Sunday, November 05, 2006

Haggard Half-Apologizes

Moralistic megapreacher Ted Haggard has finally admitted the stories are true.

When he was first busted, Haggard said he'd bought some meth from this guy. Once. Mmm, sure, and we saw the transcripts where he's trying to buy "more," one or two hundred dollars' worth of the stuff. Well, okay, he did buy it a few times. But he never used it. So what was it for? To decorate his house? And why would he have to buy more? --If he didn't use it, he ought to still have it, shouldn't he?

Oh, and also, he has never heard of the man who outed him. Uh, yes, well, he did meet him. Once. Well, a few times. But he didn't have sex with him. A massage. Once. Well, a few times, but it was just a massage, that's all, no sex.

And there's Ted, staring into vacuum of the Mystery Tramp's eyes, saying, do you want to make a deal-l-l-l-l?

Nope, Ted, MT don't do that, sorry.
Less than 24 hours after he was fired from the pulpit of the evangelical megachurch he founded, the Rev Ted Haggard confessed to his followers Sunday that he was guilty of sexual immorality.

In a letter that was read to the congregation of the New Life Church by another clergyman, Haggard apologized for his acts and requested forgiveness.

"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said. Pastor Apologizes for ‘Sexual Immorality’

He says he's guilty of "sexual immorality." Yes, cheating on your wife, that's sexually immoral, all right, we'd all agree to that.

But that's not the only sexual immorality. Look, Ted, you're gay, it was immoral to marry a woman in the first place. You just said you've been aware of this for all of your adult life. What were you thinking? Why did you drag her into this? You've ruined her life, humiliated her, when she believed she was marrying into something really special and good, marrying a man of God.

And of course, the worst of the immorality: a lifetime of trying to deprive other gay people of the right to live happily, in peace, equal to their heterosexual peers.

We haven't heard Ted Haggard apologize for that yet.

The last thing he admits, he's a "deceiver and a liar." No, it's worse than that. It wasn't just a deceit and a lie, he sold out his own soul. His own feelings. He spread hatred for others who felt like him, he dumped his own confusion onto helpless thousands who had done nothing to harm him. He spread the hate. It's beyond deceit, beyond lying, it's perverse.

You still owe your gay brothers and sisters an apology, Ted.

32 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am so sorry for the circumstances that have caused shame and embarrassment for all of you," he said, adding that he had confused the situation by giving inconsistent remarks to reporters denying the scandal.

"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.

...

Haggard, 50, had acknowledged on Friday that he paid Mike Jones of Denver for a massage and for methamphetamine, but said he did not have sex with him and did not take the drug.

The Overseer Board, made up clergy from various churches, used stronger language.

"Our investigation and Pastor Haggard's public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct," the board said in a statement.

...

"Jones said in a telephone interview Sunday: "I am sad for him and his family. I know this is a tough day for him also. I wish him well. I wish his family well. My intent was never to destroy his family. My intent was to expose a hypocrite.

"I hope the healing process can start. I welcome his request for forgiveness for me."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-haggard6nov6,0,2349391.story?coll=la-home-headlines

November 05, 2006 6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thing is a whole lot bigger than Pastor Ted.

Take a look at the rest of the New Life pastors, probably hired by Pastor Ted.

Could this bunch be just a little bit more flaming? Could Pastor Ross Parsley sound just a little bit more like a queen?

evangelical = self-hating gay

November 05, 2006 7:47 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Dobson said he was heartsick over this. Should have been heartsick over the hatred he and Ted preach. Amazing how much denial there was when this came out- as if some preacher spouting hate just couldn't be buying drugs and having sex with a male hooker.

I would all the stuff he spouted from the pulpit is what he should be apologizing for.

November 05, 2006 7:57 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin Ryssman - now after all your childish comments asking why gays don't just accept marriage on the opposite sex terms society offers it, what do you have to say about the this gay man getting involved in an opposite sex marriage he had no business being in? You thought you were pretty smart making those stupid comments, how do you honestly feel about the wreck that happens when gay men get involved in opposite sex marriages? No matter how much you hate gays why would you wish this sort of thing on innocent heterosexual women and children. And you've got the nerve to tell me you hope for the best for me.

November 05, 2006 11:16 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

But that's not the only sexual immorality. Look, Ted, you're gay, it was immoral to marry a woman in the first place. You just said you've been aware of this for all of your adult life. What were you thinking? Why did you drag her into this? You've ruined her life, humiliated her, when she believed she was marrying into something really special and good, marrying a man of God.

Wow!...you know all of that??? Goodness, can you help me out with this week's lotto numbers?

Though I guess if in fact this projectionist fantasy is in fact reality, then Brother Ted could "come out" and have a "new life" as a "born again" gay man...hey, anything is possible in America.

Anonymous scribbles,

Take a look at the rest of the New Life pastors, probably hired by Pastor Ted.

Could this bunch be just a little bit more flaming? Could Pastor Ross Parsley sound just a little bit more like a queen?

evangelical = self-hating gay


Yup, keep telling yourself that one...the Toilet Paper blog? A Freudian slip? Or rare admission? Well, the "picture" of Adam Taylor is far more revealing about the TP blogger (unless, of course, one is preaching to the choir) than perhaps anything else posted...well, the home prices are revealing, but that seems to be the trend in protestant mega-churches. Frankly, I do think it is excessive, but as a Catholic I try not to concern myself with how mega-churches compensate their pastorate.

And then Randi unloads...

Orin Ryssman

Yes?...

- now after all your childish comments asking why gays don't just accept marriage on the opposite sex terms society offers it, what do you have to say about the this gay man getting involved in an opposite sex marriage he had no business being in?

You still have not established what is exactly "childish" about maintaining, preserving and even (gasp!) defending a societal standard that has served an overwhelming majority very well, but I will give you another chance, ok?

Now, in answer to your question...what I have to say about this is the same thing I say about a female relative on my wife's side of the family that is carrying on an affair with a married man. It is objectively wrong because it she is assisting a man in violating a committment he made to his wife.

Looking for a double standard? Sorry, there is but one standard...

You thought you were pretty smart making those stupid comments, how do you honestly feel about the wreck that happens when gay men get involved in opposite sex marriages?

Again...sigh (this is getting old, but for the sake of moral clarity I will give it another go around), the moral standard is the same for one and all that are involved in marriage: sexual fidelity. Period.

Now, it would seem you are question begging here, so I would like to ask you a question. Is there any reason that the moral standard should be any different for the male "escort" than for my relative?

No matter how much you hate gays why would you wish this sort of thing on innocent heterosexual women and children.

You know that for a fact? Wow, you are almost as good as Jim...

Now I understand how some can be intimidated by such namecalling, but rest assured, I am not. If you have a serious moral argument, I would like to hear it...otherwise you are simply preaching to the choir.

And you've got the nerve to tell me you hope for the best for me.

My wife just calls me annoying, so that is a new one...hummm, I'll have to think about that one for a bit.

Look, I had an opportunity to put a Vote YES on Amendment 43 (the constitutional amendment establishing what a majority still understands about marriage: that it is the union of one man and one woman of consenting age and not bound by kinship) yard sign in my front yard.

I did not. Why? Did I lack courage?

I can explain it this way...I did not and do not feel any need to push it in the face of my gay and lesbian neighbors. They will vote the way they want and I will vote the way I want, and hopefully after the election, both sides will accept the verdict of the electorate. On this issue as well, I don't think yard signs do anything to sway the majority...

Look, just about anyone with a body temp of 98.6 degrees fahrenheit knows where I stand on this issue. They also know that I understand and accept that others think and feel differently. Simply because I do not accept the emerging sexual ethic where consent is the measure of all that is correct and good does not mean I hate homosexuals.

Now, at the risk of casting pearls before that "other white meat" I do have both gay and lesbian friends. And yes, they do know how I stand on this issue. And yes, they disagree with me on this issue.

This then brings up then a question: do I discard such friendships? And equally as important, do they discard me as a friend? I suspect you would say that they should. However there is this question: would someone...anyone...claiming to be a friend make such a demand of another? Would my gay friend of 23 years demand that of me? (indeed many of his gay friends have asked that of him more than once).

Interestingly enough, not a single family member or friend has ever posed that question to me (how can you be their friend? - though I do know what my answer would be: because that is what a friend does). Indeed, recently when my wife's side of the family had a family reunion, lesbian friends of ours were included.

Again, I wish you well, and may the best candidates and issues win tomorrow on Election Day.

November 06, 2006 12:08 PM  
Blogger digger said...

Orin

Don't take people's anger personally. You have to know that almost all LGBT people have a store of anger inside, from harassment, from prejudice from shame. We've almost all experienced at least some of that, and those memories linger.

I at least like you, whether we disagree on marriage or not.

I find most of my colleagues don't discuss marriage with me, unless they agree with me. I think they don't want anyone to have hurt feelings or be angry; that would interfere with our friendships. They know I'm not a debater (except sometimes electronically). There are things we just don't talk about (we discuss quadratic equations, differentiation, and bad math puns a lot; What would you get if you divided a Jack-o-lantern's circumference by its radius? Pumpkin Pi, of course).

As for Ted Haggard et. al. I consider folks like him my peeps, and my heart goes out to him and his family. They have a difficult time ahead of them, and they might not survive intact. If Mr. Haggard is that closeted, uses meth and hires hustlers, he's in a lot of trouble (and danger). Meth is addictive and destructive, I think perhaps always. I hope he gets out of the traps he's set for himself.

Let's all go vote tomorrow. "No" on Amendment 1!

Robert

November 06, 2006 5:22 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, Its one thing to oppose same sex marriages and quite another to say gay men should marry on the opposite sex terms society currently offers. Both are wrong but its the latter idea of yours that I've been pointing out is particularly stupid and childish. That's like saying you should be content with the right to a same sex marriage. Absurd and you know it. Allowing people to marry whichever gender they prefer will continue to "serve the overwhelming majority very well" and will do the same for a currently oppressed minority - its a win-win situation.

You've completely and likely intentionally missed the point. Its not that infidelity isn't wrong, its that if someone like Haggard, or Mcgreevy had gotten into a same sex marriage instead of an in advised opposite sex marriage there wouldn't have been overwhelming incentive for infidelity. They'd be with someone they were sexually attracted to from the start and not have the overwhelming temptation to cheat because they couldn't be sexually satisfied in an opposite sex relationship.

If you're concerned that there should be sexually fidelity in marriage why on earth do you continue advocating that gays marry someone they are not sexually attracted to ? What possible reason do you have to suggest that other than a childish desire to annoy and avoid admitting the obvious, that that's a bad idea? Are you such a small person that you can't acknowledge that the right to marry heterosexually is of no value to a gay man?

Everyone involved is harmed by marriages like Haggard's and Mcgreevy's. Its a pretty sick joke for you to keep proposing this as a good idea for gay men and the heterosexual women they foolishly marry to please others. If you hate infidelity, passionless, loveless and broken marriages then stop promoting the idea that gay men should choose to get involved in heterosexual marriages.

November 06, 2006 7:07 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Robert writes,

Don't take people's anger personally. You have to know that almost all LGBT people have a store of anger inside, from harassment, from prejudice from shame. We've almost all experienced at least some of that, and those memories linger.

Trust me Robert, I don't...I do think that much like Black Americans, LGBT will need to step back and try to recognize what they have achieved. Anger can keep anyone from seeing that...

I at least like you, whether we disagree on marriage or not.

Thank you...my gay friend has told me that I am the most transparent person he knows. What you see is what you get...

I know what it means to take risks...to go out on a limb. I left the religion I was raised in and married in to become Catholic in my early 40's, and this I did on my own.

I find most of my colleagues don't discuss marriage with me, unless they agree with me. I think they don't want anyone to have hurt feelings or be angry; that would interfere with our friendships.

It comes up between my friend and I from time to time, but since we have so much more in common, we tend to focus on that, and keeping each other up to date on what is happening in each others lives.

They know I'm not a debater (except sometimes electronically). There are things we just don't talk about (we discuss quadratic equations, differentiation, and bad math puns a lot; What would you get if you divided a Jack-o-lantern's circumference by its radius? Pumpkin Pi, of course).

Math...sigh...whenever that comes up I say I am a "math retard" and laugh. I can do that now...

As for Ted Haggard et. al. I consider folks like him my peeps, and my heart goes out to him and his family. They have a difficult time ahead of them, and they might not survive intact.

I could not agree more...human nature and habits are very difflicult to change.

If Mr. Haggard is that closeted, uses meth and hires hustlers, he's in a lot of trouble (and danger).

That is the one part of this story that does not make sense based upon what is known about meth. Meth is the most addictive drug ever, and once it has been tried it "rewires" the brain for addiction. If Haggard had tried it once, he would have been hooked and there would be visible signs of addiction. Now, I could be wrong on all of this, but this does not make sense.

Meth is addictive and destructive, I think perhaps always. I hope he gets out of the traps he's set for himself.

I remember the article I read in the New Yorker a while back. It describe sex on meth as "Kodacolor" while sex without as simply "black and white" and this explained the attraction of some gay men to meth use.

Let's all go vote tomorrow. "No" on Amendment 1!

Well...while I cannot endorse that POV, I think you and I both can celebrate a process that helps us all to settle our differences peacefully.

Good hearing from you Robert!

Randi Schimnosky writes,

Orin, Its one thing to oppose same sex marriages and quite another to say gay men should marry on the opposite sex terms society currently offers. Both are wrong but its the latter idea of yours that I've been pointing out is particularly stupid and childish. That's like saying you should be content with the right to a same sex marriage. Absurd and you know it. Allowing people to marry whichever gender they prefer will continue to "serve the overwhelming majority very well" and will do the same for a currently oppressed minority - its a win-win situation.

Interesting word choice there ..."absurd". What is the very essence of absurdity is the radical redefinition of the word marriage. And your calling my comments "childish" and "stupid" is...well, ironic.

You've completely and likely intentionally missed the point. Its not that infidelity isn't wrong, its that if someone like Haggard, or Mcgreevy had gotten into a same sex marriage instead of an in advised opposite sex marriage there wouldn't have been overwhelming incentive for infidelity. They'd be with someone they were sexually attracted to from the start and not have the overwhelming temptation to cheat because they couldn't be sexually satisfied in an opposite sex relationship.

Given what is known...actually known about the sexual habits of all males, including homosexual males, the above statement does not hold up. Remember Wilt Chamberlain, the famous basketball player? There was a bit of an uproar when his biography came out and it was disclosed that he had had literally hundreds, if not thousands, of sex partners. In fact, this Wikipedia entry seems like a good summary,

"20,000 women" claim

In his second autobiography, A View from Above (1991), Chamberlain claimed to have had sex with almost 20,000 women. This would have meant, on average, having had sex with more than one new woman every day of his life since the age of 15. Because of that, many people doubt his specific number, though few question the fact of his promiscuity. He drew heavy criticism from many public figures, who accused him of fulfilling stereotypes about African Americans, and of behaving irresponsibly, especially given the AIDS crisis, which was well underway by the 1980s (when many of the encounters occurred). Chamberlain defended himself, saying "I was just doing what was natural — chasing good-looking ladies, whoever they were and wherever they were available. He also noted that he never tried to sleep with a woman who was married.

Chamberlain was a lifelong bachelor and fathered no known children. In spite of his extensive womanizing, there is no known record of his ever being the target of a paternity lawsuit.


So, whether you are a genuine life long confirmed bachelor and "ladies man" (ergo heterosexual), *OR* a gay male, the pattern of sexual promiscuity is deeply ingrained in the male species. It is the equally ingrained sexual nature of women that is recognized as the force that primarily tames, and domestics the ravenous male sexual nature. That is why putting two men together in a thing called "marriage" would not help them very much, and more importantly, would hurt the societal influence of marriage as a civilizing social institution.

If you're concerned that there should be sexually fidelity in marriage why on earth do you continue advocating that gays marry someone they are not sexually attracted to?

Have I said that? Where? Oh, that's right, you will not be able to cite me because I did not say it, write it, or even believe it.

What I did say is that marriage is offered to ALL on the same basis (the late Mr. Chamberlain obviously understood the demands of marriage and wisely - I might add - declined participation in it).

What possible reason do you have to suggest that other than a childish desire to annoy and avoid admitting the obvious, that that's a bad idea? Are you such a small person that you can't acknowledge that the right to marry heterosexually is of no value to a gay man?

"No value"??? Ask the men...gay men...that married a woman and had children. I dare say you would find precious few who would not affirm that having children was one of the best things they ever did. In that I would agree...

Everyone involved is harmed by marriages like Haggard's and Mcgreevy's. Its a pretty sick joke for you to keep proposing this as a good idea for gay men and the heterosexual women they foolishly marry to please others. If you hate infidelity, passionless, loveless and broken marriages then stop promoting the idea that gay men should choose to get involved in heterosexual marriages.

If a gay man can marry a woman with that woman knowing in advance that he is homosexual, why should they not be allowed to find the happiness (and sadness) that children can bring to any relationship? I fully admit that it is HIGHLY problematic, ok, and I certainly don't advocate it as some sort of "therapy".

Still, don't you think that if Haggard is gay that he (if he is willing) and his wife have the right to attempt to salvage their marriage, esp. for the sake of their children, not to mention the life they have built together?

November 07, 2006 8:19 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Orin writes:
"So, whether you are a genuine life long confirmed bachelor and "ladies man" (ergo heterosexual), *OR* a gay male, the pattern of sexual promiscuity is deeply ingrained in the male species."

Orin, your statement is quite a generalization. I am a male who has been entirely monogamous in my nearly thirty-year marriage. I do not think I am an oddity. I think your statement grossly underestimates entire male population. Ultimately what matters in intimate relationships is trust and loyalty. I do not believe males, whether straight or gay, are inherently untrustworthy or disloyal. We should want to have societal structures that will foster trust and loyalty in intimate relationships.

November 07, 2006 10:15 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin, keep your gross overgeneralizations to yourself. My boyfriend and I are in a committed monogamous relationship and don't deserve your promiscuity smear campaign. If you truly wished me well as you keep saying you do you wouldn't be falsely labelling our relationship in that way. You're intentionally trying to get people to look down on us by blindly mischaracterizing relationships like ours - you obviously do not wish me well.

If as you claim men are uncontrollably promiscuous by nature it does no good to put them in an opposite sex marriage because they'll continue to be that way regardless. Contrary to your silly ideas other people don't control a mans sexual desires, he does it himself and it is much easier to do that when he has an enjoyable sex life. Haggard could have had an enjoyable sex life if he had been with a man as he should have.

If you think a gay man can't be monogamous with another gay man you certainly have no reason to think he can do so with a woman. When a man has some sex that he enjoys he has less incentive to cheat on a relationship then when he has no enjoyable sex. Clearly Haggard was not at all sexually satisfied in his heterosexual relationship and his infidelity was to be expected given that. For you to suggest otherwise is absurd.

I'm not about to go digging through the threads to find it but you said "If gays want marriage so badly why don't they accept it on the opposite sex terms that society offers it?". That is a childish absurd statement and you said it despite your denials.

You said "If a gay man can marry a woman with that woman knowing in advance that he is homosexual, why should they not be allowed to find the happiness (and sadness) that children can bring to any relationship?".

So don't go claiming you didn't advocate that gay men marry heterosexual women because you just did it again. You then contradicted yourself by saying that's highly problematic and you don't advocate it, which also answers your question - because its highly problematic gay men shouldn't have children with women.

You asked "don't you think that if Haggard is gay that he (if he is willing) and his wife have the right to attempt to salvage their marriage, esp. for the sake of their children, not to mention the life they have built together?".

I can't advise them on what to do with this unfortunate mess they are in but I do know (as should you) they should never have gotten involved in this marriage in the first place and there wouldn't be this problem. That's the point you childlishly avoid - exclusively gay men should not get into relationships with women, its a bad idea and the mess that is marriages like Haggard's and Mcgreevy's proves it. Be man enough to admit that without your absurd contradictory statements like "If a gay man can marry a woman...why should they not be allowed to find the happiness (and sadness) that children can bring to any relationship?".

If a gay man wants to have children he best have them in a more solid gay relationship by adopting. This is better for him and better for the children. Dozens of social science studies prove this. Mixed orientation marriages are a failure waiting to happen as we've seen.

November 07, 2006 1:26 PM  
Anonymous K.A. said...

Orin Ryssman said:
"If a gay man can marry a woman with that woman knowing in advance that he is homosexual, why should they not be allowed to find the happiness (and sadness) that children can bring to any relationship? I fully admit that it is HIGHLY problematic, ok, and I certainly don't advocate it as some sort of "therapy"."

And just a few days ago you said it ought not to be problem.

Orin Ryssman said:
"Interesting word choice there ..."absurd". What is the very essence of absurdity is the radical redefinition of the word marriage. And your calling my comments "childish" and "stupid" is...well, ironic."

Do you really think marriage has always meant the union of one man and one woman? That definition is actually a recent redefinition in relation to the history of civilisation. Regardless, that is irrelevant to your comments on homosexuals accepting heterosexual marriage. "Absurd", "stupid", and "childish" are perfectly fitting adjectives for those particular comments, and don't try and skirt around that fact by pulling in red herrings.

K.A.

November 07, 2006 1:56 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 07, 2006 3:47 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 07, 2006 3:53 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin I changed my mind and decided to expose your lies with your own words.

I previously asked "If you're concerned that there should be sexually fidelity in marriage why on earth do you continue advocating that gays marry someone they are not sexually attracted to?"

You responded "Have I said that? Where? Oh, that's right, you will not be able to cite me because I did not say it, write it, or even believe it."

You lie Orin, you advocated that gays marry women in this thread:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/11/uncharitable-hypothesis.html#comments

At November 03, 2006 11:43 AM you said "Amendment 43 simply affirms what most still affirm - that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Again,if gays and lesbians desire marriage so much, it ought not to be any problem accepting it on the terms society offers to everyone."

That is the childish stupid comment of yours I've been referring to. Again, if marriage was offered to you on the terms that it be same sex you most certainly would consider that a problem and its absurd for you to suggest it isn't the same with opposite sex marriage and gays. But you don't really care what's reasonable, do you, as long as you can keep gays second class citizens.

November 07, 2006 4:22 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Well, let's see how marriage has fared at the polls...

There were 8 States that had ballot measures asking the voters to clarify their thinking on what marriage means. It would appear that of the eight States (AZ, CO, ID, SC, SD, TN, VA and WI), all but one (Arizona) have approved of the meausres. Not a bad night for marriage, esp. considering that the GOP has (rightly) taken a drubbing at the polls. For me the best part is that Hastert will no longer be Speaker...

But take heart, this from the Washington Post,

Of the eight states where marriage amendments were on the ballot, seven -- Virginia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Dakota, Colorado and Idaho -- were headed toward opposing gay marriage. But supporters of gay marriage said they were seeing greater numbers voting in favor of their movement.

GAY GROUPS SEE GAINS

"Two years ago we had 11 of these on the ballot, and in only two of them did we do better than 40 percent," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"This year there were eight and in at least five of them we did better than 40 percent."

Only Arizona voted against its marriage amendment, but analysts said that does not mean voters favor gay marriage.

"They were voting against a measure in the amendment that would have denied benefits to domestic partners," said Arizona State University analyst Bruce Merrill.


Randi writes,

If as you claim men are uncontrollably promiscuous by nature it does no good to put them in an opposite sex marriage because they'll continue to be that way regardless.

And that is where women come in...

Contrary to your silly ideas other people don't control a mans sexual desires, he does it himself and it is much easier to do that when he has an enjoyable sex life.

"Silly" you say? LOL, ok, you can keep telling yourself that fable, but there are others that have thought about this alot more than you or I, and they have arrived at an understanding of the way men and women's nature works with, not against, each other. There is such a thing as HUMAN NATURE...you can choose to understand it better, or you can remain ignorant of the fact that it even exists. One good place to start would be the book, Men and Marriage, by George Gilder (at either half.com or Amazon.com you can easily pick up a copy for under $3), though in order to be able to read and benefit by the book you would need to accept something that is an anathema to most liberals: that we humans have a "nature" at all (hence the comment by David).

When you have done your homework, come back and we can talk some more...

And finally, Randi writes,

Orin I changed my mind and decided to expose your lies with your own words.

I previously asked "If you're concerned that there should be sexually fidelity in marriage why on earth do you continue advocating that gays marry someone they are not sexually attracted to?"

You responded "Have I said that? Where? Oh, that's right, you will not be able to cite me because I did not say it, write it, or even believe it."

You lie Orin, you advocated that gays marry women in this thread:

http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/11/uncharitable-hypothesis.html#comments

At November 03, 2006 11:43 AM you said "Amendment 43 simply affirms what most still affirm - that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Again,if gays and lesbians desire marriage so much, it ought not to be any problem accepting it on the terms society offers to everyone."

That is the childish stupid comment of yours I've been referring to. Again, if marriage was offered to you on the terms that it be same sex you most certainly would consider that a problem and its absurd for you to suggest it isn't the same with opposite sex marriage and gays. But you don't really care what's reasonable, do you, as long as you can keep gays second class citizens.


Wow, that anger is keeping you from understanding the plain english meaning of what I am saying.

Ok, for the sake of complete clarity let me spell it out:

Marriage has a purpose, and that purpose defines its limits. Homosexual unions, as loving, caring, sharing, tender, etc, etc, etc, do not serve that purpose. We now have 27 (that is a majority, btw) of State voters affirming the definition of marriage. What I suspect may now become the focus is the "suers" (isn't that the word, Jim?), that is those not willing to accept the verdict of the voters will focus on the judicial branch.

Randi rants,

That is the childish stupid comment of yours I've been referring to.

Sorry to disappoint, but of this I am clear: measures affirming marriage as a man/woman union are NOT "anti-gay" or "same-sex" marriage, no matter how much you or the media may strive to frame the issue in this manner. Keep saying that two plus two equals five, and you will still violate a basic rule of math (not to mention reality), and that will not reflect well on you.

Again, if marriage was offered to you on the terms that it be same sex you most certainly would consider that a problem and its absurd for you to suggest it isn't the same with opposite sex marriage and gays.

Could've...would've...should've...as a close relative of mine would say, "if wishes were fishes, then we would all have a fry".

But you don't really care what's reasonable, do you, as long as you can keep gays second class citizens.

Please don't project your anger or speculate on what I do or do not care about. I care that gays and lesbians are treated as citizens, and that is why I support inclusion of sexual orientation in laws banning discrimination in employment, housing, etc. And I care enough about gays and lesbians to stand up and affirm (in the face of gale force cultural winds to the contrary) that marriage is a unique social institution, designed for a man and a woman, and that this union serves their interests, the interests of their children, and the interest of society (also called the Common Good).

Oh, and it even serves the long term interests of gays and lesbians, since they all came from the union of a man and a woman...or, am I mistaken, or "lying" about that too?

November 08, 2006 5:06 AM  
Anonymous K.A. said...

Orin Ryssman said:
"And I care enough about gays and lesbians to stand up and affirm (in the face of gale force cultural winds to the contrary) that marriage is a unique social institution, designed for a man and a woman, and that this union serves their interests, the interests of their children, and the interest of society (also called the Common Good)."

Your "care" is limited enough to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. Do you know how many Foley/Haggard cases occur without public notice? Your idealistic theories do not reflect reality. Also, gays and lesbians do provide and bring up children.

K.A.

November 08, 2006 1:46 PM  
Anonymous K.A. said...

Orin Ryssman said:
"Sorry to disappoint, but of this I am clear: measures affirming marriage as a man/woman union are NOT "anti-gay" or "same-sex" marriage, no matter how much you or the media may strive to frame the issue in this manner."

Sorry to disappoint, but Randi was doing no such thing -- at least not in the quote you decided to use and respond to. Randi was referring to your comment about how homosexuals ought not to have a problem accepting marriage "on the terms society offers to everyone."

You've now admitted yourself that it would be highly problematic.

(As a side note, I'll agree that those measures are not "anti-gay" and do not discriminate against gays.)

K.A.

November 08, 2006 2:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Well, Orin, at least in your last post you didn't advocate that gay men marry women or lie and claim you never said that. You did childishly change the subject because once again you are not man enough to admit you were wrong to suggest this in the first place and wrong to deny so doing. Grow up, admit you were wrong and state that it was a bad idea for someone like Haggard or Mcgreevy to marry a woman in the first place.

It's a bad day for marriage when measures are taken to prevent couples from so doing. Having more people enter the institution only strengthens it. Last night The United States took several steps back from the "all men are created equal" rhetoric which once made it a world leader in morality. Now countries like Canada have taken the moral leadership role in the world by putting fairness first. The U.S. has aligned itself with countries like Iran and has temporarily lost its way. The wave of the future is apparent however and eventually bigots like you will hide your head in shame because of the discrimination you once espoused.

Marriage was never designed. There is no ancient design committee nor notarized design document you can refer to which says same sex couples should be excluded or that marriage was designed for children. It came about informally and gradually when two people decided to share their lives together and well-wishers came together to do just that. Gays are just as capable and deserving of being in a loving supportive marriage.

If you honestly believed marriage was only about children you'd be opposing marriages of couples who are infertile or choose not to have children. Your suggestions that you're concerned about children are either sheer ignorance or blatant malice against gays. Many gay couples have children and if you sincerely believed marriage is good for children you would be the first to want such gay couples to marry.

Its obvious and undeniable that you don't care what's reasonable when you've said if gays desire marriage so much they should accept it on the opposite sex terms it is offered. You're too small a man to put yourself in another's shoes and admit that you'd consider it foolish and unreasonable for anyone to say you should be happy to accept marriage on same sex terms. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, Orin. That's just about the only worthwhile thing in that bible of yours, you'd be wise to take that to heart and ignore the rest of the tripe in there.

All your disingenous claims to care about gays and lesbians are merely a cloak for your bigotry. A lot of slave owners also claimed to care deeply for their slaves.

Your suggestion that measures banning equal marriage for same sex couples are not anti-gay doesn't pass the smell test. You've got no complaints about murderers and child molesters and all manner of horrific criminals having the right to marry, you just single out gays to bannish and then you want to claim you're not anti-gay -puh-lease.

Marriage has changed for the better over the years. Once it meant women lost their legal identity to men, that they became non-persons owned and subservient to men. Now they are equal partners. Holy matrimony once included polygamy, something modern moral society rejects. Marriage is the loving supportive union of two people to the exclusion of all others. This is good for the couple involved (regardless of gender) and what's good for individuals is good for society (the common good). The foundation of a fair and just society is equality and fairness. To have the best possible society marriage must reflect this ideal.

November 08, 2006 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Dixie said...

"GAY GROUPS SEE GAINS

"Two years ago we had 11 of these on the ballot, and in only two of them did we do better than 40 percent," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"This year there were eight and in at least five of them we did better than 40 percent."


The tide is slowly turning just as it did for Americans' views on equal civil rights for all races. At the end of the day, America will do the right thing for sexual orientation minorities just like she did for racial minorities.

Dixie

November 08, 2006 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At the end of the day, America will do the right thing for sexual orientation minorities just like she did for racial minorities."

When those who believe in no sexual morality are considered a minority, does that mean there is no sexual morality?

November 08, 2006 4:03 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous writes,

When those who believe in no sexual morality are considered a minority, does that mean there is no sexual morality?

Interesting question...

November 08, 2006 11:04 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Dixie writes,

The tide is slowly turning just as it did for Americans' views on equal civil rights for all races. At the end of the day, America will do the right thing for sexual orientation minorities just like she did for racial minorities.

This is a deeply flawed comparison. In the case of racial discrimination, many states had laws keeping men and women from uniting in marriage only due to race. Activists for same-sex "marriage" advocate redefining what marriage means.

To cast this as a matter civil rights is to misappropriate the moral legitimacy of the Civil Rights Era. And the cruelest truth of all is this; should same-sex marriage become a reality it will not change the judgement of those still able to discern the purpose and limits of marriage.

Sorry Randi, I won't be able to get to your epistle tonite...going to bed early...not feeling well. Another time, perhaps?

November 08, 2006 11:19 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at November 08, 2006 4:03 PM says "When those who believe in no sexual morality are considered a minority, does that mean there is no sexual morality?

Anonymous when those who claim to speak for an entire minority in order to mischaracterize that minority it means that person has no morality.

Orin, pretty hypocritical of you to complain of others anticipating what you think and then to applaud someone else claiming to know what an entire group of people thinks.

The people who opposed interracial marriage called that a redefinition of marriage and claimed it would hurt the institution just like you claim allowing gays to marry is a hurtful redefinition. The comparison is perfect in that in both cases bigots tried to prevent the marriages of loving couples when those marriages didn't affect the bigots in any way.

Orin, you say "And the cruelest truth of all is this; should same-sex marriage become a reality it will not change the judgement of those still able to discern the purpose and limits of marriage.

You just don't get it do you? You have a grossly inflated sense of your own importance. The marriage of a same sex couple isn't about you and your judgement, its strictly about the couple in the marriage - they're the ones who decide the purpose and limits of their marriage as do all couples. Morally speaking as long as no one's getting hurt you don't get to define the purpose and limits of any life or marriage other than your own. You have no legitimate claim to infringe upon the civil rights of gays.

November 09, 2006 11:31 AM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi writes,

The people who opposed interracial marriage called that a redefinition of marriage and claimed it would hurt the institution just like you claim allowing gays to marry is a hurtful redefinition.

And I trust you have sources to back that assertion up, correct? I would be interested in seeing them...

In any event, permit me to explain the DIFFERENCE one more time...sigh.

State laws against inter-racial marriage did not work to bring men and women together; in fact, they worked with a purpose, to keep them separated with a view towards expressing racial animus.

Defense of marriage amendments (at present 27 States have that as part of the fundamental legal framework, i.e. their State Constitution - only one State has rejected such a measure) seek to establish with unmistakable clarity the intent of the electorate on what does constitute marriage. (As an aside, back in 1878, the US Supreme Court heard the case of Reynolds v. United States wherein the Mormon Church attempted to make their case for the reason why their version of marriage was just as good as anyone else's; wisely the High Court declined to adopt their understanding of what marriage means.)

The comparison is perfect in that in both cases bigots tried to prevent the marriages of loving couples when those marriages didn't affect the bigots in any way.

Sigh...when will you drop the name calling? Placing an epithet twice in the same sentence does nothing to establish by means of reason the correctness or strength of your argument. As I explained to Dixie, laws designed to keep men and women separated denied the essential feature of marriage as a MAN and WOMAN union.

Orin, you say "And the cruelest truth of all is this; should same-sex marriage become a reality it will not change the judgement of those still able to discern the purpose and limits of marriage.

You just don't get it do you?


Get what? Actually, I do "get it"...that is, I understand that marriage is about more than the love two may share. Marriage is a long-standing social institution that serves the interest of an overwhelming majority of society, and it is in their interest to not have it tampered with by a very small minority.

You have a grossly inflated sense of your own importance. The marriage of a same sex couple isn't about you and your judgement, its strictly about the couple in the marriage - they're the ones who decide the purpose and limits of their marriage as do all couples.

LOL!..."a grossly inflated sense of your own importance"...sorry, but that is not true, but if you tell that to my teenage daughter she might just agree with you. Then again, I consider the source...

As to who gets to decide the purposes of marriage...you write, "The marriage of a same sex couple isn't about you and your judgement, its strictly about the couple in the marriage." Actually, since marriage is a matter of public record, it is necessarily of concern to the public. What gay and lesbian couples do in their private lives is, to be blunt, none of my damn business, and I will fight anyone on my side (conservative, that is) that will even hint at any change in such an approach.

However, marriage is a matter of public concern, else we would not care if a man married one woman, or three women (even if ALL are of the age of consent). For that matter, we would not care if a man married his own adult daughter. These are matters of public concern, especially as they more often than not also involve children.

Morally speaking as long as no one's getting hurt

Memo to Randi: I am not Libertarian, and nearly all of the US is not as well.

you don't get to define the purpose and limits of any life or marriage other than your own.

In this assertion you are half right...it is the other half you need to worry about. You are correct, I do not get to define the purpose and limits of marriage...duly elected legislators do!

You have no legitimate claim to infringe upon the civil rights of gays.

The legitimacy of your claim is contingent upon you establishing that claim using human reason. To date all you have done is called me names and huff-and-puff about how this is so like the ban on inter-racial marriage.

November 09, 2006 4:20 PM  
Blogger digger said...

What a long contentious thread. Too long for me to read it all.

On same-sex marriage: a majority of young voters support same-sex marriage. Teens support same-sex marriage by a large margin. It really is just a matter of time. I wonder whether the push for amendments is really an attempt to lock in a particular view, and make it harder for later generations to change the laws.

On Crystal Methamphetamine: I don't think it is immediately and irretrievably addictive. The recovering meth addicts I know describe a long, seductive slippery slope, with use that begins occasionally, perhaps once a month, moves to weekly, then daily, eventually leading to use many times a day and the destruction of the users life (and those around him) over a period of years. In my work with youth outside of school, we spend a lot of time on the risks of drug use (as well as unsafe sexual practices and other self-abusive behaviors. Far more important than any laws on same-sex marriage.

In reality, condoms are a form of harm-reduction, in the way that seatbelts on rides at Disney World (and in our cars, for that matter)are. They make life safer. The biggest crime the abstinence-only people commit is in limiting the info youth have on practices that would make their lives safer.

No school system goes far enough in addressing the safe-sex concerns that LGBT youth have (I think the Unitarians do).

rrjr

November 09, 2006 5:34 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Robert writes,

What a long contentious thread. Too long for me to read it all.

I know, I know...I could not agree more with you.

On same-sex marriage: a majority of young voters support same-sex marriage. Teens support same-sex marriage by a large margin. It really is just a matter of time. I wonder whether the push for amendments is really an attempt to lock in a particular view, and make it harder for later generations to change the laws.

Bingo! Yup, "guilty" as charged. Amendments to constitutions are far more difflicult to remove.

And yes, Robert, teens are more likely to support same-sex marriage, which comes as quite a relief that they can't vote until they turn 18, and then when they can vote, they statistically speaking (relative to their numbers) don't vote (yes, that was another sigh of relief).

On Crystal Methamphetamine: I don't think it is immediately and irretrievably addictive. The recovering meth addicts I know describe a long, seductive slippery slope, with use that begins occasionally, perhaps once a month, moves to weekly, then daily, eventually leading to use many times a day and the destruction of the users life (and those around him) over a period of years. In my work with youth outside of school, we spend a lot of time on the risks of drug use (as well as unsafe sexual practices and other self-abusive behaviors. Far more important than any laws on same-sex marriage.

I hope it is not as addictive as it appears to be...on this I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

The 27 state amendments did not mention same-sex marriage; all they stated is that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.

In reality, condoms are a form of harm-reduction, in the way that seatbelts on rides at Disney World (and in our cars, for that matter)are. They make life safer. The biggest crime the abstinence-only people commit is in limiting the info youth have on practices that would make their lives safer.

Robert, there is a reason for this: those of us, like myself, who advocate abstinence, do so for a reason. We seek to eliminate the risk, not just reduce it.

No school system goes far enough in addressing the safe-sex concerns that LGBT youth have (I think the Unitarians do).

Yup, they probably do...

November 09, 2006 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Orin said "And yes, Robert, teens are more likely to support same-sex marriage, which comes as quite a relief that they can't vote until they turn 18, and then when they can vote, they statistically speaking (relative to their numbers) don't vote (yes, that was another sigh of relief)."

Don't be too sure, Orin.

"Nov. 8 - Turnout among 18-29 year old voters increased by more than 2 million voters in the 2006 elections compared to 2002, according to an early exit poll analysis released today as part of the first comprehensive look at the youth vote in the midterm elections, presented by Young Voter Strategies. At least 10 million votes were cast by this age group in 2006 compared to 8 million in 2002, and the vote counts are still coming in. Youth-dense precincts that were targeted by Get-Out-the-Vote campaigns showed even larger increases. Turnout more than doubled in the 36 precincts where groups like the nonpartisan Student PIRG’s New Voters Project actively turned out this age cohort."

http://www.youngvoterstrategies.com/index.php?tg=articles&idx=More&topics=37&article=282

Aunt Bea

November 09, 2006 11:25 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Aunt Bea,

That is public interest group hype...don't believe everything you read.

Orin

November 09, 2006 11:54 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What's your problem with this "public interest group" Young Voter Strategies, Orin? Are they too bipartisan for you?

Aunt Bea

November 10, 2006 9:36 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Orin said "State laws against inter-racial marriage did not work to bring men and women together; in fact, they worked with a purpose, to keep them separated with a view towards expressing racial animus."

Orin, and so it is with bans on gay marriage. The talk about it being about "protecting marriage" is merely a cover for gay animus. The marriage of a gay couple affects no one other than that couple. What's good for them is good for society.

Orin says "Marriage is a long-standing social institution that serves the interest of an overwhelming majority of society, and it is in their interest to not have it tampered with by a very small minority."

And so it will continue to serve the interests of that majority exactly as it always has as genderless institution. The gay couple down the street marrying doesn't affect any heterosexual's marriage in any way. There's no reason not to give them the same benefits of marriage the majority gets, other than gay animus. Banning gays from marriage does nothing to bring men and women together, which if you were honest you would admit thats not why you oppose equal marriage for same sex couples.

Orin disingenously and childishly says "The 27 state amendments did not mention same-sex marriage; all they stated is that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.".

That's the same as denying a coin is heads down by insisting its tails up. Grow up Orin. That's like white supremacists saying they aren't anti-black, they're pro-white.

Orin, if you were serious about not hating gays and only wanting to help opposite sex marriage you'd be opposing child-molestors and murderers having the right to marry. As you're only singling out gays to exclude from marriage its clear where your true motiviations lay.

November 10, 2006 6:18 PM  
Anonymous K.A. said...

Same-sex couples are not being singled out; they just happen to fall into the wide category that doesn't fit the definition of one man and one woman. Other arrangements, such as groups, also do not fit the definition.

Having said that, "preserving" marriage as the union of one man and one woman is not beneficial to society.

November 12, 2006 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Hey Orin. You never responded to my question about the Young Voters Strategies group so here's another question for you. Do you consider the University of Maryland to be a producer of "public interest group hype" too?

Youth Movement at the Polls
By Zachary A. Goldfarb and Peter SlevinSunday
November 12, 2006; Page A05

Early returns from Tuesday's elections show that young people were particularly inspired to cast ballots, a result that drew cheers from voter activists.

Two million more people under the age of 30 voted in the midterm elections than in 2002, according to an analysis by the University of Maryland's Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

Twenty-four percent of those 18 to 29 who were eligible voted, the center concluded, up from 20 percent in 2002. The increase is the largest ever among young voters for midterm elections, and it dwarfed the 1 percent rise among the electorate overall from 2002 to 2006.

Turnout more than doubled in 36 precincts where nonpartisan young-voter groups focused their get-out-the-vote efforts. "It's a pretty strong statement," said Heather Smith, director of Young Voter Strategies.

Smith's nonpartisan group, based at George Washington University, delivered grants to organizations that registered 500,000 voters this year. The groups found that peer-to-peer efforts, rather than telephone calls or mail, are particularly successful in getting young people to vote.

Exit poll data from the elections suggested that the increase in youth turnout aided Democrats in capturing control of Congress. In House races, young people formed the most supportive age group, with 61 percent voting Democratic.

In 2004, young-voter turnout substantially increased, and the 18-to-29 age group strongly supported the presidential candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). This year's findings have raised hopes among Democrats that this is a voting bloc poised to vote for their party for years to come.

"We're very excited about this," said Jane Fleming, executive director of the Young Democrats of America, adding that 2008 "will be the real test."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111100954.html

Aunt Bea

November 13, 2006 12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home