<p>OldinJersey,</p>
<p>Here’s a position for you, perhaps a conservative one:</p>
<p>Haggert is within the majority view on gay marriage in America–not one I favor, it should be said, but the majority view, nonetheless; which, I suppose, would not necessarily make him a fire-breathing radical on the issue of gay-rights/marriage, even if a rather shrill and loud advocate of the majority view. </p>
<p>Like many of the artistically and spiritually inclined the Rev seems to suffer from fits of conscience and is a victim to the dualism that exists (to the artist/spiritualist) between the body and mind, or spirit and flesh; that is to say, a dichotomy born of a transcendent impulse in an otherwise uncomfortable material existence. Probably even more common, now-a-days, to artists who employ themselves in the transcendent as this is the nature of their art, than fundamentalist religious figures who seem to reject the mystery of sacred scripture and embrace a legal interpretation of the sacred poetry such as it is—but nonetheless.</p>
<p>Many artist and spiritualists have experimented with a great many things, many with homosexuality (amongst many other forms of sexuality: polygamy, polyandry, misogyny, free-love, pederasty, pedophilia, etc) and enjoyed and rejected one or the other for very complicated reasons–others embraced it, also for complicated reasons.</p>
<p>I rather agree with the position you laid out a few posts back that claimed that the Rev. Haggert was an out-of-control sex addict, of sorts. To me, this should be obvious to anyone without a blinding agenda: I do not believe he was looking for love or romantic attachment, along with his methamphetamines, in that hotel room. In any case, this interpretation sounds highly believable to me.</p>
<p>Worse, to me, is the deceit, not so much to his flock, though there too, but to his wife and his children. He seems to have maintained this double-life deception for a very long time. This is a sickness that sickens all involved.</p>
<p>As is the way with those who put ideas before people, like Haggert and many of the so-called liberals in this thread, the focus is on the political advantage to be gained in this sordid affair; the human element be damned.</p>
<p>I, however, take people at their word when it comes to their sexuality—whether I like their politics or not. To me, if he says he is not gay, he never was gay and, additionally, was not “cured” as such a protestation would likely be both impossible and irreverent. This is the libertarian in me.</p>
<p>The conservative in me is offended by his duplicity, not his politics. His politics are his own, maybe I am wrong and he will be proved right in the end, I haven’t the hubris to suggest more than this; but he was vile in his duplicity on many levels.</p>
<p>The liberals here, as in the Anna Nicole thread, seem far more into the bodice-ripping thrills of this story. I find this boorish, if not tasteless.</p>
<p>So, how’s that?</p>
