Defending Life, Marriage, and Freedom

DavidHart »

Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

I have no problem with people voicing their principles - including those that I disagree with. While Colson is an easy target due to his past, I am more concerned with some of the dishonesty. While they claim otherwise, they don't show respect for me as a human being when they attempt to frame sexual orientation as behavior and "immoral conduct."

Moreover, the argument against marriage equality as the slippery slope to incest is not only dishonest but offensive.

http://www.tips-q.com/1621474-i-want-marry-my-rottweiler

Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption

DavidHart »

Sat Nov 14, 2009 1:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Yeah...good luck with that. They are not allowed to endorse candidate. They ARE allowed to address moral issues and encourage people to vote according to the Bible."

Just to simplify, you are partially correct. The issue is defined by the appropriateness of tax deductions for donors. Unlike the church, political organizations like NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine are incorporated under 501(c)4. They are tax exempt but donations are NOT tax deductible.

Gay Marriage Supporters Threaten to Strip Churches of Tax Exemption

DavidHart »

Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

This is a pragmatic issue that has nothing to do with God or gays.

IRS code is somewhat ambiguous on this issue. While tax exempt organizations are prohibited from intervening in political campaigns, it is unclear if - under federal law - a ballot initiative is a campaign.

Consider that a donation to Stand for Marriage Maine would not have been tax deductible while a donor could deduct a donation to the church which was then donated to SFFM.

Taxpayers have a right (and in some cases and obligation) to report these things. That the effort is choreographed is really irrelevant. If the church violated tax law, they will face a rather moderate (probably nothing more than $5,000) penalty. If not, nothing will happen.

It is probably a good thing if churches stay out of organizing and funding political contests.

Mainers Near Widely Watched Vote on Gay Marriage

DavidHart »

Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

Ultimately, the opposition to same-sex marriage is simple. Religious conservatives view gay marriage as an official affirmation that homosexuality is acceptable.

In a federal court in CA about two weeks ago, the extremely capable attorney representing those opposed to marriage equality was asked by the judge what harm same-sex marriage does. His answer: "I don't know." http://www.tips-q.com/1547604-mr-mutty-meet-mr-cooper

At the end of the day, this isn't about school curricula nor any of the other NOM talking points. This is about sexual orientation and tolerance. Nationwide acceptance of same-sex marriage is inevitable. NY is probably next.

Gay Employment Bill on Queue for Returning Congress

DavidHart »

Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

I read this article via Focus on the Family. The arguments are flawed and, in some respects, incorrect.

http://www.tips-q.com/1270734-there-must-be-pony

APA Report on Sexual Orientation Therapy Draws Praise Despite Skepticisms

DavidHart »

Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"I'm sorry, I don't know what SSA is, could somebody enlighten me please"
==========
"SSA" is an attempt to frame something as being in the DSM that is not (Same Sex Attraction). Call me gay even Q. But I go bonkers when people claim that gay people suffer from, or struggle with, "SSA." There are some things that I struggle with. Sexual orientation isn't one of them.

APA Report on Sexual Orientation Therapy Draws Praise Despite Skepticisms

DavidHart »

Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

For the record, while we disagree, Mark Yarhouse is a reasonable and caring guy. Having said that, his statistical matrix over six years is limited to only 61 subjects.

The bottom line to all of this is that, for the overwhelming majority of gay people, change is NOT possible. If a consenting adult (with INFORMED and FULL consent) wants to try - no problem with me.

What I take serious exception to is when parents force their children into reorientation programs who should not accept them in the first place.

OK, I'm also at a loss to explain the nitwit who gets "patients" to pound away at upholstery with a tennis racket.

As you might expect, I have excoriated Focus over their reactions:

http://www.tips-q.com/1216837-apa-rejects-reorientation-therapy-focus-family-reacts

D.C. Judge Rejects Efforts to Block Gay Marriage Bill

DavidHart »

Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:24 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

"I know of some pedophiles that are our tax paying doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers so I suppose this makes them just as legitimate."

That is an intellectually dishonest argument. Pedophiles are criminals per se. And, yes, I am aware of BashBack. They are teens. So what if they march in a gay pride parade? That doesn't operate as our consent for anything that they do. StormFront.org participated in many "Tea Parties." That doesn't mean that conservative Republicans are defined by neo-Nazis.

Nationwide gay marriage recognition is inevitable. Get over it. Get on with your life. The earth will not spin of its axis and your life won't change a whit.

D.C. Judge Rejects Efforts to Block Gay Marriage Bill

DavidHart »

Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"You and the gay agenda are so afraid of theocracy, but it's better than anarchy which is what the gay agenda wants and this judge really wants. "

So your argument is that;

Allowing me to marry my partner of 30 years or;
Allowing gays to serve openly in the military or;
Providing gay people with equal protection under the law is "anarchy?"

You need to get your talking points from someone other than Sally Kern.

D.C. Judge Rejects Efforts to Block Gay Marriage Bill

DavidHart »

Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:12 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

No. I don't want to put civil rights to a vote. EVERY civil rights advancement in this country has been achieved through the courts. The Constitution charges the judiciary with preventing the tyranny of the majority over a minority.

D.C. Judge Rejects Efforts to Block Gay Marriage Bill

DavidHart »

Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rollin:

Once you cite LaBarbera, you are too far gone! That nut is a 24x7 professional bigot. Ironically, he has contributed mightily to the cause of gay rights.

I wish that Peter would take his camera to Mardis Gras where far more family-fun debauchery is on display than anything in a gay pride parade. Moreover, the notion that a few nutbars represent the gay community is preposterous.

The vast majority of us are hard working tax paying citizens. We are some of the police that Pete complains about. We are your doctor, lawyer, accountant and teacher. We are your employer and your employee. Demonizing us is equivalent to suggesting that all Christians participate in exorcisms or snake juggling.

D.C. Judge Rejects Efforts to Block Gay Marriage Bill

DavidHart »

Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"The very fact that homosexual activists are censoring my comments is evidence they are withering away emotionally as well as physically. (Since I am Professor X, I saw this coming. That's why I always save everything I type.)"
-----------
If this post isn't a joke, your tin foil helmet needs an adjustment. You need to point the cone directly at Jupiter or you will miss the transmissions from the black helicopters.
---------------------
"As he and other like judges seek to defy the will of the citizens of America, he represents the same sort of politics the current anti-democracy regime in Iran employs."
---------------------
Iran is a theocracy. You could probably pick a less self-destructive paradigm.
---------------------
"I hereby call for a national RECALL on all activist judges in America. We need to start with the judge in Washington DC and the 9th Circuit Court."
---------------------
Federal judges are not subject to recall. They can only be removed by impeachment which has happened once in the last 100 years.

D.C. Judge Rejects Efforts to Block Gay Marriage Bill

DavidHart »

Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:08 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

Activism? That is the knee-jerk, Tourette syndrome response to any decision that the right doesn't like. Activism would have been to reverse the Board of Elections.

Harry Jackson has turned this thing into an ATM on his front lawn.

I am at a loss to understand why religious conservatives continue to marginalize themselves over this issue. If one feels that same-sex marriage violates their religious beliefs then they are free not to marry someone of the same sex.

Imagine how much GOOD could be done with all this money and wasted energy by devoting it to something POSITIVE.

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 3:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "There is no biological link in terms of homosexuality" Last comment today but that is entirely incorrect. The male sibling effect is the most certain determinant of sexual orientation known and constitutes a significant biological link. Furthermore, if your identical twin is gay then there is a 50% probability that you will be gay. If your fraternal twin is gay then there is a 25% chance that you will be gay. Both male sibling and twin studies have been repeatedly verified to be independent of whether or not the children are raised in the same home. There may, or may not, be a genetic link. However, biology and genetics are entirely separate issues. While the twin studies strongly suggest a biological link they cast some doubt on the genetics absent an analysis of the sub-genome. At least John Freshwater was honest. ( http://www.tips-q.com/1029485-hero-faith ). He told his students "... science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and therefore is a sinner." According to that view, no matter how compelling the evidence, it cannot be true if one concludes that it competes with the Bible for validity. hide

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "Nice theology. I'm sure you must have received your theology degree from sending in enough Trix box tops - eh?" Nope. MBA. However, I am enormously curious and can read the scholarship of others. Anyway, cheap ad hominem. "First, you fail to recognize that same sex relationships are never mentioned in scripture." True on both counts. I "failed" to mention it and presume that you are correct. I am perfectly content to concede that same-sex marriage is a modern scheme in contrast to same-sex relationships which have existed for thousands of years. The bible says nothing about interracial marriage or many other constructs that we accept. Get over it. Nationally recognized same-sex marriage is inevitable as a civil institution and as a voluntary religious institution. In a decade or two, teens will ask "what on earth was THAT all about?" In fact, I recently met some gay teens who are fully supported by their heterosexual classmates. Those kids (the hetero classmates) are already mystified by the divisiveness. hide

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman"

There are problems:

1. Within a few lines, the bible tells you to execute children who curse their parents. Did the publisher of your bible put that particular passage in bold or italicized print? Lobster anyone?

2. A literal translation from the Masorectic texts (from Greek and Hebrew) suggests that this passage might only limit having male-male sex on the same bed on which a man has sex with women.

3. In biblical times, having sex with a male largely meant having sex with a male child.

4. The term "abomination" simply means unclean.

5, Nowhere does the Bible suggest that that any of this pertains to your judgments (which is covered) of, or conduct to, others. Judge and ...

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 1:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Finally, the civilizations that you sight all had serious and pervasive problems with homosexuality. Right before those kingdoms fell."

If you read Gibbons' History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he assigns most of the blame to Christianity. His references to "civic virtue" have nothing, whatsoever, to do with sexuality or morality. It defines good works for the common benefit of society. According to Machiavelli (and George Bush), war, in defense of the nation, is a civic virtue.

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"only the wealthy in ancient history had more than one wife, the majority of marriages were one man and one woman, so your claim is somewhat exaggerated!"

OK. I will rephrase. For most of human history, marriage was defined as the union of one man and one, or many, women. The point is that monogamy as a dictate of civil and religious law is a relatively new concept.

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"The term marriage was simply hijacked by religious groups and given a sacramental element that didn't originally exist."

That, too, is irrelevant. As a society, we have come to accept marriages consummated by either civil or religious ceremony. Nobody is forced to be married by a church or synagogue. Similarly, religious institutions have the right to establish a criteria for marriage.

That arrangement, as is, is satisfactory for the vast majority of people - including same-sex couples, divorcees or couples of mixed religion. Let's not over-complicate this thing. Nor should we assign responsibility.

Keeping it simple actually strengthens the argument. If Rev. Evangelical doesn't want to marry me and my partner, that's fine with me. I don't want to be married by him and we have viable options.

David Hart
http://www,tips-Q.com

D.C. Board Blocks Gay Marriage Referendum

DavidHart »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:29 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

R4H:

While it is true that same-sex marriage is a relatively new scheme so is Protestantism. Ironically, it is the majority in this country because of Henry, VIII's philandering.

The argument that something should persist because it is lacks substance. The same assertions were used in Loving. Religion, law and societies change,