more Haggard scandal follow-up: "not gay"

The saga continues here. I'm sure this "not gay" statement will invite a lot of mockery, cat-calls, and good old-fashioned contempt. Thanks to the Constructivist, btw, for an example on another blog. But I wonder if this claim could be non-trivially true.

“He is completely heterosexual,” Ralph said. “That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”

Why Haggard chose to act out in that manner is something Haggard and his advisers are trying to discern, Ralph said.

Can you "act out on" a sexual desire, when that desire is in fact not a core part of your sexual identity, so to speak? I don't see why not. Most solidly heterosexual people, I reckon, have the occasional same-sex sexual desires. Were they to act on them, when say, drunk, over-tired, or in some unusual situation, it would be a mistake to accuse them of "really being gay" and hiding it, right? They're only "gay" in a trivial sense - that they occasionally experience same-sex sexual attraction, and it so happens that they infrequently (or maybe even once) acted on those desires. If you buy all that, then you might buy that a "completely heterosexual" but stressed-out and isolated mega-church pastor could do what Haggard did. What do y'all think?