DUers are missing the bigger issue re: Haggard.

[Perky]

The fact that Haggard is apparently gay and had been in denial may well be great fodder for those who seek any excuse they can find to lampoon or otherwise curse the fundies. Criticism is well deserved. You may feign moral outrage at Haggard's hypocrisy and you may choose him as the the poster boy for everything that is wrong with the fundamentalist movement, but I am a little disheartened that no one seems to care at all that he was at his core...an adulterer... If he had been banging his church secretary instead would you be equally as harsh?


The issue of gay sex is actually secondary to most Christians I have spoken with since the story broke.. The greater issue is that he has been an adulterer and has been deceiving his wife all these years. Where is the outrage over that?


Sadly the undercurrent of what I have seen in these threads is that apparently adultery is less important than hypocrisy is to many of you. Are we actually so "progressive" that we do not tolerate hypocrisy but will turn a blind eye to adultery whether by Bill Clinton or Ted Haggard?

[mondo joe]

1. I think that's BS. To fundies there is no greater sin than being gay.

Where is the outrage? I'll leave that to the moralists.

I'm just enjoying the show.

[AlCzervik]

2. his hypocrisy is on so many levels but violating the "Sanctity of marriage"

is a big one and imo it doesn't matter who he did the violations with, amle or female, makes no difference on that issue.

[Straight Shooter]

3. This guy was bush's consigliore.

AFAIC, adultery is between a man and wife, and their family. It isn't a blind eye. It's just none of my business.

Haggard insinuated himself into the lives of every gay person in this country. So, yeah, it's worse.

[Perky]

If your gay, I certainly undestand that perspective.

He is a hypocirte of the first order,,,no doubt. But ar you saying if it was hetero adultery it is no one's business?

[mondo joe]

14. If it were hetero adultery I'd want to exploit that politically too - but this is

SO MUCH BETTER than that.

Other than the political opportunity I do not give a fuck about their marriage. That's between them.

[Straight Shooter]

28. If it were adultery it would not be my business.

It would not be my business unless he was attempting to politically influence something such as DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Haggard was a major player in the anti-gay scene. I feel contempt for him the same as I did for the adulterer Henry Hyde, who had his own affair but was one of the most vicious critics of Bill Clinton.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't approve of adultery. But my personal belief is that human sexuality, with its emotions and physical drives, is so complicated that as long as it is between two consenting adults, it is none of my business. Adultery should be worked out between the marital partners. Adultery is a symptom of something wrong with the marriage, if they have taken vows to remain faithful to one another.

[Irreverend IX]

59. No, it would still be Democrats' business.

If he were cheating on his wife with a woman while at the same time preaching sexual morality at a fundy church, he would be no less a hypocrite than he is for having gay sex. The fact that he's one of Bush's close confidants makes him an especially important target. Fundies should be brought down with whatever means possible, and heterosexual adultery among is so common it's a great tool for the task.

[Straight Shooter]

60. I disagree.

Let them preach all they want, let them violate their oaths to their wives or husbands, it is still their personal business. What I said was, "It would not be my business unless he was attempting to politically influence something."

If he were preaching politics in church, he's fair game. Haggard was a rabid anti-gay advocate, with close ties to bush and he was extremely influential on the political scene. That is why he is a target now. If he were the local minister and kept politics out of his church, did not attempt to influence elections, then even if he preached against adultery, it's between him and his wife if he breaks their vows.

[Irreverend IX]

62. Well, yeah...

If a preacher doesn't get involved in politics his sexual behavior has no relevance to liberal interests. The theoretical pastor's cheating may matter to his flock, but I don't give a rat's ass about it.

[juajen]

47. Please, please, please

"If you are gay (contraction is you're) not "If your gay". I'm truly sorry, but this is driving me absolutely crazy. Please, people, study contractions; you know, you're, they're, we're, etc., etc., etc.

[Perky]

49. oops I do in fact know the difference.

[originalpckelly]

4. Actually, the big story is that the President worked with a meth addict...

or did I miss something?
:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

5. If he had been banging his church secretary instead would you be equally as harsh?

We'd probably admire him for it. :evilgrin:

[karlrschneider]

6. He wasn't banging his (presumably female) secretary. He was

fucking or being fucked by a man who happens to belong to a group he consistently bashed and spread hatred for and encouraged others to share that hatred. He wasn't your garden variety adulterer, he was a sanctimonious hypocritical prick. You sure do go to lengths to defend the homophobes...why is that?

[Perky]

13. You are reading way too much into my post

where is the dense of the homophobes? Adultery is adultery is adultery.

[Christa]

48. Great post

Absolutely GREAT.

[nini]

7. you are the one who doesn't seem to get it.

The level of the fundie preachers hypocricy to the level they preach hate and urge their followers to vote against rights for others outweighs his breaking of his vows to his wife.


His adultery doesnt affect anyone else but his relationship with his wife, just like Clinton's shouldn't have.

[Erika]

15. Exactly. The hypocrisy is the issue

The sex of his adultery has nothing to do with it except to the fundis.

[Perky]

21. I gotte disgaree in part

I thin the sex of his adultery is very important to most of the people here on DU (because it showed his hypocrisy)

[mondo joe]

26. Well now you answered your own question.

I don't get what your issue is.

He's a hypocrite at many levels. We are reveling in it.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. I agree. In fact, I'm very afraid that just as with the Foley

stuff, the RW will use this as another opportunity to bash gays, instead of looking at the real problem.

Foley's problem wasn't that he was gay, it's that he was preying on minors.

Haggard's problem isn't that he's gay, it's that he's a lying adulterer and hypocrite.

Gay is probably what makes the stories so salaciously interesting to the media, but in neither case is it the important point of the story.

[Gormy Cuss]

9. Banging the church secretary would show his hypocrisy as well.

The gay aspect is the greater issue however because his efforts against gays extend beyond his congregation. Has he used his political access to influence law making to prevent divorce or to creat harsher punishments for adultery? I haven't heard that he did. Have you?

Both the gay sex and the adultery are issues within his faith, but only one extends beyond it to secular law making. That is the difference.

Trust me, many DUers are disgusted at his adultery too.

[VeggieTart]

10. Yeah, I'd be outraged if he were banging another woman

But considering the vicious homophobia these guys spew, it's even more enraging that one of their own is a self-hating, clearly in denial homosexual.

Their homophobia is even more vile and vicious than their misogyny.

[upi402]

11. He was talking to the Whitehouse at will

The theocrats, who are hypocrits, are wagging the dog.

-or are they-

Does the dog see them as useful idiots and pretend to wag when the tail gets whippin'?

[trotsky]

12. I think most people don't care for moralizing Christians...

whether they be conservative OR liberal.

[Old and In the Way]

16. It's the hypocrisy.

He empowered himself through vilifying a segment of the population. If he had been caught with a women, it'd be no different...he's trade in moral superiority. Clinton never ran for office has being morally perfect. Personally, I don't think there's been a President who hasn't gotten some on the side. But Democrats don't run on moral superiority/family values, Republicans do. They seem to fail their standards quite regularly, too. The scorecard certainly supports that observation.

[MnFats]

17. part of the ugliness here is that he was paying for sex.

not an affair of the heart or an indiscretion.,...he went to a hotel in Denver -- told his wife he needed to go there "to write" and then had this guy Jones come up and do him.
not an indiscretion with a church secretary, not one of those 'it just happened' things.
he plotted willfully to ..... get done.
I feel badly for his wife and kids....they didn't ask for this....

[A HERETIC I AM]

18. The truly BIG issue regarding the man is that he is a world class hypocrite.

As far as I am concerned, it matters not whether he was boffing his secretary or snorting meth while getting it on with Dial-a-dick.

This is the type of guy that has made a career out of fooling people; of selling falsehoods all the while wrapping himself in the cloak of biblically based moral superiority. He is one more in a long chain of frauds of similar ilk and he got what he deserved. He is an actor and the show is bloody well over.

I'm trying to remember when Bill Clinton admonished this nation from the moral high ground.

Screw Ted Haggard, screw his sheep-like flock who got exactly what THEY deserved and screw the xtian fundamentalist movement. Snake oil and Bronze-Age myths have no place attempting to force themselves onto center stage in a progressive society in the 21st century. The sooner this nation realizes that, the better off we will be.

[malaise]

64. Bingo n/t

[JBear]

19. What we know and what we don't know

is always at the heart of this kind of issue. We know that Haggard was outspoken against gay marriage, gay people and those that would seek to undermine marriage. Clearly he is all that he hates - THAT is the news story. Gay is just the first part of it.

As for turning a blind eye to Clinton or anyone else - we do not know where these other relationships are. Haggard was "boldly defending marriage" while screwing his own. Do I condemn someone because they live in a love triangle? Only if they are publicly denouncing as evil what they themselves are doing. There is often so much we don't know and can't see in these stories. I think we have seen enough to draw our own conclusions on this one!

:bounce:

[NanceGreggs]

20. Adultery v Hypocrisy = Apples v Oranges

Adultery, IMHO, is something to be dealt with between the parties involved. It is none of my business, or the nation's business, whether it it Haggard or Clinton.

The only time the "adultery" of a public figure, especially a politician, should be raised as a legitimate issue is when there is hypocrisy involved, and blatantly so. Let's remember that Bill Clinton never campaigned on, nor presented himself as being the perfect husband who had never looked at another woman, etc. Had he done so, he would have deserved being called on for the hypocrisy of acting differently than the image he projected.

It's an old idea, but one people seem to have forgotten in today's political climate: The higher the pedestal you place yourself on, the more vulnerable you are to be brought crashing down.

I honestly feel sorry for Haggard; he must have had a very hard time trying to be someone he was not. However, had he not been such a proponent of preaching that homosexuality is a sin, he wouldn't be held up to as much ridicule as he is now.

And as another poster here has already said, most evangelicals DO perceive homosexuality as the far greater sin than adultery. That's THEIR take on things, not necessarily society's.

Simply put, you reap as you sow.

[Perky]

32. Please don't confuse Evangelicals and Fundies.

While therr is some overlap they are vastly different. Fundies think you need rigid biblical law to control sin, individualy or nationally.

Evangelical believe that the Christ alone is the answer and with individual heartfelt conversion or national revival moralit take careof itself when we act a Christcalls us to act.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Does their position on homosexuality differ?

And that's an honest question, not sarcasm.

[Perky]

39. Only slightly

Fundies are utterly intolerant while Evangelicals would say it is sin because sex outside of marriage. Most evangelicals see more importance in salvation than in living righteously (largely because you can;t live wighteously without Christ)

Do we think homsexuality is a sin....yeah...but a true evangelical will tell you that he can not judge people who are not in the community of faith. Whichis waht the fundies believe they have sme god-given right to do.


I honestgly thin the fulf bewteen the fundies and the evangelical is going to be very wide and very substanbtial. Because evangelicals believe that fundamentalism is reallytabout living under the law rather than living for Christ.


That is not to say evangelicals will embrace a gay lifestyle for its members, but no more or less so than couples shacking up or adultery or shoplifting.

[NanceGreggs]

46. Thanks you for the clarification.

I am not a Christian, nor do I believe that homosexuality is a sin - in fact, quite the opposite; I believe it is as normal as heterosexuality, and was obviously part of God's plan.

But I appreciate your response; I am always curious to know what different religious sects believe, and why.

[Wonk]

54. "Do we think..." Ah, now I see why you're trying to spin this like this.

'Don't look at the evangelical movement as a whole, this guy was just one bad apple and the real outrage should be about what he did to his wife by violating his marriage vows, not what effects he and his followers had on the general public by encouraging witch hunts, homophobia and gay bashing, all the while knowing he was gay himself.'

Got it.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[Perky]

63. Nope

The guy is not only a Pharisees and a hyprocite. he ia the leader of a pack of pharisees.

I think the Fundy movement is theologicaly bankrupt ans spiritually inept. They refuse to recognize that the ballot box is a poor substitute for Christ-centered righteousness and humility. Theor actton of the last two decades are despicable and they will be judged. From Falwell, Dobson and Robertson on down.

They are all bad apples.


But again Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are not the same thing. Christ is about love and justice and healing. He is never about bullying, moral indignation and the ballot box.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. Well that's a new one

Fundies may condemn heterosexual adultery but it's nowhere near the hostility they demonstrate toward the gay community. They don't create special ministries to "deprogram" heteros. The ones you have spoken with have obviously gotten the official line. It's somehow Bill Clinton's fault, once again. :eyes:

[Riverman]

23. Its the Hypocracy of a Self-Loathing Gay Basher, if he were

Bashing women, or calling for stoning adulterers in a public square - that would be be a fair arguement - What about the wife? Though did she ever turn down the perks, the mansion, the five kids, the SUV, the Truck, the public adoration - maybe she looked the other way? Who knows? One Republican Fundamentalist Minister posted on his blog, referenced here the other day, that ministers turn to prostitudes for sex because their wives let themselves go and get frumpy. Such compassion for one of their own. Who would Jesus Bash?

[aquart]

24. The adultery is PERSONAL. Between them and no one else.

The hypocrisy is public and viciously intrusive on other people's lives. THAT's why I don't give a damn that Haggard cheated and I didn't give a damn that Clinton cheated. What Haggard's wife chooses to do is up to her. She can, I suppose, be thankful that her husband didn't bring home a disease from his journeys. Hillary didn't kill Bill and he should be thankful for that. But his adultery had no effect on me or my life.

Haggard had the brass flaming balls to try to destroy gay lives because he cannot face himself in the mirror. Because nothing is more important to him than his public image of straight husband and dad. The hypocrisy is the public issue. That is the proper issue for us to discuss.

It is completely improper to sit in judgement on a man and his wife (of any gender). THAT, my dear, is where Christ intervened to ask who among you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.

Sinless, are you?

[ovidsen]

25. Adultry's the bigger sin

That's what I'll say if I'm asked. It's a trust thing. The fact that it was a gay affair is irrelevant to me, and I'll make that clear. I might "tsk tsk" and say, "This guy had the Oval Office on his speed dial?" But not always...

I'm going easy on the schadenfreude with conservatives I know. They're suffering enough, and I know I won't change their minds about Tuesday's election if I gloat too much.

And I know they'll kill me if I ask, "Is this part of Karl Rove's secret plan?"

But oohhhhhh, the temptation!

[USAcitizen]

27. I don't see it that way

Yes, he is an adulterer but he did not meet with the president on a regular bases to punish adulterers. He met with the president to brain storm on banning gay marriage. I will not be the first to throw stones at anyone who has sinned. But if put down people and make them feel bad about who they are and you yourself are engaging in the same activity, then you are wrong.

I can forgive anyone who sins and admits it. But to hide behind you hypocritical self righteousness is wrong. Everyone is angry with Clinton because he committed adultery. What the hell did that have to do with his presidency. Nothing. He never gave speeches on the immorality of adultery. That was not his job. Neither is it the job of our current president to meet with religious leaders to discuss what they believe is immoral and try to change ones behavior legislatively.

[antonialee839]

29. I just can't get worked up over the cheating

part, it's the damn hypocrisy of it all that makes my blood boil.

[last1standing]

30. Most of us aren't fundies so we don't give a Damn about his adultery.

We care that his hypocrisy has been instrumental in denying millions of American citizens equal protection under the law. While he enjoyed his freedoms and his elevated position in society, a large portion of our country was treated with disdain and ridicule - at his instigation.

Every individual on this earth should have the right to act in ways that do not physically harm or maliciously inflict cruelty on other people. Adultery may be morally and ethically wrong to most, but it is not a physical injury. While one could say that the spouse is a victim of adultery, that person has the ability to redress this in court through divorce.

So, to answer your question: Yes, we are so "progressive" that we do not tolerate hypocrisy but will turn a blind eye to adultery whether by Bill Clinton or Ted Haggard. Personally, I'm very proud of that fact.

[Warpy]

31. We gleefully savaged Gingrich about banging his assistant

while feigning moral outrage at Clinton's highschoolish one way oral sex affair. We savaged the sanctimonious Hager for the colorful description of his sexual proclivities at his divorce trial. We savaged Bennett for his gambling problem while he was writing books telling other people how to be moral, Lamebawl for his narcotic addiction when he was shrieking to send any and all drug users to prison for life. We savage Scarborough for the dead assistant in his office, something that has been hushed up completely.

Face it, this is about the HYPOCRISY and about being glad every time one of these men is outed for anything. You see, they're HURTING US ALL. Getting pissy when it's a GAY who's outed is counterproductive.

Given a crooked electoral system, it may our best bet to get rid of them.

[ruggerson]

33. His cheating on his wife affected only his wife and kids

His demonizing gay people affected the entire country.

So which is more important?

[Actionmac]

34. The True and Final WORD

"Christ intervened to ask who among you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone."

[mondo joe]

35. I'm without sin.

And I am happy to cast that stone.

[A HERETIC I AM]

40. The answer is Ted Haggard. Threw the first stone years ago.

Do some research on this dickhead. He encouraged his flock to harass (oops..."pray for") people who he thought were pagans or practicer's of witchcraft or homosexual or simply didn't go to any church. When he started getting a larger congregation, many folks left Colorado Springs because he insisted his congregation spread the word in such a way as to INTIMIDATE folks who disagreed with them.


He got what he deserved. Someone threw the stone he cast back at him and it hit him square between the eyes.

[karlrschneider]

43. There is no such thing as "sin" The concept is an artificial construct

of many (not all) religions. And the existence of the concept is based on an idiotic subscription to
whatever imaginary deity's supposed rules the adherent chooses to embrace. Any genuine "Christian" would, if he or she would emulate their icon would, if honest, challenge the status quo. After all, that's what Jesus did, according to the 'book'...

[arewenotdemo]

37. Where's the outrage over the Adultery?

Why should I feel outrage over the fact that he's an adulterer?

I'm not his wife. Or one of the sheeple he had under mind-control and was pretending to be a "Man of God" to.

This vein of outrage over someone else's adultery is symptomatic of the strain of Puritanism this country has been infected with since its inception and which has allowed witch-hunts from Salem to Clinton/Monica.

It's common, people. And pretty fucking natural. If it's not affecting you or your's personally, please question just why you've been blessed with such a well-developed sense of outrage.

[Stardust]

45. Seems like some people need to grow up. Adultery (although sad) ceased

being outrageous or shocking long, long ago.

[54anickel]

38. Well, Luke wrote an entire damned book based on the theme of hypocrisy. For Luke

hypocrisy was THE human condition that came between man and God. It leads to social injustice, inequality and manipulation of an entire society - the exact sort of thing that Christians are called to fight against. Where as adultery is more or less between the "adulterer", his/her family and God. The old "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" sort of thing. We are not to judge people on their individual sins, but we are called upon to point out and fight injustice. See, that's the sticky part that fundies don't get. They don't see how their "Defense of Marriage" causes civil inequality for gays or (as written in some states) domestic partners.

Haggard (and his flock) committed a sin according to Luke by promoting injustice and inequality. According to Mark, he committed THE BIG one:

I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

So, are we turning a blind eye to the adultery of adventures Bill and Ted? Can't speak for everyone, but heck yeah, I am.

[A HERETIC I AM]

42. The part of your post in bold is one of the main reasons i am Atheist.

I can be charitable, decent, kind, loving, respectful, polite etc. etc. but i am condemned to eternal torment because i have the audacity to question the validity or worshiping the baby killing, genocidal, misogynistic god of Abraham. Yet a murderer, the most vile murderer just merely has to say the magic words and is rewarded eternal paradise.

Blasphemy is the only unforgivable sin. Great. I'll take hell and go hang with Aristotle and Socrates and all the rest.

[54anickel]

61. Heh, just doesn't seem fair does it? I don't believe your "condemned

to eternal torment because you have the audacity to question the validity or worshiping..." But what I believe doesn't mean shit.

Guess it depends on the definition used for blasphemy. When I read that verse, I understand it to mean "the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God". Nothing there about questioning. I suppose Bush would meet that one though, since he claims God talks to him - but I digress. :shrug:

Of course I don't see anything in that book about saying magic words to get the reward of eternal paradise when I read it either. Guess that's how someone must have interpreted something in there at one time or another. Of course, what if that someone was a blasphemer? I don't think the misogynistic god of Abe would condemn me for questioning that either. Why have the ability to question and reason and then not be allowed to use it?

It's a book, full of words that can be interpreted in about as many ways as there are readers of it. Back in the days when it was written, the virtues of being "charitable, decent, kind, loving, respectful, polite etc. etc." didn't come some easy to a lot of folks - where's the damned the reward in that? Hence, the book. Call it the misogynistic god of Abe guide to being a decent human being. Call it Being Humane for Dummies if you want. Some people need or want books and guidance, others don't. Some people need or want to be able to belief in a higher power to try and make sense of it all, some don't. Whatever trips your trigger and rolls your socks.

I sort of like reading some of the individual books in the Bible within the history and social context that they were written. It's like reading a novel and imagining going back in time to when it was written. Once in a while I get an "ah-ha, that's the message" moment. Gotta admit the OT doesn't trip my trigger - can't understand most of it.

Now that I'm hung up on definitions and words, I've gotta ask - which are you a heretic or an atheist? They seem mutually exclusive to me. Then again, it depends on the definitions I guess. :hi:

[UTUSN]

41. DUers don't miss MUCH n/t

[Wonk]

44. You've got it backwards. The adultery is the small picture. The hypocrisy is

the BIG picture.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Who the fuck are you to tell us why we should be outraged?

When someone who uses his position to foster hatred and intolerance is caught DOING THE VERY FUCKING THING HE CONDEMNED OTHERS FOR DOING, he deserves to be chewed up and spit out for his hypocrisy.


His wife can have what's left of him.

[Cleita]

51. The thing you miss is that most of us don't care about what is

going on in his personal life. What we care about is his bilking of millions from gullible followers who sincerely believed his BS, while he fleeced them. All these mega-church evangelists are nothing more than carnival grifters who have figured out how to work the system. Most of us didn't even care about that, until they decided to start trying to take over our government. Bad, bad on them.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. I do believe that hypocrisy is worse than adultery.

Does that make me unacceptable as a progressive?

[riderinthestorm]

53. It's the civil rights stupid.

Haggard railed against the civil rights of gays. And he was gay. YOU are missing the biggest picture.

It's like blacks railing against the civil rights for blacks.

I don't give a fuck if you are a hypocrite or an adulterer. We are all hypocrites (and adulterers right? who the fuck hasn't cheated on their spouse or SO at some point?) to some extent or another. I don't feign moral outrage at this BUT we are a nation of civil rights for all citizens.

And Haggard ain't about that.

Fuck him. Just like I would say fuck those who weren't for equal rights for blacks.

[Garbo 2004]

55. Being an adulterer while preaching the sanctity of marriage IS hypocrisy.

Adultery with another man while promoting the denial of rights to gays (supposedly to "protect" the institution of marriage) compounds that hypocrisy.

I'm just curious, why aren't all those who support the "sanctity of marriage" pushing for laws to prevent adulterers from re-marrying? Given the numbers, surely the institution of marriage is far more threatened by the greater prevalence of heterosexual infidelity and serial marriage than by gays who want to marry each other. Yet I don't recall any legislative pushes, proposed laws and amendments to prevent those who have betrayed their marriage vows from entering into the institution yet again. Where's the outrage at those folks, if conservative Christians really do regard adultery as a serious issue? Why are serial adulterers who go from marriage to marriage allowed to continue, making a mockery of the institution of marriage and their vows? (Newt Gingrich, anyone?) Where's the outrage?

I don't think you can pin the "adultery is less important" tag on progressives while the so-called "values" voters who want to enact laws to "save" marriage by not allowing gays to marry make no similar efforts to prevent adulterers from repeating their mockery of their marriage vows.

At his core, Haggard is a liar. Even when busted he continued to lie, to his church and his family. First he didn't know the guy, then when tapes were made public he changed his story but continued to lie about his actions. Where's the outrage over his continued lying? Even when busted?

Isn't that the "greater issue" with Haggard? Living a lie and continuing to lie when exposed? That's pretty fundamental, underlying the whole shebang IMO, whether he was caught with his hand in the till, up a skirt or on a male prostitute. And yes, that's also hypocrisy.

[MODemocrat]

57. Just a minute; hypocricy includes adultery, which he preaches against

Adultery is the same whether he's banging a man or woman; he's cheating on his partner; He, as a
Christian, should practice what he preaches.

There's no use in splitting hairs over his stupidity, and his arrogance. He's not sorry at all,
at least not for what he was doing and enjoying; he's just sorry he got exposed. The hypocrite.
If there's a hell, he should go there. How dare he flambast those who are only enjoying the same
things he's been doing for years. :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :puke:

[Bluebear]

58. 'adultery is less important than hypocrisy'

His adultery affected his own family horribly.

His hypocrisy affected millions of gay Americans.