I’ve gotten about a dozen emails from folks asking me why I haven’t written about the Ted Haggard scandal as it’s just the sort of religious hypocrisy I tend to enjoy seeing unmasked. Part of the delay was due to my being busier than expected lately, but I was also waiting to see how the story developed over the following days since it first broke. I fully expected Haggard to come out swinging with denials of all the accusations, but it turns out he’s pretty much owned up to them and, after being fired from his job as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, he’s even written an apology letter:
“I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you,” he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.
“The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There’s a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life,” he said.
Haggard resigned last week as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, where he held sway in Washington and condemned homosexuality, after a man claimed to have had drug-fueled homosexual trysts with him. Haggard also placed himself on administrative leave from the New Life Church, which has 14,000 members, but its independent Overseer Board fired him on Saturday.
In his letter, Haggard said “the accusations made against me are not all true but enough of them are that I was appropriately removed from his church leadership position.”
Haggard doesn’t go on to explain which allegations are true and which aren’t, but that’ll come with time I’m sure. There used to be a certain irony in discovering that a strongly anti-gay politician or religious leader—like Foley or Haggard—was engaging in the very activities he was publicly demonizing, but it’s starting to become so common that the irony is starting to fade. Haggard still manages to shock us in a new way, however, as Dan Savage points out that during a recent interview with a news team about his scandal Haggard answered questions from reporters in front of his kids. Talk about family values!
Last week was not a good one for several Christian fundies. I am deeply moved by their plight to near uncontrollable fits of giggles.
OUCH!
Consi, I am all for your call for skepticism. For example, I’m rather skeptical of the whole reparative therapy movement, which can now spuriously claim Haggard as a success story. Why? Simply because it has been discredited by most mental health professional associations and societies .
As regards scientific evidence for being born homosexual, you should remain skeptical until the evidence is in. As should we all. In the absence of clear evidence, there’s no reason to fall into the false dichotomy that personal lifestyle choice is the only option available barring genetic causation of homosexuality.
While you’re quite correct that twin studies reveal no demonstrable genetic cause for homosexuality, they apparently indicate that genetics play a role in the development of sexual orientation. In addition, there may be additional biological factors that potentially play a role in the development of sexual orientation, including prenatal hormone exposure, and birth order and maternal linkage.
You’re right – the science isn’t in. In lieu of that, and my own experience of having never chosen a heterosexual lifestyle, I have no reason to dismiss my homosexual friends’ and family members’ claims that they have never made a similar choice. That’s where that skepticism comes in handy – we go where the data leads, and recognize that beyond that is simply conjecture and wishful thinking. That is, of course, until the data are updated.
Cheers
Very clever, mate, and true … but only partially true.
What it did quite pointedly reveal was:
1. Shelley should have heeded my warning.
2. On current, available, scientific evidence, it would have been easier to prove the non-existence of which ever god you’re currently enthralled by or enamoured with.
3. There was no evidential bias towards any cause for the basis of homosexuality.
But the fact remains that it occurs.
Now, as neither LH, Brock, DoF, IDM, Ulfrekr, Les nor I (we don’t know about you cos you won’t cum outa the closet) can recall ever having made a conscious choice as to which way we’d jump, sexually, we are left with a conundrum: How was it or What, decided it for us?
If you believe in god you’d have to say: Goddidit … which leads to:
Why the fuck did he do that? Or …
What did I do to deserve my good luck (that I didn’t have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune … sorry Shaky) but definitely,
What an arsehole.
And what Michael said.
Especially the bit about mental retards’ desire to see Homosexuality as a mental disorder and its needing Reparative Therapy.
I don’t wonder they realise this brain dead attitude is fertile ground for men, with even less mental acumen, who believe bashing or killing a gay just makes their fucking day.
If it is a choice, how do societies that have strong taboos on gay behaviour manage to bring gays into the world.
Substance abusers who go through rehab are still addicts, they are just not currently taking drugs. An alcoholic will always be an alcoholic even though they have stopped drinking—at least for now. A homophobic faggot who has been through reparative therapy is still a faggot even though he hasn’t sucked a dick in a while.
Like most of you, I regard the idea that homosexuality is purely a choice to be, at best, wholly misguided, and, at worst, a convenient expedient for bigotry, persecution, and even murder. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that there is no overarching explanation for homosexuality, that it varies from individual to individual, but that generally speaking it results from a combination of biological and environmental forces.
So what’s the deal with Consi? Is he a homophobe? I wouldn’t say so at this point, simply because I don’t think I have enough information with which to do so. He’s certainly not homophobic in a Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson sense. I have noticed some recurring themes with his comments on this topic, though. It seems clear to me at this point that he simply does not want for there to be a biological explanation for homosexuality. We all know that it’s futile to try convincing someone of that which he refuses to be convinced. My only input would be what I always tell creationists who dismiss evidence for evolution out of hand: not wanting something to be true does not make it untrue.
There are certainly folks who know honest upstanding men that say that they engaged in homsexual acts and are now heterosexual. I’m sure in light of that knowledge you understand why they would be inclined to take the exact opposite position as yours, yet went through the exact same process: Examined inconclusive studies that send wildly mixed signals, turned to those they know, believed those they know with a track record of honesty. That is exactly what you did, right?
Sadie:
I agree with your statements to creationists. Yet, the forced analogy between a topic where the evidence is clear beyond a reasonable doubt and one in which the evidence is muddy, muddled, oft times poorly conducted, and the results are mixed is not apt.
Nevertheless,
DC; and sometime I’m wrong.
I give that a 6.5.
Ida given anyone else a 5 but seeing as it’s so extraordinarily outa character for Consi …
Well, I kind of figure that any evidence at all (especially when it is backed up by common sense) is better than the complete nonexistence of evidence that suggests that homosexuality is purely a choice.
No kidding. Consi flirting? With me? I think we’ve stumbled onto a dimension not of sight or sound but of mind.
Just indicative of good taste on his part, darling. I’m always more suprised when someone isn’t flirting with you.
I know this is going to annoy people, but the best annology I can come up with remains food. Sexual preference is, no matter important it is, still a taste. Why do we aquire any taste? Why do I like pizza? Why do I not like steak? Who knows?
But I do know that if you put me through re-education, you might find all sorts of ways to convince me to stop eating pizza. You might convince me that it is bad for me, or that it’s somehow wrong to eat it. But no amount of re-education is going to change the fact that when I put it in my mouth, it tastes good to me.
Re-education may convince some people that having sex with another person of the same gender is bad, it may help them abstain, but it has nothing to do with the basic taste.
Which makes the whole nature versus nurture (and I personally think it’s a bit of both and more complicated than either) completely irrelevant.
(I’m at work and far too lazy to be bothered with a spell check right now, so please forgive any errors above.)
Sexual preference is MUCH stronger than food preference. It is more like handedness, most people are right handed, some are left handed, and a few are ambidextrous.
My arguement doesn’t really have anything to do with the STRENGTH of the taste, just that it is a taste. I agree with you, sexual preference is much stronger than taste for food.
I dodn’t think handedness makes as good an analogy as there’s no like/dislike factor, it just is.
Aaahh, yeah – taste – I never thought of it that way.
The only thing sexual preference equates with in handedness is that the preference can’t be changed.
Consi, I didn’t say that left-handed people can’t be taught to write with the right [sic] hand.
For that matter, my brother has weird handedness issues – he bats left, he throws right, he writes with either hand and eats with his left. For all that though, I know and he knows he’s really left-handed and pretty much everything else has been people trying to force him to do things their way or no way at all over the years and getting into a habit. Even though he sometimes appears ambidextrous or even right-handed, it’s all just habit, ruse, and training. If my brother growing up could unconsciously go, “Man, being left-handed is inconvenient and everyone expects me to use my right hand,” and start using his right hand then I’m not going to dismiss the notion of people trying to “get over” their innate homosexuality seeing how the social stigma is a lot harsher than merely bumping elbows while seated at dinner.
All analogies suck. Food tastes, like thinking that eating bugs is disgusting, are acquired preferences; sexual orientation, like handedness, just is—and is not a preference.
Tastes in food can change over time, and for bisexuals, sexual preference can be flexible.
For gays, sexual orientation dictates their preference. Like handedness, the preference can not changed. Sure, social pressures can force gays to believe that they must have sex with women, and can force a lefty to eat with their right hand—in neither case is the sexual orientation or handedness changed.
Like a toothless hooker?
I never had a toothless hooker. I once had a hockey player who had all of his front teeth knocked out— and he sucked very well.
Are you from rural PA Consi? My dad is, and he’s the only other person I’ve ever heard use “pimp” in that context.
In any case, I find the notion that Haggard is straight now laughable. If his entire lifestyle before his outing wasn’t enough incentive for him to “become” straight, what could have possibly transpired in a mere 3 weeks that would be more convincing? I mean, short of intense psychological and physical torture and conditioning, what force could possibly…oh, wait. Nevermind. Maybe he really isn’t capable of acting on his gayness any more.
Still wouldn’t make him straight though.
Chemical castration? Physical castration?
No, just visited there for a bit. I have a brother and sister-in-law that live in PA, more central PA than western PA.