Being gay varies from place to place. I'm told it's really hard to come out as gay in the Middle East, a person who used to post on the net many many years ago said he tried to come out as gay to his brother, who refused to believe it; he insisted "You saw me in bed kissing my boyfriend, how can you not believe me?" to which his brother responded "That's not gay! Everybody does that!!!" -- apparently, unless you refuse to get married and have kids, you are not gay, a lot of the guys have sex with their friends. They actually get offended when very straight people from here visit and refuse to kiss guys on the cheeks as a greeting.
Some other places, like America, refuse to acknowledge that some people are bisexual. Oh, no, you can't be actually attracted to both genders, you are just confused, the poor thing! "It's just a phase, until they accept they're gay!" Quick show of hands, how many here were married and think of themselves as gay? One would think it's more appropriate to say that gay people are not attracted at all to the opposite gender and wouldn't be able to have sex (or even kids). That would also explain all the "miracle cures" of people who were "gay" and then attended some program and became "straight" -- they were bisexual to begin with. A friend of a friend has switched from gay to straight and back at least a dozen times in as many years since I've met him. For some reason it doesn't occur to him that he might be neither, he is bisexual.
The other myth is that bisexual people are by some weird law destined to betray their partners: "Sooner or later", the story goes, "they'll abandon their SO for the other gender"... Hm, interesting, I don't think those are in the same axis. Both gay and straight people are perfectly capable of being monogamous, polygamous or pretending to be monogamous while having affairs behind the SO's backs. There are plenty of bisexual people who are monogamous, while still being able to show attraction to both genders -- I know handfuls of bisexual people, both monogamous or not. The key here is if they are lying bastards that will break their SO's hearts or if things are out in the open.
The other thing is how much people will twist some religious idea to their personal gain and then drag lots of people into misunderstanding their own religion.
For example, many many people have been arrested in the last couple of centuries for "mailing obscene material" across state lines. They have been released with the apologies of the judges when it was discovered they had mailed parts of the Bible to their relatives.
People cherry-pick parts of the Bible. For example Onan was not punished because he masturbated -- he was punished because he refused to impregnate his sister-in-law when his brother died leaving her with no kids; we're not told if he refused it because he didn't think it was a good idea to have his kid(s) being raised as if it were his brother's or because he didn't want to commit what he might see as incest. Speaking of incest, how about the part where the two daughters get their father drunk and have sex with him because they thought they were the only 3 people left after Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed? Oh, BTW, did you know that the reason that the places were destroyed is not so much that people were "sinners", but because they were not hospitable to the Angels God sent to tell them stuff? And do you remember one of the fathers offering his own daughters to the people who wanted to have sex with the Angels just to stop them from hassling the Angels? How'd you like to have a parent who would toss you to the lions like that, uh? Why is it OK to give any grief to the gay people because they have oral or anal sex when the straight people actually do the same thing more often? Why is it just fine to pick on the gay people when one is wearing clothing with mixed fibers, or touching women who are menstruating or eating shellfish or pork? Because those are not the actual subjects that are important, they are just things that people who want power use to manipulate other people into doing their unpleasant job for them, that's why. You don't see any pastor telling you to impregnate your sister-in-law or else after your brother dies, do you?
If being gay was so bad, why is it that the Church used to marry gay people before? If "marriage" is, and has always been "one man, one woman", well, what do we say when we discover it has not always been like that, and worse, in the same Church that now insists that they have never married gays or multiple people? "Oh, no, we can't let the gays get married because what's next, polygamy? God doesn't like that!" -- really? Because in the Bible it says that God not only had no trouble with polygamous couples, the couples seemed to actually been blessed for that.
Here's a fun thought:
"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavner
My thinking is that Mr Haggard is probably bisexual, but even if he was heterosexual, he'd be screwing around and then act all repentant when caught, he's not the first or last of the mega-preachers to end up being caught with prostitutes and/or drug dealers. Something about not being able to control oneself tends to put the person in charge of controlling everyone else to eliminate the "sin" so they don't have to be "tempted" anymore.
Cheers and Peace,
-- Paulo.
