Hallelujah!

jitcrunch-1jpeg1

Could this week get any better?

As they say, breaking HARD (tee hee hee):

Disgraced pastor faces more gay sex accusations [AP]

39 comments:

9:13 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

But where are the leaked HAWT XXX pix that we all know are on Ted’s hard drive?

9:22 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

In an AP interview this month before an appearance in front of TV critics in California, Haggard described his sexuality as complex and something that can’t be put into “stereotypical boxes.”

That’s a long way from “Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual,” isn’t it? Glory, how he blew ya!

9:26 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Signal to Noise: I actually think things get put into his ‘stereotypical box’ all of the time.

9:48 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

“Inappropriate” yet “consensual”. Must’ve been some wild fuckery going on there …

10:31 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@homofascist: well-played, sir.

10:55 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

You know, the problem here is that these homophobic fundies seem to have no gaydar at all. Their fear and hatred of homosexuality, and their demonization of it as satanic and evil, seems to make them blind to it when its in their midst. You see, they assume all homosexuals are evil, so they just cannot beleieve that someone they know, whom they know is not evil or satanic, can be a homosexual, no matter that he might be a raging queen ridiculously obvious to everyone else in the world.

It happened in my church, we hired a young choir director, who was the nicest young obviously gay man I have ever met, and the very same homophobes who wanted to quit the Episcopal church over the gay Bishop, loooooved him. He would bring in young men to do special vocal performances with the choir, again, so obviously his boyfriends, their was mincing and all manner of stereotypical gayness going on, and they were so absolutelty clueless, the old ladies would be all a-twitter about the nice young men with the beautiful voices.

Seriously, they demonize teh gay so much, that they have this denial about anyone who is “one of them,” if they are going to church and are a christian, why they can’t be an evil gay.

And of course, the plight of the gay christians, I feel for them. I mean, we all know, you don’t choose to be gay, its what you are, and here they are, in a world that tells them that what they are is evil, I just cannot blame them for how they act out their nature when confined in that impossible situation.

Its a fucking crime. This poor guy just wants to chug some cock, but he is as a consequence hated by his own, and ridiculed by those of us who should be tolerant on account of the hypocracy he was forced into by the world he inhabits. Sad shit.

I think there is a parallel with strong women who are sexually aware and active, the “slut” and “whore” judgments that women still must endure, whereas in men the same behavior is secretly admired. Sexually active single women still have to live in a kind of ‘closet” that sexually active single men don’t have to live in.

Fucking twisted christian sexual moral code is the problem.

10:59 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

The other side of the coin is, if they just had some fucking gaydar, they would realize how many of the people they know and love are gay, and would realize that being gay does not make someone evil. But I guess thats the reason for their blindness to the gays in their midst, if they knew, they would question all they have been taught, and at that point, cognitive dissonance sets in.

11:01 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@blogenfreude: Yeah, that confused me. I didn’t quite understand how their relationship could be inappropriate and consensual at the same time but just chalked it up to my own naivete about fucked up fuckery. Such as.

11:09 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Promnight: Darling, this is why we all need to come out: gay and straight. And stop pretending. We all like to do fucky-fucky. Just in different ways.

“overwhelming pool of evidence” on the sheets?

11:11 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@blogenfreude: @Jamie Sommers:
“Innapropriate” seems to be the default method to refer to relationships which are “technically” legal. In this case, pestorking a member of the congregation is inappropriate, of course, because of his position of power, and even when its a heterosexual affair, the age difference would also require the transgressor to confess to its “inappropriateness.” And of course, in this guy’s world, all dude-on-dude sex is “inapropriate,” even if its legal.

They wouldn’t have to get wild for him to have to say this, no “docking” or anything, simple “lets watch a porno and whack off together” is more than enough.

11:12 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Promnight: I actually think there are two categories of people in this situation. Not all lack gaydar, though some certainly do. Others, however, don’t really care and are happy to play along, not ruffle any feathers or cause trouble. These are likely the cafeteria christians who attend church and believe in some form of higher power and general morality but are not dogmatic or adherent to many (or most) of the tenets of their particular faith. I think at times we underestimate how many people still seek church as their primary means of social interaction or connection to community.

ADD: Ah, of course. I hadn’t thought of the pastor/congregant angle. That makes sense. Apparently, my mind defaults to dirty even if, at times, it can’t quite get there.

11:14 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Promnight: “Inappropriate” = “liked it, would do it again”.

11:14 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

I thought the Churchy elders and Jimmy Dobson washed the gay away. Apparently, they missed a few spots.

@Benedick:
Damn. That would mean people would have to accept who they are then what the wing nuts do? Have you thought about them? They can’t live in a world where they have to deal with reality.

11:21 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Benedick: Yes, sir, that is what I am wondering, if everyone who was gay could just be gay, with no fear of shame or ostracism or violence or prejudice, wouldn’t all this just go away? And it extends, as you suggest, to all sexuality, in the same way, the double standard amongst heterosexuals would disappear.

Its the truest thing ever said, “everyone likes to fuck.” But there are an amazing number of men who do not like to know that women also like to fuck, somehow it seems to threaten them. And therefore they smear any woman who shows signs of liking to fuck as a “whore.” I guess its comforting to think that no real woman really likes sex, and that women only do it as an acknowledgment of male power, Someone who believes that doesn’t have to worry about their performance, or care about the woman’s enjoyment.

Its not christian sexual morality, I think now, its christian misogyny. I do firmly believe that the catholic attitude towards sex, its inherent sinfulness, is not really about sex, its about women, the problem with sex, in christian morality, is that it leads to consorting with women. Its the women themselves that christianity, and especially catholicism, has a problem with.

11:27 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@redmanlaw: RML, I have done filthy things in my life. Penthouse letters kinda things. And I know many people who never did such things. I do wonder, how can they not have some lingering wondering going on, like “gee, should I have fucked more than one single person in my life?”

I have no regrets, never used, abused, decieved, or hurt anyone intentionally. Didn’t turn me into a perv or a swinger. I am as monogamous as a person could be, always have been, incapable of anything else (world’s worst liar).

But I wonder about the difference in worldview in people like me, and those who never had a time of freeedom.

11:30 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Promnight:

Here’s what I’ll never comprehend about the dreaded “it’s a choice crowd”: They seem incapable of even conceiving the corollary of their statement. If gays can “choose” to be straight, then straight people can “choose” to be gay, meaning fucking and falling in love with someone of the same sex. It’s totally preposterous! Why someone doesn’t point out the obviousness of this on national TV, I’ll never understand.

11:32 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Original Andrew:
Those folks don’t deal with logic, but lojik.

It’s okay as long as it’s what they choose.

11:36 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Promnight: What I really, really, REALLY hate about this fucking douchebag is that he stands up there for years with gay and lesbian kids (or FFA and FDA) in the pews and preaches that they are sinful and hateful and hell bound and creates FSM knows what kind of issues they are going to have to deal with in the future, all the while this hypocrite is fucking dudes left and right. And then suddenly he is all caught and what is the narrative? Enough high holy rollers put their hands on him (ahem) and suddenly he is completely heterosexual, and you can be too, even though we know that is complete and total bullshit. God forbid should people be allowed to be themselves – what kind of world would that be like? I hope this guy rots in an internal hell every day for the rest of his life.

Can I get a motherfuckin’ A-MEN!?!?

11:43 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@Promnight: I guess its comforting to think that no real woman really likes sex, and that women only do it as an acknowledgment of male power, Someone who believes that doesn’t have to worry about their performance, or care about the woman’s enjoyment. While I agree with the first part, I’m not sure there’s a correlation to the second part. I’ve known plenty of guys who lurve women who really like sex but still don’t give a rat’s ass about their performance or the woman’s enjoyment. But those guys are different than the fundies because they don’t fear the rich tapestry and complexity of this world, nor limit themselves of the choices that brings.
I think it simply comes down to control. The simpler the fundies make their world, the more “in control” they can feel about it. Doubt, Complexity and Compromise (and especially their good friend Choice) are scary scary things to them. Simple thoughts for simple minds.

11:45 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@homofascist: AMEN brother!

11:49 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@homofascist: Amen, brother.

11:55 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

@homofascist:
Amen.

11:57 pm • Friday • January 23, 2009

Q: What’s the hardest part about being the pastor’s assistant?

A: Telling your parents that you’re gay.

12:13 am • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@homofascist: Amen.

1:05 am • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@homofascist:

Ra-men

1:08 am • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Original Andrew: Oh snap!

Haggard is profoundly American. I have to go away and think what that means.

@Promnight: We all have to come out: gay and straight.

@Jamie Sommers: Amen, sister!

I put it thusly in a recent work: Dorothy Bradford, wife of 1st Governor of Plymouth stands over the wreck of her husband who cannot let one crack appear in the wall of his belief and says: Doubt is but the prelude to joy.

1:09 am • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@homofascist: A – Men!

1:19 am • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Benedick: “Doubt is but the prelude to joy.”

Gorgeous. Words to live by. What is this work? Or is it still in progress?

@homofascist: Sister HF, as IF you have to ask me for a loud “A-FUCKIN-MEN”

11:46 am • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@SanFranLefty: It was produced in 06 in Stockbridge to a fairly loud chorus of disapproval. I want to get it seen in SF. In fact that’s one of the reasons I’m coming out there. The play re-invents the history of the pilgrims. As you will remember, in the first three months more than half of them died from cold and disease. Bradford’s wife fell into the water on the second day and was drowned. In their usual charitable way the pilgrims said she’d killed herself. Anyhoo, in the play they don’t die. Instead, there is a freakish warm spell, Squanto shows up and turns out to be a big old girl’s blouse with a plentiful supply of dope. He teaches the youngsters how to smoke said dope and before you know it they set up their own colony on the beach and celebrate the first same-sex marriage in the new world. Then stuff happens. The rebels escape and make a trek across the continent to make their own ‘New World’ which turns out to be San Francisco.

What can I tell you. It makes me laugh. What surprised me was how little of the history of Plymouth was known by the audience. So they weren’t aware of the changes I was making. And also they were shocked by the notion that the pilgrims were English people. Which they were. Extremely so. EG. The bay was so full of bluefish that Bradford describes it in his journal as looking as if one could literally walk across it on the backs of the fish. The pilgrims, however, wouldn’t eat it because it tasted too fishy. So they starved instead. Oh, and they didn’t face much in the way of religious persecution. Their neighbors found them ridiculous and they were only arrested when they started preaching treason. Their real motive for making the big voyage was to stop their children from growing up Dutch. When Dorothy stands accused of subverting the principles of the colony, Bradford tries to threaten her into silence. Somewhat pompously, she replies:

Dorothy: This need of yours for certainty so gets in your way. You can’t live by a book. It’s asking for trouble. There must be room in your life for doubt. Doubt is but the prelude to joy.

It always amuses me that the first lasting colony in the NE was founded by communists. Which is what the pilgrims were. Christian communists imitating the Primitive Church, but communists nonetheless.

The OH reckons I’m flogging a dead horse but I want to see a new production of it because I think the play discusses a fundamental idea that is too often ignored: that the underlying language of American politics is religious in its structure. This nation was founded by religious zealots whose influence is still felt. The fact that they were also hopelessly incompetent should come as no surprise to those of us who lived through the last 8 years.

The pilgrims mostly failed. It was the Massachusetts Bay Colony that shaped the future. They tried to set up the Mosaic law as the literal law of the land. It’s my belief that the separation of church and state came from a desire to protect the republic from religion because the men who wrote the final constitution had seen the terrible harm religion had already done but they knew they’d never be able to state that out in the open. So they devised the language that made it looka s if they were protecting religion instead.

End of morning rant.

Kisses, all.

3:08 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Benedick: “What surprised me was how little of the history of Plymouth was known by the audience. “

Never (mis)underestimate the ignorance of the American public. Especially when it comes to history. And this was the theatre-goer crowd, no less.

I’m sure you can find a theatre in SF or Berkeley willing to stage a production.

3:15 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@SanFranLefty: And this was the theatre-goer crowd, no less.

I know. And a stereotypically old-fashioned liberal crowd into the bargain. The kind of people who used to go to the theatre in NYC and don’t any more because it’s too expensive. They also didn’t get why the same-sex marriage story was so front and centre. They didn’t perceive it as being about civil rights being impeded by religious whack-jobs at all. It was strange.

3:52 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Benedick: What surprised me was how little of the history of Plymouth was known by the audience.

Zzzzz.

Er, sorry. Oregonian here. Plymouth is about as relevant to me as the Glorious Revolution, not that I give a shit about Lewis & Clark.

Plus you’ll note that if we learn that shit at all, we learn it in junior high or thereabouts, when all history is boring, watered down, and cast in triumphalism. At best I might be able to recall the plot of Johnny Tremain, but that’s about it.

4:26 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@nojo: Thanks-fuquing-giving, dude! Ringing any bells?

It is the foundation myth of the US, complete with shining city on a hill. Though I would concede that they are some of the most boring people who ever drew breath.

Interesting factoid: They refused to conduct marriages in the church because marriage, they thought, was ungodly.

First sex crime involved animals. They hanged the animals and the man.

First homo hanged for boning the local youth shortly after.

Which set the tone for pretty much everything that followed.

P.S. Dear God, now that Joe Bruno is going to jail can we please have Elliot Spitzer back? Ta very much.

4:35 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Benedick: Thanks-fuquing-giving, dude! Ringing any bells?

Parades and football. Turkeys. Family arguments with turkeys. Lime jello with canned pears and carrot shavings. Red Goop in a Can that retains its shape after you dump it into the crystal bowl you never use the rest of the year. Electric knives. Candied yams. A shitload of dishes you have to wash. Some awful movie that everybody but one person can agree upon. Box wine. Hearts. The same jokes you’ve been hearing since you were an infant.

Basically “The Long Christmas Dinner,” only a month in advance.

4:39 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@nojo: There you go, big guy.

A stagehand once asked me if we had any special food we served in England for Thanksgiving. Yes he was perfectly serious and didn’t quite believe me when I told him that we don’t celebrate it there.

4:52 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Benedick: “They hanged the animals and the man.” What was the theory for hanging the animals? They led the guy on?

5:13 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Dodgerblue: They had been polluted and couldn’t be allowed to live. Chickens and such as. And a horse if I remember correctly.

5:16 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@Benedick: Hence “hung like a horse.”

5:28 pm • Saturday • January 24, 2009

@redmanlaw: But of course! /smacks forehead/

Add a comment