In a past issue of GQ Magazine, former pastor, Ted Haggard, said the following, "Here's where I really am on this issue. I think that probably, if I were 21 in this society, I would identify myself as a bisexual."
When writer Kevin Roose then asked him, "So why not now?", Haggard responded with, "Because, Kevin, I'm 54, with children, with a belief system, and I can have enforced boundaries in my life. Just like you're a heterosexual but you don't have sex with every woman that you're attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied."
"Exclusively" have sex with his wife? Since when? That wasn't always the case, was it? Hm?
Mr. Haggard linguistically exaggerates with his response to Roose's question.
As it states above, Haggard said, "Just like you're a heterosexual but you don't have sex with every woman that you're attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied."
He's trying a bit too hard to illustrate his infinite devotion to his wife. He tries to compare a heterosexual not having sex with "every" woman he or she finds attractive and him "exclusively" having sex with his wife. That's a very poor comparison to make. It'd be like if I were to say, "Yeah, well, you don't do every illegal drug on the market, so I can be happy without partaking in any such substances."
His statement is an attempt to cast himself in a brighter light, as he juxtaposes an exaggeration on the part of Kevin Roose and compares it to a non-exaggeration on the part of himself. This is to suggest that Mr. Roose or another heterosexual is more promiscuous than Mr. Haggard, or at least giving readers that illusion. He's also trying to say that heterosexuals shouldn't judge him for who he is or what he has done (not "exclusively" have sex with his wife), as he tries to insinuate fault with them based on pure exaggeration and potential speculation to contrast his words of devotion and exclusivity.
Nobody is saying that a heterosexual should engage in intercourse with every person he or she may find attractive. No one is saying Mr. Haggard shouldn't be fully devoted to his wife. But, let's not attempt to play innocent by utilizing informal fallacies to paint a more positive picture of yourself, Ted.
When writer Kevin Roose then asked him, "So why not now?", Haggard responded with, "Because, Kevin, I'm 54, with children, with a belief system, and I can have enforced boundaries in my life. Just like you're a heterosexual but you don't have sex with every woman that you're attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied."
"Exclusively" have sex with his wife? Since when? That wasn't always the case, was it? Hm?
Mr. Haggard linguistically exaggerates with his response to Roose's question.
As it states above, Haggard said, "Just like you're a heterosexual but you don't have sex with every woman that you're attracted to, so I can be who I am and exclusively have sex with my wife and be perfectly satisfied."
He's trying a bit too hard to illustrate his infinite devotion to his wife. He tries to compare a heterosexual not having sex with "every" woman he or she finds attractive and him "exclusively" having sex with his wife. That's a very poor comparison to make. It'd be like if I were to say, "Yeah, well, you don't do every illegal drug on the market, so I can be happy without partaking in any such substances."
His statement is an attempt to cast himself in a brighter light, as he juxtaposes an exaggeration on the part of Kevin Roose and compares it to a non-exaggeration on the part of himself. This is to suggest that Mr. Roose or another heterosexual is more promiscuous than Mr. Haggard, or at least giving readers that illusion. He's also trying to say that heterosexuals shouldn't judge him for who he is or what he has done (not "exclusively" have sex with his wife), as he tries to insinuate fault with them based on pure exaggeration and potential speculation to contrast his words of devotion and exclusivity.
Nobody is saying that a heterosexual should engage in intercourse with every person he or she may find attractive. No one is saying Mr. Haggard shouldn't be fully devoted to his wife. But, let's not attempt to play innocent by utilizing informal fallacies to paint a more positive picture of yourself, Ted.
Comments
Post a Comment