Marriage For Thee, Stairwell Makeout Sessions For Me
You can tell Vance McAllister cares about traditional values:
Born and raised in West Carroll Parish, Vance was taught at a young age the importance of faith, family, and hard work. Vance and his wife Kelly have been married for sixteen years. They live in Monroe with their five children and are members of North Monroe Baptist Church. As a father, Vance is worried about the type of future President Obama and career politicians are leaving for the next generation.
And you can tell that “traditional marriage” is very important to Vance McAllister in that it is one of his top six issues:
And you can tell that Vance McAllister really means business about “traditional marriage” when he makes out with a woman who isn’t his wife in this video:
And you can tell that Vance McAllister is hugely serious about his commitment to “traditional marriage” when he acknowledges having made out with a woman that isn’t his wife and then pleads for forgiveness from all sorts of people:
Because that’s what traditional marriage is. A guy with a wife and five kids sucking face with the woman who schedules his appearances and then begging for forgiveness when he’s so dumb as to do this right in front of a security camera. Seriously, it’s right there in the Bible. Page 70. Check it out.
But fortunately for McAllister, the rules of civilized argument demand that we complete ignore his outrageous hypocrisy. Why? Because it would be grossly unfair to mention McAllister’s indiscretions the next time he decides to denounce somebody else’s family, because the tu quoque necessitates that we pretend like a hypocrite’s not a hypocrite. Or something.
I continue to not grasp why it is necessary to do such a favor for a person who plainly doesn’t believe in the things that they’re saying. When we have a choice between trusting what a person tells us and what a person does, we’re suckers if we decide to ignore what we see and focus on what we hear.
But maybe yet another social conservative having yet another affair in flagrant violation of his own alleged commitment to God and Family isn’t convincing enough. Fine. How about this defense of neo-conservatism then? The author, Reihan Salam, tells the rest of us that we’re responsible to ignore the Iraq disaster, and if we follow the rules of tu quoque, we must. How dare anybody observe the disaster of thousands of dead of Americans, hundreds-of-thousands of dead Iraqis, and trillions in spent American money, when we can instead focus on the necessity of the next neoconservative fantasy? Why wouldn’t we sheath an effective arrow? Only the indecent have the audacity to cite history.
As before, I remain convinced of my current position: hypocrisy relevant to the issue at hand should be admissible within argument. The guilty are owed no favors and at a minimum should expect to account for their hypocrisy. Let them square it with their chosen position. There is no reason they are owed an opponent who does their work for them.