bachanon

i admire your courage and your active demonstration of compassion. perhaps it is with localized efforts such as yours that will eventually swing the national pendulum of opinion on gay issues in a more positive direction. my original response was to the uproar of glee within the gay community over bringing this guy down/his fall from grace. rather than rejoicing at the sad nature of haggert's actions, it would be wise (IMHO) to not become hypocrites in the process. hate is hate. i knew you were smart kinkaidalum, but your a really good guy too.

it does not help the cause of acceptance and civil issues.

what a stodgy, party republican to have as the next presidential nominee from texas. yuck! let's hope not.

the results were actually not that big of deal historically. A Duel, but Not Decisive By Charles Krauthammer Friday, November 3, 2006; Page A21 According to the pollsters, pundits and pols -- Democratic and nervous Republican -- a great anti-Republican wave is a-coming. Well, let's assume major Democratic gains: 20 to 25 House seats and four to six Senate seats. The House goes Democratic for the first time in 12 years. The Senate probably stays Republican, but by such an excruciatingly small margin that there is no governing majority. What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?" (His answer to: "How's your wife?") Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House and Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average. full article

i fell asleep before ten watching the returns. i woke up to see that the house had indeed gone to the democrats. here is a link to a great op-ed piece by charles krauthammer. he discusses the significance, or lack thereof, of the election results. link g'night

i think it was wrong for someone in the gay community to out him. that is an opinion. i realize that everyone is overjoyed that there is now another poster boy (haggert) for christian hypocrisy and more subtly, the sentiment that "we are everywhere", "we might even be your pastor". that someone like haggert had motives of political and professional gain would be an opinion i do not share. i've known many evangelical ministers and i've met very few who struck me as users of people for personal gain. i've seen these men and their families sacrifice normal lives and set personal accomplishments aside in order to be a comfort to thousands. i've seen ministers not pursue their personal dreams in order to fulfill what they felt was their Godly responsibility. i've also seen some of these same selfless ministers, in secret, attempt to, if only for a moment, feel like they were in control of their lives and get something on the side. i've read that he didn't harp on the "gay issue" in sermons. i have not seen any sermons or quotes in which he used the "gay issue" to scam the church or screw gay people. in fact, being a preacher does not mean that you are perfect. however, it does hold you to a higher standard and haggert has stepped down because of his actions. i have no animosity towards haggert. i really feel for his family, friends and church. he really mucked it up. i do question the motives of the guy who outed him. it really feels like a preschool tattletale situation, but one that had the attention of the nation for several days.

i just had that image in my mind and now i can't get it out. thanks!

where haggert is concerned, i do not feel it is anyone's place to determine what someone "deserves", especially for a moral failure. whether or not his moral failure is that he committed sin, or lives in the closet, or is a hypocrite, it is my opinion that we cannot know what he truly "deserves". i can say i think he is wrong, but i do not think i can say what he deserves. to say he got what he deserves is to assume that we know how severe his infractions are and to have knowledge of who should be punished for what. if i come across as self-righteous, it is unintentional and i apologize. my issue is that the gay community has several important issues on the table nationally, things that are going on in the minds of millions of people, gay and straight. i feel (an opinion, not a personal judgement) it is counter productive and hypocritical for people in the gay community to rejoice over the fall of this (very public, and most likely, closeted gay man). this tells the world that "we eat our own" if you are on the wrong side of the political spectrum. imagine growing up in the evangical world as a gay kid today. not only will your family and church disdain you, but so will the gay community if you hold fast to certain conservative ideals. imagine what the gay kids in haggert's ministry are going through right now? kids who possibly look up to this guy as a spiritual mentor. do you think they would look to the gay community for help or comfort after reading threads like this one? there is a missed opportunity here, on a national scale, to put a different face on the gay community. again, west20th, i did not intend to drag you into a roundabout discussion parsing words. i should have just stated what i was thinking and not personalized it towards you. sorry.

your opinion sounds like you've passed judgement on haggard. your opinion doesn't offend me at all. it does seem hypocritical coming from someone who wants to be treated without judgement. but that's just my opinion.

is it the depelchin children's home?

well, good for you. personally, i am not worthy to stand in judgement of anyone other than myself.

sorry, i didn't get that from your comment. i should have asked, "do you think the meth prostitute is some sort of hero for outing haggard?".

not at all. i'm simply stating the perception of the gay community at large is damaged on a national scale when the only mention of a gay man is related to meth and prostitution and bringing down a supposed moral leader. the damage to haggard was self inflicted. no one is to blame but him. however, the damage to the gay community is by association. these are objective statements. i did not intend to finger point. i did intend to analyze the story and the outcome of the story in a way that was not being discussed.

i cannot find any evidence that the army was responsible for the text which accompanied the photo. the army was responsible for the commission, not the explanation of it in a mass mailed email.

what seems to be missing from this discussion is the idea that christians (many who live in a "christian bubble") have very little contact with assimilated gay society. gays (many who live in a "gay bubble") have very little contact with your everyday christian fundamentalist. when a story like this erupts, the gay community cries "hypocrite!" to the big bad preacher man. unfortunately, it is the gay community that comes out looking like meth heads and prostitutes to society at large. this story is bad publicity for the gay community. once again, the gay community is (appears to be) the corruptor (to the "christian bubble", "middle america bubble"). having a gay meth selling male prostitute bring this guy down does not shed positive national light on the gay community. it does not help the cause of tolerance or civil issues. there have always been immoral preachers (or preachers finding themselves....). it's the old "doctor, heal thyself" cliche. it is sometimes the most inspiring person who has the biggest issue. so many comments on this thread LOVE to THROW STONES. i know where you're coming from. but, most of the time, as difficult as it may be, it's best to put that stone back where you found it. IMHO. it seems that if anyone who has ever felt the need to live a closeted life for any length of time, especially if you had kids, might have some idea about what this guy has gone through his entire life. add that to growing up in evangelical circles, where you would forever be disregarded unless you "became" straight. i don't think this guy was just out getting off. i think he was trying to connect in a way he wasn't connecting in his personal life. this is a common occurrance in evangelical circles. the whole "church bubble" (i'll continue with the bubble concept) restricts personal connections in such a way that many people find themselves living in a vacuum, especially gay people within that church bubble. i would like to think that the "armies of compassion" in the gay community who open their arms to needy kids and shun open drug use and embrace social responsibility would want to let this guy (haggard) know that he is not alone in this world. it would be nice for the entire country to see compassion from the gay community towards someone who may be just like them. it would be nice for the entire country to see a different face on the gay community. a face other than the meth dealing prostistute they've seen this week.

i like james werner, libertarian. here is a link to a chronical story about him. werner campaigns for acceptance

welcome to the forum endeavor team and congratulations on your project's success. keep us posted.

LMAO! the clinton library in ARKANSAS resembles an elevated trailor that needs to be above the flood plain. hysterical!

i enjoyed the factoids too. i can't believe people would complain about someone posting them. what's up with that!

actually, IMHO, the dumb idiots who buy houses in the new neighborhoods are the problem. it is so easy to get caught up in the decorator model home and easy financing. who can blame someone for taking a stab at the "american dream"? it's sad, really. i'm still waiting for the dateline story on the increase in foreclosures due to fraudulent lending practices by greedy developers. it will happen.

niche, couldn't the enormous size of the baby boomer market be some sort of barometer?

at least txdot is getting on board with tree replacement. now, if we could convince the developers to save some.

i'm sure that there are some on haif that are more privy to the numbers, but i've come across alot of info pertaining to empty nesters and retirees wanting the condo/hi-rise lifestyle. it does not surprise me that 50 and 60 somethings want to be near friends and family while eliminating home ownership responsibilites, increasing security and so on. i think that developers are anticipating this trend, or are behind it in some markets.

that was fun. thanks.

my point was that we would not vote for a politician whose claim to fame was solely on supporting or denying funding for stem cell research. there are other issues more urgent. the scientists i've met in cancer and genetic research tell me that this is purely a political issue. the actual benefits of one particular kind of stem cell research will not be a cure all, nor are benefits right around the corner. people suffering from parkinson's disease will not see benefits in their lifetime from stem cell research. there are current technologies and treatments available that extend quality of life for many parkinson's patients. the "uneducated populace" i speak of is a generalization of persons who base their opinions based on mass media hype without much information deeper than a headline or a news blip. condolences are not necessary, but thank you. parkinson's is not a death sentence.