Yet Aother Evangelical Christian Leader Bites The ... Dust

The BBQ Pit
321

Oh, but wait, he didn’t use the exact words. Sorry.

Oops, once again, not the exact words.

But, of course, once again, not the exact words I used.

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?

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.

322

And he called me intellectually dishonest. :rolleyes:

Context matters, Shirley. Do try to remember that.

323

Miller’s entire post, in context.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

324

Correction. Did **not **seem to be the most parsimonious.

325

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?

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.

Cite for where I ever said that? I call bullshit and double bullshit. I never said that.

326

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.

327

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.

328

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.

329

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.

330

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.

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.

331

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.

332

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.

333

Oddly, the SDMB seems to demand exquisitely precise definition for sexual preferences. Go figure.

334

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.

335

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.

336

Kaylasdad, thanks for a well-reasoned post. It gives me something to think about.

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?

337

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.

I won’t, it’s not, it isn’t, and I don’t.

Don’t hurt yourself.

338

I agree. How prevalent is this phenomenon of straight guys repeatedly paying for gay sex?

339

Except that, as we all know, it’s not gay if you’re the one doing the penetrating! :wink:

(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.

340

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.