As regular readers know, I am wont to go back into recent history to "repurpose" stuff I have created on email and Facebook threads. I toyed with the title of the post:
- Tying up a Lefty in knots?
- Vocabulary matters in debates?
- A mighty run, jump….splat?
- Gay marriage advocate left speechless
There were others, but failed to write them down, so they’re gone for good (and better than the above, too). However, even though the the topic is on gay marriage, it really is illustrative when folks who have oft been accused to defend their values and philosophy (er, that would be we Groksters) decide to confront a Liberal and force him to defend his (a bit comedic value to boot). In essence, we primarily wanted the debate (the issue being somewhat secondary). And!
Blithering ensues.
Back Story: back when Jack Kimball won the race for NH GOP Chair, RLCNH Chair Andrew Hemingway (On FaceBook) made an announcement to that effect that was picked up by the NY Times:
Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, said Mr. Kimball’s win was evidence that the Tea Party and similar groups were pushing the state’s Republican Party to the right. Mr. Hemingway’s group helped a large number of conservatives, including many with Tea Party support, win election to the state legislature in the fall.
Keith David Halloran (gay marriage supporter) then decided to take that snippet by Andrew Hemingway and twist it, hectoring Andrew because what Halloran wanted was an answer to suit himself (reality and plain hearing of plain speaking seemingly not established quality for Mr. Halloran). Given that Andrew is a ‘Grok friend, we fulfilled our mantra of "…flying to the aid of rock ribbed Conservatives everywhere!".
Now, the question and what should have been the definitive answer that should have ended the question.
Keith David Halloran
Andrew, what does the Republican Liberty Caucus intend to do on repealing Equal Marriage Rights in NH ???
Andrew Hemingway
Keith- We do not write legislation or really work in the legislative realm. We are so busy working to get good people elected and we trust they will do the right thing once there. It will be up to the state reps to take up that battle.
Frankly, I thought that was a reasonable answer – you? Sorry, but that was the beginning of the train wreck…
Grokster Steve starts in with the proper way to debate: define the terms and vocabulary in ways that most people find acceptable (as opposed to "repurposing" words to mean what YOU want them to mean):
Steve Mac Donald
That’s a curious question. Do mean the right of the state to define marriage or the right of a church to marry whomever they choose and the state to simply defend that legal contract equally as it would any other? Because you can repeal "gay marriage" and still have equality under civil unions–equal to all persons regardless of faith or sexual preference without the risk to taxpayers (through lawsuits) that added layers of legislative language creates.
Keith David Halloran
Dont punt Andrew. Liberty means liberty. Will you support "Liberty" legislators who take away legal rights already on the books ???
Ah yes, Grokster Rick notices the logic fallacy already at work (re: repurposing, above)
Richard Olson Jr
"legal rights already on the books?" I suppose because its there it doesn’t matter how it got there…right? Like guns….when I tell libs not to take away, "Legal rights already on the books?" like that?
Having already received an answer, he still isn’t happy with it; see?
Keith David Halloran
I am still waiting Andrew … should NH GOP legislators repeal Equal Marriage ??? No, or Yes ??? What is the "Liberty" response to this central issue ???
Diffusion begins – but what Mr. Halloran doesn’t recognize (deadly in a debate) is that the same argument he is using is the same in a different context – first indication he’s ill-equipped (heh! bare knuckles, gun fight…)
Keith David Halloran
Mr. Olson, could you please put your gun down ? It’s hard to hear you when your aiming it me …
Richard Olson Jr
its for da bears
Wait for it…wait…here it comes! When out of ammo, the species Leftis Animus resorts to its only defense:
Keith David Halloran
Oh … I thought it said you have a little d*** …
Name calling. Ah yes, tolerance. Oft mouthed by Leftists, seldom practiced. Anyways, back to Andrew and Mr. Halloran’s inability to either understand or accept a plainly spoken answer:
Andrew Hemingway
Keith- I already answered your question.
Keith David Halloran
With a non answer.
Andrew Hemingway
You asked me what the RLCNH intends to do about that issue. I told you we are not going to do anything as we do not get involved with legislation. What more can I say Keith? WE are not involved in legislation.
Keith David Halloran
Andrew, you make no sense. I support good people but dont care how they legislate — like taking people’s rights away, their liberties. What game are you people really playing ??? I don’t get it at all.
Andrew Hemingway
Keith- I have tried to explain to you the answer. I apologize that I have not been able to answer your question, but I am not going to try again.
He’s quite confused, this one. All he’d have to do is go and do some research. And I will say that there are folks on both sides of this issue that the RLCNH endorsed, supported, and aided. What the M.O. seems to be is to get a wedge going here – alienate one side or the other. So, Mr. Halloran tries again.
Keith David Halloran
What principles, what policies inform you who to support and who to oppose as candidates? It sound like a mystery inside a riddle … You have an opinion on Equal Marriage but wont disclose it, and I fear your commitment to Personal Liberties as liimits which even you fear compromises your claims to supporting liberty. The over-arching and wonderful story of America is that equality of rights has been an adventure of enfranchisement — freeing slaves, giving them equal rights, giving women the vote, lowering the voting age … etc … I will NOT support. ANYONE who wants to take away a person’s legal right to marry the person they love … that it NOT the New Hampshire way, and I am shocked that you present yourself as a leader who can’t then state what you really stand for … I will be watching you very closely now to see what you do because you won’t say honestly, truthfully what you really stand for …
I just LOVE that phrase "that it NOT the New Hampshire way" – for all of what, three years now? Anyways, Grokster Steve hauls back on the reins:
Steve Mac Donald
Keith you never answered my question.
Keith David Halloran
Your question is confusing. Separate but equal is a non-starter. I am talking about Equal Marriage, which is on the books right now. If you mean having the state recognize all marriages as civil unions, while allowing some religions to refuse to marry certain people,
I think I would permit religious exclusions, as long as the State provided for Civil Marriage as a human right and an expression of Equal Marriage Rights.
And back to the ilogical "point outs" by a Master Balloon-popper:
Steve Mac Donald
But if you have civil marriage as a state mandated equal human right the state will immediately violate that right if it refuses to marry any two humans for any reason–like if they are brother or sister or under a certain age. Do we then redefine the word "human" or the word "rights?" Or, are you suggesting that the state should not limit union by age or relationship in order to ensure equal protection under the law?
Watch – his foot is right over the steel trap:
Keith David Halloran
I mean that the same laws that define a legal marriage between a man and a woman would be the same as a couple with the same gender. I do not believe the state should sanction between under age children, blood brothers and sisters, or humans with other animals. But the GOP threat to repeal Equal Marriage is a blow against equal rights already legislated and settled law in NH. I am shocked that the Liberty Caucus is "pretending" to be mum on the crucial liberty issue.
And the SNAP of steel on steel to be heard in 3…2…1:
Steve Mac Donald
If the state can prohibit it that means that there is no "human right" to marriage, just so we are clear. Which leaves us with legal unions of consenting adults (people of recognized majority age) who are not too closel
y related–all things the state and the people can limit based on our conversation so far– who may want to contractually co-habitate as "legal partners" for whatever reasons.If all the NH House does is remove the law that defines marriage, leaving that up to the churches, and does not touch same sex civil union law as it currently stands, please explain to me what is lost?
Howl of agony!
Keith David Halloran
Whatever … semantics. Why is Hemingway punting on this ??? Isn’t he a leader ??? Or is he just a social director ???
Semantics (the meanings of words). Problem for the recently ensnared, debating is ALL about semantics and logic – whose importance is seemingly out of Mr. Halloran’s grasp. He simply wants the answer HE wishes to hear.
Smack down in 2…1….
Steve Mac Donald
Keith, I think everyone reading this thread knows who just punted.
Blithering is starting….the Valley Girl School of Speech is the giveaway
Keith David Halloran
Whatever. Andrew remains in hiding … whatever.
OK, I wade in. Traditional marriage is between two people (only) of two different genders (only). Gays want society to not only redefine "marriage" but the co-mission is a forced acceptance of that definition and all that goes with it. However, they refuse to admit that once the horse they let out of the barn goes over the horizon that they have just declared that there is no limit on what marriage is. After all, given their % of the population is from 3-5% and are trying to get everyone to accept it (having thrown societal and religious norms away in order to do so), why should an even smaller percentage of people be able to redefine the gay definition of marriage (only two, but any gender)? Frankly, most gay activists HATE it when it is brought up…
…So, I go there (muddying the waters, as it were); after all, what’s good for the gander, and all that…:
Skip Murphy
Let’s try adding in Polyandry and Polygamy, shall we? Keith, because of your insistence of changing the definition of marriage, shouldn’t it include ALL forms of human relationships? Why would you want to discriminate?
This is what happens when the traditional definition of marriage is tinkered with.
And Mr. Halloran fulfills EVERY ONE of my low expectations of his retort:
Keith David Halloran
You people are wacked. I’m not changing anything. I want to keep the law that is in the books. You people are trying to change it, noit me.
Hmm, the gay marriage supporters wanted a change in the law. Now that it is changed, the idea of changing the law (EXACTLY what they did) is verboten? I point out the hypocrisy:
Skip Murphy
You wanted a change from the previous law. We want to further change the present law. Both of us wanted changes – what’s the big deal?
So he keeps going back to it being a right (something that Steve already successfully challenged above), and, oh yeah, back to the High Road of Lefty Debating – Name Calling (HRoLD-NC):
Keith David Halloran
You want to take people rights away … I want to protect them. That’s the difference. That’s the BIG DEAL moron …
Words have meanings…"Rights" have a specific meaning, and so do entitlements and privileges. I try again to deliver a micro-English lesson:
Skip Murphy
Rights are immutable and cannot be changed by mere law (like the Right to Free Speech)…entitlements and privileges are fungible and CAN be changed by law. Thus, you are not talking about a Right, as a law changed the previous status quo.
True to form, back to HRoLD-NC:
Keith David Halloran
Another microphone junkie …. moron
Skip Murphy
Words matter, and so do definitions. If not, the argument is simply "dust in the wind". And if calling me a moron makes you happy, far be it for me to take that pleasure away from you.
So Keith, do you agree that Rights are different from privileges and entitlements?
Can’t even get Mr. Halloran to agree to specific definitions of specific words. Who failed here: me, or Mr. Halloran? See!
Keith David Halloran
:-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ !!!!
Keith David Halloran
:-0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ !!!!
So, Grokster Tim delivers a timely and well laid out lecture:
Tim Condon
Keith, if it will make you feel any better I’M in favor of removing the politically correct seizure of our culture by homosexual activists in order to force us to recognize "gay marriage," in violation of a cultural norm that has been around for several thousand years. Homosexual civil unions were made legally equal in all ways to "marriages" under NH law in 2006, so what’s your problem? It certainly isn’t "equal rights," so it must have something to do with attaining cultural and/or political power over others. So I’m sorry to have to explain to you: I grant homosexuals tolerance, just like I grant it to all other sorts of groups, including Scientologists, anti-vivisectionists, vegetarians, naturists, and others. Just because homosexual activists have managed to wield more political and cultural power than those other groups doesn’t mean that I’m going to kiss their asses. I and every other citizen owe them only "tolerance." No more and no less. And that’s all they have the right to "demand." It has been well explained to you that what you are talking about, homosexual "marriage," is not a "right," rather is the use of state power to force others to grant cultural recognition and deference to one group over other groups. You don’t appear to know how to define a "right," so I must inform you that the concept does not include the legal destruction of a cultural norm several thousand years old.
And by the way, the RLCNH does not push specific legislation. I’d like to see that changed, because while I personally want the "gay marriage forced recognition law" repealed, I ALSO want other people to have the right to live the ways they want to, e.g. those who may want to indulge in polyandry or polygamy (with apologies to my non-libertarian friends). This is because I understand what "rights" are, and grant the same rights to all individuals to live in whatever ways they please, so long as they do not infringe upon the co-equal rights of others.
Unfortunately, thanks to the Democrats, New Hampshire is in extremely bad fiscal shape, so I have no time or resources now to expend on the repeal of the forced-recognition-of-homosexual-marriage law, or on the repeal of laws against polyamory.
One other thing: I always tender greetings and support to conservative gay activists—such as the members of GOProud—and thank them for understanding economics, ha
ving good political stands and instincts…and knowing how to define "rights."
At this juncture, Mr. Halloran leaves the classroom:
Keith David Halloran
Somebody get me out of here !!! HELP !!!
=============================================
This all happened back in Feb. Upon re-reading it, I put in this comment:
Skip Murphy
Upon a late review, I declare Groksters 4, Keith David Halloran 0.
Once again, Mr. Halloran did not disappoint – back with a flamethrower and in full HRoLD-NC mode – he sent me a FB message:
Keith David Halloran April 24 at 10:36pm
Moron !!!
Skip Murphy April 24 at 10:37pm
You do need to enlarge your vocabulary, sir….
Keith David Halloran April 24 at 10:38pm Report
Why ??? You’re is a very small world … Troll
Troll? I admit, I have a face for radio and a voice for blogging, but all I did was ask polite questions. I used neither names nor foul language (the hallmark of trolls). Guess we should all chip in and buy him a dictionary…
Skip Murphy April 24 at 10:41pm
I duly note that you still haven’t answered the questions offered during the debate – simply throwing out "names" means you have no adequate reasoning with which to counter. As previously noted in that thread, you’ve punted again…
Keith David Halloran April 24 at 10:43pm Report
There is no debate with you people … the interview is over … and out.
Skip Murphy April 24 at 10:46pm
Sure there is debate – in this case, however, we posed rather simple questions to which you had no response except name calling. And once again, instead of standing up and engaging, you run away.
Groksters 5, Halloran 0
