constitutional marriage ammendments. If the courts would quit arbitrarily dictating to the rest of the country, the elected body politic included, we wouldn't have to have such divisive ballot measures.
I don't know for sure, but it seems like marriage in the USA is more church-based then it is here. American gays should respect that, and be happy with just having the same constitutional rights), tax benefits and such. Maybe the gays just want too much and want it too fast? They shouldn't, it's disrespectful.
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:37
I don't know for sure, but it seems like marriage in the USA is more church-based then it is here. American gays should respect that, and be happy with just having the same constitutional rights), tax benefits and such. Maybe the gays just want too much and want it too fast? They shouldn't, it's disrespectful.
It's a dual system. You get married by the State and by the Church. Your legal marriage is a contract, like any other. Your church marriage is obviously something more... a promise before your divinity that you will love, honor & obey said person for the rest of time.
A majority of Americans disagree with gay marriage outright, but agree with conferring the legal rights of marriage onto homosexual couples (or polygamist couples or any other union of consenting adults). I fall into this 'civil union' compromise. Why don't we just approve gay marriage directly?
Because there's only one reason gay couples wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions, and that is that their next step is forcing the recognition of their 'marriage' by all churches. I think marriage belongs in a church and civil unions belong at town hall. I think the law has a right to dictate the latter, but the church itself should dictate the former. If we recognize 'gay marriage', any church that refuses to perform those services is going to find itself hauled into court to answer discrimination lawsuits until they concede or go bankrupt, ala the Boy Scouts. It's this that I oppose.
mystic brew
11-03-2006, 17:37
how slow and how much should gays ask for, then?
Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business. (This is one of the 39,572 reasons Lemur can never run for public office.) If I had it my way, all of the legal niceties (inheritance, hospital visits, health bennies, etc.) would fall under a civil union contract, and "marriage" would be entirely the province of the churches.
It goes without saying that any politician who suggested such a thing would be stoned to death in the public square.
If we recognize 'gay marriage', any church that refuses to perform those services is going to find itself hauled into court to answer discrimination lawsuits until they concede or go bankrupt, ala the Boy Scouts. It's this that I oppose.
Whoa, sir, please step away from the cow and take your hands off the udders ... what possible evidence do you have to back up such a long-range agenda? Gay people want to get married so they can sue churches into oblivion? What the ... huh? I've never heard that one from any gay activist ever.
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:42
If I'm going to be a good Wisconsinite, I have to know how to milk. That should be obvious.
Hey Don, if I were writing for the general public, or if I were engaged in this issue in any substantial way, I would be much more circumspect in how I addressed the particulars. But in situation after situation this year we've had people resigning, signing into rehab, or needing to spend more time with their families, and the vast majority of them have been found guilty. Some are now in jail.
I understand how the resigning issue feels like dirty pool to you, but it's hard not to take it into account when the "he said/he said" starts up.
Honestly, I feel bad for Haggard and his family. My best guess is that he was deep in the closet, and engaging in risky, self-destructive behavior, which is far from uncommon when people are in denial. And there's something tragic about a closeted gay man who makes anti-homosexual rhetoric a centerpiece of his career. Think Roy Cohn.
The closet = bad.
If there were any possible alternative that Reverend Haggard could take that wouldn't paint him as automatically guilty in your editorializing, I might be willing to allow you the point. But no matter what he does, you're going to use that as ammo that he must be guilty... (and 'you' have become representative of the court of public opinion, no offense to you in particular). If he resigns, he's guilty, because he didn't fight. If he doesn't resign, he must be guilty, because if he was innocent, he would step down until he was cleared (which, is exactly what Pastor Haggard has done, by the way, he didn't outright resign).
All I'm saying is that one of my employees could accuse me of sexual harrassment tomorrow. I could recuse myself of my managerial duties until the case is settled.... according to the court of public opinion, that would be an open admission of guilt. But if I stayed in my role as manager, while the case was going on, the court of public opinion would claim that I was abusing my position and should step aside until the investegation is complete. What can I possibly do to defend myself?:help:
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:45
Whoa, sir, please step away from the cow and take your hands off the udders ... what possible evidence do you have to back up such a long-range agenda? Gay people want to get married so they can sue churches into oblivion? What the ... huh? I've never heard that one from any gay activist ever.
Once gay marriage is established as a right, any church that doesn't perform or recognize their marriage will be guilty of discrimination. And just as GLAAD as sued the Boy Scouts practically out of existence, they'd start suing the Episcopal Church of America, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church and any other organization that doesn't perform gay marriages. GLAAD and BIGALA have a history of using the courts to force all organizations, including private ones, to accept their lifestyle and renounce all ethical/moral codes that preclude homosexuality.
I agree with you 100% that 'marriage', as I define it (the divine version) has no business in government.
If there were any possible alternative that Reverend Haggard could take that wouldn't paint him as automatically guilty in your editorializing, I might be willing to allow you the point. But no matter what he does, you're going to use that as ammo that he must be guilty...
Not true. I remember when a very popular Cardinal in Chicago was accused by a man of molestation in Chicago, back when I was a teenager (you know, the 1920s). Anyway, the Cardinal stood his ground, the man confessed that the allegations were false, and the Cardinal forgave him. It was one of the more Christian acts I'd ever seen.
Okay Don, if it's going to rub you hackles in the wrong direction, we'll take the pastor's semi-resignation off the table. Does that really change anything?
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 17:50
Not true. I remember when a very popular Cardinal in Chicago was accused by a man of molestation in Chicago, back when I was a teenager (you know, the 1920s). Anyway, the Cardinal stood his ground, the man confessed that the allegations were false, and the Cardinal forgave him. It was one of the more Christian acts I'd ever seen.
Okay Don, if it's going to rub you hackles in the wrong direction, we'll take the pastor's semi-resignation off the table. Does that really change anything?
I'd even settle for the 'semi-' qualifier you've added. Hey, the guy did something. The pastor that took over for him admitted as much. I'm not saying this guy should get to take a walk. I'm saying we don't know how deep it runs yet, that's all. Does this case follow a distinct pattern in its early stages that typically, in similar past ones winds up with the public figure coming clean and admitting his misdeeds? Sure. But you're jumping the gun by a lot.
As for your cardinal example, good for you, but I guarantee every night on the news, there was one talking head after another calling on the Cardinal to step down for the duration of the investegation, for the good of the Church. That's how it's always presented... do it for the good of 'so-and-so'. But sitting there, determinedly taking the charges and remaining in your position... it always gets villified.
Text (http://www.krdotv.com/story.cfm?nav=&storyID=1316) of the letter sent to the New Life Church congregation members:
Dear New Lifers and friends of New Life Church,
Many of you have expressed concern about today's news regarding our pastor. Thank you all for your prayers and support, and for your concern for our church family. As you've likely heard by now, Pastor Ted has voluntarily placed himself on administrative leave as New Life's senior pastor to allow our external board of overseers to work effectively. Below is the statement that we released to the media on Thursday afternoon.
Since that time, the board of overseers has met with Pastor Ted. It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation.
I am serving as the acting senior pastor of New Life Church. I met with the pastoral staff and elders Thursday night, and I assure you that the leadership team is strong and united. We remain resolute in our commitment to serving New Life Church and the people of our community.
Please continue to keep Ted and Gayle and their family in your prayers.
I love serving God with you all,
Ross Parsley
Goofball
11-03-2006, 18:11
Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business. (This is one of the 39,572 reasons Lemur can never run for public office.) If I had it my way, all of the legal niceties (inheritance, hospital visits, health bennies, etc.) would fall under a civil union contract, and "marriage" would be entirely the province of the churches.
Hallelujah brotha!
I completely agree with that position. The funny thing is, I have heard a number of our conservative brethren preach from the same hymnal. So why can't some smart politico put two and two together and make this happen?
Goofball
11-03-2006, 18:13
Once gay marriage is established as a right, any church that doesn't perform or recognize their marriage will be guilty of discrimination. And just as GLAAD as sued the Boy Scouts practically out of existence, they'd start suing the Episcopal Church of America, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church and any other organization that doesn't perform gay marriages. GLAAD and BIGALA have a history of using the courts to force all organizations, including private ones, to accept their lifestyle and renounce all ethical/moral codes that preclude homosexuality.
I agree with you 100% that 'marriage', as I define it (the divine version) has no business in government.
Several countries (mine included) have had gay marriage established as a right for some time now, and there have been no instances of anything like what you describe.
Your argument holds no water.
Tribesman
11-03-2006, 18:17
I don't get it , whats the story here ?
the hag is against gay marriage , his rent boy gets upset and goes public on their bum-fun .
So did the hag make a promise to marry his whore as soon as the law got changed then did his best to not allow the law to get changed , thus leaving his future bride/groom sitting on the shelf while he himself got back in the closet .
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 18:18
The one group that I don't feel bad for is his congregation. Honestly, if they are anything but the shallowest of believers (the seeds that fell on the path, to paraphrase a pretty wise guy I know), they'd recognize that all humans are fallible and their faith should be in the Almighty, not their pastor. I love some of the ministers and many of the priests I've come to know in my life. But in the end, they all have their faults. They all put their pants on one leg at a time, so to speak. Pastor Haggard's shortcomings may be troubling, and they may cause him to lose the mantle of authority, but they shouldn't be creating any 'crisis of faith' in the faithful. You might lose faith in the man's ministry, but the man's ministry wasn't God, so your faith in God, if it's real, shouldn't be shaken.
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 18:20
Several countries (mine included) have had gay marriage established as a right for some time now, and there have been no instances of anything like what you describe.
Your argument holds no water.
These countries also didn't sue the Boy Scouts and other organizations that don't condone homosexual behavior out of existence. The American courts are a strange and unique place that defy comparison to other civilized countries.
It's a dual system. You get married by the State and by the Church. Your legal marriage is a contract, like any other. Your church marriage is obviously something more... a promise before your divinity that you will love, honor & obey said person for the rest of time.
A majority of Americans disagree with gay marriage outright, but agree with conferring the legal rights of marriage onto homosexual couples (or polygamist couples or any other union of consenting adults). I fall into this 'civil union' compromise. Why don't we just approve gay marriage directly?
Because there's only one reason gay couples wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions, and that is that their next step is forcing the recognition of their 'marriage' by all churches. I think marriage belongs in a church and civil unions belong at town hall. I think the law has a right to dictate the latter, but the church itself should dictate the former. If we recognize 'gay marriage', any church that refuses to perform those services is going to find itself hauled into court to answer discrimination lawsuits until they concede or go bankrupt, ala the Boy Scouts. It's this that I oppose.
your basic system is the same we have over here...except we refer to what happens in the town hall as a "civil marriage"...
but I still fail to see the problem with allowing gays to marry in a church..wouldn´t the situation be the same that goes on with heterosexuals right now?
Explanation:
if a heterosexual is married by church X, that marriage isn´t necessarily recognized by church Y.
(note: by church I mean any faith that normally holds marriage, be it christian or not)
now...
if a homosexual finds a church that is willing to marry him (let´s call this church Z) then his marriage is recognized by church Z but not by others...
if a homossexual can sue a church for not recognizing is marriage (which I don´t believe would stick in court anyway) isn´t the heterossexual I describe in exactly the same position and capable of doing the same?....so what´s the diference?
a civil marriage should be recognized by the state....and each church should have the liberty to decide what they accept or not..I agree with you.....but a marriage is a marriage...and using euphemisms just to apease people that don´t agree with it isn´t a helpfull stance in my opinion.
They all put their pants on one leg at a time, so to speak. Pastor Haggard's shortcomings may be troubling, and they may cause him to lose the mantle of authority, but they shouldn't be creating any 'crisis of faith' in the faithful. You might lose faith in the man's ministry, but the man's ministry wasn't God, so your faith in God, if it's real, shouldn't be shaken.
Or as one Christian blogger (http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/jwalking/) put it (with unfortunate phrasing), "Jesus’ earthly representatives have a long history of blowing it."
Goofball
11-03-2006, 18:25
These countries also didn't sue the Boy Scouts and other organizations that don't condone homosexual behavior out of existence. The American courts are a strange and unique place that defy comparison to other civilized countries.
Sorry, I didn't realize that you were limiting your statements to the U.S. But I still believe your fears are far-fetched. I think that in the U.S. in particular, that "wall of separation between church and state" that many conservatives rail against as being artificial and not interpreted correctly would actually work in their favor in such a court case. I think any U.S. judge would be loathe to start ruling that churches must alter their theology to suit law.
Or as one Christian blogger (http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/jwalking/) put it (with unfortunate phrasing), "Jesus’ earthly representatives have a long history of blowing it."
*must.....resist.....urge to crack obvious joke*....
aww...the dark side of the force lost this time :laugh4:
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 18:29
Sorry, I didn't realize that you were limiting your statements to the U.S. But I still believe your fears are far-fetched. I think that in the U.S. in particular, that "wall of separation between church and state" that many conservatives rail against as being artificial and not interpreted correctly would actually work in their favor in such a court case. I think any U.S. judge would be loathe to start ruling that churches must alter their theology to suit law.
I disagree. There's plenty of precedence of the courts stepping in and dictating to private organizations what they can and cannot employ as policies. This is the whole segregation argument, and courts have never respected the difference between public and private organizations when ordering an end to segregation (I would argue they have a responsiblity in the former, they have no standing in the latter).
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 18:31
Okay, Goofball, let me ask you... If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?
macsen rufus
11-03-2006, 18:34
A(n alleged) hypocritical evangelist -- now there's a first :thumbsdown:
More seriously, there's a reason polygraphs have no legal standing, at least in the UK. It can maybe tell that you are stressed, but not WHY - some people just find questioning, or TV appearances stressful. About as reliable as torture.
Now if Mr Jones had been smart, he'd have tooled up with some cameras or similar, would have made his allegations more credible.
And since when did hookers of any flavour worry so much about marriage rights?
Seamus Fermanagh
11-03-2006, 18:41
Personally, I think that government should get out of the marriage business. (This is one of the 39,572 reasons Lemur can never run for public office.) If I had it my way, all of the legal niceties (inheritance, hospital visits, health bennies, etc.) would fall under a civil union contract, and "marriage" would be entirely the province of the churches.
I like!
Any chance that the Lemury version of civil unions would NOT involve yet another tax -- since the fee for a marriage license is simply a tax called a fee so that you don't remember that you are being taxed again.
If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?
I wasn't aware that GLAAD opposed civil unions, but I'll take your word for it. One reason they would oppose civil unions for everyone would be that such a law would have zero chance of passing, perhaps?
I'm still not won over by the litigation agenda argument. Every proponent of gay marriage that I've read has had much more practical concerns on their minds. They want to be able to share health bennies, pass on property when they die, have the right of medical power of attorney, etc. They want the same deal that committed couples get when they're straight. I don't know, I think you might need to produce some essay or literature about the plans to sue the Catholic Church into oblivion. If that's the plan, surely there are some high-placed people discussing it, and I doubt it's been kept private. Extremist groups usually broadcast their agenda.
Short of some sort of evidence, I'm going to have to file your theory in the "Possible But Highly Unlikely" folder.
Goofball
11-03-2006, 18:43
I disagree. There's plenty of precedence of the courts stepping in and dictating to private organizations what they can and cannot employ as policies. This is the whole segregation argument, and courts have never respected the difference between public and private organizations when ordering an end to segregation (I would argue they have a responsiblity in the former, they have no standing in the latter).
Dictating to private organizations? Yes. Churches? No. There is no enshrinement in the American legal tradition of a "Wall of separation between boy scout and state."
Okay, Goofball, let me ask you... If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?
Because their position (with which I disagree) is that the semantics of the situation are very important. They don't want mainstream society to be able to look down their noses at their marriages and whisper "Silly little fags, thinking their civil union actually means that they are married like us. Tee-hee."
But my experience leads me to believe that their position is fringe when compared to "mainstream" gay thinking. I don't disagree that they might attempt legal action to force churches to do their bidding, but I think that any such attempts would be given very short shrift by the courts.
And if your fears are true, why hasn't the Catholic Church been forced by the courts to allow their priests to marry? Or to accept female priests?
Okay, Goofball, let me ask you... If I'm so off the wall with my marriage versus civil unions theory, why IS it so important to GLAAD that the end goal is 'gay-marriage' not civil unions (which they actually oppose, as they think it dilutes the issue). Why can't we move everyone, straight, gay, polygamist, any group of consenting adults into a generic 'civil union' type agreement that effectively ends state-sponsored marriage for straight couples and confers equal benefits and responsiblities on any couple or group of consenting adults that so chooses to be defined?
I think the problem is the moral point that they are being kept from something just because they are gay and that shouldn´t happen....
It´s like saying "why couldn´t that black lady just sit in the back of the bus? the back and the front are going to the same place aren´t they" (I know the comparison is an exageration.....just making a point)
as for you proposition of moving everyone down to a "civil union" level....I´d be fine with it.....but i´m neither religious or gay...so I´m not informed enough to say if both groups would accept that or not...
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 18:53
Dictating to private organizations? Yes. Churches? No. There is no enshrinement in the American legal tradition of a "Wall of separation between boy scout and state." Brother, please. I can make that argument without even trying... "How long will we allow this federally subsidized institution of hate continue to disparage and turn around the very people that fund it's existence? Because every tax exemption is a subsidy, people, these bigots need to pay!" The courts have no problems regulating what churches can and cannot preach. They regularly rule that Christian Scientists have no right to refuse medical treatment.
And if your fears are true, why hasn't the Catholic Church been forced by the courts to allow their priests to marry? Or to accept female priests? Because nobody has a vested interest in forcing priests to marry. Thus far, the groundswell for female priests just hasn't been there, but give it time. I wouldn't be surprised to find the court ordering female priests in a decade or so.
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2006, 20:33
Well, he's admitted to buying (but not using) meth, and getting a massage from the guy after he was refered by a Denver hotel.
A bit of a stretch from 'right wing gay prostitution scandal'.
Crazed Rabbit
CR, it would be an interesting experiment to come home to your wife and say, "Baby, I bought some crystal meth, but I'm not going to use it, and oh, I paid for a massage from a male escort, but that's all there is to it."
The reactions should be instructive.
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2006, 20:46
Considering the referal- did he know the guy was a prostitute, or did he just think he was a massuese (sp?!)?
And yes, its not good, but not as bad as perviously foretold.
Crazed Rabbit
Don Corleone
11-03-2006, 20:48
Yeah, I think we can put a fork in this guy. He bought crystal meth. Does he even remember if he got jiggy with the masseusse? And come on, a massage from a gay prostitute? That just has happy ending written all over it. This sounds like one of those 1/2 way confessions... I'll tell you enough to make you believe I'm telling the truth but not enough to get into any serious trouble.
Kralizec
11-03-2006, 21:03
I smoked pot once, but I didn't inhale.
I smoked pot once, but I didn't inhale.
'Bill Clinton does not inhale marijuana, right? You bet. Like I chew on LSD but I don't swallow it.
-Hunter S. Thompson
:2thumbsup:
BeliefNet has posted a video Haggard recorded about the importance of marriage and the need to find partners of the opposite sex. Kinda sad to see it now.
Linky. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20319_1.html#)
Prince of the Poodles
11-03-2006, 22:40
Does the homosexual community support gay marriage 100%? Serious question... I went to Pew, Zogby and a few others, didn't see the question broken out by 'openly gay'.
No. Definitely not.
A lot of us realize that our situation is not the norm.
I, for one, would be perfectly content with slight alterations of the laws already on the books that recognize that 2 people, regardless of gender, can be committed to eachother in the eyes of the state.
These alterations include things such as some tax laws, benefits, medical and hospital issues, and some other things.
"Gay marriage or nothing" is being pushed by a faction in the gay community that is NOT representative of all of us. The gay pride!!!, GLAAD type people are usually loud and proud - and also obnoxious.
As for this guy. He is the most disgusting type of human being. Not only will this crush his wife and kids, but he obviously does know how it is for gay people and still chose to hurt them to further his own career.
Because of him, nobody in this issue comes out looking good.. gays or evangicals. :shame:
I, for one, would be perfectly content with slight alterations of the laws already on the books that recognize that 2 people, regardless of gender, can be committed to eachother in the eyes of the state.
These alterations include things such as some tax laws, benefits, medical and hospital issues, and some other things.
This is exactly what I've heard from every gay person I know. There's no indication of a deeper agenda, although without a doubt some fringe types will be demanding all sorts of odd things.
The refrain I've read and heard from gay people is that they would just like to enjoy some of the basic partner privileges that affect their finances, health care and personal legal rights. Nothing too crazy, and certainly nothing about some scheme to bring down every church that doesn't fly a rainbow flag.
Again, without some evidence of this grand conspiracy, I'm going to have to file it with the Flat Earthers and the Eloi/Morlock theory.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-03-2006, 22:50
Essentially, "civil union" as being described is what is called marriage now right? As in legal marriage?
I don't see the difference in being for gay marriage or being for civil union beyond the name.
Well, he's admitted to buying (but not using) meth, and getting a massage from the guy after he was refered by a Denver hotel.
A bit of a stretch from 'right wing gay prostitution scandal'.
Crazed Rabbit
You must have loved Bill Clinton. Or do you only like the Kool Aid when its colored red ?
Major Robert Dump
11-03-2006, 23:13
So, like what if he had only written about gay sex in a critically acclaimed book, would that, like, disqaulify him for being in a leadership position even if he had previously, like, been the Secretary of the Navy? I was just wondering.
Also, letting a guy you know is gay massage your back while you are high on crystal meth does not make you gay, I don't know where you people get off with your finger pointing.
Goofball
11-03-2006, 23:17
Also, letting a guy you know is gay massage your back while you are high on crystal meth does not make you gay, I don't know where you people get off with your finger pointing.
Siggied!
So, like what if he had only written about gay sex in a critically acclaimed book, would that, like, disqaulify him for being in a leadership position even if he had previously, like, been the Secretary of the Navy? I was just wondering.
He would only have been disqualified if he didn't write about giant amazonian sized women who had truth lassos and special non misogynistic jewelry that deflects bullets . And fly around in invisible jets. Thats important.
Interesting clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE) of Richard Dawkins interviewing Haggard. Basically, Haggard goes nuclear on the British scientist. Fascinating stuff. Sort of how I always pictured a conversation with Navarros would go in person ...
Crazed Rabbit
11-04-2006, 18:33
Bah, Dawkins seems to think evolution disproves God, an idea more irrational than those he rallies against.
CR
Tribesman
11-05-2006, 05:27
The pastor said he was stepping down until the investegation is concluded. That's far from resigning his position in disgrace, Lemur, but 2 points for trying to milk it.
Wow that church is quick with its investigations .
It has now dismissed him .
naughty little false preacher:whip:
Yup, it appears that his board has concluded "he has committed sexually immoral conduct (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/04/D8L6HB2G0.html)." I guess it's better to have it out and done with, than to drag it out for weeks.
In a fascinating and insane twist on reality, an NRO columnist is arguing that a meth-sniffing, wife-cheating, closet-living homophobe is morally superior to an openly gay man. Twisted logic? You bet. Read all about it. (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?%20q=NWZkNjE3YzhmNjhhMDk5YWQwYWM3NzMwNmMwODg1Yzk=)
Ser Clegane
11-05-2006, 17:58
In a fascinating and insane twist on reality, an NRO columnist is arguing that a meth-sniffing, wife-cheating, closet-living homophobe is morally superior to an openly gay man. Twisted logic? You bet.
:inquisitive:
Wow ... just wow.
Kralizec
11-05-2006, 18:03
Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
:dizzy2:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-05-2006, 18:07
The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.
The horror! The horror! ~:eek:
Astonishing essay, isn't it? And at least one other NRO staffer is linking (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?%20q=ZWYwMjljM2EwZjY3YThjYmVmMjIxMzg5YzM4YTFhM2U=) to it, declaring it an "excellent post." This is not a fringe loonbat. This is not some wacko posting on a private blog that also supports flat earth theory.
[edit]
Here's the man's bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum). Of interest: He's a speechwriter for our President.
That article will trickle down. Couple of days and Limbaugh will be spouting the same garbage. I'm sure some of our more indoctrinated members will be in the thread soon enough repeating the soon to be party line.
Interesting clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE) of Richard Dawkins interviewing Haggard. Basically, Haggard goes nuclear on the British scientist. Fascinating stuff. Sort of how I always pictured a conversation with Navarros would go in person ...
man....how much crystal meth did he take that day? :dizzy2:
I think the fallout is far more interesting than the scandal itself. Here's Mark Driscoll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll), evangelical, commenting on how much Haggard's wife might be to blame:
Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.
Edit: forgot to include link. Sorry. (http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits)
Sasaki Kojiro
11-05-2006, 23:35
I think the fallout is far more interesting than the scandal itself. Here's Mark Driscoll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll), evangelical, commenting on how much Haggard's wife might be to blame:
Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.
Who is to blame for Haggard's fall from grace? His Fat, Lazy Wife, that's who!
AntiochusIII
11-06-2006, 00:39
Who is to blame for Haggard's fall from grace? His Fat, Lazy Wife, that's who!It's Eve's fault. ~;)
God: this is pathetic.
Prince of the Poodles
11-06-2006, 05:06
Its not his fault, its the gay prostitute that didnt know him until he called. And he wouldnt have called if his wife wasnt such a cold bitch.
Hell, with all these gay guys and fat prudes walking around its amazing that any decent Christian men are able to make it to church on sundays, much less not lay a dude once in a while. Geez.. give the man a break..
Conservatives have a lot going for them, but sometimes their social stances are obnoxious and idiotic. :wall:
macsen rufus
11-06-2006, 13:43
I knew it! Sooner or later, it just had to come out that what two guys do together in private is all the woman's fault.
It's amazing -- first response from the right was, "he probably didn't do anything, think of his family." Now soon as it emerges he has, it's "blame his family".
And I though hypocrisy was supposed to be a degenerate, relativist, liberal monopoly.
Gah -- I really hope Mark Driscoll's wife is already at work going through his phone records and bank statements, cos he sure sounds like a guy who knows he's gonna need to run for cover soon......
This just keep getting weirder. Now NRO is arguing that Haggard's fall from grace proves everything he said against homosexuality and gay marriage was right. Sound strange to you? Me too. I want to get some of whatever they're smoking ... (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGZkYTBiZTI3MDkyMGE2ZjNjNTY4NjgyZmVkNDdmYjM=)
The Haggard story confirms some truths of the worldview he defended.
[snip]
Haggard confirms what we’ve said all along. It is pervasive moral weakness that makes such things necessary.
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others. The more society undermines ancient standards of moral conduct, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation. This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. When the awe in which people once held matrimony is diluted, by treating it as a man-made and thus amendable institution rather than a divinely determined one, heterosexuals find sexual sins of all sorts harder to resist.
So the experience of Ted Haggard strengthens the case for legally constituted social institutions like traditional marriage. Did the acceptability of gay love in today’s culture hasten Haggard’s fall? No doubt it did. It’s possible that the same man in a better time and place would have been beset by no such temptation.
Prince of the Poodles
11-06-2006, 23:04
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others. The more society undermines ancient standards of moral conduct, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation. This is why gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. When the awe in which people once held matrimony is diluted, by treating it as a man-made and thus amendable institution rather than a divinely determined one, heterosexuals find sexual sins of all sorts harder to resist.
:laugh4:
So that is basically saying that marriage is the only thing keeping heterosexuals from slipping into homosexuality?
I find it hilarious that the author equates homosexuality with a temptation. Maybe he's hiding something... :inquisitive:
macsen rufus
11-07-2006, 12:53
If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others.
... why the conditional? There IS NO ROLE for the government to endorse or "withhold endorsement" from any consenting relationship, period.
Maybe if everyone were in control of their appetites the government may be able to lay up on sexual crimes, that's all. If those appetites are not criminal (by which I mean basically abusive), then they have nothing at all to do with the State.
the same man in a better time and place would have been beset by no such temptation
And here's me thinking that pastors were supposed to be some sort of moral paragon, leading from the front, demonstrating how their faith gives them strength to go through the tough times without succumbing to temptation. At least I'd expect them to have enough moral fibre to justify them preaching "morality" (herd-obedience) to others. If they can't walk the walk, they can just stop talking the talk.
so....he was tempted into being gay......riiiiiiiiiight....could it not be that....I don´t know....he IS gay?..or was that just the meth talking? :dizzy2:
but hey...since that australian muslim guy came out with the "those men were tempted into raping a woman"....there´s really nothing some religious freak can say that will surprise me.
*blasts Mondo Generator´s - Meth, I hear you callling* i´m just hoping this doesn´t turn me gay too! :help:
Kanamori
11-07-2006, 17:47
The more society undermines ancient standards of moral conduct, the harder it becomes to withstand temptation.
If smoking anything makes one think like that, I wouldn't want it.:no:
I can't speak for everyone else, but seeing gay people kiss in public doesn't tempt me. I've got to stop thinking about it, or I'm going to cry; these people vote, screw Democracy; I want my own island.
In an entire essay of disturbing things, the thing that the author says that freaks me out the most is his "divinely ordained" argument for tradition. You would think that traditions and laws were made by men, and could be improved, changed or removed by mankind. Not according to this fundie.
As soon as we declare some part of our law or tradition to be "divinely ordained," no further rational discussion is possible. This is the path of the Salafists, the Wahabbis and Cromwell's Puritans. Not a road we want to go down.
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-07-2006, 19:29
Heh, this guy's position seems to basically be 'I really want to be gay, but I can't because God tells me to! Please keep gay marriage illegal so I can't be tempted!' Sounds like someone has some issues to work out.
On a related note, my curiosity was piqued by something said earlier in the thread-
They regularly rule that Christian Scientists have no right to refuse medical treatment. The courts in your country can force people to have medical treatment against their explicit wishes?!
I'm not aware of any court forcing any adult Christian Scientist to submit to any medical procedure. Where there has been friction is when children are involved. The state takes the view that denying a child a life-saving procedure is not legitimate for religious purposes.
There was also a case where a State sued CS parents for allowing a child to die of a curable condition, but the State lost.
It's a big, big stretch to go from compelling parents to protect their children from curable diseases, to everyone suing the Catholic Church for not recognizing their polyamorous Druidic weddings.
ajaxfetish
11-07-2006, 20:43
Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?
The man brings up a valid argument. Surely he can support it with textual evidence. I'll bet if we did a careful reading of the New Testament, we'd find tons more times where Jesus denounces homosexuality than where he denounces hypocrisy. Right? :rolleyes:
Ajax
Big King Sanctaphrax
11-07-2006, 20:53
I'm not aware of any court forcing any adult Christian Scientist to submit to any medical procedure. Where there has been friction is when children are involved. The state takes the view that denying a child a life-saving procedure is not legitimate for religious purposes.
There was also a case where a State sued CS parents for allowing a child to die of a curable condition, but the State lost.
It's a big, big stretch to go from compelling parents to protect their children from curable diseases, to everyone suing the Catholic Church for not recognizing their polyamorous Druidic weddings.
Oh, it was about parents denying treatment to children? That's completely different.
Crazed Rabbit
11-07-2006, 22:06
It's a big, big stretch to go from compelling parents to protect their children from curable diseases, to everyone suing the Catholic Church for not recognizing their polyamorous Druidic weddings.
Some local governments are trying to force Catholic entities to provide insurance for abortion to their employees.
CR
Final note from the Lemur on this issue: The Stranger sent a reporter to Haggard's Crystal Cathedral to get a feel for the place, and he declares in "the gayest place on earth." Not an entirely G-rated read, but sad and funny nonetheless.
Linky. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=100742)
P.S.: Weren't those NRO essays amazing? Reading them, I feel like I'm in a B-grade sci-fi movie where the guy pulls back his human mask and reveals he's an insectoid lord from planet Vugtron.
Tribesman
12-13-2006, 18:47
Well since the title was already written , how about a bump .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061213/ts_nm/evangelical_scandal_gay_dc_2
Oh look a link :yes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.