Albany,n.y. Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Edit : Link: http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feed.../ap3142429.html The leader of the influential National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of the drive for same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man. The Rev. Ted Haggard also stepped aside as head of his 14,000-member New Life Church while a church panel investigates, saying he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations." The investigation came after a 49-year-old man told a Denver radio station that Haggard paid him to have sex. Haggard, a married father of five, denied the allegations in an interview with KUSA-TV late Wednesday: "Never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I'm steady with my wife, I'm faithful to my wife." In a written statement, Haggard said: "I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity. I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance." Mike Jones, 49, told The Associated Press that Haggard paid him to have sex nearly every month for three years. His allegations were first aired on KHOW-AM in Denver. Jones said that he had advertised himself as an escort on the Internet and that a man who called himself Art contacted him. Jones said he later saw the man on television identified as Haggard. He said that he last had sex with Haggard in August and that he did not warn him before making his allegations this week. Jones said he has voice mail messages from Haggard, as well as an envelope he said Haggard used to mail him cash, though he declined to make any of it available to the AP. "There's some stuff on there (the voice mails) that's pretty damning," he said. Richard Cizik, vice president for government affairs for the evangelicals association, expressed shock. "Is this something I can imagine of Ted Haggard? No," he said. Carolyn Haggard, spokeswoman for the New Life Church, said a four-member church panel will investigate the allegations. She did not identify the board members. "This is really routine when any sort of situation like this arises, so we're prepared," she said. "The church is going to continue to serve and be welcoming to our community. That's a priority." Another gay conservative against gay marriage, what a surprise. Why is the conservative against gay marriage? Because he's afraid his boyfriend will demand he divorce his wife & marry him.
UConn James Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Most anytime you hear someone moralizing with vigor, bear in mind the axiom that "We hate about others what we hate most about ourselves.' The louder they shout, the more hypocritical they are.
John Adams Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 This is one of those precious hypocritical moments. What an ass.
catchescannonballs Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Edit : Link: http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feed.../ap3142429.html The leader of the influential National Association of Evangelicals, a vocal opponent of the drive for same-sex marriage, resigned Thursday after being accused of paying for sex with a man. ing to continue to serve and be welcoming to our community. That's a priority." Another gay conservative against gay marriage, what a surprise. Why is the conservative against gay marriage? Because he's afraid his boyfriend will demand he divorce his wife & marry him. 823377[/snapback] And I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the election coming up? The liberal media loves showing gays on TV shows and movies doing there faggy thing and yet they turn around and make a political issue by bashing gays now. Can you say hypocrite. Its really a scream to see the liberals bashing gays when they are suppose to be the gay party, and they are the gay party AND they bash gays. Then need gays to be kept down so they get there votes just like blacks need to be kept poor
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 And I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the election coming up? The liberal media loves showing gays on TV shows and movies doing there faggy thing and yet they turn around and make a political issue by bashing gays now. Can you say hypocrite. Its really a scream to see the liberals bashing gays when they are suppose to be the gay party, and they are the gay party AND they bash gays. Then need gays to be kept down so they get there votes just like blacks need to be kept poor 823738[/snapback] Exposing the hypocrisy of one of the most vocal anti-gay critics is not bashing gays.
Chilly Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 And I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the election coming up? The liberal media loves showing gays on TV shows and movies doing there faggy thing and yet they turn around and make a political issue by bashing gays now. Can you say hypocrite. Its really a scream to see the liberals bashing gays when they are suppose to be the gay party, and they are the gay party AND they bash gays. Then need gays to be kept down so they get there votes just like blacks need to be kept poor 823738[/snapback] A vocal anti-gay man paying another man for sex = bashing gays?
erynthered Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 This is one of those precious hypocritical moments. What an ass. 823640[/snapback] There goes his gym membership.
Chilly Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 There goes his gym membership. 823760[/snapback] Well, thats a bit better then pulling a Seinfeld and getting kicked out of the gym for almost murdering the poolboy.
catchescannonballs Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 A vocal anti-gay man paying another man for sex = bashing gays? 823754[/snapback] give me a break, exposing this sick individual on NATION TELEVISION isn't gay bashing? You liberals are pretty pathetc
Bungee Jumper Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 give me a break, exposing this sick individual on NATION TELEVISION isn't gay bashing? You liberals are pretty pathetc 823773[/snapback] "Sick individual"? I haven't been paying that close attention to the story...what'd he do?
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 And I'm sure this has NOTHING to do with the election coming up? The liberal media loves showing gays on TV shows and movies doing there faggy thing and yet they turn around and make a political issue by bashing gays now. Can you say hypocrite. Its really a scream to see the liberals bashing gays when they are suppose to be the gay party, and they are the gay party AND they bash gays. Then need gays to be kept down so they get there votes just like blacks need to be kept poor 823738[/snapback] Gay bashers calling out others for gay bashing is just oh-so-priceless, dareIsay fabulous. The point is there is a big amendment vote coming up that this guy has been a vocal supporter of. If it turns out that he is himself gay (no one has called him as such yet) or has personal issues with this, it means that his authority to call out a lifestyle that he himself embraces, secretly or not, is sort of undermined. Your posts reflect an ignorance of the situation at hand, of social understanding, and of English grammar.
Chilly Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 give me a break, exposing this sick individual on NATION TELEVISION isn't gay bashing? You liberals are pretty pathetc 823773[/snapback] Now its the liberal's fault that the national media picked up this story?
Chilly Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 "Sick individual"? I haven't been paying that close attention to the story...what'd he do? 823783[/snapback] He had an affair with a man. So friggin sick.
catchescannonballs Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Now its the liberal's fault that the national media picked up this story? 823786[/snapback] Wake up, the national media is a liberal institution through and through
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Wake up, the national media is a liberal institution through and through 823790[/snapback] MEDIA BAD! This must be why all our governmental institutions are run by sick gay faggy liberals, because the MEDIA CONTROLS THE PEOPLE'S MINDS. ARMY STRONG! SMASH MEDIA!
Chilly Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Wake up, the national media is a liberal institution through and through 823790[/snapback] I'm the one that needs to wake up? Go learn about the media, story selection, profits, money, chain of command, etc Here's a hint - the media picked this story up because theres little to no investigative journalism required, meaning its cheap, and its a story that will sell. Why do you think Fox News picked it up, then?
Gavin in Va Beach Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 The point is there is a big amendment vote coming up that this guy has been a vocal supporter of. If it turns out that he is himself gay (no one has called him as such yet) or has personal issues with this, it means that his authority to call out a lifestyle that he himself embraces, secretly or not, is sort of undermined. 823784[/snapback] So an alcoholic has no authority to tell others to stay away from alcohol? A drug abuser has no authority to tell others to stay away from drugs? Are you sure this guy was "embracing" his experiences, or do you think there is a possibility they were torturing his mind even while he was doing them? Human beings are weak and do a great many things they know to be wrong, even to the point of rationalizing them as good. Mental illness comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe instead of condemning this poor guy we should be more sympathetic, or do you only save your sympathy for fellow liberals?
The Avenger Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 So an alcoholic has no authority to tell others to stay away from alcohol? A drug abuser has no authority to tell others to stay away from drugs? Are you sure this guy was "embracing" his experiences, or do you think there is a possibility they were torturing his mind even while he was doing them? Human beings are weak and do a great many things they know to be wrong, even to the point of rationalizing them as good. Mental illness comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe instead of condemning this poor guy we should be more sympathetic, or do you only save your sympathy for fellow liberals? 823817[/snapback] Are you saying that he had a gay relationship because he's mentally ill and may have actually not enjoyed it but rather was tortured by it? And we need to show him sympathy because he's sick? Not sure I read that right or understand if that's the point you're trying to make. BTW - I love your signature line - I loved that SNL sketch and it converts very well from Star Trek to football.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 So an alcoholic has no authority to tell others to stay away from alcohol? A drug abuser has no authority to tell others to stay away from drugs? Are you sure this guy was "embracing" his experiences, or do you think there is a possibility they were torturing his mind even while he was doing them? Human beings are weak and do a great many things they know to be wrong, even to the point of rationalizing them as good. Mental illness comes in all shapes and sizes. Maybe instead of condemning this poor guy we should be more sympathetic, or do you only save your sympathy for fellow liberals? 823817[/snapback] Obviously, I don't equate being gay with being a drug abuser, so I find it difficult to argue with you on those grounds. But I think if we were talking about a recovering alcoholic talking to people about his past that is one thing. This is more akin to a guy hiding his past and chiding others for having the same past, which just might be beyond his control and genetically wired into him. It would be like a drinker telling his son on the phone not to drink while he sips from a flask. Now alcoholism can be proven to be harmful to someone physically. Being a gay person cannot, any more than being a straight person, assuming you are having healthy, honest relationships. (The AIDS argument doesn't wash precisely because of this.) Society has made this very difficult for all gay people and created a secret society of transgression instead of offering a space for gays to have healthy relationships. That's part of what the marriage idea is about -- admitting that these relationships can be healthy and stable. That's what I hope is changing. I'm not condemning the guy. I'm attacking his position, which I view as hypocritical. I have no problem whatsoever with the potentiality that he is gay; and in fact I'm not even accusing him of being gay if you want to put it that way. Crying about gay-bashing from the right doesn't work because every postion the right has taken in terms of legislation has been worse for gays than any mere cry of hypocrisy could be.
kegtapr Posted November 3, 2006 Posted November 3, 2006 Maybe instead of condemning this poor guy we should be more sympathetic, or do you only save your sympathy for fellow liberals? 823817[/snapback] God doesn't hate the sinner, he hates the act. If only everybody could live by this.
Recommended Posts