I think you've mistaken my position, so I will clarify as best I can. On an individual level and person-to-person I care very much about LGBTQ+ people. The whole entire rainbow - that's because I'm a liberal. My view can be summarised neatly as 'As long as what you do doesn't harm anyone and isn't against the collective laws we agreed upon, then we're good to go' - do what you like, be who you like, dress as you please, it's all find with me....

But holding such a position requires that everyone hold the same position. Liberals must be liberal across the board, otherwise they are not liberal. That means if you want to be a homophobic jackass in your own house and in your own time, provided you don't break the law and you aren't harming anyone - then by the nature of liberalism itself, I must be fine with it.

There's an argument that says the existence of homophobic people is 'harmful' to LGBTQ+ people, and you likely agree. That is Mr Finn's position. But the reverse argument is true, the existence of LGBTQ+ people is 'harmful' to Christian people (as far as they see it). Unless we're prepared to play semantic fuckduggery with the term 'harmful' - we're stuck with two groups of people who don't want each other to exist.

In order for either of those groups to erradicate the other, you have to abandon liberal principles (as James Finn has done) and mandate how things MUST be. I don't think this is the correct position to take, because his ethics are relative to his position in the argument.

Put simply, I agree with his conclusion but not his methodology. I think liberalism is too important to abandon for any one group. I believe that to be true of all groups. It's not that I 'don't care' because I do - but I have taken a more objective stance. One that sees the ultimate act of 'caring' as building a more tolerant society carefully and slowly, maintaining an open dialogue with all members of a pluralistic group that maintain a) on the right side of the law and b) practice their harmful views in the private sphere.

There is nothing wrong with being conflicted when reading two people who you respect when they disagree. You can be conflicted and you can have your own position on this - and I would urge you to make your own mind up. That's the nature of discussion and what people should always do. My full article response to James was written because he removed my right to reply and closed the discussion. I don't see anything liberal or tolerant in his behaviour - he was saying one thing and enacting another when put under the slightest bit of philosophical pressure.

You have his views. You have mine. You can enjoy us both and you absolutely should make up your own mind - and when you do, write an article about it. If I think you're right, I'll tell you. If I think you're wrong, I'll tell you. I'm argumentative by nature but you won't be attacked for disagreeing with me. That's not the Penguin way and you wouldn't be the first person to disagree with me on something contentious like Trans rights. :o)