I commented on the post "FUTURE SEX: BEYOND GAY & STRAIGHT | Mambaonline.com" 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.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)