http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227620,00.html

Ousted Evangelist Rev. Ted Haggard Tells Followers He's Guilty of 'Sexual Immorality'
Sunday, November 05, 2006

AP

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Saying that he was a "deceiver and liar" who had given in to his dark side, the Rev. Ted Haggard confessed to sexual immorality Sunday in a letter read from the pulpit of the megachurch he founded.

The disgraced former president of the National Evangelical Association, which represents 30 million evangelical Christians, apologized and said "because of pride, I began deceiving those I love the most because I didn't want to hurt or disappoint them."

"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, resigned last week as NEA president, where he held sway in Washington and condemned homosexuality, after a man claimed to have had drug-fueled homosexual trysts with him. Haggard also placed himself on administrative leave from the 14,000-member New Life Church, which he founded in the 1980s. Its independent Overseer Board fired him Saturday.

The letter was read to the New Life Church by another clergyman, the Rev. Larry Stockstill, senior pastor of Bethany World Prayer Center in Baker, La., and a member of the board that fired him. Neither Haggard nor his wife, Gayle, attended.

In his letter, Haggard said "the accusations made against me are not all true but enough of them are that I was appropriately removed from his church leadership position."

He did not give details on which accusations were true. Haggard 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.

At the New Life church, youngsters were sent from the room before elders began discussing the church crisis.

"Worshippers are always challenged by crisis. And when tragedy and crisis strikes it is at that moment that you truly decide if you are a worshipper of the most high god. And today as the worship pastor of this church I am very proud of you," said the Rev. Ross Parsley, who has replaced Haggard.

Ryan Price and his fiancee, Karen Geyer, were impressed. "It seemed genuine — from the heart. It's unfortunate but it happens," said Geyer.

"He's reaching out and asking for forgiveness," said Price.

Jones, who said he is gay, said he was upset when he discovered who Haggard was and that New Life opposed same-sex marriage — a key issue in Colorado, with a pair of issues on Tuesday's ballot.

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

The scandal has disappointed Christian conservatives, whom President Bush and other Republicans are courting heavily in the run-up to Tuesday's election.

Many were already disheartened with the president and the Republican-controlled Congress over their failure to deliver big gains on social issues even before the congressional page scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record).

Haggard, who had been NEA president since 2003, has participated in conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied Congress last year on Supreme Court nominees.

At least Haggard is able to come to grips with the reality of his situation and face the truth. Can't say that for most of the "religious right" who continue to live in a "State of Denial".

I've come to drips (I mean grips) with reality and I have to face the truth.

I secretly want to butt-plug you Johnny. :shifty:

I know it is dark and repulsive, but it is what I must do. I have been warring against this all my adult life but I must finally come out of the closet.

I've come to drips (I mean grips) with reality and I have to face the truth.

I secretly want to butt-plug you Johnny. :shifty:

I know it is dark and repulsive, but it is what I must do. I have been warring against this all my adult life but I must finally come out of the closet.

Um...how do you butt-plug a butt-plug?

Um...how do you butt-plug a butt-plug?

I guess you are supposed to unplug it before plugging it. Don't know. New territory for me.:D

Gee Johnny, you’re not bias against the so-called “Religious Right.” :rolleyes:

In your mind Haggard is the quintessential example of the entire so-called Religious Right. I mean after all, you’re only condemning the whole “Religious Right” for the apparent hypocrisy of one individual. Based on your logic it would be perfectly fine for the Religious Right to consider John Kerry the poster-child of Libs. Oh, I know he is certainly better than Haggard. ;)

Based on your logic it would be perfectly fine for the Religious Right to consider John Kerry the poster-child of Libs.

You mean they don't?

...I'm not understanding how the "religious right" is exposed as being hypocrites when isolated individuals have personal failings?

Is it hypocrisy to attempt to be a better person, or to expect more from people? Or should we just tolerate all bad behavior since all of us are flawed?

To move to the absurd, would Richard Simmons work have been entirely in vain if he were to suddenly gorge on fatty foods and weigh 400 pounds? Is he a hypocrite for being a proponent of a healthy lifestyle, but failing to meet his expectations?

He'd be a hypocrite if he suddenly came out and stated everything he'd supported had been false and the behavior was perfectly acceptable simply because he engaged in the activity. Be it homosexual relations with prostitutes, betraying his family, or meth.

Further, why are the millions of "religious right" types who don't do meth with homosexual hookers being lumped in with this guy? Oh- I know- Johnny is an intolerant hateful bigot.

This is the trap liberals always set for conservatives. If you expect more from people and fall short, you're a hypocrite. If you've made mistakes, change you're behavior, if you advocate living a better life, you're now a hypocrite.

Liberals seem to expect the most base, animal behavior from people, and that we should not only tolerate it, but endorse it.

The hypocrites are on the left, where they want toleration for all kinds of behavior, BUT Christianity or any other wholesome lifestyle. They support the freedom of speech to attempt religious conservatives, but they call it hate speech if you're critical of their behavior.

By the way- Johnny linked to Fox. If it was such a biased outlet, why did they report the story or downplay it?

Johnny is a gay-basher and a Christian-hater, and he demonstrated both viewpoints in the same post.

I wonder if he hates everybody?

...I'm not understanding how the "religious right" is exposed as being hypocrites when isolated individuals have personal failings?

Is it hypocrisy to attempt to be a better person, or to expect more from people? Or should we just tolerate all bad behavior since all of us are flawed?

To move to the absurd, would Richard Simmons work have been entirely in vain if he were to suddenly gorge on fatty foods and weigh 400 pounds? Is he a hypocrite for being a proponent of a healthy lifestyle, but failing to meet his expectations?

He'd be a hypocrite if he suddenly came out and stated everything he'd supported had been false and the behavior was perfectly acceptable simply because he engaged in the activity. Be it homosexual relations with prostitutes, betraying his family, or meth.

Further, why are the millions of "religious right" types who don't do meth with homosexual hookers being lumped in with this guy? Oh- I know- Johnny is an intolerant hateful bigot.

This is the trap liberals always set for conservatives. If you expect more from people and fall short, you're a hypocrite. If you've made mistakes, change you're behavior, if you advocate living a better life, you're now a hypocrite.

Liberals seem to expect the most base, animal behavior from people, and that we should not only tolerate it, but endorse it.

The hypocrites are on the left, where they want toleration for all kinds of behavior, BUT Christianity or any other wholesome lifestyle. They support the freedom of speech to attempt religious conservatives, but they call it hate speech if you're critical of their behavior.

By the way- Johnny linked to Fox. If it was such a biased outlet, why did they report the story or downplay it?

First, I prefer to link to Fox whenever possible JUST to prevent 'yall playing the "liberal MSM" card. But that's another topic.

If Haggard was any old "member" of some church, he certainly wouldn't diserve the attention, however he's the LEADER, FOUNDER and PRESIDENT of his "religious right movement" and he has close ties to BuSh (even sits in on a weekly telecon w/ GW). He is one of YOUR RELIGIOUS RIGHT LEADERS, like Billy Grahm or Pat Robertson. Since his has been held high as a hero of the "moral majority" and has taught millions of "followers", why CAN'T I just lump all of the "Religious Right" into one group and call them ALL hypocrites? This is NO DIFFERENT than YOU or PERCY (fossten) lumping all of us non-shrubbies into the same extreme-left wacko group as Al Franken, Rosey O'Donnel and George Soros. Like to dish it out but can't take it? TOUGH!

What'll be interesting is to watch the reaction of all the conservatives. Like with Foley, they'll be spinning their heads trying to decide to crucify Haggard, or show support for him. I've already got my popcorn made for this one.

And finally.....

Johnny is a gay-basher and a Christian-hater, and he demonstrated both viewpoints in the same post.

I wonder if he hates everybody?

NOWHERE did I bash gays or christians here, or in ANY OTHER THREAD, ANYWHERE. AGAIN this is a figment of YOUR imagination. Since you have such a feeble grasp of reality and are experiencing recurring halucinations, you really should seek help. SERIOUSLY.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't hate ANYBODY except for intolerant haters.

I've come to drips (I mean grips) with reality and I have to face the truth.

I secretly want to butt-plug you Johnny. :shifty:

I know it is dark and repulsive, but it is what I must do. I have been warring against this all my adult life but I must finally come out of the closet.

While I'm not surprised you have secret homosexual tendencies, and I'd defend your right to have them, I'm definately not your guy. Why don't you ask Percy? He's such a homophobe on the outside, I'm sure he would love to accomodate your secret desire to "butt-plug" something.

If Haggard was any old "member" of some church, he certainly wouldn't diserve the attention, however he's the LEADER, FOUNDER and PRESIDENT of his "religious right movement"

Correction. He WAS the leader of a big organization of hundreds of church organizations, the National Association of Evangelicals. He was the founder of the 14,000 New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

and he has close ties to BuSh (even sits in on a weekly telecon w/ GW).
And why wouldn't the President recognize a guy who is supposed to be representing so many millions of Evangelical Christians?

I didn't say that HE didn't deserve attention. I took issue with your indictment of ALL religious conservatives.

He is one of YOUR RELIGIOUS RIGHT LEADERS, like Billy Grahm or Pat Robertson. Since his has been held high as a hero of the "moral majority" and has taught millions of "followers", why CAN'T I just lump all of the "Religious Right" into one group and call them ALL hypocrites?
Because the behavior you're noting was perpetrated by a single person. Millions of people on the religious right were not aware. Had they known, perhaps then you might be able to construct an argument.

You can't.

Furthermore, we really need to address this charge of "hypocrisy" by liberals. I began to do so in the previous post, you conveniently ignored it and repeated yourself.

This is NO DIFFERENT than YOU or PERCY (fossten) lumping all of us non-shrubbies into the same extreme-left wacko group as Al Franken, Rosey O'Donnel and George Soros. Like to dish it out but can't take it? TOUGH!
No, you are attacking millions of religious people and grouping them with the behavior of one single deviant, who betrayed their trust and engaged in both immoral and illegal behavior.

If Al Franken is caught with a young boy, I'm not going to question your character. That's exactly what you are doing to the millions of evangelicals right now.


What'll be interesting is to watch the reaction of all the conservatives. Like with Foley, they'll be spinning their heads trying to decide to crucify Haggard, or show support for him. I've already got my popcorn made for this one.
This isn't going to be very interesting, unless you enjoy watching a broken man see his life work damaged and his family devastated in public. He's not up on criminal charges, so you won't get that pay off. You'll just see the man be destroyed as a result of his behavior and lies... and it will happen in public because someone released this information to the public before an election in an effort to influence the "gay marriage" vote.

So, enjoy your popcorn when the guy's family is torn apart and maybe he'll kill himself. Enjoy the show.

And finally.....
NOWHERE did I bash gays or christians here, or in ANY OTHER THREAD, ANYWHERE. AGAIN this is a figment of YOUR imagination. Since you have such a feeble grasp of reality and are experiencing recurring halucinations, you really should seek help. SERIOUSLY.
This thread is an indictment of the "religious right," the 14,000 members of the Haggert's church, and of the hundreds of evangelical churches that were members of the National Evangelical Association.

In addition to your history of posting things that are hostile towards religiosity, in this thread you say:
Can't say that for most of the "religious right" who continue to live in a "State of Denial".

I know, you through in the words "most of"- did you think that would disguise your contempt?



I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't hate ANYBODY except for intolerant haters.
Self-hatred? That must be why you're so angry and irrational.

"Religious Right" as a whole aside, this guy is a first class hypocrite. I've seen clips of him condemning homosexuality as a sin in his sermons and all along he was taking it up the wazoo himself. Add him to the list of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson... "Religious Right" people need better examples to live by.

"Religious Right" as a whole aside, this guy is a first class hypocrite. I've seen clips of him condemning homosexuality as a sin in his sermons and all along he was taking it up the wazoo himself. Add him to the list of Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson... "Religious Right" people need better examples to live by.

Look who's piling on in the "lump everybody in with Haggard" fest.
Swaggart and Baker were in sex scandals, true, and I'll grant your point except for the gay part. They both had affairs with women.

Neither Falwell nor Robertson have ever been in a public sex scandal. I know what you're going to say next, and you're wrong. Making controversial statements or criticizing public figures is apples and oranges WRT the subject of this thread. Sorry.

And it's offensive for us on the Christian Right to even have to take advice from agnostics like you concerning who we should follow as leaders. Shows your ignorance on the subject.

And it's offensive for us on the Christian Right to even have to take advice from agnostics like you concerning who we should follow as leaders. Shows your ignorance on the subject.
You don't HAVE to take his advice. He is just speaking his mind. What would you say about a group of leaders that preach one thing and then go and do the complete opposite? And this isn't just politics, it's morals and values, which is far more important to most religious people. So I think he's making a valid point.

What would you say about a group of leaders that preach one thing and then go and do the complete opposite?

I would say they must be Democrats.

You don't HAVE to take his advice. He is just speaking his mind. What would you say about a group of leaders that preach one thing and then go and do the complete opposite? And this isn't just politics, it's morals and values, which is far more important to most religious people. So I think he's making a valid point.

Again- you can smear the individual, but this thread is an indictment of ALL religious conservatives, not a few individual people.

The "hypocrisy of the religious right" isn't "exposed." The personal failing of Haggert were disclosed in public, for political reasons too.

That's like saying since Ted Kennedy killed a woman in here car, all Democrats are now drunk driving homicidal narcissists.

That's like saying since Ted Kennedy killed a woman in here car, all Democrats are now drunk driving homicidal narcissists.

Now THAT deserves an *owned*

Besides, anyone who can't even spell 'hypocrisy' shouldn't be throwing stones.

Look who's piling on in the "lump everybody in with Haggard" fest.
Swaggart and Baker were in sex scandals, true, and I'll grant your point except for the gay part. They both had affairs with women.

Neither Falwell nor Robertson have ever been in a public sex scandal. I know what you're going to say next, and you're wrong. Making controversial statements or criticizing public figures is apples and oranges WRT the subject of this thread. Sorry.

And it's offensive for us on the Christian Right to even have to take advice from agnostics like you concerning who we should follow as leaders. Shows your ignorance on the subject.


Oh great knee-jerker... Did you miss the part where I said "as a whole aside"... It meant I was NOT “lumping” everyone with Haggard.

Correct, the other four men differentiated from Haggard scandal wise... They are similar in that they were/are all Religious Right leaders who broke and misused their trust. That was the point, not that they are all homosexual men.

It wasn't advice to take; it was an observation on my part. Just as you repeatedly declare that the Democratic party has been taken over by the America hating far fringe liberals. You can follow anyone you like Fossten.

You don't HAVE to take his advice. He is just speaking his mind. What would you say about a group of leaders that preach one thing and then go and do the complete opposite? And this isn't just politics, it's morals and values, which is far more important to most religious people. So I think he's making a valid point.

Thank you, glad to see someone doesn't suffer from C.K.J.S.

I would say they must be Democrats.
Exactly what I thought you would say. So when this happens, suddenly the "left is exposed" or something along those lines. So when the leaders of these churches are called out for the hypocrites that they are, the people that blindly follow them deserve to be told a thing or two, just like dems are every time one democrat makes a mistake. And I'm not agreeing that the whole religious right is exposed as being hypocrites, but it seems that the most influential characters are, and that is a big deal.

They are similar in that they were/are all Religious Right leaders who broke and misused their trust. That was the point, not that they are all homosexual men.


When did is it that Fallwell or Robertson broke or misused their trust? Perhaps I missed that news cycle.

I'm no fan of TV preachers, Fallwell in particular, but I'm not aware of anything resembling your charge.

You must remember, Hypocracy is only bad if u r conservative. This guys bigest mistake is the same mistake Foley made: they aren't liberals.

deleted post

It must be hell to be a self-hating homosexual. As much as I hate to admit it, I feel nothing but pity for the man. I simply can't conjure up the will to mock him.

This isn't so much an example of hypocrisy as it is proof that homosexuality is not a "choice". I would hope that evangelicals would learn something from this rather than simply sweeping it under the rug and treating him as a "deviant" and an outcast. But I doubt that will happen. There will always be another "Man of God" to take his place and perpetuate the hatred of anything that is different.

This isn't so much an example of hypocrisy as it is proof that homosexuality is not a "choice"

Be careful when you use the word 'proof.' That's a strong word, and your premise is flawed because you don't know all the facts. I would say that his dismay at being caught would indicate that he has a choice. Nowadays it is more acceptable to be gay in our society, so there wouldn't seem to be any real reason to conceal it. If what you say is true, then he should stay gay and abandon the evangelicals. I suspect he will not do that.

There is evidence that homosexuality is a choice by the large number of people that have converted from it. And science has never been able to isolate a so-called "homosexual gene." I know we could debate this all day, so I would recommend that we agree that it is still an issue that is being debated.

Be careful when you use the word 'proof.' That's a strong word, and your premise is flawed because you don't know all the facts. I would say that his dismay at being caught would indicate that he has a choice. Nowadays it is more acceptable to be gay in our society, so there wouldn't seem to be any real reason to conceal it. If what you say is true, then he should stay gay and abandon the evangelicals. I suspect he will not do that.

There is evidence that homosexuality is a choice by the large number of people that have converted from it. And science has never been able to isolate a so-called "homosexual gene." I know we could debate this all day, so I would recommend that we agree that it is still an issue that is being debated.


...or, he will just be another gay man hiding his sexuality because it doesn't mix well with the religion of his choosing. As far as it being "more acceptable", that is a loaded answer, because it really depends which part of the world 'you' live in and which social circles 'you' associate with. In Haggard's case, homosexuality is not and will not be tolerated in his circle. He couldn't just come out and say "I am a gay man" and expect his church/community to be alright with it.

I'd be curious to here you say more about the 'conversion from homosexuality' though, because I feel sexuality for the most part is a 'born-with' aspect. I do not think homosexuals are made, just as I do not think heterosexuals are made by environment. If someone could be converted from homosexuality, as in truly converted/genuinely attracted to the opposite sex and not just made to think they are as to be accepted or to fit in better. It would stand to reason a straight person could be converted too homosexuality and be genuinely be attracted to the same sex, which I find to be highly improbable.

...or, he will just be another gay man hiding his sexuality because it doesn't mix well with the religion of his choosing. As far as it being "more acceptable", that is a loaded answer, because it really depends which part of the world 'you' live in and which social circles 'you' associate with. In Haggard's case, homosexuality is not and will not be tolerated in his circle. He couldn't just come out and say "I am a gay man" and expect his church/community to be alright with it.

I'd be curious to here you say more about the 'conversion from homosexuality' though, because I feel sexuality for the most part is a 'born-with' aspect. I do not think homosexuals are made, just as I do not think heterosexuals are made by environment. If someone could be converted from homosexuality, as in truly converted/genuinely attracted to the opposite sex and not just made to think they are as to be accepted or to fit in better. It would stand to reason a straight person could be converted too homosexuality and be genuinely be attracted to the same sex, which I find to be highly improbable.

If you're already predisposed to reject any argument that I might make, why would I bother?

If you're already predisposed to reject any argument that I might make, why would I bother?

Good grief... Like you aren't already "predisposed" to reject any argument I make on the subject? I think I am right just as much as you think you're right. The only thing we can hope for would be one of us to make more sense, bring more facts and/or show his thoughts to have a higher rate of probability than the other and just maybe sway the other slighty. So stop acting like a nancy-boy and debate, or don't, but please don't use the "<sigh>why would I bother?" tactic.

Good grief... Like you aren't already "predisposed" to reject any argument I make on the subject? I think I am right just as much as you think you're right. The only thing we can hope for would be one of us to make more sense, bring more facts and/or show his thoughts to have a higher rate of probability than the other and just maybe sway the other slighty. So stop acting like a nancy-boy and debate, or don't, but please don't use the "<sigh>why would I bother?" tactic.
I don't have time to pull out reams and sheafs of articles today, so I'll just share my thoughts on the subject.

There are counseling centers which have documented hundreds of gay people who attended the counseling programs and changed their behavior from gay to straight because they wanted to.

I'm sure you've heard of many cases where girls were raped in high school or college, or molested by their fathers or uncles, and turned lesbian. I've personally spoken to people who made those choices.

Both examples above indicate a conscious choice rather than a genetic programming. To me, it's no different than drinking alcohol or doing drugs or smoking or biting your nails or any other behavior or addiction somebody engages in. Every day we wake up and make choices, and if you want to change your life you can. There is no genetic code that forces us to do those things. But our society has degenerated into an "I can't help it" attitude that excuses all behavior as a "lifestyle". And yes, even the gays call it a "lifestyle choice."

A man who is straight can remain celibate for an indefinite amount of time, and he won't die. You won't find one single case in the history of the world where anyone has died from not having sex. If that's the case, then certainly who we engage in sex with is a choice as well.

I don't have time to pull out reams and sheafs of articles today, so I'll just share my thoughts on the subject.

There are counseling centers which have documented hundreds of gay people who attended the counseling programs and changed their behavior from gay to straight because they wanted to.

I'm sure you've heard of many cases where girls were raped in high school or college, or molested by their fathers or uncles, and turned lesbian. I've personally spoken to people who made those choices.

Both examples above indicate a conscious choice rather than a genetic programming. To me, it's no different than drinking alcohol or doing drugs or smoking or biting your nails or any other behavior or addiction somebody engages in. Every day we wake up and make choices, and if you want to change your life you can. There is no genetic code that forces us to do those things. But our society has degenerated into an "I can't help it" attitude that excuses all behavior as a "lifestyle". And yes, even the gays call it a "lifestyle choice."

A man who is straight can remain celibate for an indefinite amount of time, and he won't die. You won't find one single case in the history of the world where anyone has died from not having sex. If that's the case, then certainly who we engage in sex with is a choice as well.


Do you have certain points that are arguably valid, i.e. people choosing the same sex because of a bad/horrible experience with the opposite sex. But do you really think this is the norm for a homosexual person?

I agree we consciously make choices, but do you not think that some people are inclined to sway a certain way more than another person might? I'm not so sure about society degenerating as a cause for homosexuality, using Haggard as an example, he surrounded himself with what would be considered moral people, he followed the book of a religion that one would say is guide on the how to's of being moral etc. etc. etc. Yet, he is a gay man. Also, homosexuality has existed since at least recorded time, so it would reason that society is not the cause or the a leading cause.

Yes and no Fossten... A gay man can make the willful choice to not have sex with another man, just as you could make the choice to not have sex with blonde women or women shorter than 5'6" or... But a homosexual just as a heterosexual cannot control who he finds sexually attractive, so 'he' might not be having sex with another man, he's still homosexual.

BTW, thanks for sharing your thoughts and doing a mass copy/paste.

You raise some good points as well. I think that the gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is twofold:

1. Is homosexuality a moral issue as defined by the Bible? If so, then the Bible is very clear what is a natural urge and what is an unnatural urge.

2. Have there been any studies done to show the general age that someone "realizes" or "decides" they are homosexual?

I tend to believe that homosexuality has a genetic component for some while a choice for others. I wouldn't say that without a doubt homosexuality is about choice only.

You raise some good points as well. I think that the gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is twofold:

1. Is homosexuality a moral issue as defined by the Bible? If so, then the Bible is very clear what is a natural urge and what is an unnatural urge.

2. Have there been any studies done to show the general age that someone "realizes" or "decides" they are homosexual?

No one argues the Bible's stance on homosexuality as it is straight forward. As far as it being immoral, that depends on what one views as a "moral". I have a hard time believing it is immoral as it causes no harm with the exception of people allowing themselves to be bothered by seeing/thinking of same-sex couples or same-sex sex. Some people can't stand "interracial sex"; that doesn't make it immoral though.

Not sure, but I know people who say they have been attracted to the same sex since an early age and the thought of having sex with the opposite sex never occured to them as something enjoyable. They were and are simply not interested. Funny story, I used to work with a gay guy who actually told me he thought the vagina was "Disgusting":eek: and didn't understand why straight guys made such a "Big deal" about it.

It would stand to reason if homosexuality is indeed a "choice" and nothing more, then it would stand to reason we are all born with a 'neutral' sexuality and anyone has an equal potential of being gay depending on their enviroment... I find that highly improbable considering some of the people that are gay and having grown up in enviroments that were not gay 'friendly' in the slightess bit.

I tend to believe that homosexuality has a genetic component for some while a choice for others. I wouldn't say that without a doubt homosexuality is about choice only.

I agree with the genetic part, it could very well be similar to a disorder or an imbalance, since homosexuals would not (usually) be inclined to reproduce and the drive for reproduction is a key component in any species. I have a hard time on the "choice" part though, choice or even a forced impression may have something to do with it in some cases i.e. a molestation, but I think the core of homosexuality is inbreed/genetics.

Think about it... if it were solely a choice in some cases, then it stand to reason (hypothetically speaking) 'a man has have sex with another man' for whatever reason and then decides he just likes it better... Like deciding which icecream flavor taste better... Did you willfully choose which icecream flavor you liked best or did you just happen to one day taste vanilla(or whichever) and something just clicked?

As for the "clicking" part, I do believe there are straight people who for whatever reason had gay sex and the click just wasn't there because whatever it is that makes a person gay just isn't in them.

I tend to believe that homosexuality has a genetic component for some while a choice for others. I wouldn't say that without a doubt homosexuality is about choice only.

I agree with the genetic part, it could very well be similar to a disorder or an imbalance, since homosexuals would not (usually) be inclined to reproduce and the drive for reproduction is a key component in any species. I have a hard time on the "choice" part though, choice or even a forced impression may have something to do with it in some cases i.e. a molestation, but I think the core of homosexuality is inbreed/genetics.

Think about it... if it were solely a choice in some cases, then it stand to reason (hypothetically speaking) 'a man has have sex with another man' for whatever reason and then decides he just likes it better... Like deciding which icecream flavor taste better... Did you willfully choose which icecream flavor you liked best or did you just happen to one day taste vanilla(or whichever) and something just clicked?

As for the "clicking" part, I do believe there are straight people who for whatever reason had gay sex and the click just wasn't there because whatever it is that makes a person gay just isn't in them.

It would stand to reason if homosexuality is indeed a "choice" and nothing more, then it would stand to reason we are all born with a 'neutral' sexuality and anyone has an equal potential of being gay depending on their enviroment... I find that highly improbable considering some of the people that are gay and having grown up in enviroments that were not gay 'friendly' in the slightess bit.

I think you're wrong, and I can cite one statistic that bears out my opinion. Only slightly over 1 percent of the population of this country is gay, according to the BEST estimates, whether out of the closet or not. I would think that if we were neutral at birth the ratio would be much higher, even at least 10 percent.

There is zero evidence to support your "neutral" theory. Did you just make it up?

I think you're wrong, and I can cite one statistic that bears out my opinion. Only slightly over 1 percent of the population of this country is gay, according to the BEST estimates, whether out of the closet or not. I would think that if we were neutral at birth the ratio would be much higher, even at least 10 percent.

There is zero evidence to support your "neutral" theory. Did you just make it up?


I agree that people are NOT born with a "neutral" sexual orientation, that is/was my point. I believe one is either born 'homo' or born 'hetero' with some exceptions withstanding and/or affecting the rule, i.e. environment, trauma, etc.

I find that highly improbable...

I agree that people are NOT born with a "neutral" sexual orientation, that is/was my point. I believe one is either born 'homo' or born 'hetero' with some exceptions withstanding and/or affecting the rule, i.e. environment, trauma, etc.

Oh, ok, I see. I must have skimmed your post and misread it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point. However, does it not seem curious to you that we have not isolated the "gay gene" yet?

Oh, ok, I see. I must have skimmed your post and misread it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point. However, does it not seem curious to you that we have not isolated the "gay gene" yet?

"Yet" doesn't mean it won't/can't happen and even if homosexuality is definitely genetic, should we be trying too in the first place? I'm all for research that could potentially get rid of harmful/deadly genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis and the like, but isolating and/or destroying the so called "gay-gene" would be similar to making designer babies i.e. blonde haired, blue eyes etc. etc. etc.

Daily Show... always good for a laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIrRv99MB7A

Good News! After three short weeks of "treatment", Ted has been 'Un-Homofied'. Now he'll be able to take back the mantle as head minister and continue to preach hypocritical intolerance... hallelujah!