Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] One more whack at the dead horse...

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] One more whack at the dead horse...
  • Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 18:32:23 -0400


On Apr 16, 2005, at 4:16 PM, Lee Haslup wrote:

My posting is here:
http://teleoscope.blogspot.com/2005/04/better-answer-somewhat-after- fact.html

And the piece that reminded me of the thread is here:
http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html

I like the layout on your blog. The piece you quote from is interesting in that it is very long, and spends 95% of the time not talking about the issue, but then it must take very many words indeed for a libertarian to convince themselves that government should control personal and sexual relationships.

The only argument I can find in it that actually discusses the gay marriage issue is:

"Marriage is the socially preferred institution for sexual activity and childrearing in every known human society. The modern claim that there need not be and should not be any social or legal preference among sexual or childrearing contexts is, by definition, the abolition of marriage as an institution."

To me these two sentences betray the lack of a logical argument, and simply reinforce that the issue at hand is not one of libertarian principles, but rather an extension of the culture wars. She is saying that marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what she believes, and not a single point in the rather lengthy essay that addresses how having the state stay out of people's personal relationships would abolish marriage.

And then later she rather belated throws all logic out of the window and betrays any libertarian principle I can think of:

"It is high time libertarians object when their rhetoric is hijacked by the advocates of big government."

Ah, now she's betrayed herself. The first sentence makes it clear that she believes gay marriage is somehow linked to "big government", which is a reference to the radical conservative movement's attempt to divide the entire country into two camps, further evidence that the author is trying to engage in an irrational culture war rather than talk about libertarian ideals.

"Fairness and freedom do not demand sexual and parental license."

This thought more than any other shows how far she's betrayed those ideals.

___________________________________________________________________
michael at czeiszperger dot org | "Kindness knows no shame"
Chapel Hill, NC USA | -- S. Wonder





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page