Of course he's not gay. His boyfriend is. In his defense, and as is surely the case with most sanctimonious religious zealots, Pastor Haggard invariably took an oath of hypocrisy. And as for spreading the good message, or massage as the case may be, what's a vowel between friends? For those of our dyed-in-the-wool republican friends who are still struggling to understand the point of all this, Pastor Haggard's sexual orientation is really quite immaterial in the grand scheme of things and on any meaningful moral scale. On the other hand, his duplicity and hypocrisy are rather stunning. Even so, I suspect that the blessed evangelicals would be more at ease with mere duplicity and hypocrisy rather than having to deal with his (God-given?) sexuality.
I'll respond to this post later today. I am curious, however, about the fact that you didn't even mention the main point of the post you were responding to. Is that because you didn't feel it was worth responding to? I'll cut and paste it for you, just for your convenience. You had said something like 'This is what democrats do - they celebrate homosexuality". I said... "You know full well the difference between celebrating a behaviour and fighting for the right for a free individual to engage in that behaviour, regardless of what you might personally think about it. Kind of like free speech, right? I might not agree with Pabst and spect-hater who think that all blacks should be put in a 'black camp' and made to live separately from the rest of society, but I will fight for their right to state their muddled opinions. " Will you now admit that a person supports the right of any individual to make their own choices about their private sexual behaviour, it does not imply in any way a 'celebration' of homosexuality and that the person could very well feel that homosexuality is not a good thing to engage in, yet at the same time support any individual's right to engage in it because of his or her commitment to freedom? Will you also admit that there are hundreds of examples of behaviours which you may not personally think are a good idea but which you would be forced to defend in terms of any free individual's right to engage in them, and that any objection to such behaviours could only be made on the subjective basis of faith, and that those objections are not enough, in a free society, to justify an argument for abrogation of the right to engage in those behaviours for those who have different faith-based systems as the guide for their life?
Would you agree that there are certain types of conduct that we can legitimately object to? If so, then it merely becomes a matter of deciding which is which. Stirring speeches about liberty and freedom are just a distraction. The problem I have with liberals is they want to put certain subjects off the table for debate, while they are perfectly happy to tell me what to do on other issues. That is the crux of the PC debate. I'm sure there are plenty of democrats who think homosexuality is a perversion. But they will not be running for any office as democrats. Anything less than total and enthusiastic acceptance of the gay agenda puts them badly out of step with the party leadership. So I think it is totally fair to say they "celebrate" homosexual conduct. How would you describe them? Luke warm? Grudging in their acceptance?
Well I won't speak for the party leaders, but as a person with a fusion of COnservative, Libertarian and Liberal views, I must say don't object to gays in principle, and I certainly don't celebrate their lifestyle. I find gay men on the whole quite objectionable people. And I don't like lesbians very much. But that's personal, not political. What is the gay agenda anyway?
What argument? LOL! AAA making unfounded statements is not an argument... It is practicing dittoheadism...
Face it, the Right wing Christians are not about "Live and let live" they are about telling others how they should live... And liberals don't do that??
Sure. Murder, rape, torture, theft. These are behaviours which are universally condemned. Homosexuality is mostly condemned by Christians/Muslim zealots and 'heterosexual' men who have had feelings of attraction to other men and are having extreme difficulty dealing with it. Actually, no. This issue is all about liberty and freedom. It is about the radical Christian right attempting to impose their faith-based agenda on everyone else, and everyone else standing up and saying that we value liberty and freedom over a policy informed by a faith which we do not share. I'll let the PC dig pass . I've tried as hard as I can to voice my disgust for PC multi-culti 'culture of victimization' politics. I do know what you mean, but there's really no subject that's off the table for debate. The radical lefties to whom you refer are just as marginal as the radical Christians. However, any subject which the religious right tries to debate in terms of their faith-based beliefs will ultimately prove undebatable, just like the existence of God is for them. It's interesting that the radical Christians have taken to objecting to the left by saying that their beliefs are dismissed simply because they're Christians. Actually, yes. We simply don't have that unyielding, magically known belief in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of all Men and the One who died so that our Sins could be expiated. It's actually quite weird that anyone would think that their faith-based beliefs would be accepted by those who don't have the faith. This paragraph might seem, to someone who doesn't know you, like an attempt to cloud the issue. The simple fact is this - many people think that homosexuality is a perversion, yet support anyone's right to act in a homosexual manner, for idealistic reasons. Whether or not politicians publicly support homosexuals while privately condemning their behaviour doesn't have anything to do with whether or not 'all democrats celebrate homosexuals', which was your original assertion. That assertion is obviously untrue. To suggest that democrats who privately feel homosexuality is a perversion support any individual's right to make their own choices strictly to be in step with the party does a great disservice to both Democrats and Republicans who value the ideal of freedom. It is quite puzzling that you would think you know the thoughts of every democrat who is in favour of gay rights. But then... maybe not, as radical Christians believe that they have all sorts of knowledge for which no proof is needed.
it changes when people preach A and do B. it changes when groups are condemned, while those who condemn belong to that group. it changes when a government claims to go and punish an axis of evil while bending each and every law to fulfill its personal interest. it changes when the reps try to look like moral, clean people ... and are in fact as human as everybody else. it changes when it becomes obvious where the true hypocrisy lies.