LGBT politics and libertarianism: Where is the love?

People often comment that libertarianism seems like a natural fit for LGBT people and express an inability to understand why more LGBT people do not see it that way. A recent study on the moral psychology of libertarians (press release here; full study here) sheds light on the disconnect. According to one finding in the study,

In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality....

* * *

[W]e found strong support for our second prediction, that libertarians will rely upon emotion less – and reason more – than will either liberals or conservatives.

That is not exactly a good match for the hyperemotional approach to politics that characterizes the LGBT orthodoxy. If, as often thought, gay men tend to be especially emotionally expressive, and lesbians tend to be even more so, such emotionality sets up an inherent tension with a reason-based political philosophy.

Paris who?

It appears that a previous decade's famous-for-being-famous said something stupid that revealed her to be a moralizing hypocrite. In other breaking news, water is wet, and ice is cold. These stories and others, tonight at 11:00.

I've learned a new politically correct snarl term.

From the recent exchange with an anonymous commenter, I've learned a new politically correct snarl term: "book logic." Now, whenever I'm losing an argument, I'll just shout, "Stop using your book logic on me!" Think it'll work before the board of appeals?

See also LGBT anti-rationalism.

Bishop Harry Jackson tucks tail and runs (and in other news, water is wet).

Bishop Harry Jackson, known for bravely crusading against marriage equality in safe fora where no one will ask difficult questions, has backed out of a debate on that topic. His doing so has not exactly helped to overcome his reputation as an intellectual coward who tries to shield his statements from scrutiny as much as he can. One would think that he would fear the marketplace of ideas a little less, especially since the Almighty is supposedly on his side (Luke 21:15), but there you go.

Marriage equality for me, but not for thee

Advocates of "plural marriage" rights draw inspiration from the gay-rights movement, not that the latter approves:

Which is why it was so jarring when, about 20 minutes into the discussion he started dropping terms that were borrowed from another community that hasn't always gotten along with religious right: The gay rights movement.

"We made the decision as a family to come out," he said, at one point.

"All we want is our equal rights," he said, at another.

When finally asked whether he saw parallels between the gay marriage cause and his own, Darger didn't hesitate: "Definitely."

Gay rights advocates want nothing to do with the polygamists, having spent years batting down the right's argument that the freedom to marry could extend in unexpected directions. But to get polygamy decriminalized, Darger said he is modeling his strategy after the successes of that movement (which he supports on Constitutional principle). As part of the effort, he and his family are waging a public awareness campaign to demystify their lifestyle.

Commenters on Reason.com are taking gay activists to task for distancing themselves from advocates of equal rights for polygamous families and for effectively taking a stance of "equality for me, but not for thee." In my mind, those commenters have an excellent point. Absent a principled distinction, equality for me, but not for thee, is not equality at all. Also, as for whether acceptance of same-sex marriage will set us down the slippery slope to acceptance of polygamy, so what if it does?

Why bother trying to understand science?

What's the point? As all right-thinking people know, science doesn't have nearly the relevance to the real world that postmodernism used to have and that the latest academic fad with "studies" in its name now has. So why learn about science? Todd Akin is a good reason why.

Is Paul Ryan a true Catholic? What if he isn't?

Many Catholics, including the bishops, are questioning whether Paul Ryan's political views agree with the teachings of the church. Others defend Ryan's views as authentically Catholic.

First, it appears that Catholicism in practice is whatever any Catholic wants it to be. I have only rarely heard a Catholic say anything to the effect of "Here's what I want to believe, but my Catholic faith teaches otherwise, so what can you do?"

Second, and more to the point, why should secular law follow anyone's view of what Catholicism, or any other religion, really teaches? What happened to non-establishment of religion?