11/27/2006
James Dobson: Ted Haggard Gay Cure Could Take "4 or 5 Years"
Wednesday night almost seems like ancient history, but James Dobson's appearance on Larry King Live is too rich to overlook.
Dobson told King that he excused himself from the "three person restoration panel" overlooking his "close friend" Ted Haggard because it might be 2010 before Haggard is heterosexual:
"I called my board of directors, we talked about it at length and they were unanimous in asking me not to do that, because this could take four or five years and I just have too many other things going on."
Dobson says he hasn't talked to his "close friend" since it happened. Dobson also told King that liberals have no values, Congress was "courageous" in trying to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, and the separation of church and state is not in the Bill of Rights.
Meanwhile, in Miami over the weekend, gay escort Mike Jones sat down with author David Leddick who is writing a new book called Escort, featuring escorts, their profiles, and photographs. Said Leddick: ''Forty profiles with photographs of men who sell sex. I'm not taking a moral position myself. It's fascinating." Jones is to be the centerpiece of that book.
Jones told the Miami Herald that he has received plenty of criticism from other escorts angry that he disrespected the privacy of the escort/client relationship. But he said the hypocrisy was too much: "All the escorts are [angry] with me. This was such a unique situation. I could have ruined many careers in my day. A lot of politicians and athletes and clergy. But none of them got up and ranted and raved about homosexuality."
He has also been criticized for the tumult created within the pastor's family by going public. His response: "People have scolded me for that, particularly right-wing people. But did Ted Haggard go to his wife and say, 'I'm going to have a gay affair. Is this going to hurt you and the kids?' I don't want to have this guilt over my head."
Jones also wants to make sure the public knows he's not a prostitute: ''I was an escort, all right? Not everyone I went with wanted sex. I think I give escorts a good name.''
You may have missed....
Hating Begins at Home: The Creation of James Dobson [tr]
Ted Haggard Letter: "I am Guilty...a Deceiver and a Liar" [tr]
Posted 8:18 AM EST by Andy Towle in David Leddick, JAmes Dobson, Mike Jones, News, Religion, Ted Haggard | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A "living" constitution is a "dying" constitution
BULL SH@T
in nature = reality...anything that does not/ can not evolve/ change ....ADAPT to changing circumstances dies. deader than dead.
Reality is in constant change/ flux. Nothing in the world lasts forever. Heck, once when in egypt I looked out across a landscape that once saw mighty gods rule over men for thousands upon thousands of years. Nothing but the wind and blowing dust remains and the wind does not care.
Nothing stays the same in nature/ reality. If our government/ constitution does not adapt to the ever changing world then it is deader than dead. Inability to adapt in nature= bye bye
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Nov 27, 2006 4:58:28 PM
No one ever asks the kind of questions I want asked of Dobson. Like, why is it that homosexuality is such a threat to families when the divorce rate is so high and child abuse (all kinds) is all too common.
I'm sure his answer would be some clever pat on the back about having the right values etc etc....but I still have never heard anyone challenge a wingnut on the subject of divorce and why homosexuality is so much more a threat to marriage.
I know the reason of course. Take your pic: internalized sexual repression, mysogeny, bigotry, or just plain disgust over what homos do naked. But I still would like to hear someone press them on the subject and ask for a clarification.
Posted by: mark m | Nov 27, 2006 5:01:03 PM
jimmyb: it's a technical issue regarding how to amend the constitution. No one is saying you can't amend the constitution, the problem is the manner in which it is done. Right now, it's done in backrooms at the SC with no input from the public. This is a huge problem. One day the 1st amendment means this, then the next day it means that, so on and so on. It's crazy.
Posted by: Anon | Nov 27, 2006 5:11:36 PM
Infuriatingly, the mainstream media has been TOTALLY complicitous in allowing the American Taliban's Big Lies about gay marriage fester and grow. Hack that he is, King tried to a degree to challenge him, but then backed down. And, as I've ranted many times, our national groups keep letting them get away with it. They don't have the balls [or sense] to take out ads that simply call Dobson et al. LIARS [and then explaining in the simplest terms why]. They keep doing passive ads [when they do anything at all] about how wonderful gay relationships are. Well, true, but that DOESN'T answer the brainwashing about what our legalization will allegedly do to THEIR relationships. They're dropping bombs and we're throwing flowers.
Posted by: Leland | Nov 27, 2006 5:36:52 PM
anon
I disagree
Though I would prefer the court to have 1 less scalia etc....the so-called back room rulings/ amendments you mention are in a sense a good thing.
The founding fathers thought the masses were ignorant and didn't know what was best for them to begin with and thus we have a republic and we also have the electoral college.
To just wait till a national vote comes along to amend the constitution means you will probably be waiting forever. Sadly, the founders were correct in fearing the masses. The masses are ignorant. A sad but true fact. Heck...America ranks as the 2nd to lowest country on the list of countries who teach/believe in evolution. America ranks somewhere around 23rd in education....AFTER Poland. Poland a former soviet satellite and barely 2nd world country. The american masses are beyond ignorant.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Nov 27, 2006 6:30:33 PM
Anon,
I think that is a bit overstated...(today the court determines it means one thing and tomorrow another). The court generally has a very high regard for precedent and in turn stare decisis. The major issues in cases largely turn on the facts, and there are times where the facts are just different in a way that it defines how a right should be protected, but in an earlier ruling, the facts did not grant the court pause to protect.
I feel that a vast majority if not all of the justices have a great respect for the constitution, and try to avoid entering the political fray as much as possible. However, unfortunately, the issues that they face are political, b/c laws by their very nature of their creation are the political process.
Posted by: westvill | Nov 27, 2006 7:15:09 PM
Dobson's so busy being an anti-gay bigot he doesn't have time to "help" his "friends".
You know, there are certain people, very few, whom I would like to see in the proverbial pits of Hell, tortured for all eternity. If what they claim is actually true about the afterlife, I have no doubt, and take some level of comfort, that Dobson, Jesse Helms, and Pat Robertson, among others, will burn long and slow, and I will light my Cuban cigar on their festering evil flames.
Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Nov 27, 2006 10:46:35 PM
First to TJC. Thank you thank you thank you! The debate needs to be framed in terms of democratic values--the origins of sexual orientation should be irrelevant. Democracy is about expanding choices, not constraining them. In the end, whether or not same-sex attraction is a choice, engaging in same-sex behavior certainly is. Relying on the genes/biology argument is a failing strategy even if it may sway some people in the short term.
To Ryan: The social science literature consistently shows that gay men receive more negative ratings than lesbians across a variety of measures, as you indicated. While there is no conclusive evidence as to why this is the case, some possibilities come to mind. 1) The negative attitudes towards gay men tend to be driven by heterosexual men and not by heterosexual women (het women tend to rate gay men and lesbians similarly). 2) As such, it could be that heterosexual men are eroticizing lesbians, while of course, not eroticizing gay men, thus bumping up the lesbian scores relative to gay men. 3) To the extent that society still favors men over women, gay men (who are stereotyped as being "like women") could be seen as abdicating their role as men (i.e. "the only thing worse than a women is a man who acts like one") 4) It seems to be the case that there is more at stake for a man to preserve his masculinity than for a woman to preserve her femininity--therefore, a man must work harder than women to maintain his masculinity. Part of this process is the derogation of anything or anyone that threatens that masculinity. Gay men certainly are more threatening in this sense than lesbians b/c gay men remind heterosexuals of the possibility of being gay themselves. Let's face it, masculinity is fragile and requires constant monitoring and reaffirmation.
Just a few thoughts. Certainly not a comprehensive list and I'm not claiming they are definitive.
Best to all.
Posted by: Aaron | Nov 27, 2006 11:21:24 PM
I just love it when the far right refers to the founders of the Republic as Christians, none of the following were, they were deist's
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln
Benjamin Franklin
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
Posted by: Terry | Dec 2, 2006 3:09:04 PM
The dung that is Dobson and his "christian" ilk perpetuate their lies and truly believe them. There is no such thing as going from gay to straight, period. The history of psychotherapy proves that. I am living proof. Choice and/or not, we have the right to be protected, just as christians and other religious fucks are not born religious, but choose their religion, and they are protected. What hypocrisy!!!
Posted by: Nikko | Dec 3, 2006 1:31:05 PM
Well, okay, let's imagine that it's five years on and Haggard hasn't been "cured". What are we to make of that situation? Will his admission of being permanently gay help the gay cause or not?
One has to argue Dobson's points all the way up and down the line too. Even if gayness were caused by early childhood environments, would we know how to "cure" the resulting "personality disorder"? Are the current methods being used effective? (I think we can say no to that one already.) So, we need to show Dobson is wrong on many levels: His techniques are changing anyone; No techniques have been shown to alter sexual orientation; It probably would be more harmful to do what is necessary to alter a person's orientation than to leave them alone; There is no evidence of an "objective personality disorder" in homosexual men or women; There is no evidence of environmental childhood developmental causes of homosexuality; and no objective psychologist would conflate scripture and scriptural injunctions with modern clinical psychology. Could he be more wrong? People believe him because they want to. You'd persuade a fair percentage with logical arguments, but most of the rest would need to have their desires altered in the sense that they are losing more than they are gaining by holding on to false ideas.
Posted by: Anon | Dec 4, 2006 1:59:56 AM
"His techniques aren't changing anyone" would have been clearer!
Posted by: Anon | Dec 4, 2006 2:01:48 AM