Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested on a lewdness charge for propositioning a male plainclothes policeman outside a hotel, police said.

Lonnie Latham, senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, was booked into Oklahoma County Jail Tuesday night on a misdemeanor charge of offering to engage in an act of lewdness, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker said. Latham was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.

Latham, who has spoken out against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded, Becker said.

Yet another case of someone who has spoken out vehemently against homosexuality in the past being caught in participating (or attempting to participate) in what they claim to despise.

I question how we can be expected to take seriously the arguments of anti-gay people against homosexuality when they're doing it themselves. Not to say that every anti-gay person is, but it does make one suspicious that there may be truth to the claim that those who bark the loudest are the one's most afraid of getting caught in it themselves.

Comments?

Here's the rest of the article:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/010406lewdPastor.htm

[John Galt]

While some people love to see moralists fail (for example, Rush being addicted to drugs, or "The Book of Virtues" author and his gambling habit) it does not necessarily mean that what they say is wrong in the least. Nor does it speak for nearly all of the other moralits who, while they may have failings, do not have the same as the above. In other words, you can't really say that you can't take "anti-homosexual" arguments seriously just because one or a few people who make them are homosexual themselves. You don't take them seriously in the first place because you are a homosexual yourself, and therefore biased, and, more importantly, the arguments are, by and large relativly lacking in substance.

[F'losrix]

<--- Continues to ignore John Galt.

[00timh]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) An executive committee member of the Southern Baptist Convention was arrested on a lewdness charge for propositioning a male plainclothes policeman outside a hotel, police said.

Lonnie Latham, senior pastor at South Tulsa Baptist Church, was booked into Oklahoma County Jail Tuesday night on a misdemeanor charge of offering to engage in an act of lewdness, police Capt. Jeffrey Becker said. Latham was released on $500 bail Wednesday afternoon.

Latham, who has spoken out against homosexuality, asked the officer to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. Latham was arrested and his 2005 Mercedes automobile was impounded, Becker said.

Yet another case of someone who has spoken out vehemently against homosexuality in the past being caught in participating (or attempting to participate) in what they claim to despise.

I question how we can be expected to take seriously the arguments of anti-gay people against homosexuality when they're doing it themselves. Not to say that every anti-gay person is, but it does make one suspicious that there may be truth to the claim that those who bark the loudest are the one's most afraid of getting caught in it themselves.

Comments?

Here's the rest of the article:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/010406lewdPastor.htm Obviously there will be some who in attempts to cover up their own homosexuality, or in the case of this Baptist minister was probably using his anti gay rhetoric to kep himself hidden, or had not come to fully accept himself or whatever. I wouldn't base too much on this.

[SavannahMan]

Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.

people who go around preaching anti-gay ideas but are actually engaging in gay activity themselves are both self-hating and hypocritical closeted homosexuals. they are the pathetic ones, as well as those who share their insane and obviously flawed logic. no one is saying all homophobes are closet cases, but the ones who are have the potential to severely damage the credibility of the anti-gay 'movement' or whatever. and that i think was skeptical's point. how can you take people like this seriously when they obviously can't even adhere to their own professed principles. especially since this is not an isolated incident, its actually become a fairly common scenario

[John Galt]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.

people who go around preaching anti-gay ideas but are actually engaging in gay activity themselves are both self-hating and hypocritical closeted homosexuals. they are the pathetic ones, as well as those who share their insane and obviously flawed logic. no one is saying all homophobes are closet cases, but the ones who are have the potential to severely damage the credibility of the anti-gay 'movement' or whatever. and that i think was skeptical's point. how can you take people like this seriously when they obviously can't even adhere to their own professed principles. especially since this is not an isolated incident, its actually become a fairly common scenario

I know it isn't fairly common. Furthermore, if someone preaches something is wrong, and they do it, does it make the action any less wrong? No, it does not make the action any less wrong in the least.

I am not saying homosexality is wrong in any sense, but I am saying that just because someone has some sort of failing it does not collapse the entire argument. Moreoever, just because one or maybe a few people have this same failing it does not mean that everyone else -- who have no such failing -- are wrong. Finally, what if these hypocrites are still right? Is Rush right when he says that drugs are bad, even if he himself was addited? I would say yes, but if you say no, you would have to argue that as a whole, drugs are never bad, and never mention Rush. Whether or not he can't take his own advice is immaterial to the subject at hand. Anyway, homosexuals are not going to listen to a man who says that they are doing something that is a moral wrong and a mortal sin, and will only mock the man who says this but then falls to the sin. Rather mean if you ask me, and it is at least disingenous to claim that you can't take someone seriously if they don't do what they say. You wouldn't take him seriously if he did do what he said.

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.

people who go around preaching anti-gay ideas but are actually engaging in gay activity themselves are both self-hating and hypocritical closeted homosexuals. they are the pathetic ones, as well as those who share their insane and obviously flawed logic. no one is saying all homophobes are closet cases, but the ones who are have the potential to severely damage the credibility of the anti-gay 'movement' or whatever. and that i think was skeptical's point. how can you take people like this seriously when they obviously can't even adhere to their own professed principles. especially since this is not an isolated incident, its actually become a fairly common scenario

I know it isn't fairly common. Furthermore, if someone preaches something is wrong, and they do it, does it make the action any less wrong? No, it does not make the action any less wrong in the least.

I am not saying homosexality is wrong in any sense, but I am saying that just because someone has some sort of failing it does not collapse the entire argument. Moreoever, just because one or maybe a few people have this same failing it does not mean that everyone else -- who have no such failing -- are wrong. Finally, what if these hypocrites are still right? Is Rush right when he says that drugs are bad, even if he himself was addited? I would say yes, but if you say no, you would have to argue that as a whole, drugs are never bad, and never mention Rush. Whether or not he can't take his own advice is immaterial to the subject at hand. Anyway, homosexuals are not going to listen to a man who says that they are doing something that is a moral wrong and a mortal sin, and will only mock the man who says this but then falls to the sin. Rather mean if you ask me, and it is at least disingenous to claim that you can't take someone seriously if they don't do what they say. You wouldn't take him seriously if he did do what he said.

Its hard for me to believe any open minded objective person would take someone seriously if they were shown to be a complete hypocrite. I'm not talking about their arguements in general, but them as the carrier of those arguements. And when prominent people who preach anti-gay ideas are shown to be hypocrites, it can hurt the entire cause regardless of the merits of their ideas. it doesn't defeat any arguement, but its not exactly great publicity. its like if a prominent gay man were to tell everyone that gays are capable of being in a monogamous relationships that are real and is later discovered to have several lovers, it doesn't look good for gay people. it doesn't mean that all gay people are like that or that his arguements held no water, but it hurts his cause nonetheless. however, regarding these folks who often make it a big part of their lives to be anti-gay and are revealed to have gay lovers, it sometimes can make you wonder about the merits of some of their arguements (ex: sexual orientation is a choice). why would these people willingly choose to engage in gay relationships when they are so against homosexuality and profess it to be but a mere choice of morality? either way, the more prominent anti-gay people who are discovered to be having gay relationships, the worse it looks for the message they were trying to deliver

[F'losrix]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: people who go around preaching anti-gay ideas but are actually engaging in gay activity themselves are both self-hating and hypocritical closeted homosexuals. they are the pathetic ones, as well as those who share their insane and obviously flawed logic. no one is saying all homophobes are closet cases, but the ones who are have the potential to severely damage the credibility of the anti-gay 'movement' or whatever. and that i think was skeptical's point.
That was precisely my point. Glad to know someone in here actually has good reading comprehension!

[F'losrix]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Its hard for me to believe any open minded objective person would take someone seriously if they were shown to be a complete hypocrite. I'm not talking about their arguements in general, but them as the carrier of those arguements. And when prominent people who preach anti-gay ideas are shown to be hypocrites, it can hurt the entire cause regardless of the merits of their ideas. it doesn't defeat any arguement, but its not exactly great publicity. its like if a prominent gay man were to tell everyone that gays are capable of being in a monogamous relationships that are real and is later discovered to have several lovers, it doesn't look good for gay people. it doesn't mean that all gay people are like that or that his arguements held no water, but it hurts his cause nonetheless. however, regarding these folks who often make it a big part of their lives to be anti-gay and are revealed to have gay lovers, it sometimes can make you wonder about the merits of some of their arguements (ex: sexual orientation is a choice). why would these people willingly choose to engage in gay relationships when they are so against homosexuality and profess it to be but a mere choice of morality? either way, the more prominent anti-gay people who are discovered to be having gay relationships, the worse it looks for the message they were trying to deliver
Excellent. Yes, this was exactly what I was trying to get at. Perhaps i just didn't say it very well.

[John Galt]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.

people who go around preaching anti-gay ideas but are actually engaging in gay activity themselves are both self-hating and hypocritical closeted homosexuals. they are the pathetic ones, as well as those who share their insane and obviously flawed logic. no one is saying all homophobes are closet cases, but the ones who are have the potential to severely damage the credibility of the anti-gay 'movement' or whatever. and that i think was skeptical's point. how can you take people like this seriously when they obviously can't even adhere to their own professed principles. especially since this is not an isolated incident, its actually become a fairly common scenario

I know it isn't fairly common. Furthermore, if someone preaches something is wrong, and they do it, does it make the action any less wrong? No, it does not make the action any less wrong in the least.

I am not saying homosexality is wrong in any sense, but I am saying that just because someone has some sort of failing it does not collapse the entire argument. Moreoever, just because one or maybe a few people have this same failing it does not mean that everyone else -- who have no such failing -- are wrong. Finally, what if these hypocrites are still right? Is Rush right when he says that drugs are bad, even if he himself was addited? I would say yes, but if you say no, you would have to argue that as a whole, drugs are never bad, and never mention Rush. Whether or not he can't take his own advice is immaterial to the subject at hand. Anyway, homosexuals are not going to listen to a man who says that they are doing something that is a moral wrong and a mortal sin, and will only mock the man who says this but then falls to the sin. Rather mean if you ask me, and it is at least disingenous to claim that you can't take someone seriously if they don't do what they say. You wouldn't take him seriously if he did do what he said.

Its hard for me to believe any open minded objective person would take someone seriously if they were shown to be a complete hypocrite. I'm not talking about their arguements in general, but them as the carrier of those arguements. And when prominent people who preach anti-gay ideas are shown to be hypocrites, it can hurt the entire cause regardless of the merits of their ideas. it doesn't defeat any arguement, but its not exactly great publicity. its like if a prominent gay man were to tell everyone that gays are capable of being in a monogamous relationships that are real and is later discovered to have several lovers, it doesn't look good for gay people. it doesn't mean that all gay people are like that or that his arguements held no water, but it hurts his cause nonetheless. however, regarding these folks who often make it a big part of their lives to be anti-gay and are revealed to have gay lovers, it sometimes can make you wonder about the merits of some of their arguements (ex: sexual orientation is a choice). why would these people willingly choose to engage in gay relationships when they are so against homosexuality and profess it to be but a mere choice of morality? either way, the more prominent anti-gay people who are discovered to be having gay relationships, the worse it looks for the message they were trying to deliver

Again, while I agree it does look badly upon whomever is seemingly hypocrital in some parts of their life, it does not mean that they should not still be taken seriously regarding any issue, including the one they were hypocritical on. That is what we commonly call a fallacy.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.
No, it's just your interpretation that's pathetic. If someone is working for a particular cause and turns out to be a hypocrite, it will have an impact on their credibility and by extension, the credibility of their arguments in support of that cause and whatever others they support.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm simply not that forgiving.

That said, I was not saying that one person screwing up should make us throw out the arguments of all anti-gay leaders. (It should be clear by now that I think there are plenty of other reasons to discount those arguments, but I digress...) If you read my sentence carefully, you should arrive at the intended interpretation - that I think it's unreasonable to ask us to give credence to the anti-gay ideas of a person who has shown us that they don't really believe in what they're preaching, as reflected by their actual practices. When you see that hypocrisy played out repeatedly, you're justified in wondering if there isn't something more going on behind the rhetoric of people who present similar arguments.

Ad hominem certainly can be a fallacious form of argument, but it isn't always entirely without merit.

Edit: For example, if someone shows a pattern of lying, you're justified in treating their future statements with skepticism.

2nd Edit: I'm not saying that appearances are more important than substance. I'm saying that when one gives the appearance of being a hypocrite, it necessarily behooves us to scrutinize the substance of their remarks with greater skepticism. If the hypocrisy is bad enough or takes place often enough to be viewed as widespread or at the very least, significant, it becomes all that much harder to overcome one's natural reaction to it and not dismiss the substance of those arguments outright.

[Jaxian]

I agree with John Galt on this one. To tell the truth, I'd imagine that most or all people are hypocritical in one fashion or another. But this doesn't mean that we should ignore those people. And it doesn't even mean that we shoudn't listen to them on the subject on which they were hypocritical. Allow me to use an example:

Imagine a man speaks out against murder, even murder out of anger. Then imagine that this man catches his wife cheating on him, goes into a rage, and kills someone. Now this is certainly a hypocritical action, to preach one thing, then do the opposite. But it doesn't mean that man's words against murder weren't true.

The same might be true in this case. If this man simply could not resist temptation to do something he thought was wrong, that doesn't invalidate his initial explanation about why things are wrong, nor does it make anyone else who agrees with him wrong.

Gay rights opponents are wrong simply because their arguments are illogical, and their denial of equal rights to gay people causes a lot of harm to a lot of people without just cause. And it isn't merely without "just cause", it is without any good cause. I don't think there is even a single good reason to oppose gay rights. I would go so far as saying their stance is purely evil, though there is no doubt in my mind that most opponents of gay rights actually do have good intentions. But I still cannot say that this man's hypocrisy causes his arguments to be invalid.

To turn the tables, there might be an advocate of gay rights who claims that gay people value marriage and monogamy, but who then cheats on his homosexuals partner. Should people then be justified in assuming that gay people actually do not value marriage and monogamy? There will be hypocritical people on all sides of any debate, and we should not use that hypocrisy to look down on one side of the debate or another.

On another note, when did it become a crime to ask someone to have oral sex with you? Did I read that right? Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment? I mean, I do understand that prostitution is illegal, but was there money involved in this proposition? Is this prostitution? It sort of sounds to me like this "act of lewdness" would punish anyone asking anyone else for oral sex in a public place.

[F'losrix]

Jaxian wrote: On another note, when did it become a crime to ask someone to have oral sex with you? Did I read that right? Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment?
Only if you hold with the doctrine of incorporating the First Amendment upon the states, and even then, probably not.

Quote: I mean, I do understand that prostitution is illegal, but was there money involved in this proposition? Is this prostitution?
My understanding is that prostitution doesn't have to be involved.

Quote: It sort of sounds to me like this "act of lewdness" would punish anyone asking anyone else for oral sex in a public place.
Yep - that's correct. A number of states still have such laws. They're rarely enforced against heterosexuals, though - ususally it's part of a sting operation targeting areas known to be frequented by gay men cruising for anonymous sex. (Never could understand the attraction of that myself, but that's just me.)

[F'losrix]

Jaxian wrote: Imagine a man speaks out against murder, even murder out of anger. Then imagine that this man catches his wife cheating on him, goes into a rage, and kills someone. Now this is certainly a hypocritical action, to preach one thing, then do the opposite. But it doesn't mean that man's words against murder weren't true.

Homosexuality isn't even close to murder, though - despite the efforts of those on the extreme right to portray them as equally detestable.

Last I knew, no one was out there advocating for murderers to have marriage rights because guess what - they already have them! (unless they're gay)

I cannot respect the opinions on homosexuality of a man who advocates against recognition of my union with my life partner, using assertions about gays & promiscuous, anonymous sex - a practice we don't engage in - while he's out there doing that very thing himself.

I see the logic of what you're saying, but it's exactly this kind of crap that makes me biased against these idiots, and you're asking way too much from the very human side of me to demand that I push aside my pain to give fair play to a person who frankly doesn't deserve it.

[Jaxian]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I cannot respect the opinions on homosexuality of a man who advocates against recognition of my union with my life partner, using assertions about gays & promiscuous, anonymous sex - a practice we don't engage in - while he's out there doing that very thing himself.

I see the logic of what you're saying, but it's exactly this kind of crap that makes me biased against these idiots, and you're asking way too much from the very human side of me to demand that I push aside my pain to give fair play to a person who frankly doesn't deserve it.

I do not mean for you to respect this man's opinions. I mean for you to think them worthless and harmful, and I ask you to fight against them. I ask that you to let everyone know the reasons that opponents of homosexuality are wrong. But I ask that among those reasons, you do not list the hypocrisy explained in this post.

If you understand the logic of what I'm saying, then surely you understand that the hypocrisy of this man does not actually invalidate his arguments. So by allowing that hypocrisy to bias us against them, we are allowing ourselves to be influenced by something irrelevant.

The end result of this may be that the tables are turned against us. Look again at what I said:

Jaxian wrote: To turn the tables, there might be an advocate of gay rights who claims that gay people value marriage and monogamy, but who then cheats on his homosexuals partner. Should people then be justified in assuming that gay people actually do not value marriage and monogamy?

Isn't this a situation which might happen at some point? Couldn't this story be printed somewhere, just as the story you quoted was?

If this story is printed, couldn't an opponent of gay rights say exactly what you have said? Couldn't he say:

"I cannot respect the opinions on homosexuality of a homosexual who says gay people are not promiscuous, using assertions about gays engaging in monogamy and practicing safe sex, while he's out there engaging in unsafe sex himself.

It's exactly this kind of crap that makes me biased against these idiots, and you're asking way too much from the very human side of me to demand that I push aside my pain to give fair play to a person who frankly doesn't deserve it."

And if we tried to say that the hypocrisy of one gay person does not invalidate his words, wouldn't we then truly be hypocritical? If we use the hypocrisy of an individual to bias us against gay rights opponents, then how can we complain when they use the hypocrisy of one homosexual to bias themselves against gay rights? I'd rather not give gay rights opponents any foothold to hold onto their beliefs.

[F'losrix]

Jaxian wrote: And if we tried to say that the hypocrisy of one gay person does not invalidate his words, wouldn't we then truly be hypocritical?
It isn't just one person.

Quote: If we use the hypocrisy of an individual to bias us against gay rights opponents, then how can we complain when they use the hypocrisy of one homosexual to bias themselves against gay rights? I'd rather not give gay rights opponents any foothold to hold onto their beliefs.
They're going to do it anyway, if they aren't already - so the point is moot.

I return to the point that StrangerWitCandy made:

Quote: I'm not talking about their arguements in general, but them as the carrier of those arguements.

[John Galt]

So the point of this was charachter assasination then -- claiming that just someone does X they cannot say Y? Again, that's fallicous, at best.

[F'losrix]

Consider the source. If someone lies and lies to me, I am not obligated to ignore their past acts of lying when evaluating their future statements if the truths claimed therein are not self-evident.

I haven't said that their hypocrisy negates their argument - only that it influences negatively my ability to trust them to make truthful arguments.

They can say whatever they like - it doesn't mean I'm obligated to believe them.

[SavannahMan]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: SavannahMan wrote: Gee I think I remember reading about this guy who was an activist working to stop child abuse and it turned out he was a sexual predator of children. Does this mean I can no longer take seriously the arguments of those who work to stop child abuse?

Or how about the "safe-sex" activist that catches an STD? Does this mean we should no longer take seriously the words of any safe-sex activist?

This thread is pathetic.
No, it's just your interpretation that's pathetic. If someone is working for a particular cause and turns out to be a hypocrite, it will have an impact on their credibility and by extension, the credibility of their arguments in support of that cause and whatever others they support.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm simply not that forgiving.

That said, I was not saying that one person screwing up should make us throw out the arguments of all anti-gay leaders. (It should be clear by now that I think there are plenty of other reasons to discount those arguments, but I digress...) If you read my sentence carefully, you should arrive at the intended interpretation - that I think it's unreasonable to ask us to give credence to the anti-gay ideas of a person who has shown us that they don't really believe in what they're preaching, as reflected by their actual practices. When you see that hypocrisy played out repeatedly, you're justified in wondering if there isn't something more going on behind the rhetoric of people who present similar arguments.

Ad hominem certainly can be a fallacious form of argument, but it isn't always entirely without merit.

Edit: For example, if someone shows a pattern of lying, you're justified in treating their future statements with skepticism.

2nd Edit: I'm not saying that appearances are more important than substance. I'm saying that when one gives the appearance of being a hypocrite, it necessarily behooves us to scrutinize the substance of their remarks with greater skepticism. If the hypocrisy is bad enough or takes place often enough to be viewed as widespread or at the very least, significant, it becomes all that much harder to overcome one's natural reaction to it and not dismiss the substance of those arguments outright.

Right so I guess we can dismiss everything this "AIDS activist" ever said about AIDS or safe sex right? www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWSREC0101/60110015

By Mystic's logic we can now dismiss any arguements this sicko ever used to garner more support for AIDS awareness or more money for AIDS treatment.