![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My, what an ... interesting development.
Haggard says he is not gay:
OK, so here's the thing: I actually have no problems believing that a person can be basically straight or gay, and conduct an affair with a person of the same or opposite sex, as inappropriate. I don't have a problem believing that a person can have even a lengthy affair/relationship with a person of the inappropriate sex or gender, get out of that experience whatever they can, whatever they were meant to get, and then move on to relationships with people they normally conceive of themselves as being attracted to. (...Wow, that was one tortured sentence.) I actually have no problem believing that there's some person out there that will make a straight/gay person think, "You know, I like/want that person so much that I'm going to take a walk on the wild side," whatever your particular wild side may be. I even have no problems believing that you can fall in love with a person of the same/opposite sex when you would not otherwise be that way inclined. Seriously, I think that people of any persuasion may be a bit more flexible than they necessarily let themselves be. (I'm going to get into such trouble for that one.) Mind, I do also kind of agree with Dan Savage when he says that after a few years in an actually monogamous relationship, you may give up your right to say I'm gay/straight/bisexual when that's not actually the way you've been behaving. There's a level where orientation isn't just attraction, it's also behavior. If I say, "No, really, I'm gay," but I've been in a monogamous relationship with a woman for a few years, it's perfectly reasonable for people to call bullshit on me. (And I'm really going to get into trouble for that one.) Mind, if you're acting contrary to your particular persuasions, and you're not making any accommodations for that, I suspect that your relationship is going to be headed for disaster at some point. By that, I don't necessarily mean that you need to, say, fool around with guys behind your female partner's back or vice versa; it depends entirely on the situation. I just have a feeling that some sort of safety valve will be needed; however, that's not at all relevant here, and that may be a completely cockeyed view.
All that said: kind of not believing that Haggard is really all that straight. I mean, yes, it was just one guy, apparently. But there's a certain point when the risk/reward ratio is so very out of whack, at least to an outside observer, that you have to conclude that in that person's head, the risk/reward ratio was either being calculated in an entirely different way, or that they were in such a state of desperate need for something (see "making accommodations", above), that the idea that the risk was simply too great paled next to the need itself. In Haggard's case, the risk was losing almost everything and being publicly exposed and humiliated, having his family publicly embarrassed and humiliated, having them vile liberal godless secular bastards luxuriating in the schadenfreude, being fodder for public abuse for weeks and months ... all of which happened. The reward was, apparently, weekly massages and handjobs from an attractive masseur. There is something desperately wrong with that calculation.
Also, kind of hysterical to think that three weeks of counseling is enough to convince anyone that three years of behind-the-scenes "massaging" was just an aberration. They say he was a sexual addict, but somehow ... one session per week, as has been reported, would hardly seem to be rampaging addiction.
And really relentlessly funny to think that this stamp of approval from the council is meaningful. I mean, yes, at a certain level, it is; it likely means that once the furore has died down, if there's any such thing as a more liberal congregation within Haggard's denomination, he might find a future with them. (The extremely conservative ones will say "EW! Gay cooties!" and run screaming away from him until they can find the tar and feathers.) But seriously, it's like having the UnScarlet Letter, isn't it? "No, really, been certified straight by the council. See the stamp? Right here on my forehead! Nope! Not a sinner any more! Council says so! Howdy, thou! Really, I'm straight! Says so right on my forehead!"
Eh. Without being in the least sarcastic, I can hope that he does well in the future. (Within certain definitions of "well".) Certification aside, his family doesn't deserve to be dragged through all this again. Though I'm rather afraid they will be, someday.
Haggard says he is not gay:
By Eric Gorski
Denver Post Staff Writer
Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/06/2007 02:21:58 PM MST
The Rev. Ted Haggard emerged from three weeks of intensive counseling convinced he is "completely heterosexual" and told an oversight board that his sexual contact with men was limited to his accuser. That is according to one of the disgraced pastor's overseers, who on Monday revealed new details about where Haggard has been and where he is headed. The Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur also said the four-man oversight board strongly urged Haggard to go into secular work instead of Christian ministry if Haggard and his wife follow through on plans to earn master's degrees in psychology.
Haggard broke a three-month silence in e-mails over the weekend to select members of his former church. New Life Church interim senior pastor Ross Parsley forwarded Haggard's message to the wider church body Monday. In the message, Haggard revealed that he and his wife, Gayle, intend to leave Colorado Springs and pursue master's degrees through online courses. Haggard mentioned Missouri and Iowa as possible destinations. Another oversight board member, the Rev. Mike Ware of Westminster, said the group recommended the move out of town, and the Haggards agreed. "This is a good place for Ted," Ware said. "It's hard to heal in Colorado Springs right now. It's like an open wound. He needs to get somewhere he can get the wound healed."
Haggard, 50, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and was fired from the church he built from nothing into a 14,000-member congregation after a former male prostitute in Denver alleged a three-year cash-for-sex relationship. Haggard admitted to "sexual immorality" and a long battle against feelings contrary to his beliefs. He admitted buying methamphetamine but said he never used it. Haggard did not respond to interview requests. Among other things, the overseers urged Haggard to enter a 12-step program for sexual addiction, Ware said.
Ralph said three weeks of counseling at an undisclosed Arizona treatment center helped Haggard immensely and left Haggard sure of one thing. "He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting- out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing." [...]
OK, so here's the thing: I actually have no problems believing that a person can be basically straight or gay, and conduct an affair with a person of the same or opposite sex, as inappropriate. I don't have a problem believing that a person can have even a lengthy affair/relationship with a person of the inappropriate sex or gender, get out of that experience whatever they can, whatever they were meant to get, and then move on to relationships with people they normally conceive of themselves as being attracted to. (...Wow, that was one tortured sentence.) I actually have no problem believing that there's some person out there that will make a straight/gay person think, "You know, I like/want that person so much that I'm going to take a walk on the wild side," whatever your particular wild side may be. I even have no problems believing that you can fall in love with a person of the same/opposite sex when you would not otherwise be that way inclined. Seriously, I think that people of any persuasion may be a bit more flexible than they necessarily let themselves be. (I'm going to get into such trouble for that one.) Mind, I do also kind of agree with Dan Savage when he says that after a few years in an actually monogamous relationship, you may give up your right to say I'm gay/straight/bisexual when that's not actually the way you've been behaving. There's a level where orientation isn't just attraction, it's also behavior. If I say, "No, really, I'm gay," but I've been in a monogamous relationship with a woman for a few years, it's perfectly reasonable for people to call bullshit on me. (And I'm really going to get into trouble for that one.) Mind, if you're acting contrary to your particular persuasions, and you're not making any accommodations for that, I suspect that your relationship is going to be headed for disaster at some point. By that, I don't necessarily mean that you need to, say, fool around with guys behind your female partner's back or vice versa; it depends entirely on the situation. I just have a feeling that some sort of safety valve will be needed; however, that's not at all relevant here, and that may be a completely cockeyed view.
All that said: kind of not believing that Haggard is really all that straight. I mean, yes, it was just one guy, apparently. But there's a certain point when the risk/reward ratio is so very out of whack, at least to an outside observer, that you have to conclude that in that person's head, the risk/reward ratio was either being calculated in an entirely different way, or that they were in such a state of desperate need for something (see "making accommodations", above), that the idea that the risk was simply too great paled next to the need itself. In Haggard's case, the risk was losing almost everything and being publicly exposed and humiliated, having his family publicly embarrassed and humiliated, having them vile liberal godless secular bastards luxuriating in the schadenfreude, being fodder for public abuse for weeks and months ... all of which happened. The reward was, apparently, weekly massages and handjobs from an attractive masseur. There is something desperately wrong with that calculation.
Also, kind of hysterical to think that three weeks of counseling is enough to convince anyone that three years of behind-the-scenes "massaging" was just an aberration. They say he was a sexual addict, but somehow ... one session per week, as has been reported, would hardly seem to be rampaging addiction.
And really relentlessly funny to think that this stamp of approval from the council is meaningful. I mean, yes, at a certain level, it is; it likely means that once the furore has died down, if there's any such thing as a more liberal congregation within Haggard's denomination, he might find a future with them. (The extremely conservative ones will say "EW! Gay cooties!" and run screaming away from him until they can find the tar and feathers.) But seriously, it's like having the UnScarlet Letter, isn't it? "No, really, been certified straight by the council. See the stamp? Right here on my forehead! Nope! Not a sinner any more! Council says so! Howdy, thou! Really, I'm straight! Says so right on my forehead!"
Eh. Without being in the least sarcastic, I can hope that he does well in the future. (Within certain definitions of "well".) Certification aside, his family doesn't deserve to be dragged through all this again. Though I'm rather afraid they will be, someday.