Gay Bishop Comes Up With the Worst Argument to Support Same-Sex Marriage
The opposition to LGBT rights in general, and to same-sex marriage in particular, overwhelmingly comes from conservative religion, founded in the religious belief that gay sex makes baby Jesus cry. So if same-sex marriage proponents want to persuade religious believers to support same-sex marriage... how can we do that? Should we keep our argument entirely secular, and stay away from the whole question of religious belief? Or should we try to persuade them that God is on our side?
Lots of people make the second argument. Bishop Gene Robinson is one of them. And Bishop Robinson is a man to be taken seriously. The first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, Bishop Robinson has been active in progressive political activism for many years: he is a fellow at the Center for American Progress, is co-author of three AIDS education curricula for youth and adults, has done AIDS work in the United States and in Africa, and famously delivered the invocation at President Obama's opening inaugural ceremonies in 2009. He's recently written a book, published by Knopf and widely reviewed and well-received: God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage. Aimed at religious believers who oppose same-sex marriage or are on the fence about it, the book makes a Christian case for same-sex marriage: "a commonsense, reasoned, religious argument made by someone who holds the religious text of the Bible to be holy and sacred and the ensuing two millennia of church history to be relevant to the discussion."
And I think this is a terrible, terrible idea.
--snip--
But the argument he makes in his new book, God Believes in Love, disturbs me greatly. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that God, or any sort of religious or spiritual belief, should have anything to do with the question of same-sex marriage. I am deeply disturbed by the idea that any decision about politics, law, public policy, or morality should ever be based on what's supposedly going on in God's head. I agree completely with Bishop Robinson's conclusion about same-sex marriage -- but I am passionately opposed to the method by which he's reached it, and the arguments he's making to advance it.
--snip--
But my problem is not, "God doesn't exist, therefore 'what God wants' is a ridiculous thing to worry about." My problem is this: When we base our political/legal/moral decisions on what we think God wants, we have no way of knowing if we're right. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, we have no basis for resolving our differences. Religion is based on faith -- and faith, by definition, is uniquely resistant to evidence. Even at its best, faith ultimately comes down to, "I feel it in my heart." And if someone else feels something entirely different in their heart about God's intentions, we have no means of persuading them that they're mistaken. For that matter, we have no means of being persuaded ourselves if we're mistaken. When we base our decisions on what we think God wants, it's ultimately no different from basing our decisions on what we want... reinforced and amplified by the conviction that our wishes dovetail with God's, and made more stubbornly resistant to change by the fundamental irrationality of religious faith.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/gay-bishop-comes-worst-argument-support-same-sex-marriage
= new reply since forum marked as read
In America, there are many, many people who heed and accept religious arguments. People may not like that, I may not like that, but it is the reality that exists and the construct we must necessarily work within at this particular point in time.
It does no good whatsoever to pretend that very religious people who make decisions using religiously informed logic and reasoning do not exist or can simply be reasoned with using plain secular logic.
I feel the author is being very selfish here by putting her religion (or lack thereof) in front of the entire community's current need - to convince millions of religious Americans to accept LGBTers. It's the religiously influenced who are our greatest oppressor in this country. We need to talk to them as effectively as possible. We need to approach them from a place that they are receptive to.
When I came out to my very Catholic parents, I knew where their heads were. It was wrong, the Church raised them to think it was wrong, it was against God, etc. etc. Sure, I used secular arguments about equality, the Constitution. But I also had long talks with them about God, what God would do ("Why would God make me this way if He thought it was an abomination? Doesn't that strike you as a bit off?"
. I needed that religious component of argument to bring them around. I gave them literature from progressive Catholic priests. I offered them writings from prominent Jesuits.
Over time, that worked. They're still Catholic, but now they are accepting as anyone.
That is where Robinson is coming from. Religious people exist and some of them need to be addressed in a religious language.
The author doesn't like it? So what. I love it. I will take any angle of attack humanly possible. He's doing his bit, in the language he knows, in a way that may influence people who we need to achieve equality.
The author comes off as bitter and tantrum-flecked because, gasp, someone's using religion!
(I'm also not thrilled with her implication that somehow religion is separate and apart from the LGBT community. Someone should let her know about all the theistic LGBTers out there. She doesn't state her narrow, tunnel-visioned view outright, but her subtext is marinating in it).
It's been nice talking with you. I'm not sure we have anything left to discuss.
