Enough.

When I challenged your untrue statement outright presenting facts from this blog record, you simply refused to answer. When I present it to you as a ‘cut and paste’ next to another comment you made that seems to disagree, you accuse me of playing a game.

There’s only one game being played, sir, and you are one of the major players.

Don’t bother explaining. I’m not here to play games with you. I’ll let your own contradictory words speak for themselves.

First Timothy says (in an obvious effort to smear those who represent the ‘other’ point of view):

I really do believe that there is a consistent pattern of snark and dismissiveness and snide comments directed towards those who disagree with the conservative Christian perspective. There is no effort to be civil on the part of some.

There is a demand that we “respect” any statement or viewpoint, while at the same time be subjected to abuse. I think it would be close to true to say that I have not posted a comment here in the past year that hasn’t been met with snark, ridicule, or personal insults.

When I tried to challenge this emotionally charged statement, my challenge was simply ignored.

Then, in making another point today, Timothy said:

I really didn’t comment much in the past year, really. I was able to review several and most were civil on the part of everyone.

Both statements refer to this year. In one he can scarcely remember one where he wasn’t somehow victimized (I pointed out a dozen in this thread’s record); in the latter statement, he admits he’s hardly blogged here in the past year and, the ones he did review, were mostly civil on the part of everyone.

BTW: The cut and paste winner for this particular thread happens to be a certain Timothy Kincaid on April 13 at 9:49PM where he did the cut and paste 9 times in one comment. Rules must have been changed and I wasn’t notified.

Sorry, I won’t be playing the cut-and-paste game with you.

Ann,

I do realize that you think I’ve been childish in some comments. You have made that abundantly clear. We all have opinions about each other but your call to civility is a wise one.

However, there was one in which I’m amazed at my own restraint. I was personally accused of making stories up, supporting sex with children, being childish, and so on. It was all very personal, and intended to be.

In at least a one instance, it was you.

Timothy,

To be clear, I have never accused anyone of supporting sex with children so I am just not sure who you are referring to. I don’t think I have ever accused you of making stories up because that has never been a concern of mine with you. Being childish – yes, absolutely, I think you have been very childish in some of your comments and it was glaring. I think you know that though as several others here have said the same thing to you. I actually have forgotten all that with your gracious and apology, to which I would just like to reiterate how gratful I was and still am for it.

Can you explain this comment

I really didn’t comment much in the past year, really. I was able to review several and most were civil on the part of everyone.

in the light of this one

I really do believe that there is a consistent pattern of snark and dismissiveness and snide comments directed towards those who disagree with the conservative Christian perspective. There is no effort to be civil on the part of some.

There is a demand that we “respect” any statement or viewpoint, while at the same time be subjected to abuse. I think it would be close to true to say that I have not posted a comment here in the past year that hasn’t been met with snark, ridicule, or personal insults.

Or vice versa?

I’m not sure how to review every thread from the past year. I really didn’t comment much in the past year, really. I was able to review several and most were civil on the part of everyone.

However, there was one in which I’m amazed at my own restraint. I was personally accused of making stories up, supporting sex with children, being childish, and so on. It was all very personal, and intended to be.

In at least a one instance, it was you.

I took a little break after that thread.

I don’t think I have anything to say that will add value to your comment except that I suggest, if you have time, to read your comments this past year on the blog, in the same light you have asked Eddy to read your post, and tell me if you still think you are the victim or if you have been the one victimizing others. We can be anything we want, but when it crosses the boundaries of being civil then a whole new dimension has been reached, and one that has nothing to do with human sexuality.

Add,

Am I correct in assuming that you are accusing me of lacking civility?

I actually wrote two posts in response to the one you just cited. In the second one, I’m on record as agreeing totally with one of your statements, agreeing with the next one but adding one item to it, a disagree, a tentative agreement where I think we’re on the same page but needed you to clarify, and one where you stated what you thought I thought and I tried to clarify my position.

So I DID humor you…I did listen for a moment…I even expressed more agreement than disagreement. Yeah, I didn’t back down on ‘orientation’…I was prepared to if my internet searching (prompted by our discussion) revealed that I was wrong about it being loaded. But my search confirmed that ‘orientation’ is weighted against considering sociologic causes just as I alleged.

Oftentimes, when an experiment fails, the responsibility for the failure often lies with the conductor.

(Also, I’m not sure why you insist that the only topic of this thread is the factors that contribute to a homosexual identity. I thought it was “study of factors which might lead to homosexuality”.)

One definition of ‘homosexuality’ is ‘behaviors’ or ‘activity’; another is ‘orientation’. I presume the term is often used loosely to indicate either/or or sometimes both. So I try to avoid using it and speak specifically to behaviors, desires, or identity. I do stand corrected.

When you read this, please do not look for things about which to object. Just assume for a moment that I’m sincere in my effort to communicate. Even if you don’t believe it, humor me for a moment.

OK?

Please just listen to what I’m saying, really try to hear it. Lets not engage in culture war but try instead an experiment into communication.

I think the experiment failed.

(Also, I’m not sure why you insist that the only topic of this thread is the factors that contribute to a homosexual identity. I thought it was “study of factors which might lead to homosexuality”.)

David,

Timothy, I think a few months ago, tried to simplify the opposition to gay marriage as being solely due to religious reasons…that is just goofy on its face.

I think that is unlikely. Perhaps you are misquoting me or have me confused with someone else.

And I think that you misunderstand Jayhuck’s statement. And I think perhaps that you are factually misinformed.

CNN Exit Polls found that the more frequently one attended church, the more likely that one was to vote yes on Prop 8. For example, those who attended weekly voted 82% in favor, while those who never attend voted 83% against (about half of Californians attend church at least monthly).

Also, I believe that Jayhuck was suggesting that the objection to same-sex marriage was primarily driven by religious adherents, not that everyone who voted yes was deeply religious. And this is true.

We know, for example, that the original plan to put Prop 8 on the ballot was organized through a Catholic Bishop in San Diego and all the seed money to get signatures was from Catholics he recruited.

We also know that half of the money contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign came from those who were active in one denomination alone: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). And 80-90% of all volunteers came from the same. This was directly due to religious belief and was coordinated by the church in Salt Lake, Utah.

We also know that the National Organization for Marriage has stated a willingness to work with non-religious persons who are opposed to same-sex marriage but have not been successful in finding them.

It is both fair and accurate to say that the “VAST majority of opposition to gay marriage (virtually all anti-same-sex-marriage activism) has come from religious folks.” There may be (and are) some non-religious folk who are opposed to same-sex marriage, but they don’t appear to be putting up much opposition.

Jayhuck,

I’ve no significant issue with SSA, with the understanding that this term means “those who are primarily attracted romantically, emotionally, and sexually to persons of the same sex”. Generally, I’ve not seen SSA used to include incidental or momentary same-sex attraction and when it does it usually does so clearly.

Also, we should be careful to make clear that one need not be either gay supportive or anti-gay. In fact, I think that in their general lives, most conservatives are neither. Most conservatives just want to be nice and get along and have no desire to “fight the homosexual agenda” or to “fight for equality”. They may have an anti-gay opinion or vote anti-gay on some issue, but they are not themselves anti-gay.

Pardon me for interupting but

homosexuality has to do with feelings, not necessarily behavior – SSA is so broad I’d have no idea if you were talking about people with an primarily homosexual orientation or a primarily heterosexual one – when we talk about identity I think we use the word gay, don’t we?

The idea that SSA is broad term is the point. SSA does involve all kinds of people, and it is broad for the very reason that describing someone’s attraction does not describe someone very well at all. As a person who has gone through the changes from one spectrum to the next, I can certainly see how homosexual does not quite cover it for people with SSA. Homosexual in today’s terms usually implies something like you are a blond or a brunette. I think we understand a person better who says they have blonde hair or brunette hair than being called a blond or brunette.