For some reason my post saying I called this a while back has been deleted.  No matter, I'm calling it again:

The interim guy they put in place to replace Haggard is gay too.  

What's with these evangelical gays?  Seriously, if they'd all just come out and accept themselves I think the world would be a better place.  

Word.  I'm still giggling like a schoolgirl.

Did you see the mark foley video ?
He was so happy to get the little girl back into his limo with the dark windows..

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/20 06/11/mr-foleys-opus.php

funny thing though, it looks like youtube has taken the clip down - don't know if it exists anywhere but if it does it should be saved somewhere, its just an excerpt.

um... sounds like you and like minded Hubby got hold of a bad batch yourselves.

the irony of your post, and why people  like you are amusing, is the level to which you talk out of both side of your mouth in this amazing level of cognitive dissonance. if the state should be out of religion, then why in your infinite wisdom to tell others how to live their lives, is it that the state is the one determining who can and can not get married? including heterosexuals. were you and your husband considered married legally after the church portion of your marriage, or when you did all the administrative actions that the state required? the keyword there is "legal" before you go off on to some portion of your religion that is irrelevant. I am also curious are you filing your taxes as a married couple or singly? is that an endorsement of your so called belief in separation of state from marriage. if you truly believed that, I would  expect the answer to be singly because otherwise you are benefiting quite hypocrtically from something you claim you dont want the state involved in.  I am also curious about whether you are on his benefits plan, or is he on yours? Finally, it's incredibly easy to tell others what to do with the rights they want becuase it doesn't really effect you and your husband. The level of dishonesty on this issues by the supposedly left is aways fascinating to read.

Similarly, "My [wife] and I are not in favor of [interracial] marriage largely because marriage is a matter for the church.

There is a long history of the church being harmed by its affiliation with the state, this latest issue being one of them.

And the [civil rights] activists who [believe] marriage [is a] civil right are doing the same thing, they are bring (sic.) a social and church issue into politics when its best left to its own device.  Really, it is quite disheartening to see how readily [blacks] and [whites] alike go at it... in more ways than one!

:-)

Seriously though despite my [wife] being kicked off mydd for posting against [interracial] marriage we both believe the legal issue of civil unions and things like letting partners be in hospital rooms, that is a non-issue and should be rationally decided [by the white people in charge of deciding such things].
...
in our home, divorce is never discussed.  [bigotry], often. :-)

p.s. Your smiley-faces are idiotic.

Several churches already recognize gay marriage, and many other individual clergy members perform gay marriages all the time.  So being against gay marriage because "it's a matter for the church" is an inaccurate position; many churches are pro-gay marriage.

If you really think it's a matter for the church, and if you really support equal state rights for gay couples, you shouldn't have a problem legalizing gay marriage --

-- then, gay couples will receive equal benefits from the state as their straight counterparts, and churches will still be free (as they always have been ) to set their own rules about whom they wish to marry and whom they do not.  Some churches will choose to marry gay couples (as they already do) and others will not.

Honestly, what you're saying makes no sense at all.  

Plus, guess what -- this post wasn't about gay marriage, and the stretch from talking about a hypocritical gay-bashing evangelist possibly being a closeted tweaking gay man to making an announcement that you and your ever-present husband don't believe in gay marriage seems quite off-topic.  

I'm in favor of gay marriage in my church. Your church can set its own rules for a church marriage.

Gay marriage hasnt been legal for almost 2000 years. Ironically gay marriage was legal in ancient Rome.  Roman occupiers in Judeah had a percentage of homosexuals, homosexual meeting places were all around as well as roman homosexual art was everywhere Romans were around Jesus and yet the bible mentions nothing except where a roman soldier asked Jesus to heal his homosexual sex slave and Jesus DID.  Jesus told us all to set aside the old testiment, but Jesus did nothing to talk against homosexuality, all indications are that he really thought nothing of it enough to even talk or preach about it even though P. Pilot was also documented as being married to a man.  When Jesus was invited to speak at the church, where did he go?  Instead went to prostitutes and homosexuals because he wasnt needed by the church people, he went where he was "needed".

Considering since the end of Rome, homosexuals were put to death, except for Roman and Greek acceptance of gay marriage,  we dont have traditions for gay marriage because, heck, they werent allowed to, instead they were stoned, hanged or burned at the stake.  This continued until the early 20th century with English Royal Buggery laws that gay death penalty for homosexuality.  

I think since gay marriage was legal in biblical times but outlawed  in the dark ages and ever since,  the arguement that why hasnt there been a established tradition for civil unions is a dumb issue.  A look around gay chat places on AOL and gay.com, you will notice 70% of gay chat participants are married with children looking for extra marital gay affairs.  Divorces on the grounds of homosexuality of a spouse are at all time highs and account for 25% of divorces. I think our society is finally finding that the time to stop putting gays to death and suppressing them has finally come to the point, its time to let gay be gay.  

Letting gays be gay means they will exit the reproduction cycle and maybe instead of having increasing polution of the gene pool with homosexual genes, maybe we can clean up the gene pool and maybe our great great great grand children will not having to continue to contend with the problems like for example, psycologist estimate 65% of homosexuals are married with children.  Just because they arent practicing homosexuality doesnt mean they arent passing the gene to the children and grand children, nor does it make them any less of a homosexual even if he IS your husband and father of your children.   I dont know about you, I'd much rather gay men be with gay men,  I certainly dont want them trying to be in the closet and fool my daughter into marrying him just so he has a society acceptable cover.

According to the accusations, there was only one time where either of them were behind the plate as it were, and it's implied that Haggard was the catcher that time - Jones said "I wore the condom".

Umm ... I know it's difficult, but please, let's try to remember that "gay," or even "sleazy hypocritical gay" does not necessarily equal "pedophile."

I understand that you're not saying this directly, but it's a little too close for comfort.

Thanks

I remember most anti-gay guys in high school were later found to be quite gay themselves.  I read somewhere that only 35% of homosexuals are admitted and open about it, the remaining 65% are in the closet and married with children.  And they wonder why the gay gene doesnt die out with natural selection and the lack of reproduction of the gay gene.  

Ironically what anti-gay people and religious figures dont realize is, let the gay people be gay, it stops passing along of the gay gene to children, eventually homosexuality will disappear if we make homosexuality acceptable and give them gay marriage.