Well, I've finally managed to be on the receiving end of censorship over at Triablogue. How'd I manage it? By backing Steve into a corner over social conservatives' approach to gay marriage and gay issues generally. Steve complained that I was taking up too much of his time (you know, by responding to him, and refusing to take his Catholic-baiting), so, you know - he just had to start trashing my posts.
Now, Steve can run his blog any way he likes. I certainly rule my meager slice of the internet here with an iron fist. On the other hand, I make sure everyone knows that. Triablogue, meanwhile, pulls a Jerry Coyne - you can post there, until you back Steve or someone else into a corner with an argument, or they feel they're doing poorly. At that point, it's time to leave. And if you can't be provoked into giving them a reason (say, you keep ignoring their Catholic-bashing bait), they'll just quietly get rid of you.
For now, I'll just post my reply to Steve here for reference. And I'll add this: Steve, and guys like Steve, are part of the reason social conservatives are doing dismally on these issues. I oppose gay marriage. Hell, at this point I'm intellectually hostile to civil unions. But I also recognize that gays are people, that their being gay does not and most importantly should not define who they are, and that Christians have to make a conscious effort not only to convince gays with our religious, philosophical, metaphysical and even secular arguments against various sexual behaviors and abuses of marriage, but also to make a place for them in the Christian community. I recognize that Christians have to be consistent in their message, and on this point consistency is going to mean criticism of sodomy and abuses of marriage generally - which applies to heterosexuals as well, especially nowadays.
But the short of it is: if you want to thank someone for the success of LGBT groups, you don't only have to thank liberal gay marriage supporters. You also have to thank social conservatives who do not learn from their failures or their mistakes, who do not change their approach when their approach is a proven failure, who refuse to learn lessons, and who generally think being obnoxious and belligerent is a good way to conduct what social, cultural and political fights.
In other words, liberal gays owe a lot to guys like Steve Hays.
He didn’t say God intended rape to happen. He said God intended conception to happen. The divine gift of life. The inception of life. You’re twisting his words in the same malicious way liberals did.
If he didn't say that, then the fault is on him for making his words so, so easy to twist. He made a mistake, and that remains even if I agree with him in the larger sense.
If, however, your Catholic theology
Swing and a miss three, Steve. Strike-out. Not taking the bait, Catholicism isn't involved here.
The fact that you fold under pressure illustrates your own problem.
I don't fold. If I make a mistake, I admit to it and I change my tactics. I don't insanely pursue a rhetorical move that is a known loser out of a fear of admitting I was wrong.
Not at all. They demand equal access to ordination, the Boy Scouts, the military, housing, employment, &c.
They demand privileged access. But hey, if you want to use the language they want you to use out of some mistaken idea that it makes you bold, not a liability, go for it. Again, clearly such a strategy has just done a bang-up job of stemming the tide of gay rights and sodomy approval, hasn't it?
Which confirms my point that the message isn’t getting out because the message isn’t even being made by public figures.
And yet the LGBT agenda advanced strongly, also without making 30m-1h speeches. It's almost as if they do something right, and we do something wrong. It's not 'getting people to spend an hour listening to intricate arguments'.
Do you assume this ostrich posture because you’re defending the presence of homosexuals in the priesthood, which then forces you to downplay the correlation between the sexual orientation of the priest and the gender of the victim?
Do you keep desperately trying to change the subject because you're outgunned? I asked you for compelling data that would justify regarding homosexuals as likely child predators. No response. I'm calling your bluff. And I'm ignoring your very blatantly obvious attempts at a derail.
I avoid getting sidetracked on rabbit trails that have nothing to do with evaluating the legal status of homosexuals.
Yet we're not just talking about 'evaluating the legal status of homosexuals' - we're talking about arguments, persuading the public, and more. Which you realize.
Finally, you’re consuming an inordinate amount of my time on your hobbyhorse. If you wish to retain the freedom to comment on future posts, the time is past due for you to take a break from this particular thread. If you want to have the last word, you can do so on your own blog.
If that's a ban threat, just because I'm arguing with you and - frankly - you're doing poorly, I'm not backing down. Let everyone see you banned me when I didn't take your papist-baiting, when you couldn't provide the data I asked for, when your defenses failed poorly and when the only thing I was doing was pointing out that SoCons are engaged in a failing strategy on this subject, and they need to change their approach - not sacrifice their principles, but change their approach - to succeed. It's almost as if I'm right, you know I'm right, but for whatever reason it's too awkward for you to admit it.
But let's see if you follow through on your implied ban threat. If it goes through, I invite anyone to hit my blog and explain to me how I earned it - or what it says about Steve that he'd pull the trigger in this situation.
A Few Cutting Remarks
2 hours ago