# Yet Aother Evangelical Christian Leader Bites The ... Dust **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 3, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963 "2006-11-03T12:58:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/321 "2006-11-07T21:28:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Now, just for the hell of it, (think of it as an itellectual exercise if you must), find an actual instance. Not a case where you assumed it, or it seemed to you, but an actual instance of anyone either asserting that visiting a male prostitute was necessary and sufficient to identify someone as gay, or denying the opposite. Just one. Or fuck away off. > [@Miller](#): > > But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay. Maybe he’s bisexual instead of homosexual (which still makes him gay, btw) but there’s really no way to reasonably argue that he’s not sexually attracted to men. Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay. Oh, but wait, he didn’t use the **exact** words. Sorry. > [@you with the face](#): > > If it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. If a man is screwing another man, then it’s a safe bet that he’s gay or a least bisexual. Oops, once again, not the **exact words.** > [@Lemur866](#): > > If paying another man to have sex with you doesn’t make you gay, what does? But, of course, once again, not the exact words I used. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > He made an extreme effort to fuck a guy. Over and over again. He’s gay. Yes, I know, not the exact words. So, out of curiosity Contra, you say that going to a male prostitute does not mean you are gay, but putting forth an effort above a certain point and doing so a certain number of times does make you gay. Do you mind if I inquire as to how much effort, and the precise number of times you can visit a prostitute before the distinction can be made? What if, instead of driving 70 miles 36 times, he had driven 20 miles 25 times? Would he then be gay, according to you? > [@Miller](#): > > Haggard paid for sex with another man. That’s not an act of convenience, or desperation. That’s a pretty clear statement of preference. And… Survey Says… that’s right, not his **exact words.** Yes, now I see where you’re coming from, Contra. Nobody came right out and said “sex with a male prostitute means you are gay.” So my reading that into the quotes above was totally out of line. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/322 "2006-11-07T22:05:00Z")
And he called _me_ intellectually dishonest. :rolleyes: Context matters, **Shirley**. Do try to remember that. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/323 "2006-11-07T22:10:48Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Oh, but wait, he didn’t use the **exact** words. Sorry. [/QUOTE] Miller’s entire post, in context. > [@](#): > > But if he has one of these “irresistable urges” to fuck anything that moves, then it doesn’t matter how much sense it makes to keep the number of people you’re fucking to a minimum. Any time any piece of ass walked past him, he’d go for it. If Haggard really is driven by some sort of monomaniacal obsession with sex with absolutely no regard for something as basic as the _gender_ of the other person, then practically by definition, he’s not going to be able to restrict it to just the one giggolo. If he’s that promiscuous, he’s going to be screwing guys left and right, and he won’t need to keep going back to the same guy for sex. Let alone drugs: it’s not like it’s hard to score crystal meth these days, particularly if you spend a lot of time with prostitutes or in gay clubs. > > You’re kidding here, right? “Guy sleeps with male prostitute = gay” is somehow a less sweeping assumption about this guy’s sex life than “Guy sleeps with male prostitute = guy will sleep with absolutely anything, male or female, human or animal, biological lifeform or inanimate object?” > > And what sort of guy goes to a male prostitute? My money is on “gay guys.” > > Honestly, is this really a debatable issue? I can understand looking at this story and saying, “Let’s hold on for a moment here, we don’t know that he actually slept with the male prostitute.” But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay. _Maybe_ he’s bisexual instead of homosexual (which still makes him gay, btw) but there’s really no way to reasonably argue that he’s not sexually attracted to men. Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay. He was responding to your assertion that Haggard is a sex addict, and suggesting that on the evidence we have, gay is the way to bet. > [@](#): > > Oops, once again, not the **exact words.** There is nothing in her quote about male prostitutes. Do you contend that the default assumption about two guys fucking is that they are straight? > [@](#): > > But, of course, once again, not the exact words I used. That’s one for you. **Lemur866** , in one of his two contributions to this thread, did assert that paying a guy for sex indiates that a guy is gay. > [@](#): > > Yes, I know, not the exact words. Right again. And since it includes the phrase “extreme effort” but not the phrase “male prostitute” it is a bit off point. More than a bit, actually. > [@](#): > > So, out of curiosity Contra, you say that going to a male prostitute does not mean you are gay, but putting forth an effort above a certain point and doing so a certain number of times does make you gay. To be perfectly honest, I think if a man pays a man for sex he is probably gay. I just have not advanced that argument in this thread. I certainly have never said “that going to a male prostitute does not mean you are gay”, and wonder where you got that impression. > [@](#): > > Do you mind if I inquire as to how much effort, and the precise number of times you can visit a prostitute before the distinction can be made? What if, instead of driving 70 miles 36 times, he had driven 20 miles 25 times? Would he then be gay, according to you? I have absolutely no idea. You are, alas, confused again. You seem to have an inability to consider more than one piece of evidence at a time. My point about the effort he was making was to refute your contention that he was a sex addict who would fuck fruit jars, and that that explained the man on man sex. Considering the easy availabilty of both female hookers and fruit jars in Colorado Springs, as well as the the fact that fucking guys was antithetical to everything he stood for, your explanation did seem to be the most parsimonious. By a great whooping long shot. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/324 "2006-11-07T22:23:09Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Considering the easy availabilty of both female hookers and fruit jars in Colorado Springs, as well as the the fact that fucking guys was antithetical to everything he stood for, your explanation did seem to be the most parsimonious. By a great whooping long shot. [/QUOTE] Correction. Did \*\*not \*\*seem to be the most parsimonious. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/325 "2006-11-07T22:31:58Z")
> [@](#): > > He was responding to your assertion that Haggard is a sex addict, and suggesting that on the evidence we have, gay is the way to bet. Right. And in responding to my assertion, he stated “Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay.” And I already conceded that he did not use the exact words “sex with a male prostitute equals gay.” So what are you arguing about? I already said you were right. Of course, you’re only right in your own intellectually bankrupt world. Tell me, in what context on which planet does “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” not equal saying that screwing male prostitutes means you are gay? > [@](#): > > There is nothing in her quote about male prostitutes. I know, I know. I already conceded that I did not use her **exact words.** However, those of us in the real world realize that sex with a male prostitute is a subset of sex with another man, and therefore in all cases sex with a male prostitute is, by definition, sex with another man. > [@](#): > > Do you contend that the default assumption about two guys fucking is that they are straight? Cite for where I ever said that? I call bullshit and double bullshit. I never said that. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/326 "2006-11-07T22:37:40Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] And he called _me_ intellectually dishonest. :rolleyes: Context matters, **Shirley**. Do try to remember that. [/QUOTE] Please explain the context in which “Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay.” and “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” can mean anything other than that having sex with a male prostitute means you are gay. Unless the sentence immediately preceding these statements is “Everything I’m about to say is bullshit,” there’s not many contexts in which what you’re saying could be taken to mean anything else. You seem to be suggesting that you did not mean that having sex with a male prostitute means you are gay when you said “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” and “Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay.” If that’s not what you meant, please explain how you meant for these statements to assert that sex with a male prostitute does not make you gay, and explain why taking them out of context distorts this meaning. If you can’t do that, then yes, you are intellectually dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/327 "2006-11-07T22:47:42Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] I know, I know. I already conceded that I did not use her **exact words.** However, those of us in the real world realize that sex with a male prostitute is a subset of sex with another man, and therefore in all cases sex with a male prostitute is, by definition, sex with another man. [/quote] Those of us in the real world believe it’s a safe bet that a non-incarcerated male who actively seeks sex with other men has a gay/bisexual orientation. Bets, as I’m sure you know, are usually based on confidence not absolutely certainty. Which means that I’m allowing the possibility that the man is not gay, while acknowledging that his behavior strongly says otherwise. I know, I know. This is crazy talk. But the fact that you’re drawing from your experiences as a _probation officer_ tells me that the men you’ve come in contact aren’t exactly representative of the whole population of men who enjoy sex with other men. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/328 "2006-11-07T22:51:26Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Please explain the context in which “Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay.” and “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” can mean anything other than that having sex with a male prostitute means you are gay. Unless the sentence immediately preceding these statements is “Everything I’m about to say is bullshit,” there’s not many contexts in which what you’re saying could be taken to mean anything else. You seem to be suggesting that you did not mean that having sex with a male prostitute means you are gay when you said “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” and “Paying another guy for sex is about as much proof as you could ever possibly want that a given man is gay.” If that’s not what you meant, please explain how you meant for these statements to assert that sex with a male prostitute does not make you gay, and explain why taking them out of context distorts this meaning. If you can’t do that, then yes, you are intellectually dishonest. [/QUOTE] I could explain the context. The question is, are you willing to actually listen to the answer, and are you capable of understanding it? Based on your posts so far in this thread, I’m not convinced that the effort would be worth my time. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/329 "2006-11-07T22:53:22Z")
Ahem. STATEMENT A: “If you were to observe any randomly-selected man purchasing the services of a male prostitute, you would have sufficient evidence to be justified in asserting that the man is a homosexual.” STATEMENT B: “If you were to observe any randomly-selected man purchasing the services of a male prostitute, you would **not** have sufficient evidence to be justified in asserting that the man is a homosexual.” **Don’t Call Me Shirley** , I believe that you are taking as your position the truth of STATEMENT B, and that you are describing as the position of others such as **Miller** , **you with the face** , **Lemur866** and **Contrapuntal** , the truth of STATEMENT A. Please correct me if I am mistaken, and then kindly provide clarification. Until then, I will proceed under the assumption that I am not mistaken. Now, it is the case that no one has been using the qualifier, “any randomly-selected man” in this discussion. Nonetheless, I think it is fair to conclude from the context of your remarks that the qualifier is implied. If you disagree, I invite you so say so, and to say why. Since the posts you quote from **Miller** and **Contrapuntal** are at great pains to specify that they refer to the Rev. Mr. Haggard, and not to “any randomly-selected man”, those posts do not qualify as evidence that **Miller** and **Contrapuntal** have espoused STATEMENT A, and repudiated STATEMENT B. The posts of Messrs. **face** and **866** are more subject to interpretation. They are phrased in such broad terms that, without clarification, there are strong arguments to be made that they intended to refer either to your qualifier, _or_ to **Miller** ’s and **Contrapuntal** ’s speficication of Haggard. Speaking personally, I feel that the arguments for the specification are stronger than the arguments for the qualifier. It is clear that your interpretation differs from **Contrapuntal** ’s (and mine). If any clarification is forthcoming from these two, I would think it more likely that they would say that they were thinking of Haggard’s behavior when they posted, and that they do not disavow STATEMENT B. But, hey, I could be wrong. There’s no shame, when debating one side of a proposition, to be found to have entered with a mistaken assumption. But I hope you can see that precise phrasing is important when one is in the process of defining exactly what one’s position _is_. The sardonic iterations of “the **exact** words” in your post seem to suggest that you have a little trouble with this principle. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/330 "2006-11-07T22:53:27Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] I know, I know. I already conceded that I did not use her **exact words.** However, those of us in the real world realize that sex with a male prostitute is a subset of sex with another man, and therefore in all cases sex with a male prostitute is, by definition, sex with another man. [/QUOTE] And lighting a fire in my outdoor fireplace is a subset of “lighting a fire outdoors.” That does not mean that grilling=arson. The point on the table is, to use your words, whether “visiting a male prostitute” is evidence of gayness. Since she did not mention prostitutes, your cite is off point. ‘Male prostitutes’ being a key element of the point. An element totally lacking in the quote you provided. Said lack indicating a dire need for course correction on the HMS Shirley. > [@](#): > > Cite for where I ever said that? I call bullshit and double bullshit. I never said that. See, ducks, here’s the deal. When I claim that you have \*\*said \*\*such and such, you get to ask for a cite, When I ask you if you \*\*mean \*\*such and such, you are much better off just answering yes or no, with an explanation. There is no cite possible for a claim that has not been made, and you only make yourself seem foolish by asking for one. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/331 "2006-11-07T23:42:06Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] The only thing I wanted to say (or imply) is that visiting a male prostitute, even over and over, is in and of itself not sufficient evidence to declare someone gay. That’s it. A couple of people dragged me off in other directions, but that’s the only point I really had. [/QUOTE] What a huge load of pure, class AAA, unadulterated bullshit. Not that I give a damn what anyone does with their dick, but if you keep sticking it up another guy’s ass over and over and over again, the very least you could claim is to be **bisexual** \*. I mean, for fuck’s sake, you certainly couldn’t claim to be a straight hetero! What a stupid, _stupid_ discussion. > [@](#): > > bi·sex·u·al > adj. > > 3-Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex. > > The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/332 "2006-11-08T00:07:31Z")
Y’know, is it really such an outlandish proposition to suppose that if a married preacher-man secretly pays a guy to fuck him, he’s very likely gay? I didn’t think this would be controversial. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/333 "2006-11-08T00:11:46Z")
Oddly, the SDMB seems to demand exquisitely precise definition for sexual preferences. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/334 "2006-11-08T00:37:42Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Oddly, the SDMB seems to demand exquisitely precise definition for sexual preferences. Go figure. [/QUOTE] Not really. Precise definitions for exclusion from a group, maybe. This whole brouhaha came about over the idea that a man might screw another man early and often not because he likes men, but because he’ll fuck anything. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/335 "2006-11-08T00:42:26Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] I could explain the context. The question is, are you willing to actually listen to the answer, and are you capable of understanding it? Based on your posts so far in this thread, I’m not convinced that the effort would be worth my time. [/QUOTE] Bwhahaha! Now I see how it works. OK, I have absolutely incontrovertible proof that you are wrong and I am right. However, I am not going to share it because you wouldn’t listen anyway. Wow, this is fun. What game should we play next? Dude, just admit that “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” is the same as saying “having sex with a male prostitute means you’re gay.” It’s ok. You look silly trying to argue otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/336 "2006-11-08T00:49:50Z")
**Kaylasdad,** thanks for a well-reasoned post. It gives me something to think about. > [@](#): > > The sardonic iterations of “the exact words” in your post seem to suggest that you have a little trouble with this principle. However, this is where we part ways. It seems to me that when I argue that “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” is the same as saying “having sex with male prostitutes means you’re gay,” and people argue violently with me that no, it means something else, they are the ones who are obsessed with exact words. Because I think that any reasonable person would call my characterization of that sentence fair. In fact, you seem like a reasonable person. Am I correct in saying that “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” is the same as saying that having sex with a male prostitute means you’re gay, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/337 "2006-11-08T01:05:25Z")
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley] Bwhahaha! Now I see how it works. OK, I have absolutely incontrovertible proof that you are wrong and I am right. However, I am not going to share it because you wouldn’t listen anyway. Wow, this is fun. What game should we play next? [/quote] Two other posters have already explained the context of my post to you. As I predicted, you were unwilling or unable to understand what they were saying to you. I consider myself vindicated on that score, and am glad I didn’t waste my time trying to teach logic to a chimp. > [@](#): > > Dude, just admit that “But if you’re arguing that yes, he really did pay another man for sex, then the dude is gay.” is the same as saying “having sex with a male prostitute means you’re gay.” It’s ok. You look silly trying to argue otherwise. I won’t, it’s not, it isn’t, and I don’t. > [@](#): > > Kaylasdad, thanks for a well-reasoned post. It gives me something to think about. Don’t hurt yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/338 "2006-11-08T01:12:43Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Y’know, is it really such an outlandish proposition to suppose that if a married preacher-man secretly pays a guy to fuck him, he’s very likely gay? I didn’t think this would be controversial. [/QUOTE] I agree. How prevalent is this phenomenon of straight guys repeatedly paying for gay sex? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/339 "2006-11-08T01:13:04Z")
[QUOTE=RedFury] Not that I give a damn what anyone does with their dick, but if you keep sticking it up another guy’s ass over and over and over again, the very least you could claim is to be **bisexual** \*. I mean, for fuck’s sake, you certainly couldn’t claim to be a straight hetero! [/QUOTE] Except that, as we all know, it’s not gay if you’re the one doing the penetrating! 😉 (Well, that’s the traditional attitude in Europe and the Arab world, from what I’ve heard.) Not that we have access to . . . or desire . . . that level of detail regarding Haggard’s dalliances. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963/340 "2006-11-08T01:20:41Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] I agree. How prevalent is this phenomenon of straight guys repeatedly paying for gay sex? [/QUOTE] It happens all the time in the ‘sex offenders on parole’ demographic. Have you not been paying atention? Also, in case you were wondering, sex offenders on parole do not lie to their probation officers. Mainly because the probation officer’s wife, who is their therapist, would bust them for it. If you are asking yourself “Does this have fuck-all to do with the case at hand?” the answer is … no. Not really. Not at all, actually. No correllation whatsoever. The case at hand rises and falls on its own merits. Sort of like when you pay a guy for sex and snort crystal. Well, more rising than falling, but you get my drift. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yet-aother-evangelical-christian-leader-bites-the-dust/378963.md?page=18)