Gay marriage no, gay massage yesFollow

I think the crux isn't that the man is gay and opposes gay marraige, it is that he has been living a huge lie to his followers and much more importantly to his family. Imagine the hell his wife is going through. If gay marraige were legal and the man was at least honest to himself he could be ***** and still be an episcapillian bishop or something and noone would give two farts.


Edited, Nov 5th 2006 at 2:21am PST by artgallery

Watching that, it's so obvious that he's lying through his great big buck teeth.

"Well, I've stayed in a lot of hotels...."

Like you wouldn't remember the hotel that hooked you up with a happy-ending drug addled "massage". Like most people don't stay in one of two or three hotels in any given area. Gah.

I completely agree. He is a hopeless liar.

Which, for a religious preacher, is quite an achievement.

Ba-dam!

Sigworthy~

A friend of mine out here was persuaded by his mother and his sister to give the New Life cult, pardon me, congregation a try. He reported some weird goings-on - EST is the nearest comparison I can draw, where member candidates were required to humiliate themselves with public confessions of every misdeed. This is not your average Sunday services and volunteer program for the teens kind of church.

Not according to you!

I heart you Flea. I really really really heart you. My day is on such an upswing now after reading some of these threads.

It is *not* hypocritical to be opposed to gay marriage while also being gay.

Of course it is.

Especially when you're married and gay, like most Republicans.


If a dying drunk lying in the gutter tells you that drinking is bad for you and you shouldn't do it, does the fact that he's a drunk make his words invalid?

No, just hypocritical.

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

Anybody want a peanut?

Edited, Nov 6th 2006 at 2:42pm PST by Smasharoo

Good to hear. A hot chick should never have a bad day.

Huh.

In regard to the issue of hypocrisy, I think there may a different possibility at play here in terms of how Haggard can say he opposes homosexuality and gay marriage and yet participate in homosexual acts (if in fact he did so). He may have always known he was inclined towards homosexuality yet fought against it, believing it was wrong, much as a kleptomaniac knows stealing it wrong but is compelled to take things.

Yes, yes, the analogy breaks down from the perspective of those who believe homosexuality is not intrinsically wrong, but the point is made that a person can behave in some way while believing that same behavior is corrupt.

Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Haggard never demonized homosexuals, but preached that homosexuality is sinful, along the same lines that bearing false witness or coveting your neighbor's things is wrong. In other words, if you are equating Haggard and those from that Baptist church who are seen at funerals and political events with signs denouncing gays, I'd say they aren't anywhere close to each other religiously, morally, philosophically, or politically.

Totem

C'mon Joph. You're not that dense... ;)


In the second case, the whole point of the thread was that the editorial was significant because it was published in a "military newspaper". The presumed objective is to show that even military folks think the war is a waste of time and was a bad idea. Since the argument portrayed by the OP relies on the specifics of the individual writing the story, then it's relevant to counter it on that same issue. He can't tell me that the editorialist in question has steadfastly supported the war up until now, and suddenly has "seen the light" and changed his mind just now. And if he can't, then he can't place any specific value on the editorial itself.


Interestingly enough, the broad methodology of this thread is the same (and seems to be a common theme these days). Find someone who has historically said one thing, and show them *now* doing or saying something counter to that. Use that as an argument against whatever it was they originally said.

So. The war in Iraq is *wrong* because we can find an editorial in a military newspaper who'll say so (and we all know that no editorials in any military paper could possibly be critical of the military!). Bush's policy was "wrong" because the Neo-cons who were instrumental in forming that policy were quoted out of context in a way to make it seem like they've changed their minds and now thing they made a huge mistake. Opposition to gay marriage is "wrong" because one pastor who's been openly opposed to it was alleged to have had gay sex...

See the trend? They're all the same argument. The problems with them vary from being flat out misrepresentations, to being taken out of context, to being relatively irrelevant to the direct issue at hand. But hey! Don't look behind the curtain. You might see the little man manipulating everything you see and hear.

Yeah I am sure that Haggard never decried homosexuality as bad. The fact that he called that part of himself replusive and dark is a nice way of saying he loves a gerbil up the ***.

Gbaji, he is a person who instructs people to hate gays and that they are filthy and sinful. Despite the fact that the only mention of homosexuality is in a obscure part of the old testament. It is hypocrisy as he is not against gay marriage cause he doesn't want them to get state benefits, but because he has been preaching that gay people should burn in hell.

The hypocrisy is that he loves getting **** action all week and he denounces it on the weekends.

As the saying goes all Pubbies secretly love taking it up the pooper. Probably why Gbaji keeps presenting this **** for you guys to keep prodding. Free cyberz.