Valentine's Day makes me think a little differently about this. When I think about my partner, David Squire, and what he gives to me--stability, sensibility, joy, peace, strength--priceless values in the world today. I would give up a lot to keep him.

If Ted feels that about his wife and family, then I could understand how he could live a heterosexual life (in their words cured) while still be gay inside.

I have been thinking... is it fair to call Ted Haggard gay simply because he recreationally sleeps with men? Is that the only qualifier for being gay? And should we claim that we know who people truly are better than they themselves do? Just food for thought.

I think that depends on your definition of "recreational," eh? As a gay man that's observed several other gay men, I'd say Haggard isn't just "recreational" in his pursuit of other men. We're not talking about a game of Clue, Carrie. If you're seeking out the sexual company of men while you're married, by definition you are not "heterosexual." That's not knowing people better than they do - that's just a definition. Hetero means sleeps with the opposite sex only. And that ain't Ted.

Carrie couldn't get this to post so I'm posting it for her...

"I just think it's extremely dangerous and invalidating to limit people's sexuality to a binary system of hetero vs. homo. Just because a man enjoys sex with other men, doesn't mean he defines (or has to define) himself by that activity. Think of the men who in the early 20th century defined themselves as "trade" - men who many times and wives and families but chose to sleep with men on the side. They still defined themselves as straight. I mean, who comes up with these definitions and what does that even mean? Are you speaking medically when you say "heterosexual"? Historically? Universally? It just seems to be a slippery slope of essentialist thinking, especially when none of us have any real sort of insight into Ted Haggard's real life."