Just listened to the gay marriage episode, and I certainly agree with the conclusion. Giving religious authorities a role to perform in the law of marriage invites the encroachment of religion on a variety of legal issues, and the encroachment of a variety of legal issues on religion. The government shouldn't be creating the impression that only legal marriages are religiously valid, any more than it should be creating the impression that legal marriages must be religiously valid.
Regarding all the stuff about studies of statistical differences in parenting outcomes, that whole thing seems like a digression (though as always I'm curious about the specifics of how those studies corrected for uncertainty and confounding variables). Liberals are generally very suspicious of policy designed to encourage or discourage specific groups from reproducing based on statistical differences. I think pro-natalist conservatives are often quite inconsistent on that aspect of their philosophy, but I think that the good of having more willing adoptive and biological parents would outweigh all but very extreme concerns that particular individuals are unfit to parent.
The whole studies discussion was an aside from the main topic of where do we find consensus. As we see in the uniting principles topic, Dan lists, and I agree, the less the government infringes upon our personal lives the better. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't have a marriage license, but no one would dispute they were married. Allowing the citizens and religions to set their own terms for marriage and other sacraments frees us to pursue our own happiness in ways we haven't really experienced in this country in a long time.
Just listened to the gay marriage episode, and I certainly agree with the conclusion. Giving religious authorities a role to perform in the law of marriage invites the encroachment of religion on a variety of legal issues, and the encroachment of a variety of legal issues on religion. The government shouldn't be creating the impression that only legal marriages are religiously valid, any more than it should be creating the impression that legal marriages must be religiously valid.
ReplyDeleteRegarding all the stuff about studies of statistical differences in parenting outcomes, that whole thing seems like a digression (though as always I'm curious about the specifics of how those studies corrected for uncertainty and confounding variables). Liberals are generally very suspicious of policy designed to encourage or discourage specific groups from reproducing based on statistical differences. I think pro-natalist conservatives are often quite inconsistent on that aspect of their philosophy, but I think that the good of having more willing adoptive and biological parents would outweigh all but very extreme concerns that particular individuals are unfit to parent.
The whole studies discussion was an aside from the main topic of where do we find consensus. As we see in the uniting principles topic, Dan lists, and I agree, the less the government infringes upon our personal lives the better. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't have a marriage license, but no one would dispute they were married. Allowing the citizens and religions to set their own terms for marriage and other sacraments frees us to pursue our own happiness in ways we haven't really experienced in this country in a long time.
ReplyDeleteOur technical difficulties are a work in progress - thanks for pointing that out! Soon, we hope to be available on iTunes.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the feedback Sam! Would you like to join us as a guest one of these days?
ReplyDeleteEh, maybe. I've been pretty busy lately, though. Feel free to email me.
ReplyDelete