Banned by Equality Loudoun

| | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I have done it! I have been banned from Equality Loudoun's blog! (Jonathan says I'm banned; David says I'm "moderated.") You can go to their website if you'd like to see the whole exchange, with the exception of my last post, which they deleted. (You might also peruse their other posts, just to see how many comments they get without me.)

The bottom line is that they do not want to hear the truth. The truth that they do not want to hear is that the majority of Americans consider gay sex a sin, and do not want their government to condone it, and it doesn't matter whether the homosexuals are "committed" to the person with whom they commit their sin. (In my deleted comment, I did mention that some of the homosexuals do realize this, and so are trying to take over churches, such as the Unitarian and Episcopal churches.)

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Banned by Equality Loudoun.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/614

30 Comments

James Young said:

Wow! What great news! Can I get banned, too?

Jack said:

Sure, just answer their questions honestly.

republitarian said:

Congrats!

Shows how tolerant they are are.....

zimzo said:

I left this post on their blog:

"I think you guys know that my opinion of Jack’s beliefs and ability to argue logically is not a very high one. For that reason I rarely engage him on the NOVATownhall blog except out of complete exasperation. However, I think banning people who are not being obscene or spamming or violating someone’s privacy is not a good policy. I think it makes the person doing the banning look like they don’t have an argument even if that is not the case. Even if you are tired of responsing to Jack’s ridiculous arguments (and as I said I rarely bother anymore) the mere stupidity and bigotry of his positions serve as a valuable exhibit of the kinds of ideas that are out there. His arguments usually fall apart on their own without even the need to point out their fallacy. Unfortunately, by banning him you just make him look like a martyr and add undeserved weight to his words. It also gives impetus to others to then turn around and ban you, which would deny people your valuable insights. And finally on a personal note, by banning him you put me in the awkward position of defending him, which makes me feel like I need to take a long shower. So I would urge you to reconsider banning him."

Jack said:

Thanks for your support, Zim.

David said:

Well, this is a little histrionic.

You have not been "banned." Your last post was in moderation until this morning. Sorry about that. My "lifestyle" requires that the grass get cut and the mortgage get paid, not necessarily in that order.

You have been put on moderation because, after numerous requests and explanations of our commenting policy, you continued to engage in what I consider to be inappropriate behavior. I don't come over here and tell you to divorce your wife and find a nice boytoy, and I expect the same consideration from you. If you feel that you are being censored because you're not allowed to come into our house and harangue us, I'm sorry.

As I said, we should be able to have a conversation without being rude to each other.

I haven't read their site since last week but the gist of their problem seemed to be they don't want to hear any moral arguments against homosexuality. As a society I'm sure that's the direction we're headed, but our friends at EL might just be a century ahead of their time.

Jack said:

Jonathan said "banned," you say "moderated." I'll let you two fight it out.

I will simply leave it to the others on this blog to read what I wrote on your blog, and decide for themselves whether it constituted "haranguing."

Fellow NovaTownHallers, make sure you go to some of the "previous posts," too, to get a flavor of what they find so offensive. As I said, in the posts that have any comments at all, you will probably find mine.

zimzo said:

By the way, Jack, you're wrong in saying that a majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is a sin. In a 2003 Pew Research poll 55% said they believed homosexuality was a sin but this was in the midst of the controversy over gay marriage that created a backlash in attitudes toward gays. A more recent poll conducted in 2005 by NBC/USA Network showed only 44% believed it was a sin. In a Gallup poll taken in May of this year 54% said homosexuality was an "acceptable lifestyle."

David said:

Zimzo is correct. Public opinion on this issue is shifting with amazing speed - which is the reason for the "urgency" to constitutionalize anti-gay bias.

I hope that readers will read the thread to which Jack refers. He is trying to make it sound as if I am being unreasonable and censorious, when in fact I have given him the benefit of the doubt, and acknowledged that he means well.

We have simply made it clear that the humanity and dignity of the GLBT community is not subject to debate on our blog, and we are not interested in people telling us we need to "change." That's not what our space is for. It's a reasonable line to draw - it's simply saying you are welcome to come into our house to discuss issues, but you may not be rude, inconsiderate or intrusive.

Jack said:

I have tried to explain why the marriage amendments have been passing overwhelmingly time and again, and why a majority of virginians favor this one. The only poll that matters is the one on election day. After that, you can try to explain the results.

Now, without your help, David, I'd like the others on this blog to read my comments on your site, and try to find for themselves the posts you cannot accept.

zimzo said:

Again, Jack, a majority of Americans do not believe homosexuality is a sin as you claimed. Be a man and admit you are wrong.

Jack said:

I will admit that the polls do not support my position. Nonetheless, the results of past marriage amendment votes in various states support my position. But my explanation of those votes is irrelevant. The votes matter.

If you want to change the results, you should care about the reasons that people vote the way they do. Since you want to change their votes, how do YOU explain the results?

zimzo said:

Then on what basis did you make the statement "the majority of Americans consider gay sex a sin"?Supporting a gay marriage amendment is not evidence that people someone believes homosexuality is a sin. In fact, while a decreasing majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages, an increasing majority is in favor of same-sex civil unions. That would not be the case if a majority believed homosexuality is a sin as you claim.

So once again I ask you, do you have any evidence that a majority of Americans believes homosexuality is a sin or did you just make that up? Are you able to admit you are wrong on this point if you cannot come up with any evidence to support this claim?

Jack said:

I base my assumption on the results of the marriage amendment referenda around the country. That is my evidence.

As I said, my assumption does not matter, since I am happy with the results of those votes. Those who are not happy with those votes need to figure out why people voted as they did, so that the pattern can be reversed.

Assuming my interpretation is incorrect, how would YOU explain the passage of these marriage amendments?

(There I go again, expecting Zimzo to answer questions.)

zimzo said:

So, then, in fact, you have no evidence that a majority of the American people believe homosexuality is a sin. Your assumption does matter because you accused David and Jonathan of not being unwilling to face "The truth...that the majority of Americans consider gay sex a sin." But, in fact, there is no evidence to back up what you claim to be the Truth because it is actually a lie. So you owe an apology to David and Jonathan.

As I pointed out while people have voted in favor of amendments against same-sex marriage a majority supports same-sex unions, believe it is an acceptable lifestyle and think gays should have equal rights. So it is clear that they are not voting this way because they see homosexuality as a sin or unacceptable but because they believe the charge that extending the institution of marriage to gays is somehow a threat to the institution yet they seem to have no problem with granting the rights that go with that institution.

So now once again I ask you: Can you admit you were wrong when you said that a majority of Americans believe that homosexuality is a sin? And will you apologize to David and Jonathan for accusing them of being unwilling to face a truth that turns out to be not true at all?

Jack said:

Zimzo:

How many marriage amendments have passed? How is that "no evidence"?

It sounds to me like the polls are in error, because when people vote, they vote contrary to the polling data. Why is that?

zimzo said:

Jack, there is no correlation between voting for an amendment that bans same-sex marriage and believing that homosexuality is a sin. This is why it becomes pointless to argue with you because it seems that you are unable to grasp such simple concepts and you don't have the guts to admit when you're wrong.

Kevin said:

I haven't read any of the comments on this site yet, only the ones on the EL post and Jack, for real, don't you think after they asked you to leave or stop your idealoguing that it would have been the polite thing to do to just stop? If Joe asked me to stop commenting here I'd do it in a heartbeat. But c'mon, bro. Par examplar, when the disciples asked Christ which towns to prosyletize in, didn't he say something akin to only going where they were welcome? Not to bother with where they were not? I mean, what did you accomplish really? In the end you let them know your feelings, ok. If you want to say you were speaking the truth then ok. But what an incredible waste of resources, if you were trying to win them over to your side. Do you think you were inviting at all? (And now invited?). Politically did you think you would change their mind? Really. I mean, it's not for me to say but seriously, don't let your human nature get the best of ya. Or am I wrong?

Jack said:

Zimzo:

Still not answering questions, I see.

Jack said:

Kevin:

A waste of time? No, I don't think so. I do enjoy exposing their lies and misinformation. The one about "Dueling Lawyers" is particularly good, as is the one where they find some gay theologian trying to say the admonition against homosexual acts in Deuteronomy was about a Baal fertility rite.

I do not expect to change either David's mind or Jonathan's. However, if anyone "on the fence" should happen upon their site, their misinformation should not go unchallenged.

Anyway, it's good practice to face off with someone who disagrees with you. It allows one to hone ones arguments. Zimzo finds it "exasperating," but I enjoy it.

zimzo said:

I don't find it exasperating to argue with someone. I find it exasperating to argue with someone who does not listen to what the other person says, cannot seem to grasp evidence that contradicts his point of view, makes statements that are simply untrue and backed up with no evidence whatsoever, resorts to ad hominem attacks when he is losing an argument and seems to lack certain basic standards of human decency when it comes to political opponents. I answered your questions, Jack. Have some who reads and understands English translate what I wrote into your native tongue.

charles said:

I would have to think that there is SOME correlation between those who think homosexuality is a sin, and those who oppose gay marriage. But I can see some who believe it a sin but don't want to legislate it, and some who don't think it's a sin but understand the importance of children having biological parents.

I think it's a sin, but I'm not in the habit of visiting gay and lesbian sites and telling them that - I figure they probably know, and I'm supposed to love them, not beat them over the head with their sin. And anyway, I could go to ANY blog and find sinners.

Jack said:

Zimzo:

You have NOT answered my question: How do you explain the widespead success of the various Marriage Amendments in light of your poll results?

zimzo said:

Learn to read, Jack:

"it is clear that they are not voting this way because they see homosexuality as a sin or unacceptable but because they believe the charge that extending the institution of marriage to gays is somehow a threat to the institution yet they seem to have no problem with granting the rights that go with that institution."

Now, I will ask you for the last time, Jack: Are you man enough to admit you were wrong when you said a majority of Americans believe homosexuality is a sin?

Jack said:

Zimzo:

You're not making sense. (Perhaps appropriate use of punctuation would help.) If people "have no problem with granting the rights that go with that institution," then why are they voting for the amendments?

Now, Zimzo, you are also lying again. I never claimed that "a majority of Americans believe homosexuality is a sin." In fact, I don't even think homosexuality is a sin.

I want to make one thing very clear, so clear that even Zimzo can understand it: I do not think homosexuality is a sin; homosexual ACTS are sins.

Furthermore, I have admitted that the polls do not support my assertion. However, I have little faith in polls. The phrasing of the poll question, and even how the poll-taker asks the question, can have a significant influence on the answers. The order of the questions influences the answers. Even the time-of-day influences the results. Sociology is not a science; the scientific method cannot be applied.

zimzo said:

Jack, I'm not arguing with you anymore because you don't even have the grace to admit you were wrong.

Jack said:

And because I caught you lying again?

No Relation said:

EL's "banning," or "moderating," of Jack, whatever you want to call it, bothers me a quite a bit. Seeing as how Jack said nothing obscene, this shows me they are unwilling to engage in honest debate.

However, what bothers me more is Jonathan's characterization of my Pope as one of "Hitler's Willing Executioners." I hope he will apologize or at least withraw his statement.

David said:

Read our commenting policy, No Relation. It says nothing about obscenity (although I think that would be in the category of rudeness and therefore goes without saying).

If you want to engage in honest debate, the first step is to be honest.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM