Stay Classy, Ted Harvey

Way to court those moderate Republicans

Keep it up GOP. Fear-mongering and hate speech, serving no one in the community but themselves.

And, for the record, I've known far more straight relationships that were "dangerous for the individuals involved" than same-sex ones.

We are all triguardian, but some of us are more triguardian than others.

---

by: redstateblues @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 11:43:59 AM CST

What bothers me is not Ted Harvey

You will always find a few hateful bigoted individuals who spew garbage.

What bothers me is that people vote for this neanderthal. And it's not like he hides his bigotry, he revels in it. For shame those that vote for him, for shame.

Tea party support in the primary.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:07:59 PM CST

Hey there

All archeological evidence indicates that Neanderthals were enlightened creatures who put the good of the tribe first. They were peaceful gatherers who excelled at leisure pursuits -- kind of like folks who hang out on the Pearl Street Mall -- which is why they lost out to Homo Sapiens. Ted Harvey is no Neanderthal.

"Please don't eat any peanuts out of anyone's crap." - LaughingBoy

---

by: RedGreen @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 14:56:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey douchebag Ted - what about heterosexual marriage?

Tea party support in the primary.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 12:09:48 PM CST

Great cartoon

Hey, it's not about how you should behave, just everyone else...

"Good judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgement" - Jim Horning

---

by: Fidel's dirt nap @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 13:00:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Exactly

I don't hear these same people calling for a repeal of divorce laws. Doesn't divorce threaten the sanctity of marriage more than anything?

We are all triguardian, but some of us are more triguardian than others.

---

by: redstateblues @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 13:06:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

clarification, please.

.
As I understand it, "last week's specious, bigotry-laden smear" was offensive because it alleged that the sponsors stood to benefit personally.  

Now, even though the numbers look phony to me
(health coverage for $1,500 per person ? -  I'll take some of that!)  
doesn't this Diary provide evidence of the very same personal gain alleged earlier ?  

......

As for this being about the sanctity of marriage,
and this is just a guess about Mr. Harvey's intentions, but he sounds a lot like me, so I'll talk about my thinking, as if they somehow compare.  
I assume Mr. Harvey believes, like me, that being an active homosexual is a deviancy and a sin.  I acknowledge this bigotry openly.  My church teaches it.  
If that were true, and it kept a person from receiving grace from God, then it's obvious why he thinks its bad for their spiritual health.  

People like us, not that common on this site,
have a couple of choices about how to integrate that belief into our lives.  
We can choose to do nothing, minding our own business.  
We can silently pray for people to "get better" or to "turn away from sin," or
we can thump Bibles or whatever to raise the awareness of our brothers and sisters of the bad choices we think they are making, or
we can actively work to make it harder for them to make that wrongful choice.  

The theology I embrace is founded on the belief that God created each of us to choose to love and serve Him - that is our purpose and our destiny.  
If we have no freedom to choose otherwise,
but are compelled to act one particular way,
then we haven't made a choice that pleases God,
and God is deprived of the pleasure for which He created us.  

***I'm not trying to proselytize here, just explain.  ***

Back to the issue:
It's not clear to me that Mr. Harvey is trying to make the wrong choice harder,
I think he might just be trying to prevent action by the State that would enable and encourage that wrong choice.  

Bottom Line:
Sinner that he may be, Mr. Harvey is putting his faith into action.  
That's what he thinks he was elected to do, by folks that share his faith.  

So, when you couch the discussion in terms of "bigotry." that's exactly right.  
But when someone characterizes it as being motivated by "hate," that's not correct.

I acknowledge that many people hate homosexuals, and rationalize it as acting on their Faith.  Maybe so.  
But it would have to be a different Faith than the one taught by Jesus, who considers every sinner to be a beloved one to be redeemed.  
Even me, if you can believe it.
.  

---

by: Barron X @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 15:25:37 PM CST

I have many problems with your line of thinking

First, even if you do believe that homosexuality is deviant, why should the law reflect your belief that it is so, and not mine (and many others), which believes that homosexuality is as inherent as race or gender?  

Second, while you may "hate the sin and love the sinner," as you claim, it is pretty clear that Ted Harvey hates both.  Laws should not be put in place to justify the hate or bigotry of one group of people against another.

And lastly, and this is a broader question, why are some churches so opposed to homosexuality?  The bible makes two references to homosexuality, the most explicit one being in Leviticus and the second being in Romans.  We don't follow hardly any of Leviticus' laws, so that can be disregarded, and the part in Romans is very time-period and situation based, and is not part of the greater teachings of Christ throughout the bible.  However, Christ roundly condemns those who hate, those who are rich, those who discriminate, etc.  Why have churches latched onto homosexuality as this massive evil that they must fight?  I ask this as someone who was raised in an apolitical non-religious house and am trying to learn more about both.  From my perspective, it looks like this issue is used to rile up the masses and scare people into voting a certain way.  Is the church's opposition about more than social and political control?  How so?

---

by: Justin.Henceroth@gmail.com @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 16:27:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

clearly, I'm giving my thoughts, not church doctrine.

.
why should laws reflect my beliefs ?  
In our form of government, laws reflect societal norms, which are changing.  
My church, which was commissioned to evangelize, is failing, shrinking and losing our eternal battle with the opposition forces.  
In fact, it is preordained that the forces of evil will triumph.  We church members are called to do the best we can, knowing that the temporal effort is doomed to failure.  We are to be in this world but not of it.
Not so obvious, maybe, but I believe that you have been similarly called.  Ultimately, you will account to your Maker for how you responded.

The "legislation of morality" that prevented the State from paying for health insurance for unmarried couples many years ago may have been an attempt to deprive people of the freedom to make bad choices.  More likely, it was just a way for people to reinforce existing norms and validate their choices.  
The law will change to conform to the new norms.  You are free to call that "progress."  I choose not to, as I see the direction it moves the family of Man in.  

.......

I don't know Mr. Harvey well enough to defend his positions; I barely know his son Steve.  
I was just projecting my thoughts onto him.

.......

Why is my church so opposed to homosexuality, it's not in the Bible ?
My church is bible-based, but we also have tradition, magesterium and frequent direct intervention of the Holy Spirit to guide us.  There are even rare events where Jesus or Elijah or Mary will manifest themselves corporeally to believers.   Such events always include a new teaching, as far as I know.  
Lest you think that our Pope gets to make up new doctrine on his own, leveraging that fairly recent doctrine of Papal infallibility, I offer that its only been played once, in 100 years, and then only to teach concerning the place of Mary in the church.  

Funny, through the Middle Ages and later, the church provided sanctuary to homosexuals.  I've heard estimates that 20% of the priests in my church in the 20th century were homosexual by inclination, though very few actually acted out on those inclinations.  

Our church has a doctrine of obedience.  Lots of people quit my church because of that.  
Lots of other people make choices that effectively cut them off from being "in communion" (in agreement; in acceptance; sharing in what is in common) with the church, but then inaccurately represent themselves as "Catholic."  This would include ethnic "Catholics" who believe, for example, that a woman ought to be able to exercise control over her entire body, even if that exercise kills another human being.  

I don't know where the teaching came from, but I am obliged to accept in in my embrace of the total church.  I have heard it repeatedly; I am certain of the authenticity of the teaching, if not the source.

This is my Faith.  Feel free to mock it, or to ask more questions.
.  

---

by: Barron X @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:43:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Impotence?

Barron, do you agree with your church's teaching that forbid men who are impotent from being married in the church?

http://www.cathnews.com/articl...

http://ct.dio.org/question-box...

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:17:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If they're not forbidden from wedlock

the church ought to at least provide the little blue pills.

"Please don't eat any peanuts out of anyone's crap." - LaughingBoy

---

by: RedGreen @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:35:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Blue pill doesn't work...

if the man is paralyzed which is situations under which the Catholic Church has refused to allow church sanctioned weddings.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 08:59:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I accept your embrace of the church, and of its teaching.

But one of the biggest obstacles a non-christian such as myself has found when trying to learn about Christianity is the seeming contradiction between church teachings.  You note that Jesus taught us to be loving and accepting, but then you say it is only to those people who fit the church's rules.  You note that at one time the church was a sanctuary for homosexuals, yet today, the teachings of the church clearly exclude them.  

What did Jesus really say about homosexuals and others like them, the outcasts of society?  I am most drawn to the stories where he reached out to prostitutes, slaves, and lepers, and tried to raise them up.  Is condemning a group of people living in this image?  

I am not trying to mock, but I am trying to understand.  As an outsider, I am turned off by much of Christianity because of these very contradictions.

As a little bit of an aside, what do you think about the Gospel of Inclusion as is being pushed by former Evangelical Bishop Carlton Pearson?

http://bishoppearson.com/

---

by: Justin.Henceroth@gmail.com @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:25:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Barron, you know I've always respected your religious positions.

Not always agreed, but I can always understand what you say, "where you are coming from."

Are you a deacon or some such position of eldering?  You should be.

I think the many church's fear or dislike of homosexuality rests on those two verses mentioned above.  While the use of fabrics made of two materials doesn't seem to bother people, sexual behaviors will always arouse passionate feelings. Referring to the subject, not the participants!  

We really need to pass some laws to stop polyester/cotton blends. Maybe Ted can initiate such a bill.  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:30:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess that's one way to prove

that old stupid line: "There is no freedom from religion," thanks to idiot legislators who think the world revolves around them--or rather, around their "personal moral beliefs."

Given Harvey obviously has no curiosity or respect for the religious beliefs or personal moral values of others (who in the main have a value system to promotes tolerance), why should anyone else extend him that courtesy and respect or care about his?  

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 11:06:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's Ted Freakin' Harvey

What did you expect?

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:57:55 PM CST