Tag Archive | Wintery Knight

Censorship, Redux

On April 17 2012, I posted this. Now, WinteryKnight has done it again. I tried to post a comment on this article. The comment was as follows:

No one has ever argued that *all* same-sex couples make good parents; just that *some* do. Of course some gay parents do a bad job, just like some straight parents do a bad job. We shouldn’t be saying that children should be raised by straight rather than gay parents, but that they should be raised by good rather than bad parents.

It should also be noted that Mark Regnerus is very explicit to note that his study does not show causation between parents being gay and children having problems; but merely correlation. He says: “The NFSS is not a longitudinal study, and therefore cannot attempt to broach questions of causation.” and “This study cannot answer political questions about same-sex relationships and their legal legitimacy.

As for this: “Although there is much speculation that today there are large numbers of same-sex couples in the U.S. who are providing a stable, long-term parenting relationship for their children, no studies based upon large, random samples of the U.S. population have been published that show this to be true” – here’s what Regnerus himself has to say on the subject: “Today’s children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be “planned” (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15–20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions.

How large a part of the total of same-sex families are planned, long-term, and stable remains to be seen. But that part is getting bigger.

This comment was automatically deleted. I didn’t even see “your comment is awaiting moderation”. I can only assume that Wintery Knight is automatically discarding all my comments. How disappointing.

Over on the NOM website, I tried to post a comment on an article here. My comment was a response to another comment made by Randy E King (comment #13). His comment was this:

As my college Statistics Professor pointed out:

“Mathematics is a theory; not a fact”

So by insisting that the governing component of marriage be changed from (1) man and (1) woman to (2) consenting adults you have changed the basis for marriage from a scientific fact into a scientific theory.

Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.

I responded with this:

Randy E King said: “Society should never build its foundational supports on theories – you might as well build them on quicksand.”

Germ Theory:
the concept that all infectious and contagious diseases are caused by living microorganisms. The science of bacteriology developed after establishment of this theory. Also called pathogenic theory of medicine.

Atomic Theory:
the concept that all matter is composed of submicroscopic atoms that are in turn composed of protons, electrons, and neutrons. A chemical element is identified by the number of protons in its atoms.

Kinetic Theory of Gases:
a theory that gases consist of small particles in random motion.

I could go on and on and on. Are these all quicksand as well?

This time, I did see the “your comment is awaiting moderation” message. However, shortly after that, my comment was gone. This can only mean that someone intentionally disapproved the comment – but why? I don’t understand why people don’t allow these types of comments. If anyone is in contact with either Wintery Knight or NOM, please ask them why my comments are not allowed. Thanks.


Wintery Knight is Pro-Censorship

On April 16, I commented on a link to an article written on a blog by “Wintery Knight” ( http://www.walkingchristian.com/2012/04/16/wintery-knight-on-cohabitation-and-preparing-for-marriage/). I decided to explore WK’s blog a bit, and found this article: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/human-rights-campaign-leaks-list-of-pro-marriage-donors-and-their-addresses/

His list of companies that support same-sex marriage seemed a bit lacking, so I decided to give him some more companies which do so. My first comment on this article, on the 17th, read as follows:

In addition to Microsoft, Google, Dell, and IBM, these companies also support gay marriage: Apple, Amazon, 3M, AT&T, Automatic Data Processing, Best Buy, Cisco, eBay, HP, Office Depot, Oracle, Sprint Nextel, Symantec, Tech Data, Xerox, Yahoo, Acer, Adope, AMD, Comcast, Cox Communications, EarthLink, Intel, Lexmark, McAfee, Motorola, Seagate, Sony, Texas Instruments, Time Warner, Verizon, and T-Mobile.

What you’ll probably notice is that these are all tech companies. Now, what you do with this information is up to you, but I’d just note that it would be pretty difficult to use the internet at all without using the products any of these companies produce.

For a bonus, here’s some automotive companies that support gay marriage: Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Volkswagen, Subaru, General Motors, Nissan.

What kind of car do *you* drive?

His response to this was very short. All he said was, “My family has owned four cars, none of which are made by the above companies. I checked.” (note: as I did not save this comment, only my own, this is a paraphrase). So I decided to post a response to this lackluster comment. I wrote:

What kind of car is it?

Also, what about all the tech companies? There’s almost certainly a cisco router somewhere on the traceroute between you and your ISP, you know. Plus the inclusion of google, yahoo, and microsoft limits your choice of operating system, email, and search engine quite a bit. Are you running linux? Wait, you can’t – Richard Stallman, founder of the free software foundation, supports gay marriage. Did I mention that Alan Turing, the father of modern computing, was a homosexual?

To my surprise, this comment was removed from the moderation queue without being posted. My previous comment, and his response to it, was also deleted. Without explanation.

Now, of course he has a right to do with his site whatever he wants. But I find this censorship quite odd. My first comment was originally approved, and I don’t see why he would change his mind. My comments are not hostile or insulting. I’m just challenging him on an issue. I looked around his site, and I can find no explicit commenting policy. I have no idea if I’ve broken one of his site rules, or what. So I decided to ask before posting this. I submitted one more comment, which read:

Wintery Knight,

If you’re going to delete my posts, at least let me know why you’ve done so…

This one has been removed as well. Wintery Knight, if you happen to read this, I just want an explanation.