|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Monday, November 06, 2006
He admits all
Haggard fesses up to a "lifelong sexual problem." Namely, he likes cock. And you know what, that's ok.
At least he admits that he's been gay his whole life and doesn't act like it was some choice he made because the mean gays with their homosexual agenda recruited him as a teen. What a load of crap that is, here's a perfect example of why homosexuality isn't a choice. You have a guy, dead set against everything gay, preaching against it in public, but still is forced to satisfy his homosexual needs privately. How could one still say that homosexuality is a choice after Ted Haggard? |
11 Comments:
Because the evangelicals can still blame it on Satan. Ols Scratch wanted to bring Good Pastor Ted down, and succeeded. Sad, sad, but such is the weakness of man.
Now I'm'a go beat the Devil out of my boy so's he don't grow up queer like Ted.
9:26 AM, November 06, 2006
Look, can you use the term "Pastor Ted", because that name has been maligned enough without this guy adding to our collective baggage?
With Bundy, Kennedy and Turner we got our fair share of finger pointing.
Ted = God's Gift. Indeed.
10:10 AM, November 06, 2006
Ha!
11:49 AM, November 06, 2006
How can they still call homosexuality a choice?
You forget that irrational people don't necessarily live in a causal, logical universe like the rest of us.
1:35 PM, November 06, 2006
Ted,
But surely Father Ted (one of the finest British comedy series) makes up for it?
Maybe?
4:12 PM, November 06, 2006
Teddy Roosevelt was cool.
So is Ted Nugent. Wait. No.
4:21 PM, November 06, 2006
Having Ted for a name is like a millstone bout one's neck. You get used to it and forget, but after a while someone points it out and you go: "Ohhh, yeah, I forgot about that. Damn."
But really, here's the thing about Pastor Ted that's been bothering me.
1. There's this thing about privacy is what people do behind close doors. If they want to play hide the sausage in innovative ways, I've always thought, what the heck -- it's none of my business as long as they're consenting and I've used that as a general yardstick in dealing with various robosexual rights. So if we're supposed to consider privacy, why do we get this glee when some gay dude gets outed?
2. Even moreso, I hear told that there's a certain amount of personal and professional discretion involved in sex, and when it's professionalized to the point of money exchanging hands, etiquette demands that if you take money for sex, the expectation is you should probably shut up on the details of sucking the preacher to make ends meet. That would be rule #1 when I check the licensing status of the alleged professional.
But I probably expect too much -- that a business transaction would be private since you actually had services consent, and expectation of discretion and money changes hands. Maybe this is just a micro-market extension of the consumer data resale that Experian and ChoicePoint do.
Anywhoo, it's not that I feel sorry for Pastor Ted, I've just lost faith in the premise of sex is private and the business end of it is ...what... unprofessional maybe?
6:28 PM, November 06, 2006
Ted,
Reading Dan Savage and some othe rprominent gay writers talk about this idea of outing closeted politicians may be relevant.
The homosexual community generally feels that outing someone without their consent is a major breach of privacy and a serious act of assholery. However, they have indicated again and again, if someone is closeted and publicly attacking homosexuals it becomes fair game. Privacy should be absolute when it comes to 99.9% of individuals, but if you're Americas number one evangelical pastor and you're calling homosexuals evil and demonizing while getting your tubes cleaned by a gay guy on the side, you're fair game.
So, yes, if he was some small town pastor, or if there wasn't the political side of him attacking homosexuals I'd agree. But as a public figure attacking this behavior, he has no expectation that homosexuals would consider his right to privacy sacrosanct.
11:03 AM, November 07, 2006
The homosexual community generally feels that outing someone without their consent is a major breach of privacy and a serious act of assholery. However, they have indicated again and again, if someone is closeted and publicly attacking homosexuals it becomes fair game. Privacy should be absolute when it comes to 99.9% of individuals, but if you're Americas number one evangelical pastor and you're calling homosexuals evil and demonizing while getting your tubes cleaned by a gay guy on the side, you're fair game.
So, yes, if he was some small town pastor, or if there wasn't the political side of him attacking homosexuals I'd agree. But as a public figure attacking this behavior, he has no expectation that homosexuals would consider his right to privacy sacrosanct.
I'm aware of this view nut I don't think it flies.
I think in this case the gay community gets to make up their own standards and everyone sort of has a hands-off approach.
I still think that bringing someone's private life and conflating it into the public argument smacks of ad hominem.
The subject he argues is gay-rights, and even when conducted in public, it's still an abstract argument (in my view) because it involves a presentation of view in a persuasive argument and a desire to form group rules and laws through persuasion, not through violence. To bring in other factors such as personal data from the side indicates a weakness or laziness but it's justified by the use of labeling something as exposing hypocrisy.
I'm just not used to seeking to win an argument by introducing things not germane to the argument. Things that are designed to dismiss the tedium of argument by introducing the personal failures of the party.
I don't know how it matters if he was a small town pastor vs a big congregation pastor. If he broke the law he should be exposed either way. However, judging people by their moral failings smacks of dismissiveness to the central argument.
Probably rambling here, but I really view this as a permitted ad-hominem attack if the subject is gay rights. Pastor Ted is not a politician although he certainly tried to influence politics. Is that the criteria? Anyone that tries to influence politics is game for outing?
8:23 AM, November 08, 2006
Ted, I think you are underplaying the role of someone who tries to influence politics. From what I understand, Haggard had a batphone to the president and successfully organized group actions through his role as the head of his organization.
My point is that he was not engaged in an abstract argument. Influencing political activity is where the rubber meets the road between abstract argument and messing with people's private lives. Haggart sought to and succeeded in advancing an anti-gay rights agenda. Given the second-class citizen condition of gays in this country, what Haggert was doing counts as messing with personal lives too.
Politics is not equivalent to argumentation. Arguments and debates are secondary; they're tools for sorting out who stands where on policy. There is an assumption in a democratic society that people do not make specious arguments as a pastime (this is what Bill O'Reilly does for entertainment, and also why he's an asshole). In the political arena, the fact that so-and-so is making a hypocritical argument is relevant to the debate.
-JE
11:58 AM, November 08, 2006
Ted, I think you are underplaying the role of someone who tries to influence politics. From what I understand, Haggard had a batphone to the president and successfully organized group actions through his role as the head of his organization.
Given on some of this, but where was the gay-rights lobby that could have had Democrats and Clinton's ear and a batphone installed in those days? His sin was that he successfully organized group action?
Pastor Ted started his ministry in '85 and over 20 years built up some credibility and congregation. I imagine that he may have done some good in his day to go along with his more controversial views. His current message happens to oppose gay-rights and gay-marriage, but I don't really see the government giving him a hand-up on this. He only got the batphone when Chimpy got into office and that was more Karl's doing than chimpy. In short he and his were used to deliver voltes as a political tool more than he used the administration to get his way.
Although I note that the initiative to ban gay marriage in Colorado appears to have passed despite the outing.
Although it can be said that he was hypocritical in some senses it can also be that he was consistent. Even though he had a proclivity for kink, he mostly had it under control as the bible-thumpers seem to preach. He had kids, and even if he was gay, appears to have lived in a hetero relationship to raise them. So in some of these things he was relatively consistent. He quit fast, and kept the denials to a minimum, maybe to avoid explaining details to his kids.
I understand your basic point but I want the arguments to be won on clear merit not on ad hominem and Hollywood confessionals.
Plus, I don't think that the gay-rights movement is helped all that much by the Mike Jones types. I'd like to see gays represented by well adjusted people that exemplify normal, vs. representation by male hookers. That would carry more water when the argument is made that they are suitable for marriage, parenting, etc. A hetero prostitute does not make a poster-child for marriage and parenthood in the conventional sense.
I don't mind gays and generally vote to support when I can, but I really feel uncomfortable when they're walking around the neighborhood with assless chaps. And that is the vision I get when their representation comes from male masseuses that advertise in weekly community papers.
As for the O'Reilly comparison, I don't buy that one -- O'Reilly is given a voice and allowed to spew lies by those political fuckheads at the FCC; Pastor Ted had to find his idiots through hard work, not simply by casting a net that trolls for idiots the way Fox does.
Influencing political activity is where the rubber meets the road between abstract argument and messing with people's private lives.
Sure, but what's acceptable? If I rail against the petroindustry am I hypocrite if I drive a car? This is America and the situation is more complex than two-dimensional yes/no categorization.
I didn't mean to prolong this thread this long or make it sound confrontational, so I apologize. Maybe we can pick up the bits and pieces in some other threads closer to the masthead.
12:44 PM, November 08, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home