Double Standards and Cowardice: A Conversation (if it can be called that) With an LGBTQ Apologist

Over at BloggingTheology, I am currently engaged in a discussion (cough) with a gay marriage apologist named DarthTimon.  It all began when Brother Paul Williams published a post lamenting how there are some people who are now calling for the legalization and acceptance of pedophilia using the same rallying cry as people of LGBTQ backgrounds: “love is love”.  DarthTimon objected to this false equivalence, and I believe rightfully so.  As he pointed out, one refers to a consensual relationship between people of the same sex, whereas pedophilia is non-consensual.  After acknowledging this false equivalence (even though it does not change the fact that there ARE some people clamoring for pedophilia “rights”), I asked DarthTimon to comment on whether he would be as equally passionate in his defense of consensual incest couples, as he is for homosexual couples.  What followed was a back and forth exchange (still ongoing as of the writing of this post), in which I poked and prodded DT.  For a while, he tried to avoid discussing the incest issue, claiming that it was a “distraction”.  Apparently, DT was very concerned about staying on topic, and since the topic was specifically regarding pedophilia, he felt it was a “red herring” to bring incest into the discussion, even though as I pointed out, it was in response to his own parameter: consent.  Since pedophilia does not meet that parameter, it seems logical to bring in an example that does.  And as it happens, there ARE some people in this increasingly weird world who are clamoring for incest “rights”.  But I digress.  See the discussion on BloggingTheology to see the double standards and hypocrisy of some liberal apologists.  DarthTimon seems to realize the conundrum he is in, but rather than engaging in a reasonable discussion, he seems more at home making petty excuses.  He even accused me of getting “angry”, even though his own anger has clearly manifested multiple times.  Up to now, he has still refused to fully engage the incest issue.  As a matter of fact, he is clearly stalling and trying his hardest to avoid that issue.  For example, in one his recent responses, he said:

“I actually know of cousins who are in relationships, who are in fact married. I could not care less if they are or if they claim any marriage benefits, in much the same way that I couldn’t care less if same-sex couples do so.”  

This is clearly an attempt to dodge the question, since I had made it clear in an earlier comment that I was specifically referring to sibling couples.  I even gave a link to an article in a popular magazine which talked about a specific case of a half brother/half sister relationship.  This sort of sexual deviancy meets DT’s parameter, that of “consent”.  It seems logical to ask him to be consistent in his passionate defense of all consensual deviancy, something he does not seem willing to do.  And that is the point.    




12 thoughts on “Double Standards and Cowardice: A Conversation (if it can be called that) With an LGBTQ Apologist

  1. Pingback: The Slander against Same-sex Relationships P2 – Meerkat Musings

  2. DT has finally answered the million dollar question. As it turns out, he is not as “accepting” of consensual incest as he is of consensual homosexuality. This proves my point. These liberals cannot even consistently apply their own liberal standards.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I am wondering if you might be able to do me a favour and try to reach Paul for me, since he is moving immediately into accusations of trolling, for me merely answering a question with a question.


      1. Unfortunately Paul has disregarded his own posts regarding better conduct and is blocking my comments, so whether we can actually continue our discussion on BT depends on whether he can be reasonable.


  4. stewjo004

    @ QB

    You know if consent is the argument of if something is or isn’t gross or reprehensible does he think that Armin Meiwes who put an ad out for a person to be killed and eaten (which someone answered) as okay then?

    This whole consent among two adults is just an argument born out of the pushing of the gay agenda and western culture finding the act acceptable.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s