“If Blake got tired of how many comments were censored and how many people were banned on FT who criticized your views?”

That’s certainly a possibility. It seems less likely since Blake has a history of dropping out and returning.

“They are massively censoring arguments criticizing your positions and ideology, while you and Nickol get a lot of space here.”

Except that some of my comments criticizing your positions aren’t posted. I take those rejections to mean that I should tone down the rhetoric or shift the critique. I don’t take them as censorship. I wonder why you do.

“I have never seen Michael PS criticize many, many aspects of your homosexuality agenda and ideology and, like you, couldn’t know what he believes as a consequence.”

Michael PS and I had an extensive series of conversations a year or so ago. I know where he’s coming from and what his positions are. He’s a good debater. I don’t agree with him, but I admire his quality of mind and his ability to argue without getting personal.

I don’t engage his arguments these days because I’ve learned what I can from him. I find his understanding of the relationship between church and state to be utterly foreign to the way Americans understand things.

“Along with the meaning of the term “sockpuppet.”

I had to look up the term, but it gave me a good laugh. I think you might dial down the paranoia a bit.

I have repeatedly criticised the redefinition of marriage. I have also opposed surrogate gestation, the trafficking in human gametes and joint adoption by unmarried (in the traditional sense) couples.

What more do you wish me to say?

Michael replied: “First Things is posting some or many of your comments.”

No, Michael. FT is NOT posting many of my comments, not some, many. And they mostly question your homosexual agenda.

Michael: “Do you really believe that they are refusing to post ALL of Blake’s? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that Blake has taken his interests elsewhere for a time?”

If Blake got tired of how many comments were censored and how many people were banned on FT who criticized your views? That would be a reasonable explanation of why he had decided the comment area here is so manipulated to promote your homosexuality agenda that he went elsewhere. Or maybe he was banned. Given the high level of censorship, that’s very plausible too.

Heather: “Forcing others to be silent is not an honest way to win a debate, it’s an underhanded and misleading way.”

Michael said: “The editors of First Things are on “your side.” They are not on mine. Think about that for a while. ”

They are massively censoring arguments criticizing your positions and ideology, while you and Nickol get a lot of space here. Think about that for a while.

==============
Michael: “Michael PS is dead set against gay marriage and homosexuality, and he says all of his comments get posted, so perhaps you might consider there’s something about the way you comment that is at issue.”

I have never seen Michael PS criticize many, many aspects of your homosexuality agenda and ideology and, like you, couldn’t know what he believes as a consequence. Whatever criticism he makes is usually very limited.

You might consider that you conveniently left out this fact. Along with the meaning of the term “sockpuppet.”

I would prefer to see it framed in terms of general principles, as in the Code Civil, which addresses all forms of assisted reproduction and surrogate gestation.

“They refuse to post many of my comments – there is plenty of reason to assume that they could be refusing to post anyone else’s”

First Things is posting some or many of your comments. Do you really believe that they are refusing to post ALL of Blake’s? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that Blake has taken his interests elsewhere for a time?

“I see no good reason why posts from you, Ray, and David are allowed and many other people’s posts which question your views and present counter-arguments to your claims are censored”

I could be wrong, but I believe that both Ray and David have mentioned that some of their comments have not been posted, and as I mentioned, some of mine have not.

“Who FT is and what they agree with is an interesting question – certainly they wouldn’t censor my posts if they agreed with me or if they wanted the debate to be balanced.”

I think it is pretty clear that every writer on First Things believes that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is a travesty.

The moderation policy states that comments that “do not advance the engagement of the topic will be deleted.”

The policy is not about whether the moderator agrees with your view; it’s about whether your comment advances the topic. Do you understand that distinction?

As I said before, when Joe moderated the comments, I understood what was and wasn’t considered “advancing the engagement.” I don’t understand that line very well under the current moderators.

“I encourage you to be less afraid of re-examining counter-arguments to your claims.”

I’m not afraid to counter any claim. What makes you think I am?

“Forcing others to be silent is not an honest way to win a debate, it’s an underhanded and misleading way.”

The editors of First Things are on “your side.” They are not on mine. Think about that for a while.

Again, I encourage you to reread the comments that the moderator didn’t post and think about whether your comment actually “advances the engagement of the topic.” Usually, when I take the time to reword or restructure the comment, it gets posted, though again, I have to say that the moderator’s criteria are so fuzzy that I can’t always tell why one comment gets posted and another doesn’t.

Michael PS is dead set against gay marriage and homosexuality, and he says all of his comments get posted, so perhaps you might consider there’s something about the way you comment that is at issue.

“Is it worthwhile to oppose SSM without also opposing homosexual behavior and/or gay identities more broadly? If so, how does one do that in a convincing way?”

In my submission, yes.

Those of us who find the public purpose of civil marriage in the rule that, “the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” and who see in that rule the principle distinction between marriage on the one hand and civil unions and unregulated cohabitation on the other, insist that

(1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament
(2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code
(3) The sex difference is central to filiation.

In 1998, in France, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year

This is the view which prevailed in France in the Court of Cassation in 2007 and in the Constitutional Council in 2010 in the famous Bègles case and It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that those decisions were are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into the interpretation of the Code.

They refuse to post many of my comments – there is plenty of reason to assume that they could be refusing to post anyone else’s.

Michael: “Are you suggesting that First Things not post comments that they and you disagree with?”

I see no good reason why posts from you, Ray, and David are allowed and many other people’s posts which question your views and present counter-arguments to your claims are censored.

Who FT is and what they agree with is an interesting question – certainly they wouldn’t censor my posts if they agreed with me or if they wanted the debate to be balanced. Obviously if they censor my counter-arguments, they stunt debate and prohibit the development of the reasoning underpinning my views. They have certainly achieved this goal systematically enough.

“By the way, I think “censor” is too strong a term. It is their site after all.”

No matter how thin you slice it…

“I encourage you to reread some of the comments they didn’t post and consider whether there might be some other reasons they didn’t post your comment.”

I encourage you to be less afraid of re-examining counter-arguments to your claims. Censoring criticisms will not make any flaws in your thinking “right,” no matter how much you wish it did.

Forcing others to be silent is not an honest way to win a debate, it’s an underhanded and misleading way. No matter how often it happens any time you and Nickol comment on anything regarding homosexuality on this blog and the editors do not allow a response, it’s just an illusion on your side that your claims stand unquestioned.

It really does raise the question of what the FT blog comment section is for.

Thanks. I agree with your comment that
“They actually suffer the delusion that they are the ‘fact-based community,’ that they don’t have an ideology; they have the facts.”

They have demonstrated (in discussions on the attempts to redefine marriage) that they do not understand the facts. Here are three glaring errors they consistently make: (1.) children do not need a mother; (2.) children do not need a father and (3.) children in same sex unions have the same psychological health and academic achievement as children raised with their biological parents. They cannot cite a single study that supports their attempts to deny children a mother or a father. Delusions indeed!