Anti-Gay-Marriage Leader Resigns

Parent Cafe
121

<p>“he says it is wrong in a VERY public arena, using the bible, his power, his connections to the white house, church’s money, it was not a personal belief, it was a belief he shared to “really the troops”” Ofcourse he said it in a public arena. He was a pastor. In fact, let me tell you a little secret, he got paid to tell his personal interpretation of the bible. Which brings me to the next point. Ofcourse he used the bible. He was a pastor remember. They tend to use the Bible as a supporting document. Which also brings us to your next point. Ofcourse he had power. But he did not just steal or take this power, but it was granted to him, by people who wanted him to express his personal opinion based on an interpretation of the bible. So he was connected to the White House? What your point. I thought we both agreed that he is a powerful man, who could get things moving, he could “rally the troops”, in your own words, so sure the govt would like a nice partnership with him. Again, when you talk about church money, keep in mind the money was given to him to do exactly what he did (unless it comes out he used church money on the prostitute and drugs). And so, what did we learn from this? That it was his personal religious belief. The only difference between yours and my personal and religious belief and his, is that no one cares about our personal beliefs and will not pay us money to express them. His job essentially was to tell people his personal beliefs on his personal interpreation of the bible.</p>

<p>“if he wasn’t using the facade of being a religious leader to gain power and control, it would be easier to let it go, but…” , but dont u understand, it wasnt a facade. He really did use religion to gain power and control. But you have to remember that was his job, and that people gladly gave over control because he was a great religious man in their eyes and they followed him.</p>

122

<p>

It seems to me that is what a preacher is supposed to do. This guy spoke the truth as he saw it to his church. And it is not like it is a truth that he made up all of a sudden. This is a view that goes right back to apostolic times and beyond.</p>

<p>Here is how the Pope sees it.</p>

<p>New Rules Affirm Pope Benedict’s Stance Against Gays
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701844.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701844.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Vatican drive to curb gay marriage
<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm[/url]”>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108349.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Pope’s views against gays are long and detailed
<a href=“http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_103/talkingpoints.html[/url]”>http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_103/talkingpoints.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In principle, this Haggard guy did nothing that was different than what Christian leaders have always done.</p>

<p>So then why are we so pleased to see the guy fall? Why are we so filled with anger and hatred? Perhaps we would be happier to see this guy continue to uphold the Church’s belief on gays? Hardly. So then why is it that we get so much pleasure out of kicking this one guy? I think we are in fact upset with the Church’s message period; and because Haggard is a representative of the Church, we think ourselves justified in using him to kick the Church by proxy.</p>

<p>It will not work.</p>

<p>That message is thousands of years old, and it has a very strong biological basis for existing. There is also some serious secular philosophy backing it up. Kicking this guy ain’ gonna do nothing against it. If we have a gripe with the message, then we must go after the message. When I do that, and then turn my eyes on Haggard, I don’t feel like laughing and rejoicing at his failings at all.</p>

123

<p>Oh, give me a break. Homophobia has “a very strong biological basis for existing.” </p>

<p>If you take Biology 101, you’ll find out that even animal species have homosexuality. To my knowledge, it didn’t cause any species to die out. </p>

<p>Take Anthropology 101, and you will discover that homosexuals have been present across cultures through time. Some societies revered them; some condemned them. </p>

<p>You are welcome to your prejudices. I have had to shed prejudices, and one way I did was to ask myself: What does it do for me to hang onto this irrational belief? What are my fears?</p>

124

<p>

I think you’re just trying to exploit language fallaciously instead of addressing the issue. Calling a position a “phobia” without any evidence does not make it so. It is just an underhanded way to try to shut down one’s opponent. </p>

<p>

I have very rarely seen homosexuality in animal species, though I have seen bisexuality, and that infrequently, relative to heterosexuality.</p>

<p>

They have always been in the minority, amongst the smallest minorities, and in every case views toward them were in flux – not so with heterosexuality. There is a reason for this. Heterosexuality is responsible for us. That is the strong biological basis to which I referred. It is why so many of us refuse to see homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality. </p>

<p>

No fears. I am trying to understand both sides without ridiculing either, and without employing fallacious use of language.</p>

125

<p>and his “personal” beliefs were a lie…wow, he was a fake…but got well paid for it, had lots of connections, and lots of influence</p>

<p>if he claimed he was a vegererian and secretly ate meat, well that owuld be one thing</p>

<p>but he was political, very much so, what he did didn’t stay in his giant church, he was very vocal about denying rights and protections to gay people…saying that the bible said being gay was wrong and bad…and when you publivly decry the very thing you are doing, well, gee, what kind of man of God are you…don’t care if he was straight or gay…it was him putting down gays ALOT, having the white houses ear…why should a religious leader have an ear to the white house when the agenda is to deny rights to people</p>

<p>i am pleased to see him fall, because we are seeing those that claim family values, judge others, often turn out to be not such great people- and again its not being gay,its being a hypocrit and using OTHERS sexuality to get power</p>

<p>don’t think I remember Jesus talking about gays like these preachers do</p>

<p>when you spend you life and your life’s work judging others, well, it is gonna come back at you and when you teach and lead others to judge and hurt others, and cause pain, yes, I find it a bit of poetic justice that those very things you do to get power and influence, those very things you yourself have done to do harm, that those come back…</p>

<p>if men like him didn’t talk so badly about gays, and didn’t create a world were being gay meant being bad and evil and going to hell and going against God, if they didn’t do those things, then people that are gay would have safer better lives…using hate to promote oneself is evil</p>

126

<p>Drosselmeier, </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Homosexual behavior in animals has been well-documented. I had seen pairs of same-sex wild ducks in Northwestern’s lagoon though the majority of the pairs were heterosexual. I don’t think you have spent much time to observe animal species anyway. Can you tell the difference between male and female ducks? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Giving legal recognition and protection to gay couples doesn’t mean heterosexuality should go away. It also doesn’t turn heterosexuals gays! Just because homosexual couples don’t reproduce on their own doesn’t mean they should be denied legal rights. Are you saying heterosexual couples without kids shouldn’t get any legal rights?</p>

127

<p>

No, but I have read very many of the accounts of alleged homosexuality in animals, and for almost every one of those cases, except for a few penguins in unnatural circumstances, the animals involved turned out to exhibit bisexual behavior, with the couples at some point returning to heterosexuality. If you have seen animals of a chronically homosexual orientation, which is the basis gays use to make their case, then lets see your proof. I am eager to see it because I think it is interesting. But, you know, come to think of it, I am not sure if all this makes the case we are trying to make, since I am not sure if what goes on in the animal kingdom automatically blesses what goes on in human civilization. A lot of weird stuff goes on with animals. That doesn’t mean we should legalize it for ourselves.

Of course not. That was not my point. The point was that since we all come from heterosexuality, a strong biological basis exists for us to support heterosexuality naturally, above all other orientations. Because none of us come from homosexuality, we will tend to see it as “unnatural” or foreign. I am saying that this is why most humans have been repulsed by homosexuality.</p>

<p>

That is not the issue for many people. The issue is, on what basis should homosexuals be given the right to marry? We know the basis for heterosexuality, since each of us is a biological marriage of a man and a woman. It is a no brainer that homosexuality does not have this basis. So then we must come up with something else. A lot of people cannot find that basis, and they are unwilling to just up and arbitrarily claim homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I think that is what this thing is all about ultimately, And these people have a point. They are not the oafs and goofs we are trying to make them out to be.</p>

<p>

No. But no one is running around here trying to force a law on the basis of barrenness. Were they trying to do this, then you would have serious resistance. You have no such resistance because barren couples do not receive rights on the basis of their reproductive ability. No one does. They receive them on the basis of their heterosexuality – the model itself, since it is from that model we all spring.</p>

<p>If I had my way I would say gays should get married and do whatever they wish. It especially is difficult for me because I have friends who are gay and who are having a tough time of it. The problem is, you got thousands of years of scripture and human biology itself telling billions of people that homosexuality is unnatural, that it is certainly not the equal of heterosexuality. They have leaders who, using the scriptures, are teaching them this too. I just can’t call these people names and claim they are evil just because they repeat what they believe. I can’t do this because I have seen the basis of their positions and think they have cause to believe as they do. I have read pro-gay interpretations of the Bible and, I gotta say, they just do not add up—not textually, and not historically. I have read Bosworth and I don’t think the guy was dealing upright with the evidence before him. Others may think as they wish, but it seems to me I have no choice but to conclude that those who claim the Church and the Bible are against homosexuality are correct. And if one appeals to these authorities, then one has a valid basis for an anti-homosexuality argument.</p>

<p>What Haggard did was encouraged those who believed as he did to vote their belief on the issues that affect them and their country. I do not see how this is in itself so evil when that is exactly what his opponents are doing all the time. It is his right to do this under our system of government. Just because he was a pastor did not mean he gave up his freedom of association and his freedom to vote. And it does not mean he gave up his freedom to influence political leaders. Plenty of other pastors, like the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, have done and are now doing the same thing. Shoot. Both Jackson and Sharpton even ran for President.</p>

128

<p>Drosselmeir, it seems that you are far more ready to make excuses for Haggard than either he himself or his own parishioners are ready to make. <a href=“%5Bb%5DOn%20Michael%20Jones,%20the%20gay%20prostitute%5B/b%5D:”>quote</a> “He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life,” Mr. Haggard wrote. “Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So forgive him, and actually, thank God for him.”</p>

<p>“The accusations that have been leveled against me are not all true,” Mr. Haggard wrote, “but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. I caused this and I have no excuse.”</p>

<p>Many church members interviewed after the service praised the board for acting so quickly and decisively. …</p>

<p>New Life’s interim senior pastor, Ross Parsley, told the church members that for all the difficulty that lay ahead of them and any despair they might feel right now, they should remember that Mr. Haggard’s departure had also cleared out a cloud that, in retrospect, had been hanging over the church because of the pastor’s secrets…</p>

<p>“We all feel worse today than we did a week ago,” Mr. Parsley said, “but we were worse off a week ago. Pastor Ted is living in a greater measure of repentance and forgiveness today than he has been living in for years.”</p>

<p>Other speakers urged the congregation not to look for political conspiracies. If the timing of the disclosures affects the nation, or the election on Tuesday, then that is God’s will, the speakers said. …</p>

<p>“God does things when he thinks they’re appropriate,” said Larry Stockstill, the pastor of the Bethany World Prayer Center in Louisiana, from which the New Life Church began in 1985 as an outreach mission.</p>

<p>“What’s going to happen in the nation?” Mr. Stockstill said. “You know what — I don’t think that’s your concern or mine. He chose this incredibly important time for this sin to be revealed and I actually think it’s a good thing — I believe America needs a shaking, spiritually.”

[/quote]

Source: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/us/06minister.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/06/us/06minister.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Haggard himself has characterized his own acts as being a betrayal of trust. A religious leader is not expected to be perfect, but there is a difference between an occassional lapse and leading a double life, which in Haggard’s case included commission of a serious felony on at least one occasion that he admits to (purchase of methamphetamine), as well as repeated acts that he himself views as morally sinful. The film Jesus Camp focuses largely on the influence that evengelical leaders have as role models for young children – the lesson that thousands of young children have now learned is that they cannot trust their elders & church leaders to live according to what the preach. Maybe that is a very good lesson for them to learn – but I don’t think that is the lesson that the other evangelical leaders want delivered in quite this manner. </p>

<p>I think that this situation is one of the conservative evangelical’s movements own making, precisely because of their condemnation of homosexuality – and I think the Catholic church has suffered similar consequences with the large number of pedophiles within the clergy. The problem is that by demonizing the behavior they have created a situation where it is kept hidden, and perhaps they also create a motivation for guilt-ridden parishioners to enter the clergy, perhaps out of shame and a misplaced belief that somehow a life devoted to religion will absolve them of their sins and cure them of their homosexual urges. What you get instead are people who can neither control their urges nor express them in an open or appropriate way. Whether you approve of homosexuality or not, a more tolerant approach would not create the incentives for the secrecy that allows these individuals to end up in positions where they are not wanted, and where they have the potential to do great harm. An openly gay Ted Haggard would probably not have become a revered church leader, at least not in the church he founded – but perhaps he would instead have gravitated toward one of the many religious denominations that accepts homosexuality and been able to express is spirituality in a more open manner.</p>

129

<p>

No. Not at all. In fact this link has supported my view that Haggard was in earnest as he preached against the “sin” of homosexuality, that his problem was not one of rank hypocrisy. He simply failed to live up to his beliefs, a thing of which we are all guilty. </p>

<p>[I&lt;/a&gt; have argued all along that he should be removed because he betrayed the trust of his church](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3142772&postcount=109]I”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3142772&postcount=109), that he should feel shame. My primary point here is that we ought to think twice before we enjoy this man’s situation, that we ought not derive so much pleasure from his downfall. I think it is insensitive to his wife, and to his children. I think any of us are capable of doing what this guy did. If we ever find ourselves in his shoes, we know we would want others to take pity on us instead of kicking us while we are down.</p>

<p>

This could all be true. I am not sure about it. But I do understand how the Church has come to its position. It is rooted in the biblical texts as well as in thousands of years of tradition. It can’t just throw that away because people wish to live contrary to it. If we accept that God condemns homosexuality as the text and the Church claims, then I see no way out except to condemn homosexuality and require people to repent as Haggard apparently is doing today. </p>

<p>You know, I see the gay position. I have always seen it. But this Haggard thing has caused me to really give focus to how religious conservatives see it. When I saw that guy’s face, sitting in that car with his wife and kids, and those reporters after him, I felt nothing but pity. I’m sorry, but I am not angry at the guy. Yeah. Its easy not to feel anger because I have no investment. But I mean I don’t feel angry about his views either. I am trying to see the thing as these people see it, without condemning them. When I do this, seeing their texts and centuries of belief, I understand.</p>

<p>

This is all very good and practical. I personally agree with it. But now I gotta deal with a bible that comes right out and says this behavior is an abomination. I gotta deal with a Church that says it is wrong, and that has always said it is wrong. Tolerance in this case will necessarily require a contradiction of this tradition. I certainly understand how people will refuse to do that. I do understand this.</p>

<p>

I think if he wants to be openly gay, one of these churches is where he belongs. But if he wants to follow the Bible and the tradition I have been referring to here, then he has no choice but to “repent”. How he is gonna do that is beyond me. But that is what must occur if he is to be consistent with his text and his church.</p>

130

<p>

The bible also says that eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10-11), but I don’t see any ballot initiatives to ban lobster-eating. Seems to me that some people are picking and choosing among “abominations” (which apparently is more a quirk of translation than anything – a more accurate translation would be “taboo” or “forbidden” - see <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Bible[/url])”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_(Bible)&lt;/a&gt; )</p>

131

<p>I think the saddest thing in this whole mess is that his beliefs influenced this man to the extent that he felt it necessary to live a double life. His beliefs did not allow him to be the human being that he is, and that is a sad reflection on his beliefs and his church. To continue to not question statements like “this behavior is an abomination” is to continue the problem. How many children who are being raised in that particular church are also gay, and are being told that what they’re feeling is an abomination? How many listened to the diatribes, his and others, in Jesus Camp? How many will be forced to live a lie and marry, as Haggard did, and have a family? I cannot imagine the incredible pain and humiliation his family is going through right now. What will truly be sad, and what will probably happen, is that his parishioners will look at what he did simply as a sinful act, and not recognize/admit/realize/process the larger issue of his being a gay man. </p>

<p>It’s interesting that in this discussion, many who were happy to jump on Jim McGreevey and his behavior in the discussion a few weeks ago, are strangely silent here. I wonder why that is.</p>

132

<p>

</p>

<p>On a non-stop flight to nowhere, sitting next to a guy with a coke spoon around his neck, Bill Cosby turns to him and asks, “why do you do that nasty stuff…cocaine? It’s going to wreck your life, man.”</p>

<p>The snow-sniffer enthusiastically replies, “no man, it’s not like that: Coke just makes you more of who you are.” </p>

<p>Cosby looks him up and down and interjects: “What if you’re an ase-hole.” </p>

<p>…just a thought.</p>

133

<p>This analogy is beyond bizarre, FS.</p>

134

<p>…but you gotta admit - it’s a funny story. :)</p>

135

<p>It may be that “who Haggart is” is a lying deceptive cheater incapable of being devoted or loyal to anybody and most especially those who depend on and love him:</p>

<p>Maybe his beliefs, such as they are, do not allow him to be who he is (I think lying, cheating, deception and disloyalty are considered bad-form–even amongst fundamentalist Christians, but maybe I err in this).
Anyhow, I would prefer him to be who he isn’t, if that’s who he is.</p>

<p>Should everyone simply, willy-nilly, just be who they are? </p>

<p>Why even educate them, you silly goose?</p>

<p>Oh, what a world it would be.</p>

<p>…still, I simply adore your sanctimonious–if earnestly self-righteous–anger: rahhhrrr!</p>

<p>[Roar pussycat roar!..merowww]</p>

136

<p>FS, I think you knew exactly what I meant when I said “who he is”. It’s easier to pull out your book of anecdotes and quotes, rather than to address the issue at hand.</p>

137

<p>Most Christians believe that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and look to the New Testament teaching on homosexuality, condemning the behavior on that basis–specifically, Romans 1:24-28 & I Corinthians 6:9-10.</p>

138

<p>

</p>

<p>Human failures of this type are not overly remarkable to evangelical christians. They believe that no human is worthy of himself, and will inevitiably fall short.</p>

<p>Of course, some fall shorter than others :slight_smile: , but that is the lesson that will be re-emphasized from this, and not the one that the left would like to have thrust forward.</p>

<p>I think FS’s anecdotes and point is exactly on point. Even if there is a biological imperative for behaviours, it remains open to debate whether all such behaviours should be celebrated, condemned, tolerated, or ignored.</p>

139

<br>

<br>

<p>The point is that he’s a major political force and a public figure, and whether he practices what he preaches is a subject of legitimate interest.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Please, please tell me that this wasn’t meant to suggest that being who you are is a bad thing if who you are is gay. I don’t see any other interpretation, but I hope I’m missing one.</p>

140

<p>This debate to moi is tired old and doggedly affected. Die…die!</p>

<p>My position on the issue of gay marriage is clear. I don’t need to keep testifying in the church of secular hand-wringing to show my devotion to the “cause.”</p>

<p>In either case, that the pastor is gay or straight, to me, has nothing to do with his delinquent sexuality. To say otherwise is to demean those who, while in love with those of the same sex, wish to have their love and devotion legally recognized in order to have a traditional family of long standing bliss. </p>

<p>The perverted dope-head pastor was looking for a cheap thrill–ecstasy, in fact (poppers?), not devoted matrimony or love. In the vernacular, he sinned! His sin, moreover, was not sincere–this is not “Broke Back Mountain,” this is a hand-job by a stranger in a hotel. A sexed-up pastor paying a pumped-up prostitute (male–female, is of no consequence) to get him off with some good old fashion ‘dirty-stuff’.</p>

<p>Spare me your sanctimony–this guy is dirty, not a victim. Not a cause.</p>