Blatant censorship on: "FUTURE SEX: BEYOND GAY & STRAIGHT |"

I commented on the post "FUTURE SEX: BEYOND GAY & STRAIGHT |" as follows:

I disagree with parts of your post. Do you want to know which ones and why, or are you only interested in comments from those who agree? I only see comments that have agreed.

Perhaps though no one who disagrees at all has bothered to post.

Nevertheless, I don't want to bother to write something and submit it if you won't post it or if you will delete it just because it doesn't agree with you even though it makes solid points. It would not include swearing or anything like that. It would just be intellectual refutation mostly point-by-point.

Also, do you allow links?

When I hit the "SAVE" button, it just went to a blank screen. When I reloaded the original page, the comment wasn't there. It didn't ask for my email. I'd have to return later to see if it was approved.

It's interesting how old it is even though it admits that sexuality is fluid.

You will see a post there by Jason, 10/14/2012 11:23:04 AM:

Can you please tell me (us) what the difference is between 'homophobia' and non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality/homosexual behavior?

That comment was submitted well after mine was submitted.

The following is addressed to Jason but is for public consumption:

If I were to use a fake name (I used my real first and last), spoof my IP address, and say I agree with the article, my comment would go through. As you can see, all I did was ask if they would allow a comment that disagrees, and they wouldn't even approve that.

Jason, I too have pointed out that the term homophobic is a blanket term they automatically apply to anyone who disagrees, but they are fine with that. That's what they actually believe or want to believe or at least want others to be duped into believing.

What I have done when I get into that with them is explain that there is nothing irrational about fearing, among other things about homosexuality, that children who get sucked into homosexual behavior will end up with HIV/AIDS and/or any of the other problems/diseases that so often come with the disease and vector that is homosexuality.

The more I go into it and give backup, the fewer regular commentators continue asking real questions, wondering out loud, and the angrier that hardcore activists become and start throwing out their ridiculous personal attacks and insinuations, such as that I must be a user of homosexual prostitutes, must engage or have engaged in homosexual anal intercourse, and on and on.

If the site or section of the site is dedicated to homosexuality, no matter how I phrase things to avoid giving them something to point at and no matter how much backup I provide to substantiate my statements, no matter how much I only knock down new comments by the activists, the site or section ends up censoring every comment submission on a pro-homosexuality post. The only reason they do that is because they are losing.

What many on our side do, therefore, is not bother to submit comments. What I do though is blog about the censorship.

Sure, my blog doesn't get tens of thousands of hits a day right now, but it does spike into the hundreds on certain posts and despite all the suppressing/censoring tricks Google and others use against anti-homosexuality sites and for pro-homosexuality sites. Of course, the more that Roman Catholics and others would link to a given anti-homosexuality post of mine, as I regularly link to theirs, the more the anti-homosexuality cause would benefit.

Linking to a particular post doesn't constitute an endorsement of a sites entire world view, and those linking can readily say so if they so choose.

The pro-homosexuality activists almost always immediately know that I'm not a Roman Catholic, even though a post of mine concerning a Roman Catholic site's post is what brought the activists to my blog.

Many of them, if not most, make the mistake of concluding that I'm a "Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant" though. That though doesn't stop me from linking and blogging favorably about a given Fundamentalist Evangelical Protestant's anti-homosexuality post. If I have to qualify something in my own post because there's something in the linked article with which I disagree, I can do that in my own blog post.

Anyway, I network to, send traffic to, Roman Catholic, Calvinist, secular, atheist, etc. sites on the issue of homosexuality. If I may be tautological here, other issues are other issues. All pro-NARTH forces need to win concerning homosexuality, and that is not necessarily saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is simply keeping priorities straight.

The importance of the California SB-1172 issue cannot be overstated. We cannot allow, for instance, children in California who are homosexually raped and develop unwanted same-sex attraction as a direct result to be legally barred by the State of California from getting professional Reparative Therapy help in California from a California-licensed mental-healthcare provider.

There won't be any Christianity allowed in the open if we keep letting the homosexual activists have their way. For the non-Christians who are not pro-homosexuality, there won't be any freedom to say that in public within earshot of any homosexual or pro-homosexuality person if we keep letting the homosexual activists have their way.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.