Winteryknight doesn’t love me
August 15, 2010 § 1 Comment
Winteryknight is one of the defenders of the conservative Christian faith (faiths?). But he doesn’t want to talk with a heathen like me!
All comments on his blog are moderated. Some seem to have found him naughtily editing their remarks. However, for me my comments never get even to be published in his hallowed organ. Here’s an example:
Winteryknight wrote this post on how a study from Otago showed that homosexuals were more likely to have had a history of sexual abuse. He took that to support his prior convictions about how bad homosexuality is and how it is a disease (and he found two books that agreed with him). I thought I’d correct him, because the data in this study – assuming it is representative of homosexuality as a whole – is morally irrelevant:
1. The etiology of homosexuality seems morally irrelevant.
2. The research on gay couples is basically unanimous in that i) the burden of mental and physical ill-health is not significantly different between straight and gay couples ii) gay relationships (and gay sex) are great, and iii) children raised by gays are just as mal-adjusted and children raised by straights. That you can find two people who think otherwise doesn’t really deflect the mountains of evidence here.
That comment didn’t get through. I just put it down to some wordpress slip-up or similar. After all, Winteryknight sets himself up as a defender of the Christian faith in the public square: it’d be pretty weird to do that by censoring out countervailing opinion on your blog, right?
Homosexuality cropped up again. This time the data being used was a San Francisco study, about how homosexuals tended more often to open relationships and other non-monogamous means of sexual expression. Winteryknight argued that this showed legalizing gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriages, because legalizing gay marriage would amount to saying open relationships were marriage, and so, without society egging them on to monogamous commitment, men wouldn’t bother. Again I thought I’d help him out in seeing why that didn’t follow.
Grant all the implicit assumptions (that the San Francisco study models all same-sex couples, that this pattern won’t change with legal same-sex marriage, etc.) So what?
Fidelity already isn’t an essential part of marriage: it remains grounds for separation, but people can (and do) cheat on their spouses, form open relationships, and yet keep their marriage licenses. They also divorce, and sometimes divorce repeatedly. Yet what conservative complementarians can do is simply refuse to recognize these sorts of things as marriage.
If men are supposed to be moral leaders, they shouldn’t be so morally pathetic. If the drop in same-sex unions really is men getting scared off matrimony because people in open relationships can have a pop at it (and not, say, the results of sexual liberalization leading people to try out other modes of relationships besides lifelong monogamy) they need to man up. Whatever happened to taking the high road, the city on the hill, or just basic commitment to doing the right thing regardless of social mores? If you really decide not to marry because Larry and Steve around the corner are too but their in an open relationship, you’ve got bigger problems.
But let’s suppose there is some reasonable way which SSM harms ‘traditional’ marriage? Again, so what? The argument isn’t primarily that legalizing SSM is good for relationships in general (though it is). Rather, that some group of people are having their rights to equal recognition beyond the law violated. Clearly, many gay couples have no interest in open relationships, and simply want to commit to lifelong monogamy with someone they love. To deny these people marriage licenses on the grounds as to what other same-sex couples do (and the negative externalities of the tenuous influence this may have on others) is a bizarre and plainly iniquitous means of collective punishment.
Again, this didn’t get through. Now feeling like a spurned lover, I thought I’d send him an email to see what was going on.
My comments never seem to get past moderation. Why? I’m not feeling the (strictly platonic) love here, bro.
But again, although he feverishly updates his blog, no reply.
What have I done? The comments have hardly been very abusive (and they’re pretty well-argued even if I do say so myself). Yet, despite my repeated advances, winteryknight doesn’t want to dialectically intercourse with me.
Meaner spirits might say he’s running scared. Or they might point to his more than slightly creepy obsession with female conservatives, attitudes towards the fairer sex that wouldn’t be out of place in pre-feudal Europe, his general lamentations about feminism (hint: the reason you’re single isn’t because women don’t respect men, but might have something to do with your dating strategy of expecting them to read – and agree with – the books you give them), and how he has done considerable research and yet follows the right wing party line instead of the consensus of experts on stuff like homosexuality and climate change (it’s a conspiracy!) And, despite all the graduate texts he’s claimed to read on matters philosophical, he can’t string a coherent argument together.
But I’m a bigger man than that. Wintery, I love you, talk to me, babe.