Hyp­o­crit­i­cal

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor - David Safir Los Gatos, Cal­i­for­nia

I am writ­ing in re­sponse to Den­nis Prager’s ar­ti­cle about ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage and the Rev. Ted Hag­gard (“Op­pos­ing ho­mo­sex­ual ‘mar­riage’ is not hyp­o­crit­i­cal,” Nov. 13 edi­tion).

I usu­ally find my­self in com­plete agree­ment with Mr. Prager, but I think he is re­ally stretch­ing to make his case.

First, as to my po­si­tion on the sub­ject, I pre­fer a com­pro­mise as many states have done, le­gal­iz­ing ho­mo­sex­ual unions with the eco­nomic ben­e­fits of mar­riage, but with­out of­fi­cially au­tho­riz­ing the term mar­riage for their unions.

I be­lieve that many if not most ho­mo­sex­u­als are that way by their na­ture, not by some im­moral choice. So as to Mr. Hag­gard, there is most def­i­nitely hypocrisy in some­one who so openly op­posed ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage se­cretly car­ry­ing on a three-year ho­mo­sex­ual re­la­tion­ship.

Mr. Prager states, “He (Hag­gard) be­lieved at the time of his ho­mo­sex­ual ac­tiv­i­ties, and he be­lieves now, that ho­mo­sex­ual sex is a sin.”

Frankly, Mr. Prager, you don’t re­ally know what this man be­lieves.

How con­ve­nient it is for Mr. Hag­gard to de­nounce his own ac­tiv­ity as sin­ful. I’ve seen this act be­fore with Jimmy Swag­gert when he got caught re­peat­edly with pros­ti­tutes.

It’s not like he fell into it on an af­ter­noon. This ac­tiv­ity took a lot of care­ful plan­ning.

So I’m in­clined to be­lieve that Mr. Hag­gard is in­deed a hyp­ocrite. His pub­lic op­po­si­tion to ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage is ut­terly with­out sub­stance given his private be­hav­ior.

I think it is im­por­tant for con­ser­va­tives to de­fend their views with­out bend­ing logic as Mr. Prager has done here. Re­gard­less of your view of ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity and mar­riage, Mr. Hag­gard will never be a poster boy for any le­git­i­mate po­si­tion on this sub­ject.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.