Let the adults do the blogging

I have never seen a good argument against gay marriage. This is my word of caution to you: if you ever see an argument against gay marriage, be very skeptical.

Here's an illustration: Erick Erickson's recent post "Why Not Incest?" defending Jeremy Irons' recent comments on gay marriage. The argument is that if gay marriage is acceptable, then so must be homosexual incest:

If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer.

Notice that Erickson is attributing to those of us who support gay marriage something like the following argument:

1. If two people love each other, then they should be allowed to marry. 
2. Many persons in homosexual relationships love their partners. 
3. Therefore, homosexuals should be allowed to marry. 

The problem is that supporters of gay marriage do not endorse this argument. To deny the right to marry to persons who love each other is wrong, but certain other conditions must obviously be met if they are to be allowed to marry, and those conditions are met by many homosexuals in committed relationships. One condition is that both partners freely consent to the marriage. So gay marriage supporters would reject (1).

Erickson is doing what many who oppose gay marriage have done for years: attribute straw men to the opposition. Either Erickson knows that his argument is fallacious, or he lacks to intelligence to see that it is fallacious. So, for his edification, and the edification of all those who are manipulated by Erickson's argument, allow William Saletan to explain how someone could support gay marriage but oppose same-sex incestuous marriage.

According to Saletan, "[Six] years ago, Ohio's Supreme Court upheld the incest conviction of Paul Lowe, a former sheriff's deputy, for what the court called 'consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter.'" The conviction was upheld because "'a sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.' This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since 'parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority.'" This puts same-sex incest and gay marriage on a different moral plane. As Saletan explains:

Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn't provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage. 

When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of "ex-gay" ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other. 

Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does. 

So how can the supporter of gay marriage oppose same-sex incest? By appealing to this or that utilitarian moral principle. Gay marriage maximizes happiness, and same-sex incestuous unions do not. Gay marriage is therefore permissible, and same-sex incestuous unions are not.

Let's suppose that Erickson, for some reason, does not understand this important difference between gay marriage and same-sex incest. Perhaps he simply lacks the intelligence to grasp it. Or perhaps, due to the influence of religious indoctrination, he refuses to attempt to grasp it. Or maybe he's simply phoning it in. In any event, he should consider a career change. And let's suppose that Erickson does understand this difference but writes posts like "Why Not Incest?" anyway. Again, I say, he should consider a career change, because he is manipulating his readers with bullshit. He's clearly not someone to be trusted.

Erickson closes by saying, "The truth is, many, many, many of the same people who are now in support of gay marriage, but would oppose this or polygamy will, once the next step is advanced, support these things too." No, they won't, asshole, as I have just explained.

Erick, why don't you go away and let the adults do the blogging, all right?

An hysterical Erickson predicts

According to Erick Erickson,

There are many, many people denying that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible. Many of those who deny it are, in fact, hostile to religious freedom to begin with or, when the fight becomes more clear, will be against the church.

I am one of those people who believe that gay marriage and religious freedom are compatible. It's actually pretty simple. Churches should be allowed to marry whoever they want, without interference from the state. (This freedom cannot be absolute, of course.) Analogously, the state should be allowed to marry whoever it wants, without interference from the church. That's what the separation of church and state is all about. Gay marriages would be sanctioned by the state, not by the church. What's the problem?

But I am not hostile to religious freedom. Indeed, even though I am an atheist, I consider religious freedom to be one of our most important freedoms, because I wish to be free to be atheist. I must therefore respect the freedom of others to worship, or not worship, as they choose. (This freedom can't be absolute either.) Freedom of religion is just a species of a more general freedom of thought which believers and non-believers should be able to enjoy.

Now, a lot of people seem to think that legalizing gay marriage will infringe on the religious freedom of Christians. For example, John Hawkins writes:

The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans. 

This passage is terribly confused. As conservatives know, progressives defend the separation of church and state. And that doctrine would prevent many of the consequences Hawkins mentions! Churches would be free to marry who they wish. Wedding photographers and others aren't forced to be involved in any weddings now; why suppose that they would be if gay marriage is legalized? Children may be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, but churches aren't allowed to dictate what is taught in the public schools now, and they can redouble their efforts to teach homophobia in their Sunday school classrooms.

Erickson predicts a similar catastrophe. He claims that if gay marriage is legalized, "churches will not be able to open their doors to the unchurched unless they include everyone." Cities will "pass anti-discrimination laws that would prohibit churches from being able to say no to sin without running afoul of the law."

But here's the main problem with this sort of argument. People like Erickson and Hawkins assume that they have a religious right to persecute those with whom they disagree. Now, they call it a right to religious freedom. But they are already free to practice their religion and worship freely. What they really want is a right to dictate to others how they shall lead their lives. And that's persecution. Further, they assume that this right overrides the fundamental right of another person to marry whoever her or she loves. This has to be one of our most important rights: to decide with whom we shall spend the rest of our lives. If there is a conflict of rights here, it seems obvious to me that the right to marry is more important and fundamental than any other right Erickson and Hawkins might have in mind. It is therefore overriding.

In defense of his own conception of marriage, Erickson appeals to the authority of the Bible, and claims that liberal Christians "willfully ignore Christ’s definition of what a marriage is — one man and one woman united to become one." This is itself incoherent. Erickson complains that the left will silence conservative Christians in their campaign to impose their conception of marriage on the state, and yet that is precisely what Erickson wants to do, i.e., impose his own conception of marriage on the state. In addition, Erickson seems unaware of the difficulty of explaining why anyone should give a flying fuck what Jesus allegedly said or did not say about marriage, and why the state should conform to Erickson's religion. I personally couldn't care less what Matthew 19: 4-6 or the rest of his fucking religion says, and he hasn't given me a reason to care.

If we don't do what Erickson tells us to do, and if we legalize gay marriage, an hysterical Erickson tells us what we can expect:

Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.

This is just another manifestation of Republican leaders' lack of connection with reality. We saw in in November when Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and even Mitt Romney couldn't believe the election returns they were seeing. We saw it more recently when Gary Bauer declared that polls showing support for gay marriage are "skewed." And now we have Erickson's ludicrous, apparently hallucinogenic-induced prognostications.

Erick Erickson, are you out of your fucking mind?