Haggard's Real Legacy: Proof That The Religious Right Is Full Of Shit

[ruggerson]

One of the major lies of the religious rightwingers is the propoganda that being gay is somehow a "lifestyle choice", not a fixed trait.

Quite simply, the Haggard story totally upends that notion and proves that the religious right has been bald faced lying to the American people.

Here you have a man who believes in his heart that homosexuality is somehow "wrong" or "bad", but he ENGAGES in the behaviour nevertheless, obviously because his FIXED BIOLOGICAL ORIENTATION is so strong and enduring, he must heed it regardless of the magical superstitions he has come to adopt in his religious belief system.

This is a man who, under no circumstances, would have EVER made the CHOICE to be gay, if indeed being gay was somehow a voluntary act.

What he succumbed to, quite clearly, is the powerful force of his true self: his core identity and orientation.

Haggard is living proof of the fact that science and nature will always, at the end of the day, trump magical thinking.

One wonders if evangelicals and fundamentalists and all who think that being gay is somehow a "voluntary sin" are not sitting back and reevaluating whether they have long been getting fed a very big lie.

[NOLADEM]

1. Can I get an AMEN??

[moonlady0623]

2. How sad....

....to suffer so long, fighting who you really are, convinced you are the darkest of sinners. Add to that the knowledge that you are a hypocrite. I kinda feel sorry for him...

[gully]

4. I join you in your pity.

I hope he'll find a way to be true to who he is and realize that he's not an "abomination."

[MadMaddie]

3. Haggard like all of the others especially Foley will blame the

meth, drugs, alcohol for his fall or the gay communities fault....there is never any accountability from these people...

[leesa]

7. or his wife...they will be looking for some outside force to blame...the devil

[CrazyOrangeCat]

5. Well said.

Too bad the Fundies are seemingly incapable of simple logic . . .

[nankerphelge]

6. One would hope so...

but I seriously doubt it. I've already seen evidence to the contrary, in fact-for example, read this if you have the stomach for it:

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZkNjE3YzhmNjhhMDk5YWQwYWM3NzMwNmMwODg1Yzk=

[Obamarama]

8. They'll send him to Exodus and proclaim him "cured." eom

[Duncan Grant]

9. I think they'll rationalize and justify 'it' all away...it's Satan, etc.

The last thing they want to do is recognize us. That would mean we are God's children and they've perpetrated a great sin against us.

I expect the true believers to become even more unstable -- if that's possible.

[Forrest Greene]

10. This Line Of Thinking

...solid as it is, has always worried me.

If it's a fixed trait, I can just see something like fundamentalist genetics laboratories, as odd an idea as that sounds, working to come up with a vaccine or other treatment. Diabetes is a trait, too, they'll argue, & we have insulin for that.

A bit closer to Earth, does defending the legitimacy of an act by arguing for it as being an inborn trait necessarily imply there's something wrong with simply pursuing that act as a free choice? The inborn argument seems to carry with it a whiff of "Leave me alone, 'cuz I can't help it" which seems counter-productive. I would rather be able to choose my path through the world freely & have my choices, my preferences, be justified sufficiently simply because they were _my_ preferences, the choices of a free individual.

I understand the the argument above, I think, but I wonder if it carries with it this unintentional negative flip side?

[ruggerson]

12. The fact that it's an inborn trait

and it IS a fact, strips all the garbage concering "morality" out of the equation. When one understands that being gay is absolutely no different than being left handed or having brown hair, or being an oak tree instead of a sycamore, one then can grasp the utter moral neutrality of the whole issue.

And when morality is removed from the debate, their entire premise, and their entire movement, falls apart.

[karlrschneider]

16. Well, one wonders if, in that case, it could become a rationale for abortion.

I mean, how many fundies would support it if a genetic predispositon were discovered? But I'm unaware of any 'vaccine' against diabetes, and I'm pretty displeased with the notion that a 'treatment' is
possible, let alone desirable.

[distantearlywarning]

20. Interesting argument.

I can see where you are going with that: if we say it's ok for people to engage in homosexual behavior because they "can't help it", you give moral license for pedophiles (who may also have a mental or biological illness) to molest minors, and so on and so forth. Right?

I think the difference for me is that I perceive homosexual behavior as primarily affecting the homosexual himself, and not others around him. A homosexual man needs to find another homosexual man to engage in his preferred behavior with. If that person is a consenting adult and they do their thing within the confines of their own private residence, that doesn't affect me at all. Yes, you can make arguments about the "cost of AIDS" and all that, but heterosexuals also contract AIDS, drivers who don't wear their seatbelts have accidents, obese people have heart attacks, etc. Homosexuals don't affect society around them any more than any other group of people who might engage in irresponsible behavior, and to a certain point, we have to tolerate these kinds of costs as a society so that people can have some freedom - at least in the kind of society I want to live in.

Now take the pedophile: when he engages in his desires, he must do it with a minor. By definition, his behaviors immediately and definitively negatively impact another person (as opposed to the more nebulous impact of "higher health care costs" or "the sanctity of marriage", for instance). The person who the pedophile's behaviors impact is someone who often doesn't get much of a say in the situation, or who is by law not entitled to get a say. THAT'S what makes it "immoral", not being a pedophile by nature. If (somehow) pedophiles could engage in their desires without having to molest children, their behavior would be acceptable from a socially pragmatic standpoint, if not particularly appealing to the vast majority of the population. Same with Rick Santorum's "man-on-dog". The dog can't really consent, and is by its nature subject to the whims of the bestiality fetisher, so people who have sex with animals are engaging in an immoral act. Obviously, none of this is true of adult, consenting homosexuals who are engaged in a mutual relationship.

You also mentioned diabetes. What's the difference there? Diabetes negatively impacts the sufferer. Homosexuality may be tolerable, preferable, or even pleasurable to the homosexual person. That's why some people compare it to having red hair or being an oak tree rather than an elm. Having red hair may be statistically rare, and possibly not even particularly beneficial in a biological sense (for instance, red haired people have much higher rates of fatal skin cancer), but that doesn't make it a "disease", and it doesn't mean the red-haired person is unhappy about it. Now, if there were a strong social stigma against having red hair, that might be another matter...

Do red-haired people have the choice to stop being red-haired? Sure. They can dye their hair some other color and and "pass". If they were "passing" because they were socially stigmatized, does the "freedom" they experience by being able to dye their hair another color if they so choose make up for all of the other psychological baggage that comes with "passing"? Or do you think they would rather just be red-haired and live happily in a world that treats them just like all the other people out there? I can't speculate, as I don't have a stigma that allows me to "pass". But I think, looking in from the outside, that it would be a pretty crappy way to live. I think I would just prefer to accept some of the things I couldn't change (genetic traits, for instance) and make the most out of the choices I did have, rather than pretending I could change something like sexuality or my hair color for a false sense of control, or because society couldn't deal with who I really was.

[ruggerson]

21. right on target, great post n/t

[Forrest Greene]

24. No, Wrong

>> "I can see where you are going with that: if we say it's ok for people to engage in homosexual behavior because they "can't help it", you give moral license for pedophiles (who may also have a mental or biological illness) to molest minors, and so on and so forth. Right?"

No, I was going somewhere else. I don't believe the "can't help it" argument should give license to anyone to interfere with anyone else who does not consent to it, nor to otherwise behave irresponsibly.

What concerns me is that if I, a straight male, someday wanted to have a homosexual relationship, my simply wanting that -- my arriving at a decision, by whatever course, to pursue that -- might not be seen as valid if I did not carry the "homosexual gene."

I guess what my concerns boil down to is that I am jealous of my freedom, & do not feel I need a genetic justification for actions I might care to take. There certainly may be genuine genetic reasons behind my actions, but I do not believe they are paramount, & I do believe they should not be treated as such, especially in the social / political sphere. To do so is to see us all as little more than animals driven by instinct. While in the sociobiological sense, we certainly are animals with many strong instincts, & this should be accounted for in our society, it should not, I think, become the _basis_ for our society / politics / rights. Especially not for our rights.

If I make a choice of which someone else disapproves, I don't want there to be support for my disapprover to dismiss me, my desires, & my decisions with "He can't help it, he's helplessly being driven by his genes." This disrespects & condescends to me & my choice, & shortly after that is when the behavior-vaccine research starts. Instead, I want those who disapprove of my action, whatever it might be, to have to say, "Well, that just plain disgusts me, but this free individual has the right to choose to do that. Just don't make me watch!" It seems to come down to a matter of my own self-respect.

Also, please understand that I don't mean this as an argument for "anything goes, as long as I can think of a justification for it." Free association does not exist without consent, & freedom is meaningless without responsibility.

I really do think that to put forth genetics as a cause of something of which some other group disapproves is to tacitly agree with their disapproval -- or at least it is to not challenge their disapproval -- by saying, in effect, "(Yes you're right, this behavior is abominable, but you see,) I just can't help doing it," & that that is a tactical mistake. It is to look for approval & support from groups which have none to give you. One should stand up for one's own decisions & actions, & for the freedom to freely make them, instead, & the genetic explanation just doesn't, in my opinion, sufficiently allow for that.

[riderinthestorm]

11. Nope, in their rationalization, Haggard just "chose" wrongly

In fact, I worry that this just reinforces their belief that this is just a "choice", one that must be struggled with and beaten down with scripture, prayer and evangelical fervor. Haggard only "chose" to succomb infrequently. He just needed stronger "willpower".

These folks will "forgive" him when he returns cause Haggard has all of the right vocabulary and push phrases. He is going to write a bestseller about how he "overcomes" his homosexuality and be welcomed back to the fold as a reformed "sinner".

Meanwhile when Pastor Ted "lapses" again, he'll make damn sure the next prostitute won't rat him out.

[CatWoman]

13. great post, R

:thumbsup:

[karlrschneider]

14. You're of course right but they always have their 'ace in the hole'

(no pun intended)...SATAN made him do it. It's their 'get out of jail free' card. Well, one of them, they gots millions of 'em.

[sendero]

15. Brilliant observation..

...and 100% on target. I've never understood the "gay is a choice" argument. It's surreal.

[undergroundpanther]

17. The human true self

Cannot be DENIED forever.

WE as people are far more DIVERSE than we appear,but by time we are adults a sickening conformity and denial is beaten into us, until we become "normal" homogenized, tamed.. and as we become the mythic normal of Francis Galton's fantasy eugenics, when we DENY ourselves our SELF,and compromise our true selves away,to please ,placate or stave off attacks from authoritarians, parents whatever else, who demand we be like THEY are or they WANT and we deny what WE are deep down. NO more denial.Denial is killing us, and forcing us into cages, making us too tame to respect our own person hood, It has got to stop!
I am me and I have every right to BE whatever I be.

I am an androgynous rainbow colored, horned, flying,electric flaming,trans panther being...

what are you, really.You can become anything, if you stop denying what you are and dare to become regardless, ending the denial,fuck the'disapline'of routine, fitting in, doing as you are told,Rebellion from the liar "norms" it is part of finding self love, respecting the person inside,more than the bullies pushing you to hide,rebellion is a sacred thing,becoming free and wild as some of us are meant to be is what we need.

[FernBell]

18. k&r

[Wednesdays]

19. Don't kid yourself, they'll be back

After Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart fell and Robertson got his ass handed back to him in the '88 primaries, I thought the fundies were done. Well, history has proven me wrong...

[upi402]

22. yeah, why did Haggard choose to be gay when he had a wife and kids?

sheez! I don't get it????
:sarcasm:

[ruggerson]

23. nt