New Life Church paid nearly 200K in hush money to a young man who was “struggling with homosexuality” when Ted Haggard, then New Life’s pastor, began to sexually harass him. Haas violated his “non-disclosure” agreement with the church because he was upset by Haggard’s recent publicity tour for the HBO documentary The Trials of Ted Haggard. Haas told a Colorado Springs news station that Haggard masturbated in front of him and that Haggard sent dirty and disturbing text messages to Haas.

Haas went on Mike Signorile’s radio show yesterday and shared more details. Pam’s House Blend has a great summary of the show up. Quickly: Haggard told Haas that it was easy for men like them—Haggard and Haas—to become straight because “an asshole is similar to a vagina”; Haggard’s drug problem was a lot worse than he’s admitted to, and involved more drugs than meth; Haggard’s church ran a “boot camp” for young male church members that sounds like something out of porn movie; another pastor at New Life forced out for “sexual misconduct” shortly after Haggard’s fall was in charge of the boot camp; Haggard offered to fix Haas up with his own daughter (!). And the most !!! detail of all…

Haas said that Gayle Haggard knew a whole lot more about what kind of kinky gay Ted activity was going on than she publicly admits to. When Haas asked about her knowledge of these things, Ted told him “yes, she’s a freak too”, they went to sex toy stores and even molded a dildo together (calling it “Ted Two”), and put it into him.

And there’s more at Signorile’s blog The Gist.

In addition to being a nationally syndicated sex advice columnist, the author of several books, and the host of the Savage Lovecast, Savage is “a deviant of the highest order” (Daily Caller)....

27 replies on “Ted Two”

  1. Dan, isn’t Ted Haggard’s private life “none of our business”? If he wants to have consensual sex with another man, why are we talking about it here? Can’t we just let him “do his fucking job”?

    Why are you posting here? Go back to Seattle.

  6. My name is Blabby. I don’t understand that there are differences between an admittedly gay mayor who humps 18 year old legal men and a evangelical minister in charge of a major national evangelical organization who publically condemns those who engage in homosexuality, drug use, cheating on the spouse and sex outside of marriage yet commits every single one of those acts privately while publically saying everyone that does those things is going to hell.

    Blabby- your sarcasm points out your ignorance.

  8. Alan,
    No…it’s that I don’t care about what Sam did because I’m morally depraved and dine on kittens with Satan every third Tuesday of the month.

  9. Garrett, I thank you for pointing out my ignorance and helping to make me a better man. I come here seeking your guidance, and you are… (chokes up a little)… my compass.

    You’re true north, man.
    You are my true north.

  10. Ted Haggard is soooo past-tense. How about some Gary Condit? 911 sure saved his ass! They found a body and everything… Sorry, probably not gay enough for the post.

  11. Lessee, there’s this: “…snobbish bile unleashed by hyper-judgemental Portlanders….”

    And there’s this: “self-righteous, bearded metero fem-boys in skinny jeans….”

    Depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it, Blabby?

  13. Sorry, I had two posts in the works, both abusing Blabby, and this one got in the wrong thread. Point still stands.

    At this point, people who can’t grasp the difference between Adams’ case and Haggard’s, as summarized upthread by Garrett, either a) isn’t paying attention, b) hated Adams before any of this came up, or c) hated queer folk before any of this came up. Hate to indulge in broad general characterizations, even on the Internet, but… Jesus, people…

  15. I see, so it’s Haggard’s hypocrisy, and not the sex. (Wonder why Dan Savage described it in such graphic detail? Hmmm.)

    But if I say that it’s Adam’s lie that concerns me, and not the sex, I’m full of shit. I see how that works.

  16. We’ve been through this. I get Adams’ rationale for the lie: that no one would have believed the truth. The online comments here & elsewhere prove he was right. I get it, I don’t get why other people can’t get it, and since you haven’t addressed the point AT ALL, Blabby, I feel free to draw the conclusion that your mind was made up coming in. I could be wrong. I don’t think I am.

  17. “I see, so it’s Haggard’s hypocrisy, and not the sex.”

    Damned right. I’m all for Haggard fucking and snorting meth off another guy’s back. But when he goes around saying other people can’t do that…well, then that’s not fair is it? I mean, why does he think its ok for himself to partake in homosexual sex and methamphetamines and not the rest of us?

  19. “So it’s cool to lie if no one will beleive the truth?”

    No, it certainly isn’t.

    However, when considering the totality of the circumstances, when coming to an individual decision whether to forgive, or whether to demand a person’s immediate resignation, it can be a mitigating factor.

    “The ironing in this post is delicious.”

    Will you do my laundry?

  20. CH, I don’t do ironing. Or windows.

    It was no one’s business if Adams screwed an 18-year-old. That’s legal, consensual sex. The rumor however was that he screwed a 17-year-old, which (he claims) he didn’t do (and I suspect he was smart enough NOT to do that). So he was in a lose-lose situation concerning something that was no one’s business, and his career was on the line….

    Can you see how a person might lie in a position like that? I can.

  21. “Will you do my laundry?”

    I hope the initial joke wasn’t lost on you.

    I can see why a person might lie in just about any situation. I just think there are few situations when they should.

  24. Guffman: okay, here goes: sure, I can see how somebody MIGHT lie in a situation like that. I can also see how somebody MIGHT shoot their family if finances get bad… it happens all the time. In other words, understanding why somebody MIGHT do something, or that we MIGHT also do the same thing ourselves in the circumstance, doesn’t justify an action or become reason to let somebody avoid the consequences of that act. Is that “big boy” enough for you? By the way, just for my own curiousity, is your choice of the “Che” icon in this thread meant as subtle irony? After all, the man absolutely hated gays, and had many of them murdered while he was in a position of power in Cuba. Just wondering…

  25. “…sure, I can see how somebody MIGHT lie in a situation like that. I can also see how somebody MIGHT shoot their family if finances get bad… it happens all the time”: No, it doesn’t happen all the time. Neither of these situations is common. The parallel BTW is roughly equal to the Jesus freaks’ claims that homosexuality = bestiality — but all comparisons are bogus. Some are just more bogus than others. (Can you REALLY see how somebody MIGHT shoot their family if finances get bad? I can’t.)

    “In other words, understanding why somebody MIGHT do something, or that we MIGHT also do the same thing ourselves in the circumstance, doesn’t justify an action or become reason to let somebody avoid the consequences of that act”: Fair enough. The consequences are what’s in question. Adams didn’t shoot anybody. Does what he DID do mean he should lose his job? I can spot him the lie about legal sex with an 18-year-old, because the situation he was in on that point was uniquely fucked up. Putting the moves on a 17-year-old in a men’s room is harder to rationalize — but I still want to see what the investigations bring out before calling for his head.

    “Is that ‘big boy’ enough for you?”: It’s a start. Good first effort.

  26. Guffman: I think we agree final judgement should wait until whatever investigation is underway is complete. But you still don’t appear to understand my point, which was in reaction to your apparent defense of Sam’s admitted lie by stating you might well lie yourself in that situation; understanding why somebody might do something, and that you might yourself, is no reason to condone the action; your post appeared to be doing that. And – if you can’t understand how people MIGHT kill their families due to financial pressures, you must not read the news much. It doesn’t happen as often as politicians lie, and it’s infinitely more wrong, but it does happen. I’d love to continue this but will be away for a few days and unable to. Eventually, however, would like to get an answer on my question regarding the Che icon.

  27. “understanding why somebody might do something, and that you might yourself, is no reason to condone the action”

    I think the problem here is that you’re confusing/conflating “condone” with “forgive”. They are not the same thing.

Comments are closed.