[gunsmoker]

So two young men are suing Bishop Eddie Long, alleging that he lied to them and tricked them and basically brainwashed them into believing that it was God's will that they sexually service the good Bishop.

They were underage boys when the "grooming" and brainwashing started, their lawsuit says, but they were above the age of sexual consent by the time things got physical.

Let's simplify the question. Suppose a man of the cloth (Reverend, Rabbi, Father, whatever... some spiritual leader for some well-established religion) uses the same kind of come-on lines with members of his congregation, and gets some nookie as a result of it?

He talks / lies / begs/ commands his way into the pants of some adult men or women who are his 'flock'.

Should this be a crime? Should it be the breach of some duty of care that the State can use its courts to enforce? Do we want the State in the position of saying, "You didn't do your job as a minister of the Gospel good enough. You didn't live up to biblical principles. You preached morality but did immorality. So you must pay. Or you must go to prison."

Some states have actual felony sex offenses for religious figures who have sex with their sheep. Um, I mean members of their flock. I mean their faithful followers. Is this right?

Are religious people so weak-minded and gullible that they need this kind of protection? Can't they be trusted to spot bull-droppings when they hear it?

So the bottom line is that a layperson who meets a pick-up at a singles' bar and say: "Have sex with me, because it's God's will" is not breaking any law, just being sleazy. But the preacher who does it to a churchgoing person is now a predator who has victimized somebody.

What other sleazy pick-up lines should be unlawful? Have sex with me because the world is ending and we have to go out with a bang? Have sex with me because I'm terminally ill (not contagious, though!) and this is my "Make-A-Wish" wish? Have sex with me because I'm a genius / athlete / model and will give you the best babies?

I don't think adult teacher-student relationships should be illegal, unless the teacher uses his or per position to threaten some sanction for NOT having sex, or giving rewards for it. But I'm in the minority on that. Not just for 50 year old male teachers lusting after 17 year old high school girls. It would be equally illegal in some jurisidictions for a 40 year old single college professor to have sex with a 40-year old divorced student.

 

[drtybykr]

According to the news tonight, it is now up to four boys.

 

[fiwit]

I think the difference in your examples is that a sleazy pickup line in a singles bar is from a person who is (typically) not in a position of authority over the "victim." A clery-person or a teacher IS in a position of authority, whether real or perceived.

A preacher disgracing his/her position should not be a criminal act. BUT a person in authority mis-using that authority to cause physical or emotional harm is abuse.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[EJR914]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

If he did "groom" these boys before the age of consent... I'm pretty sure no crime was committed.

Did he make them watch porn underage? Well that would at least be contributing the the delinquency of minor... and they should bust his mouth wide open for that one.

Show me a crime was committed, under statute, and I'll get behind it. Right now, at this moment, do we know of an actual statute that was broken by this creep?

 

[atlsrt44]

all I can say is yuck

 

[gunsmoker]

Is a bishop in a postion of authority? But it's a truly voluntary submission to authority, right?
The targets of the sexual proposal can not only say "NO" to the sex, but they can walk away from the entire organization or institution that the perverted spiritual leader leads, true?

So is this the same kind of "authority" that a boss has over a worker?

The same way a teacher / professor at school is over a student?

How about a husband and wife? What does that do to the "consent is invalied when one person is in a position of authority over another" theory? Is all sex "rape" because nearly all the time the man has more money, better credit, more resources, and more physical strength than his wife?

 

[budder]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

Just like if you're not strong enough to not be raped by a "football player" type person, then you literally deserve what you get?

 

[Sine Nomen]

How would you expect the state to treat a doctor who had done the same thing with a patient?

 

[gunsmoker]

Maybe there should be a higher standard of proof for "consent" given by a patient to her doctor.
But if there is consent, I don't think I'd want the State to declare it void, a legal nullity, the way the "consent" of a child means nothing.
Not for an adult patient who gives the consent while awake, alert, and not under the influence of drugs or in extreme emotional distress.

I'm taking the side of liberty here, and advocating for more personal responsibility. Make people pay attention to the choices they make and consider the consequences.

How about this compromise position: A doctor who has a "voluntary" and "consensual" sexual encounter with a current or recent patient has committed an unprofessional act that brings dishonor and disgrace upon the profession-- therefore the State Board that issues medical licenses can suspend or revoke his?

That would be better than making it a felony crime.

 

[bdee]

I don't know if this guy is guilty or not, or if it even should be a crime.

Perhaps we should assume that everybody over the age of 16 (or 14 in Oklahoma or 18 in California) has or should have the social skills to resist the advances of a sexual predator. And if they don't have the skills, we are no obligation to protect them. Really?

Or.....
These guys were 17 years old and if they didn't want to give some old guy a hummer, then they probably wouldn't have done it. And how many 17 year olds will likely buy the idea that being buggered by that same old guy will get you closer to God? hmmmmm

Or...
Michael Jackson paid a kids family A LOT OF MONEY to stay quiet after an accusation of child molestation. Maybe these boys are looking for a pay off to go away. Just a thought.

 

[EJR914]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

Just like if you're not strong enough to not be raped by a "football player" type person, then you literally deserve what you get?

Is this a serious reply?

 

[mb90535im]

The "Bishop" hasn't been charged with a crime has he?

 

[budder]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

Just like if you're not strong enough to not be raped by a "football player" type person, then you literally deserve what you get?

Is this a serious reply?

Yes.

 

[EJR914]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

Just like if you're not strong enough to not be raped by a "football player" type person, then you literally deserve what you get?

Is this a serious reply?

Yes.

To be honest, in my opinion, they are completely different. You did read, the article, right, budder? The sex occurred after the age of consent. One is physical rape, which usually means there was a beating and a rape, violent. And the other is someone who is weak minded enough to be talked into doing something consensually.

The big key here is consensual. To be honest, they aren't even comparable. Apples to oranges.

If your of the age of consent and someone talks you into having sex with them, there is nothing that the law should ever be able to you. Its consensual.

What would you have the law be? If you have consensual sex with someone, and then afterward they regret it, then you be charged with the same thing as if you forcibly beat and raped them?

The entire premise of your argument and example are so absurd to me, I just cannot possibly understand it.

 

[TippinTaco]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

Just like if you're not strong enough to not be raped by a "football player" type person, then you literally deserve what you get?

Is this a serious reply?

Yes.

To be honest, in my opinion, they are completely different. You did read, the article, right, budder? The sex occurred after the age of consent. One is physical rape, which usually means there was a beating and a rape, violent. And the other is someone who is weak minded enough to be talked into doing something consensually.

The big key here is consensual. To be honest, they aren't even comparable. Apples to oranges.

If your of the age of consent and someone talks you into having sex with them, there is nothing that the law should ever be able to you. Its consensual.

What would you have the law be? If you have consensual sex with someone, and then afterward they regret it, then you be charged with the same thing as if you forcibly beat and raped them?

The entire premise of your argument and example are so absurd to me, I just cannot possibly understand it.

Happens to me all the time. I'd be rich every time a girl regretted sleeping with me afterwards.... Come to think of it my wife told me that the other night... Man life is crappy..

 

[budder]

The age of consent is the age of consent. If you're weak minded enough, and not strong enough, to not be brainwashed by a "Koresh" type person.. then you literally deserve whatever you get.

Just like if you're not strong enough to not be raped by a "football player" type person, then you literally deserve what you get?

Is this a serious reply?

Yes.

To be honest, in my opinion, they are completely different. You did read, the article, right, budder? The sex occurred after the age of consent. One is physical rape, which usually means there was a beating and a rape, violent. And the other is someone who is weak minded enough to be talked into doing something consensually.

The big key here is consensual. To be honest, they aren't even comparable. Apples to oranges.

If your of the age of consent and someone talks you into having sex with them, there is nothing that the law should ever be able to you. Its consensual.

What would you have the law be? If you have consensual sex with someone, and then afterward they regret it, then you be charged with the same thing as if you forcibly beat and raped them?

The entire premise of your argument and example are so absurd to me, I just cannot possibly understand it.

I have read several articles on the issue. But I was responding to your post, which criticizes those too "weak minded." How is that any justification, even if the person was 18, 20, or 40? Do you maintain your argument for someone with an IQ of 90? 80? 50? How does a victim ever "deserve" what they get? Are they the one that has done something wrong?

 

[EJR914]

I have read several articles on the issue. But I was responding to your post, which criticizes those too "weak minded." How is that any justification, even if the person was 18, 20, or 40? Do you maintain your argument for someone with an IQ of 90? 80? 50? How does a victim ever "deserve" what they get? Are they the one that has done something wrong?

Now you're twisting my words around. Since when did weak minded mean mentally retarded?

Weak-minded means gullible, not mentally retarded. You're simply arguing a straw man.

Also, point to me in the OP, where it says the boys were mentally retarded, I trust you won't find it.

Should we arrest and charge someone with Rape, just because they pick up a girl at a bar and he tells her that he's a rich doctor with millions of dollars? Where does that stop? Again, its absurd.

So two young men are suing Bishop Eddie Long, alleging that he lied to them and tricked them and basically brainwashed them into believing that it was God's will that they sexually service the good Bishop.

They were underage boys when the "grooming" and brainwashing started, their lawsuit says, but they were above the age of sexual consent by the time things got physical.

Let's simplify the question. Suppose a man of the cloth (Reverend, Rabbi, Father, whatever... some spiritual leader for some well-established religion) uses the same kind of come-on lines with members of his congregation, and gets some nookie as a result of it?

He talks / lies / begs/ commands his way into the pants of some adult men or women who are his 'flock'.

Should this be a crime? Should it be the breach of some duty of care that the State can use its courts to enforce? Do we want the State in the position of saying, "You didn't do your job as a minister of the Gospel good enough. You didn't live up to biblical principles. You preached morality but did immorality. So you must pay. Or you must go to prison."

Some states have actual felony sex offenses for religious figures who have sex with their sheep. Um, I mean members of their flock. I mean their faithful followers. Is this right?

Are religious people so weak-minded and gullible that they need this kind of protection? Can't they be trusted to spot bull-droppings when they hear it?

So the bottom line is that a layperson who meets a pick-up at a singles' bar and say: "Have sex with me, because it's God's will" is not breaking any law, just being sleazy. But the preacher who does it to a churchgoing person is now a predator who has victimized somebody.

What other sleazy pick-up lines should be unlawful? Have sex with me because the world is ending and we have to go out with a bang? Have sex with me because I'm terminally ill (not contagious, though!) and this is my "Make-A-Wish" wish? Have sex with me because I'm a genius / athlete / model and will give you the best babies?

I don't think adult teacher-student relationships should be illegal, unless the teacher uses his or per position to threaten some sanction for NOT having sex, or giving rewards for it. But I'm in the minority on that. Not just for 50 year old male teachers lusting after 17 year old high school girls. It would be equally illegal in some jurisidictions for a 40 year old single college professor to have sex with a 40-year old divorced student.

I'd suggest you argue what I actually said instead of twisting my words around. Weak minded does not mean mentally retarded. Sorry, but nice try.

I did not and have not ever argued that the mentally retarded should not be protected from predators. That was a strawman that you created.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Happens to me all the time. I'd be rich every time a girl regretted sleeping with me afterwards.... Come to think of it my wife told me that the other night... Man life is crappy..

Sorry to hear that, man, seriously.

 

[budder]

I have read several articles on the issue. But I was responding to your post, which criticizes those too "weak minded." How is that any justification, even if the person was 18, 20, or 40? Do you maintain your argument for someone with an IQ of 90? 80? 50? How does a victim ever "deserve" what they get? Are they the one that has done something wrong?

Now you're twisting my words around. Since when did weak minded mean mentally retarded?

Weak-minded means gullible, not mentally retarded. You're simply arguing a straw man.

Also, point to me in the OP, where it says the boys were mentally retarded, I trust you won't find it.

Should we arrest and charge someone with Rape, just because they pick up a girl at a bar and he tells her that he's a rich doctor with millions of dollars? Where does that stop? Again, its absurd.

There is no twisting. I am just trying to find the line. Does the victim of a con deserve whatever they got? Some rather sophisticated people still get suckered by good con artists. I am trying to understand why it's okay to blame the victim when the person in the wrong is a member of the clergy, and theoretically should be held to a higher standard, but not okay to blame the victim in a robbery.

 

[EJR914]

There is no twisting. I am just trying to find the line. Does the victim of a con deserve whatever they got? Some rather sophisticated people still get suckered by good con artists. I am trying to understand why it's okay to blame the victim when the person in the wrong is a member of the clergy, and theoretically should be held to a higher standard, but not okay to blame the victim in a robbery.

I don't really understand what you are trying to argue here. What law was broken here? I don't believe there was one. There are no minors here to "delinquent." If there is no victim, then how could they have deserved something or not? I don't believe that there is a victim here.

Like I said, if you can talk someone into having sex with you, by any means necessary... there is no victim and there shouldn't be.

When there is a "con artist" usually a law is broken, most commonly THIEF. So there is a crime committed by any deception.

There was no crime committed here that I know of. It is not a crime to lie to someone, unless under oath in court. Perjury.

There is fraud, but I believe financial gain has to take place for fraud to be a possibility.

Again, I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue, or what line you are trying to find. If there was no law broken, then from a legal standpoint there was not victim here.

In your example, you said a victim in robbery. Robbery is a crime; therefore, there is a victim.

Forced rape, there is a victim. Fraud, there is a victim, which is your con artist example.

There was no law broken here... no victim.

Do you think there should be a law made that if you lie to someone so they have sex with you, that you should be charged for rape, budder? Does the government really need to protect us from something like that?

IMHO, it shouldn't be illegal. Are you going to start charging every man that lies to a women to get her into his bed with rape?

How about if a man tells a women he loves her, has sex with her, and then later she thinks that he really didn't love her. Should he be charged with rape and sent to jail for 20+ years? I don't think so.

Edit to add: I believe what the pastor allegedly did was immoral. I also don't believe we should start to legislate morality. We have enough laws on our books. To be honest, this shouldn't be a law. In fact, we have too man laws on the books as it is. We should be taking laws off the books instead of adding more.