News-Record.com

Doug, I think Pitts is being facetious saying that the man's kids are a "lie". It's the hypocrisy that can't be abided. Haggard is on TV, implies or maintains that homosexuality is an abberation that must be guarded against. Using the resulting fear and hysteria generated by this viewpoint, he actively galvanizes and organizes support which often results in people making monetary contributions to this or that "religious" organization, some of which finds it's way into Haggard's bank account.

It's the scam.

If Pitts had written what you just said, I would have no argument with him.

well, skeet covered one angle, but the other is that haggard is a gay man who used his wife and eventual kids as a beard to hide from the culture of hatred that he helped further.

doug, i realize you'd find it much more comforting if haggards 28 years put in as a straight man (you know, cause getting married and procreating truly proves something) counted as validation of his heterosexuality, but i just don't understand why.

as jon stewart put it, "you can't run from gay [...] (and) hide behind that wife and kid fort you've been building."

Sean, the wife and kids are real, not cardboard cutouts. They're his, not a rent-a-family. If he wants to restore his life with them, and they'll have him, that's what he should do.

What would have been better, though, would have been for Haggard to be honest, first with himself and then with anyone with whom he became romantically involved, about his sexual orientation. And I think that's what Pitts is saying, albeit not as clearly as he might.

Gayle Alcorn had a right to know what she was getting into. And Haggard had a duty to be honest with her.

It's hard to order them, but dishonesty certainly is one of Haggard's leading sins here. I just don't see why he has to be locked into one path for the rest of his life.

Haggard's biggest sin was in cheating on his wife. It doesn't matter if he did so with a man or a woman - it was wrong and he deserves criticism for it.

However, if he wishes to reconcile with his family, that is their business and strikes me as the noble thing to do.

I can't help but contrast the reaction from liberals to Haggard's plight with that of former N.J. Governor James McGreevey. Like Haggard, McGreevey was a married man who cheated on his family. But he was applauded by many liberals for embracing his homosexuality - and, in doing so, abandoning his family.

But who cares about that wife and kids, right? It's the political agenda that matters.

It's only wrong and disgusting to be homosexual if you're a conservative. Liberals/Dems get a free pass on anything.

political agenda? mcgreevey obviously came to a point that the lying had to stop and in order to live an honest life (with himself), he had to accept that he was gay and move forward with his life. i'm sure that decision was made after many conversations with his wife and i'm equally sure it wasn't easy.

the only choice that would've supported a "political agenda" would've been for mcgreevey to deny who he was and go back to leading a life that was a lie, just because our society as a whole would feel better with such a choice.

Sean, the wife and kids are real, not cardboard cutouts. They're his, not a rent-a-family. If he wants to restore his life with them, and they'll have him, that's what he should do.

of course his kids will have him; he's their father and they had no choice in the matter. but the bottom-line (no pun intended) is that the guy is gay. and as an outed gay man, he now finds himself in the worst social circle for a gay man in america.

the only way i can imagine that his wife would continue to want to live such a lie, especially within their current circle of friends, is if she has been drinking the very same kool-aid that he's been concocting over the years.

i wish them well if they try, but i highly doubt that "family" will ever be functional.

I see what you are saying, Sean, but I'm not sure it's as simple as "living an honest life" vs. "living a lie".

For better or for worse, Haggard has an obligation to his wife and children and I'm not sure that being honest with himself is more important than doing right by them. And it is their choice whether or not to accept him back into the family. Even if he has been "living a lie," I suspect his wife and children have far more complex feelings for Haggard than simply gay vs. straight.

As for McGreevey, I wonder if people who support him would be as understanding if he had abandoned his family for, say, an attractive young female.

That's what I mean by furthering a political agenda. I'm not suggesting McGreevey was politically motivated - I'm saying many of the responses to his actions and Haggard's actions reflect a political motivation that Jaycee so accurately describes in the previous post.

nothing is simple in this situation, js.

but this situation isn't a mess because haggard or mcreevey "cheated" on their wives with women. so let's stop infusing that "what if" scenario into the situation at hand. we saw, first hand, an example of that situation playing out with the clintons.

these two situations go much deeper to the core of the marriages, because neither of these women knew who their husbands really were. i'm sure they saw the signs, but unless there were personal agreements in place, the men never let their partners into who they truly were.

"family" isn't created by a ceremony and offspring; family is created through trust.

both mcgreevey and haggard tried to live an "acceptable" life in the public eye -- courting their wives and having children (i'm not sure if mcgreevey had children or not), yet they both crafting an environment that was based in lies.

i'm not sitting on a high horse condemning either of them. all i'm saying is that these two men are gay. period. however they move forward with their lives, it'll occur after dealing with the trust issues they've generated with their wives.

on the outside, it appears that mcgreevey chose to live a life as an openly gay man without his wife, but who knows how much she influenced that decision.

the difference between that situation and haggard is that jim mcgreevey didn't prance around the country, spitting venom about gay people based on the laws of an ancient text.

haggard is hypocritical to the nth degree. he's not disgusting because he's gay; he's disgusting because he hates himself to such a degree that he's spent years convincing his flock to hate others who are "like" him.

it's beyond twisted.

Sean, where you really lose me is when you decide with such authority that Haggard is a gay man. He apparently lived most of his adult life as a straight man, then had some sexual involvement with a man. If the situation were reversed, if a middle-aged gay man suddenly had some sexual experiences with a woman, would you say he was a straight man, period?

By the way, and I posed this question on a previous thread, what about the B in the GLBT community? Why should that be completely discounted here?

The other difference may be that Haggard is trying to repair the trust he broke, while McGreevey may have abandoned his.

I say "may have" because for all I know, his wife wouldn't take him back. But his supporters don't seem to care that he cheated on her in the first place - no, he's hailed as some type of hero for "accepting himself as he really is" or something like that.

And you may not like hypotheticals, Sean, but I still have to ask: If McGreevey had left his wife for, say, one of the women we see in the "Scott's Night Out" photos of the Rhino Times, would the reaction be the same?

when was the last time you actually spoke with someone who considers themselves to be bisexual?

js, if you want to talk about the situation at hand, then talk about the situation at hand.

i don't even know what "scott's night out" is.

I just assume that if you have GLBT organizations, they include someone who's a B.

I'll have a BLT, toast the bread, extra mayo.

sure. since he "had sex" with his wife and a male hooker, he must be a "b"... i get it.

my point, doug, is that most bisexuals that i know aren't so tightly closeted; quite the opposite, actually.

why don't you do something crazy, like go out into the local GLBT community and ask them for their perspective on the matter? if anyone from that community is reading this thread, they're probably laughing their asses off at a bunch of straight guys trying to pontificate on the degree of haggard's gayness.

They're welcome to laugh, but they don't know any better than you or I do, Sean. But I'm refusing to draw any final conclusion about it.

right... it's a huge stretch to think that haggard is gay, hiding behind the church & family.

i'll go back to not giving a damn either way.