Lately I have been thinking I must write a post about the sacred cow of homosexuality and how it can turn the most ardent liberal into a lefty. I am not the only person to have noticed this phenomena.

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:

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.

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.

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 election

and:

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.

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.

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.)

Here is a common argument for gay marriage that I have heard multiple times.

[1] Justice requires that all people be treated equally by the state.
[2] Homosexuals are people.
[3] The marriage act does not treat homosexuals
equally to heterosexuals unless it is amended to allow for Gay marriage,

Therefore

[4] Justice requires that the marriage act should be amended to allow for Gay
marriage.

This argument is formally valid. If its premises are true, the conclusion follows. However, with the exception of premise [2] every premise is false which means it is unsound.

Re [1] It is not true that justice requires that the state treat all people equally. Consider a person guilty of a crime. A person guilty of a crime is a person yet clearly justice does not require that the state treat the guilty the same way it treats the innocent. Criminals are deprived of their liberty rights (they are incarcerated), their property rights (fined) or in some cases their life (capital punishment) those who do not engage in crimes are not deprived of these things.

I am not trying to say that gay people are on par with criminals, I am making the point that the state does not in fact treat all people equally.

Further, justice does not require that all people be treated equally. The classical definition of justice is to "render to each what is his due." As Wolterstorff notes in God, Justice and Duty:

[In some contexts] that which is due to them is some ‘evil’ in the other cases ... that which is due them is some life-good. If it is a life-good that is due them, then what is
due them is what they have a right to, what they are entitled to. If it is an "evil," what is due them is their desert.

To make the case, the defender of homosexual marriage needs to supplement [1] with two further arguments (i) that those who engage in homosexual relationships have not done anything wrong which would deserve them being treated differently; and, (ii) a state sanctioned marriage is a right. Simply, citing dubious claims about equality does neither.

I don’t think either claim is plausible: regarding (i), it is seriously immoral to have sex with a member of the same sex, consequently a person who enters into a Gay marriage is in fact taking a vow expressing commitment to a life of immoral activity.

Re (ii), the state’s function is to defend the innocent against aggression and to punish those who commit crimes. Performing marriage ceremonies constitutes neither.

Re [3] the marriage act does not treat homosexual persons differently to heterosexual persons. Under the marriage act a heterosexual person can: (a) enter into a informal marriage (de facto) with any number of people of either sex providing it is consensual and the person is not a close relative, (b) have a private ceremony to recognise, celebrate or solemnise any such marriage, (c) have the state solemnise and recognise a formal marriage with one member of the opposition sex provided it is consensual and not with a close relative.

Similarly a homosexual person can (a) enter into a informal marriage (de facto) with any number of people of either sex providing it is consensual and the person is not a close relative, (b) have a private ceremony to recognise, celebrate or solemnise any such marriage, (c) have the state solemnise and recognise a formal marriage with one member of the opposition sex provided it is consensual and not with a close relative.

So the marriage act grants identical rights to homosexuals and heterosexual persons. What the act does is discriminate against certain sexual relationships. However, the principle expounded in [1] is that all people should be treated equally, not, that all sexual relationships should be treated equally.

Again, it seems the defender of this argument needs to say more, he or she needs to maintain not only that justice requires that all people be treated equally but also that all sexual relationships should be treated equally. But this is clearly absurd, it entails that the state should treat the case of Miewes and Brandes the same as it treats a married couple who consummate their wedding.

Finally, even if [3] were true and the marriage act does not treat homosexual persons equally to heterosexual persons it would not follow that it does so unless it is amended to allow for Gay marriage. An obvious way equality could be restored would be for the state to recognise no marriages. A proposal some libertarians have put forward and one we support too.

So as far as I can tell this argument is worthless and certainly is unsound. Of course, this will not stop defenders of gay marriage trotting this argument out ad nauseum. Providing credible arguments for their position has never been a forte.