I mean, okay, if you want to take my statement in a pretty obvious context and extrapolate into a universal principle, yes, we can discuss that, though it's so far from what I was saying that it's hard to believe you're interpreting my claims in good faith.

In any event, I still think you're wrong. There are plenty of various moral laws which everyone breaks-lying, for instance, or lust. Most people raised in a Christian culture believe these to be immoral acts, but virtually everyone engages in them. The fact that people believe these to be bad acts while engaging in them doesn't reveal any preference about the abolition of these moral imperatives; it reveals a general human difficulty in adhering to them.

So no, it's not that partisanship is blinding me to your argument--it's that your argument depends on an uncharitable interpretation on what I said and isn't even a very good principle in any case.

EDIT: This came out grouchier than I intended, for which I apologize. I am irritated at the accusation of partisanship, which I think gets thrown about far too freely and is rarely a relevant talking point. Most of the people here are deeply partisan, but the fact that Tom is firmly on the other side of the aisle from me doesn't have any bearing on the merit of his arguments.