As Matt once commented, “Christians should be very concerned with people who will sell out their commitment to liberty before they would side with a Christian [or a moral viewpoint typically ascribed to a Christian]. Such people cannot be relied upon to defend my rights at all.”
Matt was alluding to the so called principled liberals whose principles dissipate the minute they encounter someone who shares most of their views but whose moral code differs from the narrow point of view they define their liberality by.
If you ask them to defend their views and offer a critique they cannot. I doubt they know why they hold their views they just know they are supposed to so they just repeat their mantra.
Their blind adherence to the “correct” moral views are not based on principle or reason, if you point out a flaw in an argument for one of their sacred cows they intolerantly froth and deem you to not be a member of the club. They will jump on the “correct” side regardless of whether the arguments used are sound.
This bigoted intolerance from the right is not completely reserved for Christians; anyone secular daring to voice a flaw in an argument advanced by the sacred cows of the-state-must-endorse-gays-movement is also slammed as illiberal.
Look at all the fuss and bother over David Garrett's comments on paedophilia [note the comments were NOT on homosexuality, learn the difference between an analogy and an identity claim]. In Real Bigotry Versus Mere Opinion Blair Mulholland notes:
Consider Lucyna's argument in Finding Socialists in the Darndest Places, she cites Lindsay Mitchell's argument that one spots a socialist by their walk, not their talk or the ribbons they wave.Today's Herald has two separate stories dealing, in a roundabout way, with the issue of homosexuality.
In one, we have an elected official actively condoning violence because some of his constituents regard having their town labeled a "gay capital" as an insult.
In the other, we have a barrister, who was not an elected official at the time, pointing out that, in his view, both homosexuality and paedophilia are unchangeable psychological phenomena.
Guess which elected official has had their head called for?
Seriously, this is bullsh*t. The blogosphere, and I am looking at you too David Farrar, needs to get their priorities straight... so to speak. A small town Mayor says it's allright to give Jeremy Wells the bash for a comedy piece he did ten years ago and we shrug our shoulders. A new MP makes a crude observation about human behaviour and the crowd demands crucifixion.
It's not acceptable.
Want proof of how support for homosexuality turns liberals into lefties?
Compare Blair Mulholland, who says he is "more attuned with the Libertarianz" than ACT's, endorsement for Wellington Central with Cactus Kate's, one of the last, self-proclaimed, bastions of complete right-wing bias, hero worshipper of ACT's Rodney Hide.
Blair's endorsement:
Stephen Franks was worth about ten regular National MPs when he was last in parliament, so if you put him in their caucus he will kick some arse. My wholehearted endorsement for the National candidate here.Cactus Kate's are here, here and here:
Grant, You are the only Labour candidate I am endorsing at this electionand:
For the benefit of our overseas readers, Grant Robertson was the Labour (left-wing) candidate and Stephen Franks was the National (right-wing) candidate in the Wellington Central electorate in the recent NZ election.With great humour I see all the National Party candidates are now MP's and yet none of the Labour candidates made it through. Oh dear. Crying a river. With
such a vicious swing Nationwide to National that result was a fait accompli.Well done Sam, Aaron, Simon and Nikki. I hope all your dreams come true. And Grant Robertson who managed despite this massive swing to Toryism, to upset
Stephen Franks in Wellington Central. Brought a wee glow to the cheeks.
Robertson is a unionist and state services flunky from way back; a hard-core left wing activist. As an example of what I mean, when he was National President of NZUSA he organised an activist training conference and invited and sponsored a speaker who advocated vigilante assaults on the private property of those they disagreed with.
Franks is a former ACT Party MP (more right-wing than National), is a Classical Liberal, has years of experience as a lawyer working in NZ’s top law firms, is considered across the political spectrum as being one of the sharpest, most competent and most ethical MP’s in recent times. Franks is secular and, from conversations I have had with him, does not share my view that homosexual conduct is immoral or that abortion, far from being liberal, is homicide.
So, I ask you, why would the uber-right wing Cactus Kate be pleased to see Robertson trump Franks? I asked her that and as yet she has not answered. As she moderates her comments, she has seen my questions, so I must assume the silence is deliberate.
I speculate, with good reason, that the answer is Robertson is gay and that to the socialist-liberal being gay forgives every other flaw; especially when Franks, during the NZ debate to have the state endorse gay relationships through the passage of the Civil Unions Act, made some critical observations on some of the reasons advanced by the defenders of the Bill.
This of course renders Franks a homophobic hate-filled conservative (liberals by definition are pro-everything gay, no matter how inconsistent it renders them and will turn and blacklist their own in heartbeat at the first sign of a betrayal) and elevates the statist Robertson to the position of the better candidate. [I am reminded here of Matt’s blog: Bigotry as Tolerance: Homophobia as Orwellian Double Speak.]
Right-wing socialists loudly claim to be principled yet to avoid being associated with a perceived affront to their moral values they would sell their freedom on the basis of knee-jerk ignorance, straw-men and stereotypes.
So now I turn to Glenn's latest offering where he suggests that the state has no role to play in endorsing any relationships. Something liberals have always claimed on every other, non-homosexual, issue. This is a concept I endorse accross the board. Marriage existed for centuries without the help of the state. State endorsed marriage is a fairly recent phenomena.
Extract from: Homosexuality and Socialism?
It might seem like a very odd connection until you consider… well, actually no matter what you consider it still seems like an odd connection, but in the recent song and dance about Proposition 8 in California, that very odd connect has been reinforced yet again. I’m sure that there are plenty of homosexual people who don’t choose to identify as socialist, so don’t take me to be saying that they all do. But when it comes to the public scrap about marriage, for some of them the red comes to the surface quicker than you can drop a hat.
As evidenced here, here, here, here and in many many other places, some outspoken homosexuals actually believe the following slogan:
Marriage is a civil right.Now let me very clear what’s being said here. They’re not saying that they have the right to live together as a couple. They already have that right in California, and it was not under threat. They mean legal marriage, and I don’t mean a relationship that is legally permitted (again, they already have this, which is why Keith Olbermann is lying in the second link above when he says that all homosexuals in California who opposed proposition 8 want is the ability to be “a little less alone in the world” by having a relationship”), I mean a relationship that is created by law. What they are actually saying is this:
I have a basic right for the government to create a type of legal relationship and to confer upon my relationship the status of being one of those relationships.Excuse me? There exists no such civil right, for anyone - homosexual, heterosexual…. or otherwise! What kind of nannyish rubbish is this? The government does currently create such a relationship and confer upon many heterosexual relationships the status of being one of those relationships (and it refuses to do so for others - e.g. close relatives, relationships with more than two people etc, which is why Representative Anthony D. Weiner is lying in the third link above when he says “We are not going to rest at night until every citizen in every state in this country can say, ‘This is the person I love,’ and take their hand in marriage”). It’s like thinking that the right to bear arms means that you have the right to arms, that is, the government has the duty to buy you a gun!
If I stood up in public and said that my wife and I had a civil right to a free house from the government, what would you say? And how crazy do you think I would look if I went further and said that if the government did not provide one then it was somehow displaying hatred or contempt for me or for my relationship?
I’m a conservative Christian, and I take very seriously the teaching of the Bible. So if you tell me that I have no choice and I must accept the fact that all marriages must be state-endorsed, then obviously I’m going to think in terms of my traditional understanding of marriage, since I don’t want the government creating and then endorsing things that are immoral. We’re going to clash and war over that. But here’s a radical thought: If you want to get married then get married, and let’s not let the government have a part of it at all!
But what about incest, polygamy etc? Well firstly, people in the USA are already legally permitted to have sexual relations with multiple people and commit adultery. If you think that’s so horrific, then support a law banning it. And incest is already illegal, so the question of incestuous marriage isn’t an issue. The act is banned. Let’s just say that anyone can get married, as long as they don’t commit any acts that are themselves illegal (like incest or marrying a minor or any other illegal sexual practices). Enter into whatever property contracts you like, regardless of sexuality.
Issues of sexual practices are determined on their own (e.g. the notorious “anti-sodomy law” issue in Texas). But the suggestion that you have a civil right for the government to come into your bedroom and give you a nice certificate and pat your relationship on the back (so to speak)…. Please don’t do that to my language. “Rights” are important things, and you’re dragging that word through the mud when you use it like that.
(This is to say nothing of the misleading claim that currently, different individuals have different rights based on their sexuality. They don’t. No individual is excluded from getting married in California based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. That’s why emotive comparisons to interracial marriage being banned just have no substance.)
Very interesting post. I was with you up until you said:
ReplyDelete"So now I turn to Glenn's latest offering where he suggests that the state has no role to play in endorsing any relationships. Something liberals have always claimed on every other, non-homosexual, issue. This is a concept I endorse accross the board. Marriage existed for centuries without the help of the state. State endorsed marriage is a fairly recent phenomena."
My position on marriage and the state is that marriage should be recognised by the state rather than endorsed. Our civilisation is founded upon Judeo/Christian cultural values allow for marriage between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. The state's role is to recognise that marriage and to act in such a way as to put into place laws that do not undermine it. So as marriage supercedes the state - all the state can do is recognise it - it does not have the right to redefine it.
Unfortunately culture has moved on from this ideal and this battle is already lost. We still fight on, of course, hoping that people wake from their collective amnesia, but unless there is a miracle it's all in vain, really.
Well, not totally in vain, but that's outside the scope of this comment.
Of course there is no 'right to marry'. The relevant right is the right not to be discriminated against by the state on the grounds of the gender of one's preferred partner.
ReplyDeleteI think the people you quoted are making the argument that there is currently a legal (but not necessarily moral) right of opposite sex couples to marry, therefore if the non-discrimination right above does exist, there should also be a legal right of same sex couples to marry.
To refute this, you have to refute the existence of the non-discrimination right. This may be possible but will be more difficult than what you actually did.
Lucyna how would you characterise the difference between endorsing and recognising in such a way that the state could do the latter and not the former without stepping outside its jurisdiction?
ReplyDeleteThe difference being that gay's can give consent, and children (or dogs in Stephen Franks case) cannot. Sorry if i missed that in the post somewhere, i'm in rather a hurry! (will be checking back to read more though cheers!)
ReplyDeleteHi Nigel
ReplyDeleteYou make some astute points. Let me make three responses in defence of Madeleine.
1. The argument you make also seems to me clearly flawed. If I understand you correctly your suggesting that although there is no right to X ( in this instance X is a state solemnised marriage) neither the less justice demands the state give people X because, (i) some people have been granted it and (ii) there exists non discrimination rights.Now I take it that a believer in non-discrimination rights would believe that the state should not discriminate against a person on the basis of political affiliation. By your reasoning then, if a Labour government started turning a blind eye to violations of the law by prominent supporters of Labour (and hence granting them a benefit they had no right to)then, the just thing to do would be extend this benefit to all national, act, greens, nz first etc supporters and let prominent supporters of every political party disobey the law.
Or similarly if Helen Clark decided to give a million dollars of tax payer money to one of her supporters, it would follow that right wing liberals should then campaign for everyone to be given a million dollars from the public purse.
2. I think that (ii) is false. There are no non discrimination rights. (I would recommend the article by Jan Narveson’s article “Have we a Right to Non Discrimination” available online at http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=a6hBXZOepB4C&pg=PR5&lpg=PR5&dq=Narveson%2BNon+Discrimination&source=bl&ots=mbKGIOXP8E&sig=wSkB9CJ4KwLjlCNVHAYagmPCSUU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA203,M1. Narveson is an atheist liberal btw). While I don’t have the space to argue it here it seems to me that while there are clear cases of discrimination that are wrong, theses cases are not wrong because of the discrimination but rather for some other reason.
Take the extreme case of racist lynching’s or Gay bashings, these actions are wrong because they are murders and assaults not because they are discriminatory. If it’s the discrimination that makes them wrong then one could rectify the problem by allowing people to lynch whites or by beating up heterosexuals, but clearly this is absurd, this makes things worse not better.
3. I am inclined to think your comments actually confirm Madeleine’s point, because you are suggesting homosexual marriage on the grounds that people should be granted some form of assistance or benefit from the state which they not entitled to and have no right to because doing so advances equality. That sound exactly like the kind of left wing line that right wing liberals usually reject. I thought for right wingers, liberty and a limited government were defended against equalitarian justifications of state expansion. Apparently not however when the issue is homosexual conduct.
Hi Anon
ReplyDeleteYou note that “gay's can give consent, and children (or dogs in Stephen Franks case) cannot.” This is true but it misses the point. Because, as Madeleine pointed out the people in question were not saying that homosexual conduct and Paedophilla ( or bestiality) are similar in "all" respects, but only interims of the specific properties mentioned in specific contexts.
In the first case, the point being made was that peadophilla was like homosexuality *in that* people have a disposition which is not easily changed. It was not being claimed that it was similar in any other respect. And it seems to be that this far from being ridiculous this claim is probably true. As far as I know paedophiles have a high recidivism rate and attempts to get homosexuals to change fail in a large proportion of cases. Of course if the Garret had suggested that the two phenomena were similar in other respects then what he said may well be false ( depending on the respects referred to) but he did not, and its dishonest to claim or react as though he did.
This does not show homosexual conduct is immoral ( nor was Garret suggesting this as far as I can tell) it does however show that one particular argument for homosexual conducts permissibility fails. The argument (made by people such as Richard Mohr) that homosexual conduct is permissible because homosexual people find it difficult to refrain from such behaviour. Other arguments may or may not be successful but this one clearly is not because the property it ( i.e this particular argument) appeals to justify homosexual conduct is also present in paedophiles.
In Frank’s case, as I pointed out his comments were again made in a specific context to rebut a specific argument. This was the argument that: all that matters in considering whether a relationship should be recognised by the state is that the parties love each other. Now Franks points out that *this particular argument* entails that people can marry their dogs because masters and pets clearly love each other.
Your response actually underscores Frank’s point, obviously other things are needed apart from love, such as consent, and ( if one wants to rule out incest and polygamy) absence of blood relationships and numbers of parties etc. But if this is true then love is *not* all that matters, and any argument that claims it is, is false.
Moreover as I have pointed out in previous posts the appeal to consent does not solve these problems because there are examples available where consent is present and yet we would not want the state to recognise the relationship. Take for example consider Frank Beckwith’s example of a “union of a father and four of his adult children (two daughters and two sons), who make their living producing and selling pornographic films of their group sexual encounters.” this is clearly a consensual relationship. Or consider the example of Beloitti of a person whose will contains a clause stipulating that “anyone wishing to use [his] corpse for sexual purposes between the hours of 7-9 p.m. on Thursdays at the Greenmont Cemetery may do so” this would make necrophilia consensual. Strangely however for all the talk of "its done between consenting adults" no one is rushing to demand the legitimisation and state recognition of these sorts of relationships.
... how would you characterise the difference between endorsing and recognising in such a way that the state could do the latter and not the former without stepping outside its jurisdiction?
ReplyDeleteThe only way you could do it is to have a written constitution that very clearly defines the limits of the state. As NZ doesn't have a constitution, doing this would of course become a major problem because of the confusion prevalent in society today as to what marriage is and why it exists.
Matt, I don't accept your counterexample. If the non-discrimination right does exist then:
ReplyDelete1. If opposite sex couples are entitled to a state sanctioned marriage then so are same sex couples.
2. If Labour can get away with corrupt behaviour then National should too.
3. If whites are allowed to lynch blacks then blacks should be allowed to lynch whites.
The first example is mine and the next two are adaptations of yours. All three are equally valid, but the difference is that mine has a premise that is much less objectionable than yours.
The fact that an argument reaches an objectionable conclusion when starting from an objectionable premise is no indication that the argument itself is flawed.
I still say that you have to reject one of the following:
1. The non-discrimination right
2. The existence of state sanctioned marriage at all
3. Restricting state sanctioned marriage to opposite sex couples
Nigel, Matt's three examples show you why you should reject the non-discrimination principle.
ReplyDeleteAlarmingly, you say that all three examples are valid. This means you think that a political party should get away with something just because another party did. Does that not strike you as wrong at all?
The point of eamples like these are to shopw the absurd conclusions that the non-discrimination principle leads to.
Sorry, that was carelessness on my part but does not affect the conclusion. The second one should have been:
ReplyDeleteIf it is right for Labour to get away with corrupt behaviour then it is right that National should too.
This is undoubtedly valid though of course both parts are false.
Rather like:
If Winston Peters is a goat then Winston Peters has four legs.
Absolutely valid because the premise implies the conclusion, though obviously the premise is false.
The absurdity comes from the examples Matt chose, not from the application of the non-discrimination principle.
Hi Nigel
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your reply,
You write
“ If the non-discrimination right does exist then:
1 If opposite sex couples are entitled to a state sanctioned marriage then so are same sex couples.”
Now 1. Affirms a conditional statement it says *if* opposite sex couples have are have a right to a state sanctioned marriage then same sex couples do. The problem is in your original post you denied that opposite sex couples had this right. You state “Of course there is no 'right to marry'.” Moreover, you are not alone in affirming this, typically right wing liberal’s philosophy commits them to denying that such a right exists. Liberals typically believe that the state exists only to secure peoples rights to life liberty and property and its illegitimate for the state to provide special services or benefits beyond this.
Hence again I am inclined to think your comments confirm Madeleine’s point. If a non discrimination right exists ( which I denied) it does not entail that same sex marriage is just, it entails this only if you also affirm that there is a right to a state sanctioned marriage and this is precisely what you and other liberals deny.
It seems to me that if marriage is a heterosexual institution, then discrimination is just. But if marriage is not a heterosexual institution, then discrimination is unjust. Thus, the issue of discrimination is not what is doing the work. What is doing the work is the nature of marriage. This means that the question of what is the nature of marriage is logically prior to the question of discrimination.
ReplyDeleteLet's use the race analogy. In places that forbade interracial marriage they did so because they thought that the mixing of the races was wrong, which meant that they did not deny that interracial couples could marry (ontologically). They just didn't want it to happen. Those that supported the overturning of these laws argued that because marriage is a union between one man and one woman race is irrelevant. So, in this case, the nature of marriage is what exposed the irrationality of the race prohibition.
Nigel, you seem to think ti is obviously false that political parties can get away with corruption. I happen to think it's obviously false that they CAN'T get away with it.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact (and it is a fact) that one party gets away with it does not mean that we should allow the other party to.
The analogy, of course, assumes that there should be no state created marriages. But it is hardly flawed for any reason that you've suggested (e.g. the comparison to the statement about Winston Peters being a goat). It's more like a speeding driver complaining "but the driver behind me was speeding, and you didn't stop HIM!" The police officer is correct to reply "but that doesn't mean I should not have stopped you."
However, if we assume that there is nothing wrong with state sanctioned marriage, I see nothing wrong with discrimination. Now does the homosexual, for that matter, unless he believes that two brothers should be allowed to marry (or three sisters, or a man and his daughter etc). It's discrimination, plain and simple. So when people tell em that they want same sex marriage to be legal because they oppose discrimination, they simply aren't telling the truth. What they genuinely want is a re-identification of marriage. Why they don't generally want to frame their cause that way is beyond me.
Francis are you the same "Beckwith" that Matt quotes from in Is Abortion Liberal? Part 2 and references in Sentience Part 1?
ReplyDeleteWhilst I would love to see New Zealand have a constitution I cannot see it happening. To get one in place that was meaningful would require double entrenchment and I cannot see 75% of MP's agreeing in our parliament anytime soon. Further, if they did what they agreed to would be so weak and PC it would be meaningless.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm advocate of the institute of marriage but like many of the things I endorse I think they are stronger when they dominate through example and positive impact on the culture; involving the state weakens them.
As I argued, marriage thrived and made positive contributions to societies for centuries as a common law concept. Marriage in Biblical times and through the early church did not function with state licences. The contract of marriage was still upheld by the judiciary, society and the church and it thrived.
When I examine the Bible looking at the role of the state I see only law, order, justice and defence, the picture looks closest to that of libertarianism or classical liberal theory, I do not see a case for the state to be involved in marriage.
Scalia, yes, the Francis J Beckwith above is the same Beckwith Matt quotes from.
ReplyDeleteNice to see you Frank, my commiserations on your new President, good news on Proposition 8! Say hi to Frankie :-)
Matt is away til tomorrow afternoon but was most appreciative when I told him you had stopped by.
If I haven't replied it's probably because I couldn't be bothered as I was too busy doing other more important things, like working or drinking good champagne. Now I am on holiday I have time to.
ReplyDeleteMy objection to Stephen Franks is obvious. In my opinion despite the fact he's probably a very good lawyer he's a religious flunky lifestyle-bigot who didn't work that hard to get into ACT, tried to run for leadership, splitting the Party and had the Tory "born to rule" arrogance that the National Party in the Muldoon era.
Ironically the Nats didn't think much of him when he party swapped either and shoved him into Party List oblivion. So there's plenty on the centre-right who obviously share my opinion.
Some politicos think he is marvellous. I am not one of them. It's got nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. I don't have to support every so called "right wing" candidate or faction. He probably doesn't think much of me either and I couldn't care less.
He was a terrible candidate for Wellington Central, a Liberal electorate.
As for Grant Robertson, I don't know him myself but I enjoyed how he campaigned to beat Franks. I think Franks comments on the "dog" issue was appalling. I don't have any issue with Grant's homosexuality and remember of course religious pro-family bigots have an issue with my lifestyle. I am sure Grant doesn't care if I shag married men as much as I don't care if his Partner is a bloke.
That Franks is "right wing" will always be overshadowed by his stupid comments against homosexuality. Therefore he will be ineffective in promoting important issues such as low flat tax and small government.
All Robertson has to do is play back that "dog" You tube.
Cactus Kate wrote: "That Franks is "right wing" will always be overshadowed by his stupid comments against homosexuality."
ReplyDeletePrecisely my point. You would rather support a socialist and sell out your commitment to liberty than side with someone who, like you, couldn't care less that Robertson's partner is a bloke, merely because he made valid criticisms of the flawed arguments advanced by the gay lobby.
I note you throw the word bigot around a lot.
A bigot is obstinate in his or her beliefs and intolerant of others.
You made a blanket accusation against all who can mount some criticism of the moral stance you hold dear, calling such people bigots. This suggests that such people believe obstinately, that is, continue to hold their beliefs despite compelling evidence to the contrary.
Where is this compelling evidence? I am yet to hear you offer any.
(By the way Kate stating it, isn't evidence, neither is calling people names.)
As for the dog argument, read our point by point critique of Robertson's video Fisking Grant Robertson.
If love was all that mattered then anything would go.
Franks' argument followed.
Boo, hiss, shame, stating his argument was stupid does not.
As for pointing to the fact there are other people within ACT and National who cannot spot a flawed argument, I am not sure how that helps you. Socialism is also widely held.
You must live in a nice bubble Madeleine. Well done I now have precisely no idea now what you are arguing about.
ReplyDeleteMay you and Matt be happy in that bubble together.
I suggest you invite others to join and charge a toll at the entrance.
David Koresh was very successful with such a concept.
Translated: you have no argument; keep insulting people and blindly stick to your own position (which you have no idea why you hold).
ReplyDeleteFranks is bad because he allegedly compared gays to dogs (which he didn't) but it’s perfectly ok to compare Christians to David Koresh, a child molester.
Who was it who lives in a bubble with a different set of rules to those you preach?
C'mon Kate, you can do better than that.
ReplyDeleteOh dear, I've only just recently visited this blog for the first time. That Cactus Kate character sure is long on wind and short on sustance. . . . I guess that's the way to attract attention to oneself in a controversy craving culture. . .
ReplyDeleteMadeleine
ReplyDeleteI have already explained my objections to Franks elsewhere and above in relation to his political history and behaviour in ACT. Unlike other posts on this blog that you seem to produce I don't need 5000 more words of muddled religious based nonsense to explain my position and call it an "argument".
Franks did of course if I remember correctly, do free legal work for you in obtaining a settlement with a newspaper so of course you think he's fabulous and won't let a bad word be said about him.
A little disclosure wouldn't go a miss.
You are free to believe in "fairies at the bottom of the garden", but don't be surprised or offended when others don't share your faith.
Hi Kate
ReplyDeleteStill no actual response I see. Instead you (a) point out some personal history between Madeleine and Frank’s (b) call my writings a tirade of names. (c) *assert* that our beliefs are on par with belief in fairies.
None of this actually provides a reason for any conclusion you have made.
Thanks for further confirming what Madeleine and I have been saying on this blog.
Matt
Still confused I see Cactus Kate.
ReplyDeleteLook, you endorsed a socialist over a liberal because he pointed out logical flaws in the reasoning advanced by gay activists and because he resembled one of your past boyfriends and because you were annoyed that he made a bid for ACT leadership, only Rodney was allowed to do that.
As argued above, the reasons you offered on the homophobic charge, that I linked to, were flawed. If you have posted a sound case elsewhere please feel free to post the url and I will concede my point.
The fact you cannot see the logical flaw; that you describe the reasoning advanced on this blog as "muddled religious based nonsense" and will not engage with an argument is telling.
Further, your psycho-analysis is off. I alluded to the fact that Franks is not a stranger to me in the post above, there is your disclosure. In addition, it is both common blogosphere knowledge and widely known in the political circles you and I associate in that Franks advised me over Pete Hodgson's affront to my civil liberties, that he took my case against the Christchurch Press pro bono, not free, and that he, Trevor, Matt and I co-authored an ACT pamphlet for the 2005 election.
So what? My defence of a given argument is based on its merit. If my friends are wrong or my opponents are right I happily say so. There is nothing personal in my support or my criticism; I'd happily have a glass of Dom and a laugh with you about this exchange any day of the week because my liberality is philosophically based. The whole point of this post was to challenge those for whom it is not to recheck their premises.
Liberal bigotry towards Christians and ill-informed assumptions about what Christians believe and the basis for their beliefs are creating unnecessary divisions in the right.
Matt and Madeleine
ReplyDelete"1. Madeleine voted for the Alliance the first time she voted because she liked their tax policy".
I rest my case. There's no point in arguing with anyone who displays and then publicly publishes that sort of logic.
LOL! You have got me there - alas there is no defence for voting Alliance.
ReplyDeleteIn my defence I grew up spending election campaigns waving green and yellow ribbons and working in Uncle Gary's returning offices and with my father, other uncle and grandfather being arrested for protesting the arrival of nuclear ships in Auckland's harbours and attending nuclear free marches.
I must also point out that it was for only one election I suffered this affliction as I encountered people whose arguments made me see what I had assumed previously.
I will throw one retort - at least I did not vote for the Alliance because I thought Jim Anderton was hot.