Bishop Long has been active in his opposition to the radical change in traditional marriage by which the practice is extended to same sex couples.
If the allegations are true and Bishop Long is proven to be a "down low Black male" - his opposition to same sex marriage is not in itself proof of inconsistency. Most certainly this down low behavior is inconsistent with his position as the head of the church, his vows of marriage to his wife and with his words given in the pulpit in which he expresses tolerance for the homosexual person but aversion to the practice of same sex acts.
The Critics Of Eddie Long Who Seek To Slay A "Hypocrite"
In a conversation with a family friend today over dinner I noted that he, a male mentor, participates as a coach for little league baseball for males between 11 and 14 years of age. I asked him to imagine if he were the coach for a female softball team for the same age range.
If this were the case he would never be allowed to have the same unchecked access to these little girls as he does with the males A female chaperon would be mandated at all times. Our society has adopted this standard of regulation as the norm to prevent a potentially compromising or sexually abusive incident from happening.
The same is the case with male OB-GYN specialists and other inter-gender private sessions that can prove to be compromising due to the opportunity for exploitation that is exposed.
The goal of the Gay-Rights activists is to have all forms of prohibitions to same sex relationships to be removed from our society. In as much as our "hetero-normative" construct permeates our society there will be a massive amount of tolerances (some would say "politically correct denial") that would need to be adopted by our society in order to make this happen. It would reach the point where the enforced tolerances become the OPPRESSOR.
Fundamentally this is a demand to have certain standards that we have adopted from the Judeo-Christian cultural ethic to be retired. This would also require us to put aside certain information that is intrinsic to what our physiological body form and our respective complementary genitalia communicate to us. This done in the name of tolerance.
The truth is that those with this agenda need to "take out" anyone who doggedly stands on cultural or moral grounds against their actions. They prefer the masses of people who either "don't care because it doesn't impact us" or who rationalize their support based on the notion that "we must get rid of DISCRIMINATION everywhere".
The truth is that is there is no "discrimination" then we have a society in anarchy.
You see "discrimination" is a prejudicial word. It is used as a blanket descriptor of the process by which we prioritize a set of behavioral norms over another set. In the case where two mutually exclusive norms can't exist one of them must be sublimated.
There are some points of cultural discrimination that have been proven to be against human rights for the individual who was suppressed for nothing more than some attribute of his person - race or gender, for example. In the quest to enforce White male superiority these other groups were discriminated against for he balance of America's existence.
Other points of discrimination are done for the sake of maintaining positive social order - the pressure to conceive within the bounds of matrimony, monogamous marriage, an age for sexual consent for females and of course marriage limited to the opposite sex.
I have noted previously that we must step back from the "transactional view" of the conflict that confronts us and instead document a more broad reaching view which asks:
- What is the social order that we are seeking to establish and maintain?
- What about of productivity do we need from each individual to achieve this standard?
- Which points of order are more efficient than others in obtaining these ends?
- How do we balance the individual's right for personal freedoms with the community collective obligations that are necessary to achieve this order?