Yet another anti-gay Pastor outed

[Ca3799]

Atlanta Pastor Rev. Eddie Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church is being sued by 2 young men for coercive sexual contact.

It seems Pastor Long, described by a 2007 article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine as "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement" even had quasi-religious ceremonies with the young men and took them as his 'spiritual sons', which gave the young men many perks such as travel, cars, and college tuition. One young man apparently became angry when he found out he was not the Pastor's only one, and broke into the Pastor's office and stole some items. Of course, the pastor is married.

Why is it that these virulently anti-gay people are almost always closet gays?

I was gonna drop him a line and tell him it's OK to be gay, but the church's website is oddly down right now.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/21/...ex.html?hpt=C1

[tdn]

That is excellent news.

Not for the two young men, of course, but I love to see bigots crumbling their own walls of hatred.

[John Mace]

I think the pastor's views are abhorant, but I'm not going to automatically take one side in a lawsuit that is in progress, especially based on the skimpy evidence given in one CNN article. I would hope those who defend their political allies in such situations would take the same stance when the tables are turned.

[The Weird One]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

Why is it that these virulently anti-gay people are almost always closet gays?

These are the people who think that gays are "recruiting" and that gay marriage would be a disaster because then everyone would get an SSM and the population would collapse. They find homosexual sex so tempting that, rather than admit that they're gay, they convince themselves that everyone else feels the same way, and the only thing keeping heterosexuals in check are the constant reminders that it is evil.

From here:
The social history behind this piece is clear: once they've experienced sex with other men, Catullus tells us, men are unsatisfied with what their new wives provide them.…
The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men.

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

Why is it that these virulently anti-gay people are almost always closet gays?

I actually heard a pretty good explanation here on the boards a few months ago.

The reason why is that lots of straight people don't think about gay people. We just don't. In our day to day lives, in our day to day thoughts, we're not consumed by images of ball-on-ball action. We're not constantly overwhelmed by fantasies of buff young guys and wondering what their massive shlongs shoved down our small but willing throat would feel like. It's not even a question of "what goes on in the bedroom is your business." It's truly just that many (most?) straight people simply put gay activities out of our mind because gay thoughts never enter them in the first place.

But imagine if you're gay. And imagine if you hate gays. And imagine if you've been taught that gays are evil and going to hell and are sinful and awful awful human beings.
You're constantly thinking about gay sex and constantly hating yourself for doing so and -here's the key- you're so surrounded by like minded people that to talk about your innermost thoughts and desires would mean you're suddenly a parriah in your group. So you assume that 1) gays are evil and 2) you are straight and therefore not evil and 3) that EVERYONE has thoughts of gay sex because it's a temptation and a test from God to see just how evil you really are.

So of COURSE the anti-gay pastors are overwhelmingly gay. The rest of us truly don't give a shit.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think the pastor's views are abhorant, but I'm not going to automatically take one side in a lawsuit that is in progress, especially based on the skimpy evidence given in one CNN article. I would hope those who defend their political allies in such situations would take the same stance when the tables are turned.

Agreed. It's just at the very initial stages of the lawsuit, without even a defence filed yet. Way to early to make definitive conclusions.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

I actually heard a pretty good explanation here on the boards a few months ago.

The reason why is that lots of straight people don't think about gay people. We just don't. In our day to day lives, in our day to day thoughts, we're not consumed by images of ball-on-ball action. We're not constantly overwhelmed by fantasies of buff young guys and wondering what their massive shlongs shoved down our small but willing throat would feel like. It's not even a question of "what goes on in the bedroom is your business." It's truly just that many (most?) straight people simply put gay activities out of our mind because gay thoughts never enter them in the first place.

But imagine if you're gay. And imagine if you hate gays. And imagine if you've been taught that gays are evil and going to hell and are sinful and awful awful human beings.
You're constantly thinking about gay sex and constantly hating yourself for doing so and -here's the key- you're so surrounded by like minded people that to talk about your innermost thoughts and desires would mean you're suddenly a parriah in your group. So you assume that 1) gays are evil and 2) you are straight and therefore not evil and 3) that EVERYONE has thoughts of gay sex because it's a temptation and a test from God to see just how evil you really are.

So of COURSE the anti-gay pastors are overwhelmingly gay. The rest of us truly don't give a shit.

It's absurd to claim that "anti-gay pastors are overwhelmingly gay". You are experiencing what is known as confirmation bias.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

There is a proven correlation between expressed homophobia and sexual arousal from seeing gay porn. The bigger the homophobe, the bigger the the closet case. Fred Phelps might as well be wearing a dress.

I've had more than one gay friend tell me that the guys who talk the most shit about "faggots' are always the ones who come back on the down low and hit on them when nobody's looking. Honestly, I don't think it takes any great insight to to be able to tell that anyone who is obsessed with gay sex is obsessed with it for the obvious reason.

[Morgenstern]

I know, I'm missing the OP's point in saying this...but...
It's kind of ironic that this reverend is being accused of being a pedophile by several "young men" and all he gets pitted for is being an anti-gay, gay man?

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is a proven correlation between expressed homophobia and sexual arousal from seeing gay porn. The bigger the homophobe, the bigger the the closet case. Fred Phelps might as well be wearing a dress.

What? How do you go from to make a point about homophobic = closeted gay to describing Phelps as potentially wearing a dress?

What's the connection?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I know, I'm missing the OP's point in saying this...but...
It's kind of ironic that this reverend is being accused of being a pedophile by several "young men" and all he gets pitted for is being an anti-gay, gay man?

Where does the article say he's being accuse of pedophilia. It says the "young men" in question were 20 and 21. Where are you getting pedophilia?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by descamisado

What? How do you go from to make a point about homophobic = closeted gay to describing Phelps as potentially wearing a dress?

What's the connection?

I said he might as well be wearing a dress. Anyone as preoccupied with gay sex as he is (and if you've seen his website, he's obsessed with graphic details) is virtually announcing his own repressed sexuality with a megaphone.

[descamisado]

You misunderstand my question.

Why the stereotypical assumption that "wearing a dress" would be his "megaphone" if he were to come out as gay? Are you assuming all (or most) (or many) gay men wear or want to wear dresses?

[Bosstone]

Oh, don't read so much into it. This is how derailments get started. It was a flippant if misaimed comment.

And John, I think there's a lot more truth to Ender's analysis than you're willing to credit. Some anti-gay advocates may merely be fervent about the Good Book, but either way it's a function of the fucked-up values those communities hold.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by descamisado

You misunderstand my question.

Why the stereotypical assumption that "wearing a dress" would be his signal if he were to go admit and come out as gay? Are you assuming all (or most) gay men wear or want to wear dresses?

Yes that what I'm assuming.

It was a joke. It was intended as a humorous and ironic signifyer -- as a comedically incongruous (and yes, facetiously sterotypical) image for this particular personality. Lighten up.

[descamisado]

deleted

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Oh, don't read so much into it. This is how derailments get started. It was a flippant if misaimed comment.

Yes, but this is Dio we're talking about, you never know.

[Bambro]

Originally Posted by descamisado

Yes, but this is Dio we're talking about.

So you deleted a snarky comment aimed at Dio in order to prevent derailing the thread, and immediately followed it up with a snarky comment about Dio.


Oh yeah, glad the guy got busted as a closeted gay homophobe.

[psychonaut]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is a proven correlation between expressed homophobia and sexual arousal from seeing gay porn. The bigger the homophobe, the bigger the the closet case. Fred Phelps might as well be wearing a dress.

That would be true only if the coefficient of correlation were +1.0, which it almost certainly is not.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Bambro

Oh yeah, glad the guy got busted as a closeted gay homophobe.

I won't be surprised at all if it turns out to be true, but it's a bit early to declare him "busted." Who knows what sort of evidence they have.

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by Bambro

So you deleted a snarky comment aimed at Dio in order to prevent derailing the thread, and immediately followed it up with a snarky comment about Dio.

Well, one of the things that homophobic people do is misrepresent what gay people are and what they do. In a thread about a preacher who had a a pulpit, a 25,000-member congregation and media access to possibly do such, I thought it was important to point out, even he's not homophobic himself, that Dio was possibly flippantly doing the same thing himself.

I responded after deleting because I thought Bosstone's post had a valid but answerable point.

Originally Posted by Bambro

Oh yeah, glad the guy got busted as a closeted gay homophobe.

Me, too. I'm sicked and tired of this shit, if it's true.

[Bambro]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

I won't be surprised at all if it turns out to be true, but it's a bit early to declare him "busted." Who knows what sort of evidence they have.

evidence schmevidence! You and your fancy 'court of law' bullshit.


I swear, you people...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Doesn't matter. Even if they have dick-in-mouth video, he'll still deny he's really gay, and blame it on some temporary tempation or booze or something, then he'll go get "rehabbed" like Ted Haggard did. I think it's very difficult for these guys to admit even to themselves that they're gay.

[Bosstone]

I'd make one adjustment to Ender's post:

Originally Posted by Enderw24

So you assume that 1) gays are evil and 2) you are straight and therefore not evil and 3) that EVERYONE has thoughts of gay sex because it's a temptation and a test from God to see just how evil you really are.

It's not "you are straight and therefore not evil," it's "you are not evil and therefore straight," at least in their minds. "I can't be gay, homosexuals are against God, and I love God!"

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

.....Where does the article say he's being accuse of pedophilia. It says the "young men" in question were 20 and 21. Where are you getting pedophilia?

Maybe I'm reading between the lines here but,

Quoting the CNN article...

"Defendant Long has a pattern and practice of singling out a select group of young male church members and using his authority as Bishop over them to ultimately bring them to a point of engaging in a sexual relationship," the suits allege.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Oh, don't read so much into it. This is how derailments get started. It was a flippant if misaimed comment.

And John, I think there's a lot more truth to Ender's analysis than you're willing to credit. Some anti-gay advocates may merely be fervent about the Good Book, but either way it's a function of the fucked-up values those communities hold.

I'm not talking about degrees of truth. A statement like that is either true or not true. And we don't have the data, despite what DtC posted, to say that it's true.

If you want to talk about the likelihood of it being true, that would be a different matter. I can see it as one very possible explanation, and wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. But since we don't know, and probably can't know, confirmation bias is the most parsimonious explanation.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Where does the article say he's being accuse of pedophilia. It says the "young men" in question were 20 and 21. Where are you getting pedophilia?

Actually, that's their ages now. According to this story, they were 17 and 18 at the time the alleged incidents began, and in this story their lawyer says they were 16 when the contact started.

Still not pedophilia, of course, and, as the lawyer herself observes, not even a violation of Georgia's age-of-consent laws, which require only that participants be 16 or older, both for straight sex and gay sex.

Given all that, i wonder what exactly the legal problem is here? If the allegations of sexual contact are true (it will require a lot more evidence to convince me), i wonder exactly what legal trouble the pastor could be in? The articles talk about "coercion," but unless he actually physically assaulted them, i don't know that verbal coercion and manipulation deserve any legal sanction.

Furthermore, according to one of the articles i linked above, Long "coerced them into having sex with him in exchange for lavish trips, cars and cash." If you convince me to do something that i'm otherwise reluctant to do, in exchange for cars and cash, why is that a crime? I guess if the action is sex, it could be considered prostitution.

Of course, Long's biggest problem, if the allegations of sexual contact turn out to be true, are probably not going to be legal anyway. The biggest repercussions will be to his career as a wealthy and influential minister.

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Maybe I'm reading between the lines here but,

Quoting the CNN article...

"Defendant Long has a pattern and practice of singling out a select group of young male church members and using his authority as Bishop over them to ultimately bring them to a point of engaging in a sexual relationship," the suits allege.

I went back and read a couple of sources and did some searches and it clearly appears that no underaged sexual context was involved (GA age of consent: 16). Whether that says Long was extremely careful about making sure of that (he took Robinson to New Zealand for his 18th birthday) and was possibly engaged in grooming those young males beforehand remains to be seen, as well as the truth of the allegations by Flagg and Robinson.

ETA: like mhendo said.

[Morgenstern]

I also question this portion of the article.

quoting CNN again...

Flagg moved into a home owned by another New Birth pastor when he was a high school junior, according to the suit, where Long would sometimes share a bed with him.

Again, maybe I'm reading between the lines here but....

[Bosstone]

High school juniors are anywhere from 16 to 18 years old, and again, age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're reading too much into it.

[descamisado]

Exactly. Flagg and Robinson describe graphic sexual interactions and if any such more damaging evidence existed which occurred when Flagg was a high school junior, he certainly wouldn't have stopped at describing it as "shared a bed," although that damning enough if true.

[Kevbo]

The big clue is that they think being gay is a choice, and you can pray away the gay. I am very sure I NEVER chose to be straight, and don't really see that any amount of prayer could cure it.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I also question this portion of the article.

quoting CNN again...

Flagg moved into a home owned by another New Birth pastor when he was a high school junior, according to the suit, where Long would sometimes share a bed with him.

Again, maybe I'm reading between the lines here but....

And yet the lawyer for the two men says that the activity didn't start until they were 16. If the pastor had been jumping on them when they were under the age of consent, don't you think that would form a significant aspect of the lawsuit?

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

High school juniors are anywhere from 16 to 18 years old, and again, age of consent in Georgia is 16. You're reading too much into it.

It appears I am. I had no idea of the age of consent in Georgia is 16.

[villa]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

It appears I am. I had no idea of the age of consent in Georgia is 16.

Also, even if 16 was illegal in Georgia, a person who has sex with 16 or 17 year olds isn't a pedophile. A child abuser, maybe, but not a pedophile.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

It appears I am. I had no idea of the age of consent in Georgia is 16.

Despite the fulminating by religious and anti-sex nutjobs, 16 is the age of consent in about 60 percent of all US States.

Only 8 states have 18 as the universal age of consent (including, i was surprised to discover, California). In some other states it's 17, and some states have differential age of consent laws based on the difference in age between the two participants.

It's worth remembering, though, that age of consent for sex is a separate law from things like pornography laws. There was a case in Indiana a few years back where a guy was convicted of child exploitation and child pornography for taking nude images of a 17-year-old. Under Indiana's age-of-consent laws, he could have fucked her, but taking her nude picture was a crime.

[YogSosoth]

Hilarious. I love when these homophobes get outed. Suck on that, bitch.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

Hilarious. I love when these homophobes get outed. Suck on that, bitch.

I love it too, but i think it's a bit premature to conclude that the outing is genuine.

[Ca3799]

A third suit has been filed...http://www.cnn.comNew Birth Missionary Baptist Church/2010/CRIME/09/22/georgia.pastor.abuse/index.html?hpt=T2

[kaylasdad99]

No offense, Ca3799, but that link sucks. Here's a working CNN link about a third lawsuit.

[matt_mcl]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

I'd make one adjustment to Ender's post:

It's not "you are straight and therefore not evil," it's "you are not evil and therefore straight," at least in their minds. "I can't be gay, homosexuals are against God, and I love God!"

Furthermore, in their eyes, screwing fellows and then inveighing against homosexuality isn't hypocrisy: it's succumbing to temptation -- as all humans do because we're all sinners -- and then making up for that failing by penance and righteousness. That's how you're supposed to behave when you sin.

To them, whether consciously or unconsciously, "gays" aren't people who want to have homosexual sex; 'gays' are the ones who've 'fallen' and decided there's nothing wrong with homosexual sex.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

The reason why is that lots of straight people don't think about gay people. We just don't. In our day to day lives, in our day to day thoughts, we're not consumed by images of ball-on-ball action. We're not constantly overwhelmed by fantasies of buff young guys and wondering what their massive shlongs shoved down our small but willing throat would feel like. It's not even a question of "what goes on in the bedroom is your business." It's truly just that many (most?) straight people simply put gay activities out of our mind because gay thoughts never enter them in the first place.

I didn't think about it until now, damn you!

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is a proven correlation between expressed homophobia and sexual arousal from seeing gay porn. The bigger the homophobe, the bigger the the closet case. Fred Phelps might as well be wearing a dress.

I've had more than one gay friend tell me that the guys who talk the most shit about "faggots' are always the ones who come back on the down low and hit on them when nobody's looking. Honestly, I don't think it takes any great insight to to be able to tell that anyone who is obsessed with gay sex is obsessed with it for the obvious reason.

We were just talking about these studies in another thread and you said they don't say anything about sexual orientation. But now you are saying they do. Hrm.

So I guess I'll repeat what I said in that thread. I don't think these studies necessarilÝ show that "homophobes" are more likely to be gay themselves because of a confounding variable--the degree to which a person is turned on by seeing naughty things.

[JRDelirious]

Regarding some posters' questions on what's the illegality, as far as I can tell he is not being criminally charged of any form of sexual assault on a minor, he's being subjected to civil lawsuits by people who feel he harmed them. Depending on the jurisdiction, there may be cases in which certain facts may make a sexual conduct "wrongful" for the purpose of civil liability, based upon one of the parties being in a position of power, authority or trust over the other, even if the person was above the AOC but still a legal minor for most other purposes.

Originally Posted by matt_mcl

To them, whether consciously or unconsciously, "gays" aren't people who want to have homosexual sex; 'gays' are the ones who've 'fallen' and decided there's nothing wrong with homosexual sex.

Right. In that worldview, homosexual sex is but one of the various specific forms of the general temptation/sin of Perverted Sex. Then everyone, I mean everyone is tempted by Perverted Sex, and sometimes you're specially vulnerable to one form and the answer is to fight it even more fiercely (even if suffering repeated "relapses").

[BigT]

Originally Posted by matt_mcl

Furthermore, in their eyes, screwing fellows and then inveighing against homosexuality isn't hypocrisy: it's succumbing to temptation -- as all humans do because we're all sinners -- and then making up for that failing by penance and righteousness. That's how you're supposed to behave when you sin.

To them, whether consciously or unconsciously, "gays" aren't people who want to have homosexual sex; 'gays' are the ones who've 'fallen' and decided there's nothing wrong with homosexual sex.

And that's precisely why homosexuality is viewed (by them) as a choice. Because they are actively choosing not to be gay.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There is a proven correlation between expressed homophobia and sexual arousal from seeing gay porn. The bigger the homophobe, the bigger the closet case.

I don't know of the study you cite but it seems it might be the other way around. The more sexual arousal from seeing gay porn, the more expressed homophobia? Because there are some very straight people who just hate gays.

[The King of Soup]

As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is not a choice, it is not a sin and it is not anyone's business unless invited. But I'll posit, and no doubt be less popular for it, that it is not necessarily dishonest to condemn as a sin an act to which which one has been personally tempted, or even committed. It is dishonest to commit such an act, or be tempted, and then deny it, but even dishonorable actions and motives can be disavowed without quite reaching a state of hypocrisy. A thief might acknowledge stealing is wrong and deny stealing and be convicted of larceny but not hypocrisy.

It strikes me that, if the bishop is guilty, that he is blameworthy for his actions but also is a victim of the same anti-gay bigotry condemned by those busy condemning him. The difference between Eddie Long, and the marchers and the martyrs of gay America, is that he lost his struggle against bigotry, probably long ago when he was too young to defend himself against forces much too close and much too strong.

I'd like to suggest that it's possible that this convenient target suits the bigots just fine, because it keeps the opprobrium focused on the sinfulness of a particular kind of sex, and not the sinfulness of society's disowning an innocent subset of itself.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

We were just talking about these studies in another thread and you said they don't say anything about sexual orientation.

I didn't say that. I said the people who did the studies didn't draw any conclusions. I personally DO draw that conclusion.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

I don't know of the study you cite but it seems it might be the other way around. The more sexual arousal from seeing gay porn, the more expressed homophobia? Because there are some very straight people who just hate gays.

The guys who say they hate gays get boners from seeing gay porn. I'm not sure I understand your distinction here.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't say that. I said the people who did the studies didn't draw any conclusions. I personally DO draw that conclusion.

Ah. Ok then. Well, I think that's a stupid conclusion to draw unless you have some evidence to explain the confounding variable, but suit yourself.