Thursday, December 25, 2008



Mormon hatred

Another gusher of Leftist hate below. He attacks Mormons, a tiny minority in California, for their support of a constitutional amendment that blocks homosexual marriage. Most analysts say that blacks and Hispanics were the real muscle behind the "No" vote so I guess that some of us have wondered why the Mormons were singled out by lots of Leftists on this occasion.

As you read below however, you see that he has always despised Mormons ("money-soaked", "smug self-containment" etc.). Leftists are just full of hatred for anybody who is happily getting on with their lives and any excuse will do to let some of the hatred out:
"It has to do with the passage of Proposition 8, that California trash that befouled an otherwise heavenly election. Specifically, it has to do with the Mormon Church, which swung its considerable clout to the travesty of denying gays the respectability and dignity that Mormons have spent well over a century trying to get for themselves. And which now, they themselves should be denied.

That's right, you heard me. The Mormon Church has become a hateful bully and should be treated as such. Other people voted for Proposition 8, true, and much has been made of how black voters probably ensured its passage. But black voters aren't a money-soaked, monolithic, corporatized, sanctimonious monstrosity that poured $20 million into the effort, are they?

It's frustrating that there's not much we can do. We could refuse to spend our money in Mormon-owned businesses. We could refuse to vote for Mormon politicians. We could challenge their religious tax exemptions and I would love it if someone asked some serious questions as to why there's always a damn Mormon seminary within a stone's throw of nearly every high school from here to Salt Lake City.

But frankly, those of us who grew up around the smug self-containment of our Mormon neighbors will realize none of that would work and, in fact, would probably only make them more smugly self-contained. The Mormon Church has always luxuriated in their history of being picked on.

Yet after this orchestrated disdain for the happiness and emotional well-being of their fellow citizens, my fear of saying what I really think of them (that variety of cowardice I spoke of earlier) is a thing of the past. I am now free to be as unaccepting of them as they are of gays. There is an old tradition among rigid religions-I believe the Mormons still practice it on occasion-called "shunning." Now that they have placed themselves on the wrong side of both morality and freedom, I shun them. Better yet, I excommunicate them. They don't exist to me. Their marriages don't matter. Their happiness and emotional well-being don't matter. Let us move on, around them, as though they weren't there. Let us excise them from our thoughts and our hearts.

But listen, we would never want to be quite as intolerant as them, would we? And in that spirit, should they ever renounce the evil in their hierarchy and escape the sin of their dogma, we must let them know they are always welcome back, here in the fold of America.

Source

"Sin of their dogma"? I thought that there was no such thing as right and wrong to a Leftist? I wonder where he gets his notion of sin from? Romans chapter 1 tells us that homosexuality is a sin. I guess he just pulls his notion of sin out of his butt.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

"...the travesty of denying gays the respectability and dignity that Mormons have spent well over a century trying to get"

Don't get sucked into this blatantly false premise! Mormons don't marry the same sex. Neither do Biblical Christians, Muslims, Catholics, or pretty much any other religious group. Gays aren't being denied ANYTHING at all. What they want is special status that EVERY other group does not have.

Sugar-coating their lie in politically correct speech doesn't change that fact that it is still a lie.

Anonymous said...

"What they want is special status that EVERY other group does not have."
All other groups are presumably heterosexual or they would be homosexual or bisexual, and why would heterosexuals even want the right to marry someone of the same sex? Your comment is disingenuous! Heterosexuals do have the right to marry other heterosexuals who by definition of their sexuality would be the opposite sex. Homosexuals do not have the right to marry other homosexuals who by definition of their sexuality would be the same sex. Where is the equality in that? Special status - Bah humbug!

Anonymous said...

The Mormon Church itself gave very little. The members of the faith themselves gave generously. This distinction is often lost on the wackos who are attacking this faith. The knights of Columbus gave 1 million, a direct donation by a Catholic organization yet they have not been the subject of the vitriol of the mormons. Muslims also supported the measure but the gay rights movement hasn't said one word about them. I wonder why there are no protests in front of Mosques?

Anonymous said...

Anon #2: Please show me any culture that, historically, condones homosexuality as being normal and accepted. There isn't one. Why should we start now?

Anonymous said...

It seems that Norway is the closest that a culture has come to accepting homosexuality as normal, with predictably disastrous results. Whenever I see a story on "gay marriage" (better called COUNTERFEIT marriage), I remember this story from the October 30, 2008 PC Watch blog by Frank Turek, with all the links in the story:

http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2008/10/26/a_vote_against_gay_marriage_is_a_vote_for_tolerance?page=full&comments=true

What the perverts are seeking is government-enforced MORAL APPROVAL, going well beyond tolerance. The links in the story explain it sufficiently, with the proof.

Anonymous said...

Where is the equality in that? Special status - Bah humbug!

There are two things of note here. All people - regardless of sexual orientation - have the same rights to marry a person of the opposite sex.

Secondly, "marriage" is a term that has always meant a union between a man and a woman. The first thing that the gay marriage lobby has tried to do is to couch this discussion by equating "marriage" to some sort of "civil rights."

By trying to change the meaning of the word and the context of the discussion, gays hope to sway people to their side.

It is disingenious and deceitful what they are doing. They have firmly decided that the will of the people as codified by law and vote, as well as steeped in history is not good enough for them.

Anonymous said...

Interracial marriage is unnatural, a black penis entering a white vagina is against nature. That's how most people thought since the time this country was born. That's tradition. Yet it's legal for black men to marry white women.

Maybe the mormons (which have a history of racism) need to come up with a referendum. Proposition-9. The Racial Preservation Initiative.

Most Americans don't practice interracial marriage, why should we allow a minority of race traitors to continue engaging in their filth?

White penises entering black vaginas or vice-versa is not a civil right!

Anonymous said...

And you could also say that it had always been the tradition and practise that only men had voting rights and a time when only white men had voting rights - so why should the right have been extended to women and blacks - wasn't that giving them a special status that never existed before.
And as for saying gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex is indeed humbug!

Anonymous said...

"Interracial marriage is unnatural, a black penis entering a white vagina is against nature. That's how most people thought since the time this country was born. That's tradition. Yet it's legal for black men to marry white women."

Yea anon,

BUT

It was OK for the (white) slave owner's white penis to enter the (black) slave's black vagina for the last 300-years!

Anonymous said...

"It was OK for the (white) slave owner's white penis to enter the (black) slave's black vagina for the last 300-years!"

---That's differen't, a man can do whatever he wishes with his property. They where considered chattel and their children where considered "litter."

Traditions change, people. This defense of marriage is a joke, marriage used to have poligamy (still does in some arab countries), marriages used to be arranged, marriage was an exchange of property. The old testament tells the story of a man who had to work 7 years to marry one woman, but then they gave him the wrong one so he had to work another 7 years to get the woman he wanted. The french King would marry his daughter to a British King to guarantee the peace. Abraham had to have sex with his slave, Sarai, to bear children.

Anonymous said...

"Please show me any culture that, historically, condones homosexuality as being normal and accepted. There isn't one. Why should we start now?"

I can name one. The Roman Empire. 'Course, that was during their slide into the abyss…

Anonymous said...

"They have firmly decided that the will of the people as codified by law and vote, … is not good enough for them."

The "will of the people" standard is actually the big problem here. Yes, many of those defending traditional marriage use this argument, but it's not good enough.

The problem with a "will of the people" argument is that its meaning shifts over time. As some of the pro-gay people have pointed out, for a while in this country, the "will of the people" was that interracial marriage was wrong.

Furthermore, the "will of the people" is shifting to favor same sex marriage. And over the last 40+ years, the "will of the people" has shifted away from treating marriage as a lifelong, sacrosanct institution to one which can be entered and disposed of at will, and that sex—which was traditionally restricted to within the bonds of marriage—is something to be freely engaged in with any two (or more) "consenting adults."

Given a "will of the people" standard, marriage is nothing more than a social construct. In the future, that social standard could easily change further to include incest, polygamy, or whatever else feels good and "doesn't harm" anyone.

But since when has truth and reality been changeable by popular vote? In some cultures they believed that the Earth rode through the universe on the back of a turtle. Did a majority vote make it actually true? No.

The traditional definition of marriage is not actually based on social preferences, it's based on observation. Only 1 man and 1 woman can produce children. And besides the obvious complementary physical differences, there are also significant psychological differences between the sexes which complement each other. (You know, as in the book title "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.") When those differences are combined in marriage, the results are far more likely to produce societies which are strong and vibrant because the worst tendencies of each sex are refined by the marriage relationship. And children raised in two parent (father and mother) homes are far more likely to be stable, productive members of society. (This has been proven by numerous studies.)

Furthermore, sociologists have studied the effects of sexual freedom on societies and discovered that when sex is strictly limited to within the bonds of marriage, those societies are far more vibrant, productive and organized than ones where sexual anarchy rules. As sociologist J. D. Unwin put it, "So close, in fact, is the relation between sexual regulations a society adopted, we can prophesy accurately the pattern of its culture."

It is the shift from basing marriage (and everything else) from observational truths to "will of the people" which is the real danger. Whether that shift occurs within the "traditional marriage" camp or otherwise is relatively immaterial.

Anonymous said...

You better ban marriage between infertile couples (or dissolve such mariages when infertilty becomes apparent), and ban marriage between couples you say they have no interest in producing children or who are clearly too old to have children.

Most child abuse cases with mistreatment and violence involve heterosexual adults usually the parents or step-parents/partners.

Oh but of course gay people can't have children so are useless to society - oh wait, some do have children from other relationships or are quite capable of being good adoptive parents - oh wait, they must be pre-judged on that as opposed to straight people who need no prejudgement on parenting even if they are single or even if they are mentally handicapped or have known genetic abnormalities (as that is their human right - but evidently gay people have no such human rights!)

Anonymous said...

Yes the culture of the roman and greek world involved adult "heterosexual" men having sexual relations with youths, male prostitutes and slaves, including some temple rites, but did not involve loving relationships between adults on equal terms. That is what the Bible/St Paul was against. Christians today seem to misunderstand that - with horrible consequences for gay men who just want to live together in a loving relationship not bothering anyone else!

Anonymous said...

That is what the Bible/St Paul was against.

You would be right except for there is no Biblical or historical support for your assertion.

Nice try though.

Anonymous said...

St Paul was familiar with the accepted roman and greek practise of otherwise heterosexual men partaking in sex with boys, slaves, male prostitutes, including temple rituals which were of course pagan to Jews like St Paul and thus an anathema. The kind of gay relationships we see today are not of course of the same kind.

Anonymous said...

Yes and St Paul also thought women should dress without finery, keep quiet, and acknowledge their husbands as head of the household; nor did he object to slavery. Yes St Paul's views on women and gays etc. sit so well with modern views of democratic equality !!!

Anonymous said...

St Paul was familiar with the accepted roman and greek practise of otherwise heterosexual men partaking in sex with boys, slaves, male prostitutes, including temple rituals which were of course pagan to Jews like St Paul and thus an anathema.

Once again, you are making a leap that is not Biblically supported. If it makes you feel better to believe that in order to somehow justify a lifestyle that is clearly condemned in the Bible, that's your choice.

We all try and justify sin on some level.

The justification doesn't change the fact that it is still sin.

Yes and St Paul also thought women should dress without finery,

Actually, Paul's admonition was not against "finery" but rather against dress that was vain. You remember vanity don't you? One of the "seven deadly sins?"

keep quiet,

Sorry, but you won't find this one anywhere in the Bible. Paul's admonition is that women should keep quiet in church - not that they should stay quiet all of the time. In fact, in Paul's writings he mentions the value of the work of women in the ministry and their value.

and acknowledge their husbands as head of the household;

That is correct. However, it is the unlearned person who takes that to mean that the man reigns over his wife. In fact, of you keep reading the passage, man is supposed to love his wife as Christ loved the church. In that Christ laid down his life for the church, and put the needs and desires of the church before his own, that is a powerful commentary on the husband's role in loving his wife.

nor did he object to slavery.

Was he ever asked to address slavery? I am familier with one passage where in dealing with the sins of mankind, he says that there is no difference between the slave and free man as they are both sinners and need of salvation. Do you disagree with that?

Anonymous said...

Wow - how you try so hard to be an apologist for Pauline bigotry/prejudice - but still do not succeed in seeing how it can equate with today's concepts of democracy - or even the Founding Fathers' of the US - that is if you happen to be a patriotic American - ??).

Oh and Paul had to be asked to address something he didn't already have an opinion about - yeah right - he was so withdrawn - get real man!

Anonymous said...

but still do not succeed in seeing how it can equate with today's concepts of democracy - or even the Founding Fathers' of the US - that is if you happen to be a patriotic American - ??).

Wow. How you try so hard to attack that which you do not understand and then expect people to agree with your ignorance.

Oh and Paul had to be asked to address something he didn't already have an opinion about - yeah right - he was so withdrawn - get real man!

I know that this is going over your head, but the fact of the matter is that you have been writing in this thread and presumably in other threads on this board. Have you ever condemned slavery here in this forum?

The fact of the matter is that we don't know Paul's opinion on slavery other than it's spiritual meanings. I am sorry that not having all of Paul's writings and all of Paul's thoughts on any subject matter isn't good enough for you. Your strawman attack on this area says more about you than it does Paul. It is also a bad attempt at deflecting from the original thread, but I suspect that is your true purpose. You certainly can't win this on the facts, so you want to keep throwing out other things that aren't relevent to the discussion.

Anonymous said...

Sorry 8:58 - I don't follow any of your attempted argumention AT ALL -re women's dress, women's freedom of speech, women's status in society, homosexuals' democratric equality under the US Constitution - All I see is a wierd attraction to an archaic, atavistic, middle-eastern, theocracy.

Anonymous said...

Lessee here.

- Ignoring the observational basis argument: Check.

- Insisting on attacking only the religious position: Check.

- Attacking a distorted version of the religious position: Check

Yep. Looks like a strawman attack to me.

Anonymous said...

"St Paul was familiar with the accepted roman and greek practise of otherwise heterosexual men partaking in sex with boys, slaves, male prostitutes, including temple rituals which were of course pagan to Jews like St Paul and thus an anathema. The kind of gay relationships we see today are not of course of the same kind."

There's only one thing in there that I can agree with: that homosexuals "getting it on" no longer uses the excuse of "religious rituals".

As for the rest, if it's actually there, then you should be able to point to chapter and verse. So where is it?

BTW… If I decide to swindle you, then you cannot get upset with me. After all (by your claim) Paul was only addressing things done by the Roman officials in 1st Corinthians. So send me $1,000 and I'll send you something REALLY special!

Or maybe I'll just break into your bank account and take it. After all, it's only wrong for Roman emperors to steal!

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1Corinthians 6:9-10 NAS95S)

Anonymous said...

Clearly you don't know your own bible or its history - you're a joke. You insert the word "homosexual" as though in the bible re the quote you give for 1.Cor.6.9-10. BUT that's not in the KJB version or any previous version. - shows how easy it is to insert your own version and prejudice into anything. In short you lie!

Anonymous said...

And what the hell are you talking about re swindling under roman law - it is you you think laws from that time are relevant today!!

Anonymous said...

BTW - the New English Bible modern translation makes the distinction in those verses re "homosexuality" by saying "homosexual perversion" - as in the distinctions I was trying to make!!

Anonymous said...

and just to pre-empt a pathetic response - there is a similar distinction between "heterosexuality" and "heterosexual perversion"!

Anonymous said...

Ooh! A Challenge! I LOVE a challenge!

You think I don't the Bible? In this case, I know the Greek the Bible was translated from. Here's 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 in Greek (transliterated to English letters):

(9)eœ ouk oidate oti adikoi basileian theou ou kleœronomeœsousin meœ planasthe oute pornoi oute eidoœlolatrai oute moichoi oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai (10) oute pleonektai oute kleptai oute methysoi ou loidoroi ouch arpages basileian theou ou kleœronomeœsousin

Notice that the last word right before verse 10 begins is arsenokoitai ( αρσενοκοιται ). It's formed from two words, "arsen" which means "a male" and "koite" which means "a bed". Literally translated, it means "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite". (From Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

Therefore, homosexuals is the correct translation.

Of course, there is also a very good reason why the King James Version (translation completed in 1611) did not use "homosexuals" to translate this word. The word did not even exist until around 1892:

"1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex).

The noun is first recorded 1912 in Eng., 1907 in French. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. The alternative homophile (1960) was coined in ref. to the homosexual regarded as a person of a particular social group, rather than a sexual abnormality. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969."


It's pretty darn hard to use a word which won't exist for another 250 years. So the translators had to be descriptive without being overly graphic. Their choice, "nor abusers of themselves with mankind," while clearly more vague than both "homosexual" and the original word αρσενοκοιται, still reflects the actual meaning of those words.

Finally, the New King James Version is simply an update to the original King James Version. They used the exact same set of source manuscripts as the original KJV (called the Textus Receptus) and worked to keep the same style. But they used modern English instead of 1611 English. They also took advantage of additional research into the meanings of words in the original languages. The New King James Version also used "homosexuals" to translate "arsenokoitai", showing that it was there when the scholars in 1611 did their work.

Anonymous said...

"it is you you think laws from that time are relevant today!!"

If you don't think the Bible is relevant, then why did you bring it up? And why aren't you discussing the observational model I brought up?

If you think that the Bible is relevant, just misunderstood, then the rule you use to "correct the misunderstanding" must also be applied to every other sin listed with homosexual behavior.

In other words, either the Bible condemns homosexual behavior for everyone at any time, or the same rule of interpretation which allows homosexual behavior also allows other actions which you consider wrong.

Anonymous said...

"You better ban marriage between infertile couples (or dissolve such mariages when infertilty becomes apparent), and ban marriage between couples you say they have no interest in producing children or who are clearly too old to have children. "

What kind of logic is that?

First of all, did you miss the part about marriage between the two sexes smoothing off the rough edges off of each gender's worst tendencies? Even if no children are produced by such a marriage, there is still a net benefit to society caused by women domesticating men and men domesticating women.

Secondly, your "standards" are impossible to attain. Even with modern medical tests, it's impossible to always determine if partners will successfully be able to have children. And couples who intend to have children may find themselves in circumstances where it becomes impossible. And couples who initially don't want to have children could easily change their mind or wind up having children anyway.

The goal here is not to guarantee children in every single marriage. It's to create an environment where society has the best opportunity to be strong and vital, with the fewest number of inherent problems. The stable family produced by traditional marriage (with or without children) has been shown to accomplish this goal, while same sex marriage does not.

"Most child abuse cases with mistreatment and violence involve heterosexual adults usually the parents or step-parents/partners."

Well, duh! Since same sex couples cannot produce their own children, I would be shocked if the total number of children in same sex households exceeds just the number of abused children living with both their parents.

The more important question is what are the percentages? Are children in same sex households more or less likely (that's a percentage) to be abused by their parents/guardians? Where are your numbers?

Another important categorical question where you just smashed the categories together is this: Are children living with both biological parents more or less likely to be abused than children living with just one parent or someone who is not their parent. I would be willing to bet that children living with both biological parents are far less likely to be abused than children living with a stepmother/stepfather, and especially a live in boyfriend/girlfriend. Since we are discussing marriage here, this is a point you may not ignore.

Again, where are your numbers?

"Oh but of course gay people can't have children so are useless to society - oh wait, some do have children from other relationships or are quite capable of being good adoptive parents - oh wait, they must be pre-judged on that as opposed to straight people who need no prejudgement on parenting even if they are single or even if they are mentally handicapped or have known genetic abnormalities (as that is their human right - but evidently gay people have no such human rights!)"

There are two issues here mixed into one paragraph.

First, this is a strawman argument because my argument did not require the production of children for a marriage to be successful. I also did not suggest unrestricted adoption (as you presume) based solely on same sex/non-same sax criteria; especially since it's obvious that there is other critical criteria involved. Can you get past your strawmen and try your skills with the real thing?

Second, we already have plenty of studies which prove children are most likely to do best when they're raised in a home containing both a mother and father. Therefore, children being adopted should be sent to such homes first. Given that there are currently far more couples looking to adopt children than there are children available for adoption, that's about as far as we need to go.

Anonymous said...

Sorry 8:58 - I don't follow any of your attempted argumention AT ALL

Of course you don't follow it because you are trying to argue something that is not there.

-re women's dress,

Paul's admonition was not against women's dress. but rather a reminder that women should dress modestly.

women's freedom of speech,

We've covered this. Paul does not try to limit women's freedom of speech or freedom of thought.

women's status in society,

Please point to the section in the Bilbe that says "women's status in society."

homosexuals' democratric equality under the US Constitution -

Homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else does. They have the same rights to vote, the same rights freedom of speech, etc. They even have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else does. No distinction at all.

All I see is a wierd attraction to an archaic, atavistic, middle-eastern, theocracy.

And all I see from you is intellectual dishonesty wrapped in ignorance.

Have a nice life.

Anonymous said...

Your last remark is exactly what I would address to you after that long-winded obfuscating woffle!

Anonymous said...

You may be content with a law that prevents two adults from marrying because one is the wrong gender as though sex and gender are all that matters in a loving relationship. You may justify it on the grounds of what St Paul said, though he wasn't Jesus and Jesus said nothing about 'men lying with men', and if it was so important why didn't he? You may say - oh well Jesus acknowledged Jewish OT laws, however he also criticized them eg. when he was accused of doing "work" on the Sabbath and came with the famous repost - "the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath". You may think that Jewish and Pauline opinions are relevant in a 21st century democracy. However not everyone agrees, so I respectfully beg to differ on a lot of your stated opinions and concocted justifications based on your religion - and that you could no doubt justify almost anything if it seemed to be condoned in the Bible as I do realize you would be lost without this crutch.

Anonymous said...

You just can't let go of your straw man, can you? If you ever get tired of playing with your straw dollies back in the kindergarten room, feel free to join us out here in the real world and address the actual arguments made.

Anonymous said...

Man - you simply voice the same words I could so easily address to you - except don't speak for everyone with your "join us" even if this site does seem dominated by your kind of Christianized right-wingers who think it's satisfying to hear their own echo all the time rather than hear any kind of opposing view - So Happy New Year to listening to yourselves drone on!

Anonymous said...

I think alot of people were so shocked that the MAJORITY of the voters in the Republic of California, of all places, said no to the Gay Marriage thing. They never thought THAT would happen and now they are peeved about it.

So... they need to find a villain to make it look like it actually wasn't what it was - the majority of the people in the state did NOT want it.

Anonymous said...

You may think that Jewish and Pauline opinions are relevant in a 21st century democracy. However not everyone agrees, so I respectfully beg to differ on a lot of your stated opinions and concocted justifications based on your religion - and that you could no doubt justify almost anything if it seemed to be condoned in the Bible as I do realize you would be lost without this crutch.

I've read the comments in this thread, and Ed began with an argument that in no way included the Bible.

So, if you don't like including the Bible, then why don't you answer those arguments that didn't have anything to do with the bible, rather than complaining about the one that do?

Anonymous said...

The majority of the Republic of California voted ....you mean rather like the majorty in Germany once voted for Hitler - the majority is always right - might is right (?)

Anonymous said...

"Man - you simply voice the same words I could so easily address to you"

Really? Ooookkkkaaaayyyy.

Do you know what a straw man fallacy is? Here is part of how Wikipedia describes it:

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

"While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

The term is derived from the practice in ages past of using human-shaped straw dummies in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy, sometimes dressed in an enemy uniform or decorated in some way to vaguely resemble them. A trainee then attacks the dummy with a weapon such as a sword, club, bow or musket. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is therefore not a realistic test of skill compared to a live and armed opponent."


I've already pointed out how you have misrepresented my position, and by including "Christianized " in your latest response, you've shown that you're still holding on to your falsified version of my position.

If you think I've actually committed a straw man fallacy, then please point it out so I can correct it.

So until you address my actual argument, I'll just leave you with this quote from Wikipedia once more with feeling:

"While a straw man argument may work as a rhetorical technique—and succeed in persuading people—it carries little or no real evidential weight, since the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."