Liberalism and Marriage

Robin Hanson posted his reasoning for why Libertarians tend towards conservatism. Andrew Gelman has some interesting criticism of Hanson, which I will be criticizing (hopefully, constructively).

Hanson argues:

Libertarians support gay marriage because individuals should be free to have whatever consenting relations they want. Liberals support gay marriage because they want us all to officially respect gays as much as straights; gay activists have earned their group more respect.

To which Gelman responds:

I think a more accurate statement would be, "Liberals support gay marriage because they don't think it's fair that straight people can marry and gays can't," or "Liberals support gay marriage because some gay people want to marry and they don't see why they shouldn't be
allowed to."

As I've written elsewhere, I think that whether one fundamentally holds to Thomas Malthus (there are too many people on the planet) or Julian Simon (people are the Ultimate Resource) colors one's views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. I offer Gelman these statements: "Liberals support polygamist marriage because they don't think it's fair that straight and gay people can marry and polygamists can't" and "Liberals support polygamy because some gay, bi, and straight people want to marry and don't see why they should be limited to groups of two." I think bisexuals may pioneer the legalization of polygamy, but the big beneficiaries will be "religious" zealots that want to "be fruitful and multiply."

The point that I'm making is that the liberal arguments for gay marriage would also be made for polygamy except that liberals tend to want fewer people—their views are colored by their Malthusian fundamentals.

Presidential Sophistry and Malthusianism

Jay Cost at the HorseRaceBlog discusses presidential sophistry. Here's an excerpt:

...no presidential address would be complete without a gratuitous shot at his predecessor. Even a speech on science.

And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.

We know that our country is better than this....

On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over. Our progress as a nation - and our values as a nation - are rooted in free and open inquiry. To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.

He doesn't come right out and say it - but he is talking about stem cell research here. Personally, I'm pretty ambivalent on the issue of stem cell research. I view it as a minor skirmish in the broader war on abortion. However, I think this is a gross mischaracterization of the position of those who are opposed to federal funding of stem cell research. Given that this is coming from a President who, as a candidate, campaigned on ending the pattern of gross mischaracterizations in Washington, D.C. - I find this really aggravating.

On a certain level, Cost is correct that the stem cell debate is a skirmish in the war on abortion; however, abortion is a major battle in the war of ideas between Thomas Malthus and Julian Simon. Either more people are bad for the planet (Malthus) or they're the Ultimate Resource (Simon).