I totally agree with Roberts, this piece was about sexual abuse. Not everything is about being gay.

Sorry Michael, but I have to say you are dead wrong on this one.  I completely support Thomas Roberts' point of view in this case.  As I commented in the original post, you and most posters seemed to be coming from a position of attacking or blaming the victim of a crime for what he did not do rather than focusing on the intended benefits of him coming forward.  As he so accurately points out, the point of  was never for Roberts to make a gay rights statement.  He was trying to make people aware of the actions of a convicted criminal, who's release back into the public without any monitoring was imminent, and the insufficient laws to protect abuse victims.  He may well have saved another young man from his fate by telling people who this monster was and what his tactics were.  Isn't that enough, for God's sake?  

There will be plenty of other opportunities for Roberts to make his public mark as an openly gay journalist if he chooses.  But this was not the time he chose to do so.  Respect his choice and leave it alone.

Even though I do think Roberts has a point, I seriously think he is being totally over-sensitive about the article posted. He needs to be a bit more sympathetic to the cause and realise why we are so passionate about getting our side of the story [having a natural attraction to people of the same-sex] out there, especially on prime-time television. There was nothing wrong with Michael hoping that Roberts would do that. There is also nothing wrong with Roberts not wanting to because of whatever reason. But come on, there is no need to get all high and mighty over it and make it so he was 'unable' to do an interview with AfterElton purely because of it. Sheesh...

Roberts said in a Boston newspaper article that he was seeing the priest because he was having issues dealing with his sexuality. HIS WORDS! “It is irrelevant. The story was about sexual abuse, and the person going back to fight for a child that was abused, and what they’re doing today to try and change laws to protect children. It’s not a profile on Thomas Roberts.” “I don’t want to draw all these correlations between something that’s not an issue to me – being gay is not an issue to me, being sexually abused; that’s an issue. That’s a problem, that’s illegal. Sexual abuse: issue. Gay: not an issue.” This priest targeted and abused two gay youth. This predator selected his victims based on their private issues and fear of their sexuality and it's not important? Bullsh!t! His current state of mind and ability to carry a relationship isn't important? OMG! What a coward!

As I read Michael's original post, he more than hoped Roberts would mention his relationship and sexuality, that was the point of two thirds of the post.  Meanwhile, he glossed over the orgininal point of the interview.  If protecting children from sexual predators is not something to 'get all high and mighty' over, then I don't know what is.  It almost seemed like some of the posters, if given the choice, would have picked gay visibility over protecting children from predators.

So, in the end, instead of getting support from other gay people (one of the purposes of this website) Roberts was the recipient of a lot of skepticism and ridicule by many of the posters.  That would be enough to make me just a bit angry.  Everyone who reads this blog knew Roberts was gay.  Do people need a front row seat in his living room to verify that fact for themselves?  Enough with the voyeurism. 

While I think that Robert's rationale for not mentioning his sexuality during the piece is justifiable, it was also a missed opportunity. Many people in America still believe that being gay is some kind of psychological disorder brought on by being abused as a child. Cooper and Roberts could have discussed that and mentioned studies showing that it is a myth. Instead, some viewers were probably left with the impression that Roberts and the other victim carried their "gayness" into adulthood bacause they were traumatized.

“The reason why (Goles) was sent to Father Jeff was specifically part of the story, as was the reason I was sent to Father Jeff … . Michael being sent for being gay is Michael’s story. Me being sent for my parents divorce is my story. Setting up the pretense for why we were put in a predator’s hands.”

"Toohey, 59, a former Roman Catholic priest and Calvert Hall chaplain, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for sexually abusing Roberts after his mother asked the priest to counsel her then-14-year-old son, who was struggling with his parents' divorce and questions about his sexuality."

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/01_02/2006_02_08_McMenamin_ExPriest.htm

Did we miss something?

Was CNN taking the high road by not associating Roberts' abuse with his sexuality at all, or did they miss an opportunity and encourage speculation by omitting the information entirely?

Brian went on to call him courageous and to add "I understand that the focus of the piece ultimately was on getting something done about these laws. But the fact that Roberts is an openly gay man and was the victim of an ongoing sexual assault by another man (and the fact that the other victim, Goles, is also gay) can very easily lead to a cause-effect conclusion in the minds of viewers (i.e., if you are molested by a priest, you will be gay; if you are a gay adult, it is likely because your sexual development was interrupted by same-sex abuse). This interview would have been a fantastic opportunity to address these misconceptions (which are already rampant) and put them to rest. "

Given that Roberts was the subject of the hourlong piece, how could his adult relationships (romantically or as a member of the gay community -- or any community, for that matter) not even have been mentioned?

What do you think?

Some people here need to ask themselves why Thomas who is out and can be seen with his partner in public holding hands would omitted a fact that he also went to the priest because he was questioning his sexuality.  Was it his decision to omitted this fact or CNN.  I would say CNN.  They didn't want the general public to know Thomas is gay when gay marriage is such issue today.  They also didn't let the Advocate do a cover story on Thomas because his face and their name would be on cover of a gay magazine across the country.  Afterelton only got their interview with Thomas because it a site where gays visit not the general public.  Thomas was assign to a new shift where no one watch right after he came out and now he left the network.    Also there is the issue with Anderson Cooper and I think everyone know this one.  Knowing all this, could you be really surprise why his sexuality wasn't mention in the special when majority of the general public don't know he is gay.   

The fact is he's considering his audience. His audience is middle America on CNN. This doesn't mean they can't eventually understand our point about the difference between the two, but you are asking them to do a lot in a short amount of time. Deal with his story about sexual abuse AND his sexual orientation AND treat them as separate things. People aren't that sophisticated in general. We are all affected by emotional biases. I don't know if it's realistic to expect one program to change that bias quickly. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be tried. I am arguing that just like you can't expect one paragraph to do the job of a whole book, you can't expect people to understand this. The non-pc reality is that many people don't know gay people despite all the advancements. it doesn't mean we should give in to them on this- he's out. It does mean we need to realize that throwing so many things at them at once that are unfamilar to them will mean they may conflate them. He did't apparent want that to happen.

What the question posed is why would he hide the fact he was gay, when it is such an important part of who he is? Much like several high profile people, he tapped danced around the issue then wrapped himself in the cloak of a victim when confronted (however indirectly). This not only made him look guilty of something, it detracted from the message he was trying to send. In fact, to some, this would seem nothing more than a ploy to gain greater fame. What happened to him as a youth was wrong, and he should feel he can talk about it without being ashamed, but hiding his sexuality when he talked about it was a tactical mistake. The two things are not related and that should be made clear.

Forgot to mention, People Magazine interview Thomas about his sexual abuse after the CNN Special air and he did mention he is in a long-term relationship with another man and lives with his partner in Atlanta.

we said in this blog post: Thomas Roberts' appearance on Anderson Cooper 360 has led to his being profiled in the current issue of People Magazine. For those of you looking for pictures of Thomas with his partner or a discussion of his sexuality, don't rush out to your local news stand to buy a copy. The only pictures are of Thomas or of Thomas walking his dog. The article does make mention that Thomas "is in a relationship with another man", but otherwise mostly focuses on the issue of the abuse Roberts suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest. That "in a relationship with another man" statement seems to make it rather clear that it wasn't CNN's choice to not show Roberts with his partner, but either Roberts or his partner's decision. Perhaps his partner isn't out or just doesn't want to be in the limelight. He wouldn't be the first person involved with someone famous who didn't want their picture splashed across magazines. At least the article does mention Roberts is involved with a man, but it is another missed opportunity to show a happy, gay couple. (BTW, that pic isn't from People. I found it over on Kenneth in the 212!

<<< If protecting children from sexual predators is not something to 'get all high and mighty' over, then I don't know what is.  It almost seemed like some of the posters, if given the choice, would have picked gay visibility over protecting children from predators. >>>

Did I say he was getting all high and mighty over preventing child abuse? No I didn't. I was referring to the fact that he was oversensitive over Brian's biased post. Oh and stop assuming things, where in my post was I picking gay visibility over protecting children from 'predators'? This discussion isn't over a 'choice' it's over the fact that child abuse and homosexuality get conflated in the public consciousness. They are mutually exclusive for god sake. That's the whole argument here and why Brian originally asked those questions. All I was saying is that Roberts shouldn't have had a hissy fit over it.