Religion & Law

I thought that you and Robby had arrived at common ground, agreed to move on, and leave readers to decide for themselves whether either or both of you had engaged in caricature or personal insult.  But, now you continue with "as I explained, that 'equivalent to racists' construal of my post was a misconstrual.  I can't tell  ... whether Robby still adheres to that 'equivalent to racists' misconstrual of my Christmas Eve post."

I can't speak for Robby, but speaking for myself, I take you at your word that you did not mean to equate those who embrace traditional sexual ethics with racists.  But, that doesn't get you off the hook since you are responsible for the words you use. 

In your Christmas Eve post you said:  "Black bonding sexually with white?  Yuk!  Female bonding sexually with female?  Or male with male?  Yuk squared!" in the context of your psychosexual analysis of those with "profound aversion" to "unfamiliar modes of human sexuality."  How else can this language be construed except as inferring that those who embrace traditional sexual ethics are "equivalent to racists"?  At the very least, a reasonable reader could construe your words this way. 

Since you didn't mean for your words to be construed this way, could you do us the favor of publicly expressing regret over your poor word choice?