Erin Manning is filling in on Rod Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog, and she has some very good answers to those who argue for gay marriage. She also brings up the fact that in terms of the long-term affects of this, no one has answers. But then those who are in favor of homosexual marriage are studiously avoiding asking the questions.

In a newspaper article Erin is quoting, a conservative who has suddenly seen the light questions himself, “Should my religious beliefs keep [a gay couple] legally unrelated even if they remain committed to each other for life?”

And Erin answers the question for him:

The answer to that rhetorical question is, “Yes.” If your religious beliefs on the subject of gay marriage are properly formed by reason, history, an appreciation for civilization and the importance of the family, and the complete impossibility for man to change in its essence a reality which pre-dates our country and its laws and which speaks to the intrinsic dignity not only of the human individual but of the family–then yes.

The newspaper article’s author also says that he realizes now that his problems with gays were based on personal bias — on thinking it was icky for two men to kiss, etc. etc. It seems a little too convenient when a “conservative” fits neatly into all the liberal stereotypes for conservatives, and then flip-flops just as neatly to the point of view liberals would like us to have (that objections to the “right” things are only ever based on ignorance, prejudice or subjective opinion). Erin doesn’t know anyone who are against gay marriage because of the “ick factor.” (Neither do I, come to think of it.)

So it’s not (for me, anyway) a matter of discomfort with the idea of homosexual attraction or homosexual behavior that makes me oppose gay marriage; it’s the belief that we’re venturing into truly uncharted territory, dismantling the whole idea of the family and replacing it with something that is philosophically and morally very, very different–and that it is rather blithely assumed that this will not matter, that children will suffer no deficiencies as a result of being raised by two men or two women, with the underlying belief that after all mothers and fathers are interchangeable and equally unimportant in a child’s life (so long as someone’s teaching the kids all about the UN Charter on the Rights of the Child, that is).

And we have no idea how any of this will play out. We have no idea if we are damaging children by telling them that Heather has two mommies or that a handsome prince wants to marry another handsome prince. We have no clue if this total nuclear annihilation of the traditional concept of the family will have any negative effects on the smallest and most vulnerable of our citizens. We don’t know to what extent religious rights will be curtailed, or other freedoms removed from those who continue to oppose gay marriage once it’s a fait accompli. We aren’t even asking the questions, because, I think, we’d rather not raise the possibility that gay marriage won’t be an endless source of sunshine and flowers for America.

(emphasis mine)

If there’s one thing that I find totally galling about humanist social experimenters, it’s that they seem to be under the impression that our civilization is an unsinkable ship. They frame the arguments about how we need to take on all ideas (or perversions of ideas) as if they all led to better living when actually there are very few that can make that claim.