Leading Evangelical Accused of Gay Sex

Originally posted by etshrtslr
the guy is a hypocrite and a disgrace to his congergation.

Another really bad outcome of this will be that many will turn away from Jesus because of this. People need to keep Jesus Christ as the standard of perfection, because He is the only one that is. Don't elevate any man or woman to where they are a standard that you measure yourself or anyone else by.

And another important point, the more responsibility and knowledge someone has concerning the Bible and what it contains, the more that is required of them. When someone is a pastor of a congregation, he has to be prepared to be more accountable to God, and to take the truth of the Bible extremely serious.

This man obviously did not do that.

hey there everybody. been a lurker around here for a long time, but this subject made me want to sign up and post.

i live in denver colorado, about a 30 min drive north of colorado springs where this man used to practice his ministry. i think i can give a little extra insight into whats going on.

i am a proud and out gay man. i have listened and been sickened while this man and his followers have spewed their hatred across the country and especially here where i have grown up and lived all of my life. i have also been following this story from almost the minute it went live on our local news.

the environment here in colorado has been very volitale for a while when it comes to the homosexuality issue. althought our gay pride celebration is one of the biggest in the country, there is also an overwhelming amount of oppression put forth by different political groups and sometimes its not the safest place to be for a gay men. for those of you that remember, matt sheppard was killed just about 2 hours north of here. people like the good pastor in question have only added to the problem, preaching hellfire and damnation about a community of people that in all reality would just like to live their lives in peace and be afforded the same rights as anyone else. in my opinion, the only difference between his thousands of parishoners and the westboro baptist church is the lack of a big sign that says 'god hates fags' and a few protests at iraq veterans funerals.

like another poster said earlier, i think that this is karma coming back to him. this is someone that was so obsessed and 'disgusted' by homosexuality that it just turned out that the only really disgusting thing was himself.

i can confirm that the accuser is in fact an 'escort' and 'masseur' only because he advertises himself in a couple local gay newspapers in the personal ads. i have in fact seen him out at a couple of the gay hotspots around town as well, although i don't know him personally at all. on a local radio show this morning he said something to the effect of - why would i lie? i have nothing to gain by coming forward, and i have not asked nor accepted any money for this, i just thought it was the right thing to do. and i wholeheartedly agree. as one of the several states with a marriage amendment on the ballot this season, actually 2, i commend him for coming forward and showing the hypocrisy of the opposition. i just wish that he wasn't a prostitute.

that's actually what i'm afraid of this whole situation, that the general public will have the impression that all gay men are prostitutes and closeted preachers, or the already 'accepted' stereotype of style maven and hollywood fop. most gay men i know are average everyday joes who work, sleep, eat just like everyone else. its a shame those gay templates never see the light of day in today's skewed media.

i hope that from this unfortunate situation we all learn to appreciate those people that are truthful and honest and good that go in and out of our everyday lives no matter what creed, religion, or sexual orientation.

***while i was writing this post i just got a msg, one of my friends thinks that they also had relations with haggard and is thinking of coming forward as well. stay tuned, and if he does i'll see if i can get anymore insight into whats going on***

Once a month for three years? Wow he musta done lots of prayers to cleans himself is all I can say. Just goes to show you that it is so easy to preach and so hard to walk the walk.

Originally posted by angrypsycho1977
***while i was writing this post i just got a msg, one of my friends thinks that they also had relations with haggard and is thinking of coming forward as well. stay tuned, and if he does i'll see if i can get anymore insight into whats going on***

Will you keep us posted on whatever is going on?

I understand your point of view and is very incredible that such a man with a social and moral standing in the eyes of the people that trust him and follow him, will be deceiving his followers and lying about what he preaches.

Originally posted by Tykonos
I find your own logic amusing

You're too easily amused.

Marriage is the contract between a man and a woman that is sanctioned by the state for the maintenance of the family, which is the foundation of society. The institutions of marriage and family are integral to the maintenance of society.

Two people of the same sex can do with one another whatever they please, but they don't need legal sanction or civil benefits to do so. If private enterprise chooses to benefit cohabiting couples, then it is their right to do so, but government funding is neither necessary nor desirable.

The argument that elderly or infertile couples can marry, but cannot procreate is often brought up, but such an argument is morally corrupt, as those who in such condition who marry do so out of respect for the institution of marriage and society and, also, it sometimes occurs that such couples do produce offspring.

The institutions of marriage and family in American society are in bad enough shape, as it is, without corrupting the notion even more by allowing just anyone to marry.

We can't blame homosexuals for the state of these institutions, but their well-being will not be enhanced by granting marriage benefits to homosexuals. There is simply no reason for society to sanction unions between members of the same sex.

It would be better for society to cease to sanction any union than it would be to sanction same-sex unions.

[edit on 2006/11/3 by GradyPhilpott]

That is a powerful argument Grady, but I still disagree.

Even my pastor has said, although I'm sure he would never condone gay marriage, that a married couple without children is a family. My earlier post about "church marriage" vs. "civil marriage" still stands, imo.

I think it is discriminatory to deny same sex partners in a committed, long term relationship the same civil benefits afforded to opposite sex partners under the same circumstances. As you said, same sex partners are not responsible for the destruction of the nuclear family. There are other, far more sinister forces at work there, again, imo.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree about this, and, of course, I respect your opinion.

Well we know already were Grady stands when it comes to gays.

But in may case I don't care, homosexuality doesn't bother me, their way of life doesn't bother me, their social status bothers me because the so many self righteous that always have something to say about morality.

Their unions together doesn't bother me.

If I don't like prostitution I don't go to where prostitutes are so if you don't like gays stop looking for them.

I don't like religion so I don't look for churches.

We all have free will, so you stay out of my life and I will stay out of yours.

I do not impose brand of morality on anyone just because I do not agree with their views and life choices.

That sounds all well and good and magnanimous on your part, marg, but whether or not you agree with gay marriage, if they are legal, you and everyone else will pay the tab.

Also, my position on gays is not revealed in my position on marriage.

I believe in equal rights for all, but marriage between two men makes no more sense than a marriage between a woman and a petunia.

[edit on 2006/11/3 by GradyPhilpott]

Yes.

Now aren't same sex partners in committed long term relationships already paying the tab for their opposite sex counterparts cohabitating under the same circumstances?

That's why I think it is discriminatory not to allow same sex civil unions the same benefits as opposite sex civil unions.

I'm not promoting same sex unions, I'm promoting equal treatment under the law.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
That sound all well and good and magnanimous on your part, marg,

Grady, well thanks I do respect your opinions on the issue you know.

but whether or not you agree with gay marriage, if they are legal, you and everyone else will pay the tab.

Why? Grady I got my life I live very happy, why will that affect me?

I have two children and if one of them tells me that he or she is homosexual, what I am suppouse to do, kill them, scream at them, stop loving them, hate them, banish them from my life?

I cannot, I have to deal with it and get on with life.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by marg6043]

grady.. your arguments are very similar to what the pastor has been quoted as saying. and, nothing personal, but they are similar to the arguments against allowing mixed race marriages that occured a few decades ago.

personally, i don't care if its specifically called marriage. i just want to be able to have the right to visit the love of my life in the icu if he's in a car accident or some similar situation. if i'm dying i want my wishes to be followed and not be able to be overturned by an overzealous family member who hasn't been a part of my life for 20 years but suddenly wants a piece of my estate. if you read the laws, at least here in my state, it is quite easy to overturn a will, living or otherwise, if you are an immediate family member and the property that is being contested is being given to someone who is not.

call it civil unions, domestic partnership, whatever. you don't need to call it marriage. just allow me to have my own pursuit of happiness as is allowed to me by the national constitution.

and maybe, if this wasn't so politically and culturally argued, people like haggard would not have been given the chance to decieve and ultimately shame those people that had followed in his footsteps.

I don't agree that my arguments are in a the same class as those against mixed-race marriage. There is nothing race-based about my argument, which is from a societal perspective and not from a personal one.

I agree that your wishes should be followed as to your life and your property under all circumstances. There are legislative ways to deal with those issues, besides marriage, that are far easier to attain than the marriage issue ever will be and that hold fewer costs to society.

Society cannot benefit the individual unless most individuals benefit the society. If we all want to take without giving, then there will be no one to give.

Tradition has taught that the individual must be willing to sacrifice all to benefit the whole and that when it comes to survival, the women and children take precedence.

We are losing this perspective and the future does not bode well for the society that does not hold these principles dear.

I'm loving all of this. hehe
I don't care much for him considering all of the stuff he's been spouting over the years, and he deserves anything he gets, guilty or not.

I completely agree with the sentiments you express above, Grady. I think you know that.

I'm just not convinced same sex civil unions are the correct arena for their application.

Divorce courts, the foster care system, tort law, abuse of power in the political process, by all means, yes, they are in need of reform.

I think tolerance and equal protection for same sex civil unions under the law might actually be a good thing for society.

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this, but in some parts of the world "gay" marriage has and I believe still is acceptable. I know of particular in Africa where two women would get married, one taking the role of the "man." They might have a child via a "donor" and one of the women would be considered the father.

So, it might not be acceptable in America right now, but to say that such a rule applies to all societies, is, well, absurd.

But, traditions change, and so might the tradition of marriage in America.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Is this Mark Foley II? What is going on behind the scenes in this country? Is every person in a powerful position, espousing their obligatory views, secretly practicing the very things they rail against in public? It certainly seems so.

What's next? Will we find out the head of the NOW is a transsexual? Will Tom Cruise and Oprah come out and admit they are gay? (wait, that wouldn't be a big surprise)

How much more of these seedy, unseemly revelations can the American public take before our confidence in the swiss cheesy facade of the public and private decency of high officials and celebrities completely unravels?

As you can probably tell, mine already has.

The Mark Foley issue was disturbing because it involved juveniles that were interns under his leadership. Foley's issue would be just as disturbing if it was a 16yr old female he was text messaging.

I don't care what a celebrity does and with who. I can see why this would be disturbing to a members of the evangelical church. As far as politicians I just want them to go to work, represent their people and make sound decisions. Whatever they want to do on their time is up to them ... as long as it's legal.

My personal opinion is that gays should be allowed to marry. Why are people so scared by what 2 people are doing in the privacy of their own home? Why are we so bitter against 2 people having a happy relationship? The gay-marriage issue has been shut down a few times here in California ... normally under the auspices of "protecting marriage". Give me a break ... protecting marriage.

When I can get hitched in a drive through in Vegas and a week later go through a different drive thru for a divorce ... I don't see where society has proected the sanctity of marriage. When about 40% of marriages end in divorce what sanctity is being protected?

If you have religious reasons for being against gay marriage, that's fine but it has nothing to do with a civil union of "marriage" being recognized by a state government.

Marriage is an institutiaon created by society to serve a ritual purpose. That purpose is to show the union of 2 or more loving individuals, nothing more. As societies change, so must their rituals, otherwise there is risk of society not progressing. Marriage has nothing to do with children, they are just a byproduct, despite Grady's vague explaination of why infertile couples can be married and gay's cannot.

And that whole mam+man = man+petunia thing, Grady? What's that about. Are you saying that gay men have the emotional commitment of a flower? or that they deserve the same rights as a flower, and not a person? I don't get what you mean.

I have known some women who would have been far better off being married to a petunia Grady.

It really isn't the gender of who we love...it is the fact that we make the effort that is important.

As for this pastor...I have neither patience nor sympathy for him. I have been an openly bisexual male since my late teens and I will be 51 next month. My preference leans towards women but I have had male lovers too...I know who and what I am but these people who are so into denial and self-loathing that they actively work the people and causes that they use or benefit from are disgusting.

Trying to cover his ass he told his church that he bought meth but never used it...paid the man for back-rubs but never had sex....BULLHOOEY.

The man renounced in his ambitions the keynote of Christs teachings....compassion.

Without compassion we are no better than our prejudices.

BTW westpoint religion is not a scam...it speaks to some of the deepest longings and hopes of the human heart and as such has a deep and profound impact both on the human soul and society. That is not to say that there are not fools, crooks and scammers in the ranks of the clergy...of course there is...but what religion, or spirituality speaks of is not. Unfortunately most people fail to understand that most religious writings are best understood as metaphors so you have Christians looking for a rapture...Jews looking for a Messiah and Moslem's looking forward to 70 virgins.

It certainly appears hyprocrisy and deception are the hallmarks of the republican agenda. We can see the value of Bush's personal moral authority.