Gay marriage no, gay massage yesFollow

I'm missing how that translates to Opposition to gay marriage is "wrong" because one pastor who's been openly opposed to it was alleged to have had gay sex.

Opposition to gay marriage was already wrong. Jones was upset that Haggard was opposing while engaged in a homosexual affair, but, one would guess that Jones already felt that opposing gay marriage was wrong in of itself. I hope you're not arguing that Jones was saying "It's fine to be anti-gay marriage" until Haggard came along.

There's an argument to be made that one could be wavering about the war, read the editorial, and think "These guys seem to be in a position to know what they're talking about. Based on their words, I think Rumsfeld must go." I can't imagine anyone saying "I wasn't sure about whether gays should get married or not until I found out that this guy was having gay sex. Now I think opposition to gay marriage is wrong!"

The argument isn't Opposition to gay marriage is "wrong" because one pastor who's been openly opposed to it was alleged to have had gay sex, it's "Having gay sex while decrying gay marriage (and homosexuality) is wrong." Especially for religious leaders, their credibility comes directly from their character. This particular episode didn't prove that opposition was wrong, it merely showed the lack of character and credibility among some who most stridently oppose it.

Back to my original point, however, if we're to say "A good idea is a good idea" regardless of the credibility of who espouses it, then the previous stances of the Military Times editorial board (it wasn't the work of a single author, by theway) aren't important to whether or not their message is accurate.

Edited, Nov 6th 2006 at 6:45pm PST by Jophiel

Lol. Certainly if you already believe that blanketly, then you're never going to understand the point I'm getting at here Joph.

Pretend for a moment that you *don't* believe that opposition to gay marriage is wrong. Remember. The key point isn't what Jones believes, but what Haggard believes. Remember, the argument being bandied about is that Haggard is a hypocrit, not Jones. Thus, we have to establish whether it's inherently hypocritical for someone opposed to gay marriage to engage in gay sex.

Jones seems to believe that it is. In fact, he says as much in his quote. His stated reason for coming out with this wasn't because Haggard was gay. And it wasn't purely because Haggard was opposed to gay marriage (although if it turns out that he made up the sex part, then this does become a valid reason). If we take his statements at face value he did is specifically because Haggard was *both* engaging in homosexual activity *and* opposed to gay marriage.

His whole reasoning assumes that it's wrong to oppose gay marriage and also be gay. Period.

More to the point, the only reason this is even a story is because Haggard is a pastor who opposes gay marriage. This is the implied hypocrisy. My argument is and has been that it is *not* hypocritical to be opposed to gay marriage, even while gay (openly or not).

I have no problem with someone simply believing that opposition to gay marriage is wrong. But in this case, the specific argument is that if someone engages in gay sexual acts that means that they can't oppose gay marriage. Which, to me, sounds an awful lot like arguing that all gay people must hold the exact same political views.



Except that's not the purpose of the article. The purpose of the whole thing is to make those who oppose gay marriage out to be hypocrits (isn't this the conclusion bandied about in this thread?). By showing a vocal opponent of gay marriage to be perhaps involved in gay sexual acts, and presenting this as an assumed hypocrisy, many people will believe it's hypocritical.

Attack ads work in politics for a reason Joph. People *do* choose to follow an idea or agenda because of the people involved. I agree that they shouldn't, but unfortunately, they often do. If they didn't, then this simply wouldn't be a story.



Um... But what is the ultimate reason for discrediting the leader of a movement? Isn't it to discredit the movement itself? You aren't seriously that naive that you think this was just to "get Haggard"? It's about discrediting those opposed to gay marriage as a broad group.

I'll tell you what. We'll table this for now. Because you know and I know that the topic of gay marriage will come up sooner or later. How about we see what happens then? When I make my usual (non-religious) argument against gay marriage, we'll see if someone counters with some reference to religious opposition and hypocrisy, priests fondling little boys, and pastors buying sex and drugs from male prostitutes...

And you know what? I'll make the same argument I've made a half dozen times on the issue, and it will be utterly ignored because most of the people who hold a viewpoint on the issue dont form them because they're looking at the issue itself. They form their views based on the type of rhetoric that is created by situations like Haggards. You know it. I know it. It's just a matter of time. This is just one more piece of bogus ammunition that'll be used in the argument, not just here, but nationwide.

And I hate when debates revolve around rhetoric instead of facts.



Sure. But I wasn't the one arguing that it was. It was the OP who made a big deal out of the fact that this editorial appeard in the Military Times. Not me.

My point was aimed at determining whether the editorial represented an actual reversal of a position rather then just a recitation of a position that had been held all along (or a misrepresentation of the same). Thus, it's relevant to figure out who wrote the piece. If that person has been anti-war all along, and for some reason the MT choose to print his editorial, that doesn't really mean anything other then that MT is willing to allow different views to appear in their editorial section (which is indicative of free speach more then agreement with what is said).

*cough* Did that deliberately Joph. The point is that you need to be specific.

Opposition to gay marriage is not already wrong. Jones may believe that, but then be clear that's what you mean. It's exactly that sort of "spread small opinion into large fact" type of writing that causes people to put more weight into things then they should. Another thing that annoys me is when people write things two ways. Smash used to do it all the time (still does, but I pretty much just ignore him when he does it). You've started doing it as well. You're making one logical argument, but instead of saying that, you make a statement that has broader implications. If unchallenged on it, you've succeeded in making the average reader assume that the broad interpretation is correct. If challenged, you simply counter that that's not waht you said.

Jones already believed that opposition to gay marriage was wrong.

I assume that's what you meant to say?

If so, it's still not valid IMO. Because his stated reason for going to the press wasn't that Haggard was opposed to gay marriage. As far as anyone can tell he's never been directly politically active on the issue before (although it's reasonable to assume he's got a position). Thus, it's *only* because of the percieved hypocrisy of a man opposed to gay marriage engaging in homosexual activities that he went forward with the story.

Please tell me you see what I'm getting at here. His reason for going to the press was specifically because he believes it's wrong for someone who's engaged in homosexual acts to *also* be vocally opposed to gay marriage. But that argument assumes that it's wrong for a gay person to be politically active on the issue of gay marriage in *any* position other then "pro".

See where the problem is? He's assuming that any and all gay people *must* be for gay marriage, or at least not opposed to it so much as to publically/vocally oppose it. It calls to question the political right of a gay person to express a political position. And this isn't the first time this issue has been brought up (and not by the Republicans/Right either!). Cheney's daugher was dragged into the election process with a whole bunch of innuendo that she must be under some sort of gag or something because she's gay and therefor can't possibly support her father, a Republican. That one was even worse, since it then assumes not only that gay people can't be opposed to gay marriage, but apparently can't be Republicans nor support a Republican candidate, nor even be in the same family as one.


Good thing they're fighting for gay rights though!

Can a gay man oppose gay marriage? Sure. He can also be called on it, especially when his basis for condemning gay marriage is a Biblical condemnation of homosexuality itself. And when he's using his prestige as the leader of a large Christian organization as a bully pulpit to espouse that condemnation.

Why shouldn't he be called on it? Your example about drunks aside, if I'm being lectured by my chain-smoking doctor, I'd like to know. If my financial planner is deeply in debt, I'd want to know. Haggard's credibility for condemning homosexuality and opposing gay marriage stems completely from his supposed relationship with God, expressed through his actions. When those actions are meth use and having gay sex with prostitutes, I think it's safe to say that his credibility as a man of God is shot and the people who look to him for spiritual guidance would like to know.

Given that his church gave him the boot, it seems they feel the same.

Edited, Nov 6th 2006 at 8:27pm PST by Jophiel

"The fact that he called that part of himself replusive..." --BBBD

Just because Haggard might be fascinated by gay sex does not negate the possibility that he is repulsed by it. It seems to me to be quite a normal reaction if for no other reason than because fecal matter is involved-- while I am certainly aware that some people are not bothered by that, smearing someone else's **** all over your genitals, fingers, or face does not sound particularly arousing, nor sexy to me. Your opinion might differ for all I know, but I can easily see where Haggard was disgusted by his needs yet compelled to act on them.

The whole scatalogical aspect of male gay sex is precisely what most heterosexuals find disturbing about gays. While many aren't opposed to the idea of gays being "normal" in theory or the most general of terms, once straights thinks of the specifics that we get squeamish. And again, while some straights may engage in Cleveland Steamers and all, the very nature of these acts are such you don't openly talk about them as being in your sexual repetoire to the public or to your parents, etc.

Totem

This is the foundation of all organized religion. "Do as I say not as I do" could be their moto. Look at the catholic NAMBLA priests.

I think that's called 'evangelical'

The whole scatalogical aspect of male gay sex is precisely what most heterosexuals find disturbing about gays. While many aren't opposed to the idea of gays being "normal" in theory or the most general of terms, once straights thinks of the specifics that we get squeamish.

By squeemish you, of course, mean hard, right?

Thought so.

So what you're saying is you really like it in the pooper?

Not if he's the leader of a religious organization that preaches about the evils of homosexuality and tries to present himself as being an "example" for his flock.

Aside from the simple hypocrisy, there's a very real possibility of financial fraud taking place here.

Churchs collect money in the form of tithes, which goes to funding the daily operations of the church. This includes a salary for their pastors and/or a residence or rectory in which the pastor may abide while serving the church. Big churches collect A LOT of money, and their pastors tend to live VERY well (remember Jim and Tammy-Fay Baker?)

Let's make the assumption that most "true believers" in the congregation would not knowingly pay financial support to a man who is engaging in acts which they believe to be immoral. After all, if it's enough to get him kicked out of his position within the church, obviously they don't want to be supporting it or him financially.

So, if he either
1) used his salary collected from tithing done by the congregation to buy drugs and/or engage in gay "massage" or
2) collected money for his organization while misrepresenting himself as a "morally upstanding" man while secretely engaging in acts he himself condemns as immoral

Then there's a very good case to be made for fraud. And since these people tithing to the church have a perfect right to know what sort of activities their donations are supporting and/or funding, then NO, he does not have the right to be in the closet while accepting those donations.




No, not any issue--just the ones relating to homosexuality, in which case he can be safely assumed to be entirely full of sh'it.




Not if he's opposing it on the grounds of immorality while engaging in that very same "immoral" behavior himself. If he wanted to oppose it on the "Gbaji-defined, pulled-out-of-my-***" platform with the whole bullsh'it spiel about the only people being entitled to state-granted benefits being those couples capable of unplanned organic breeding, it would be another matter. But since to date I've yet to see ANYONE besides you espouse such a platform to support their objections to gay marriage, that's obviously not the case.

He presented himself as being an example of a certain "moral" standard. And since people were both 1) heeding his words, and 2) giving him money, he has no right whatsoever to continue to misrepresent himself or his "moral" standing while secretly engaging in acts he publicly condemns as being "immoral."







Edited, Nov 7th 2006 at 10:39am PST by Ambrya

Nice choice of words.

Except it does matter. Lots.

That's not what you said when you had that blindfold on in Boston..

How would you know unless you peeked?