I quite appreciate how quickly he responded to the questions I raised in my last post. (I’ll also confess to being totally envious of how quick his post-turnaround-time is. Meanwhile, I’ve got a stack of epidemiology homework sitting by the computer looking at me plaintively). I’ll be responding sometime later today, but in the meantime, head on over and check out his responses:
Pinging Leah Part 1: Justin responds to my questions on adoption and my free rider argument.
“I think the free rider argument is quite weak. Individual people have an intellectual duty to hold consistent beliefs, but politics is the result of bargaining between interest and ideological groups. So marriage confers an incoherent mishmash of financial benefits (and penalties). I think one could plausibly argue that all of these benefits are designed to help make life easier for cash-strapped parents. Even the ones that don’t have anything to do with children per se. But let’s say they don’t. My position is still coherent. Marriage should provide tax credits for children. Dual-income no kids couples do not need tax credits. I also think that single people (and perhaps gays – I still do not have a fully formed position on gay adoption) who adopt should also be entitled to these benefits.”
“In our previous debate on the existence of God we had an interchange in the comments that segued to gay marriage. I asked you if there was ever a case in which you would oppose allowing couples to intentionally procreate. You did not answer me then, but I think I have your full attention on gay marriage now.
…Are you opposed to any of these? If so, then how do you place that in a reflective equilibrium with your support for gay marriage? (By reflective equilibrium, I would like to see a principle or list of principles which can be applied in a non ad hoc way to all these cases.) “
Click through to read his full remarks and to mix it up in the comments section! Heaven knows I will be.