Swinburnophobia

Richard Swinburne's recent speech to a regional meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers, and the response to it, highlights how religion can support retrograde beliefs long after the rest of us have jettisoned them. I was surprised to find, for example, that Opposition to Interracial Marriage Lingers Among Evangelicals more than it does among the unaffiliated. Here a Christian continues to argue against mixed race marriage using the Bible:

Throughout the Bible interracial marriage is discouraged.

In the book of Ezra, the Israelites repented of their abandonment of God. As part of this repentance they pledged to end their interracial marriages according to God's will:

“We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law. Rise up; this matter is in your hands. We will support you, so take courage and do it.” (Ezra 10)

A similar experience is recorded in Nehemiah 13:

“Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: ‘You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves.’”

Other prohibitions against interracial marriage can be found in Exodus 34:12-16, Joshua 23:12, and Deuteronomy 7:3: “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons...”

...and the supposed problems arising from it:

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that interracial marriages end in divorce more often than same-race marriages. For marriages involving a White female and Black male the divorce rate is 200% higher than if the White female had married a White male.

I'm sure, however, that most Christians would not give any credence to these views and arguments. The views expressed on homosexual sexual acts in Swinburne's talk were discriminatory in the same way, in the sense that Swinburne identifies a group of people by virtue of an attribute that has no intrinsic moral implications (sexual orientation), and treats the group differently because of that attribute (discourages them from acting on that attribute). Swinburne thinks that this discrimination in the treatment of homosexuals is fair, and, in fact, good; I do not. The notes for his speech are here (but note that this link seems to be working at some times but not others), and there is a video here.

How mistaken Christianity is

In the talk he starts by noting how wrong traditional Christian teaching on sexual morals is currently considered:

As we all know, traditional Christian teaching on many moral issues, but in particular on sex, family, and life is regarded by all non-religious and some religious believers as totally and evidently mistaken.

Pretty much every non-religious organisation that comments on such things would confirm that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality per se. The WHO Bluebook says 'Sexual orientation alone is not to be regarded as a disorder', and nowhere does it say that there is anything wrong with homosexual sexual acts per se. A recent WHO policy document, noting the ruling of a previous bluebook, says:

 Although ICD-6 classified homosexuality as a sexual deviation that was presumed to reflect an underlying personality disorder, subsequent research did not support this view. 

...and continued:

Over the last half century, several classification systems, including the ICD, have gradually removed diagnoses that once defined homosexuality per se as a mental disorder. These changes reflect both emerging human rights standards and the lack of empirical evidence supporting the pathologization and medicalization of variations in sexual orientation expression. 

So, to confirm Swinburne's impression: yes, authorities agree there is nothing wrong with same-sex attraction, or same sex sexual acts, contra Christian teaching. You would hope that these rulings should drive the ethics of Christians, particularly a theologian who prides himself on his natural theology.

Homosexual sexual acts are immoral?

To his credit, Swinburne dismisses Catholic 'natural law' arguments based on function:

The Catholic ‘natural law’ tradition has sought to show that [divorce, fornication, homosexual sexual acts, contraception] are 'disordered' or 'unnatural' actions, and for that reason wrong. The best contemporary statement of this tradition known to me is Alexander Pruss’s book One Body. Pruss argues that bodily organs have ‘functions’ and they ‘strive’ or ‘try’ to ‘fulfil’ their functions. For example, Pruss argues, the penis has the function in intercourse of omitting (sic) semen into a vagina which it strives to do; and to prevent it from doing this is unnatural and so wrong. It seems to me that to ‘strive’ or ‘try’ is an intentional action which only intentional agents can do; and that even if I am mistaken about this, it still doesn’t follow that it would be morally wrong to do what is unnatural.

Quite. But he still wants to defend the traditional view that these things are immoral, so he has to make an argument to this effect. For background, he doesn't think that homosexual sexual acts are intrinsically immoral (bad in themselves), but extrinsically immoral. He says:

God, like any other benefactor such as parents or the state, has reasons also to command humans to do actions which would not otherwise be obligatory. These reasons include (A) coordinating imperfectly obligatory actions so as to ensure the realization of a good overall goal. This may involve telling different humans to do different actions...God may tell all Christians to worship together each week on a Sunday rather than on a Thursday, in order to ensure that the Christian community worship together. 

The idea here is, I think, that there are practices that will encourage good outcomes, and, further, that this practice of doing certain things, or refraining from certain things, will encourage actions over and above our normal obligations ('supererogatory'), and that is virtuous.

Homosexual orientation as a disability?

He says:

Having homosexual orientation is a disability – for a homosexual cannot beget children through a loving act with a person to whom they have a unique lifelong commitment.

Without refinement, this looks like a definition of disability that is going to be too wide; that is, it is going to include people who would not normally be considered disabled, such as the infertile, older people, those with a low sex drive, unattractive people, and even Catholic priests and nuns (priests and nuns are people with a clerical leaning, and that leaning means they 'cannot beget children through a loving act with a person to whom they have a unique lifelong commitment'. Should society therefore discourage the young from developing leanings to serve Christ?).

And, of course in actual fact homosexuals 'can beget children through a loving act with a person to whom they have a unique lifelong commitment', and have demonstrated that ability throughout history. And often this has been done in response to Christian teaching on homosexuality. In his response to Martin Pleitz's paper on his homophobia, Swinburne suggest that such people are not 'fully homosexual', and should therefore restrict themselves to heterosexual acts.

This is a naive view of human nature; apart from its binary view of sexual orientation which can be challenged, it reduces sexual orientation to a physical rather than an inner reality. Humans are sophisticated beings with a rich inner life, and are quite capable of divorcing their inner life from their physical reality; we are skilled fantasists, after all. Further, we have many loving relationships, such as with siblings, children and friends, which are not sexual, so 'love' does not entail lust. Therefore, just because a woman with a homosexual orientation, for example, might have loved and married a man, and indulged in a full sex life with him, that does not render her less than 'fully homosexual'. Her sexual orientation is for her to know. Imagine someone blindfolded in a dark room being masturbated, so they cannot see who is doing the act. I suspect that some people of any orientation could be stimulated under such circumstances, and to then declare their sexual orientation based on the gender of the unknown masturbator (the physical reality) is absurd.

Swinburne admits himself that even homosexual couples are able to have children, with the use of surrogates, so no absolute barrier to 'begetting' exists there either. As noted above, by specifying 'loving acts', Swinburne does not restrict the acts to purely sexual ones. A person's orientation clearly does not make them physically unable to have children. The premise he defends in the response to Pleitz is:

P1 Homosexuals are “unable to enter into a loving relationship in which the love is as
such procreative”.

He thinks the words 'as such' are doing a lot of work here, but I confess I don't see it. There is no doubt that homosexuals are quite capable of entering 'into a loving relationship in which the love is as such procreative', since a non-sexual procreative act can be inspired by love, and in any case sexual procreative acts can be performed lovingly without feeling lust for the partner.

The value of having children?

A part of Swinburne's argument is the great value he places on having children. It's not clear to me how this is supposed to cash out. We know that there are many people who don't want to have children; they do not place great value on having children. Pleitz also notes that there is a global problem with the idea that having children is an unalloyed good. This sort of thinking has resulted in large families in the Catholic and Muslim communities, causing endless cycles of poverty and deprivation. China introduced a one-child policy to mitigate the effects of over-population. These factors show that the great value, if that is what it is, of having children is not universal in time and place, so having children cannot be a universal injunction, to follow in all times and all places.

A counter might be that it is not a universal injunction, but having some children is of great value, and there is a golden mean number of children that is good, that benefits humankind; surely no-one would dispute that? Well, some may, but let us grant that for the sake of argument. Evolutionary science shows that having children is a mechanism for persisting genes, and genes drive speciation. So the result of natural selection will be the most successful strategy for the environment in which the species finds itself. We know that homosexuality has persisted in homo sapiens for thousands of years, and that homosexuality persists in other species that are primarily heterosexual. This 4 billion years-long experiment shows, then, that a percentage of homosexuality in the population must, in some way, help the fitness for survival of certain species, including homo sapiens. Consequently, a natural theologian like Swinburne should look at this overwhelming empirical evidence and argue for the goodness of some people being homosexual, since it must be of great value in having the perfect number of children, overall.

Disability = immoral?

Let us allow that having homosexual orientation is a disability, again for the sake of argument. Disability does not equate to immorality, but Swinburne states that '[d]isabilities should be prevented'. This might be true, but prima facie this 'should' is not a moral 'should', but a prudent one. For example, if one can prevent someone from losing an arm, one should, because it's prudent for someone to keep two good arms (one can carry more shopping with two arms); but, there is no moral stain attached to the person for losing the arm.

So what reason does Swinburne give for going further and deciding that homosexuality is immoral, rather than just something that affects one's chances of having children?

Well, he appeals to scripture:

I’m going to assume , despite the effects (sic) of many to show that the Bible and various theologians all meant something different by (what seems to many of us to be) apparent condemnations of such acts, that some such passages as I Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:24-27 and the continuing weight of subsequent tradition does condemn such acts.

I see no more reason to think that these appeals to scripture have any more value than the appeals to scripture against interracial marriage.

He also appeals to theological authority:

Where, after all, do we ever find before the twentieth century any explicit approval of such acts by any theologian orthodox in other respects?

That, sadly, is more a condemnation of theologian orthodoxy than homosexuality; as a proponent of evidence-based thinking, Swinburne should really recognise that the opinion of the medical establishment outweighs the views of mere theologians. He chooses to demur on the evidence:

And, as I read the much disputed evidence available on line about whether children nurtured by homosexual parents flourish as well as other children, the balance of that evidence seems to me to indicate that children whose nurturing parents are also their male and female biological parents in a happy marriage flourish better than all other children.

Recall that the racist said above:

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that interracial marriages end in divorce more often than same-race marriages. For marriages involving a White female and Black male the divorce rate is 200% higher than if the White female had married a White male.

Even if these assertions were true (and that is very debatable), it would not be a reason to condemn same-sex marriage or mixed race marriages. This sort of evidence is very prone to confounding variables; most obviously with race and sexual orientation, the centuries of prejudice that forms the societal backdrop to mixed race and same sex marriages. But, more importantly, we have been given no more reason to think that we should analyse such statistics by orientation or race than we should analyse them by, say, religious belief. If the statistics showed that the children of protestant evangelicals flourish less than those of Catholics, would that be a reason to conclude that protestant evangelical sexual acts are a bad thing? No, of course not, and likewise for same-sex sexual acts.

Homosexuality is reversible?

Another part of Swinburne's case is that sexual orientation is reversible, since this drives his recommendation to discourage homosexual behaviour; or, at least, to endorse his view that God commands the discouragement of homosexual behaviour (what would be the point of discouragement if it had no effect?). He says:

The evidence seems to me to indicate clearly that genes and environment (nature and nurture) both play a role in determining sexual orientation; and also that this orientation is sometimes to a considerable extent reversible.

Sadly for Swinburne's case, this is unsupported by the evidence. If sexual orientation can be conditioned in some way, then presumably heterosexuality could be conditioned away too? In fact, that's entailed by Swinburne's view that homosexual practice causes homosexuality. Many of us experience orientation differently, however, as something intrinsic to our identity, not a 'here today, gone tomorrow' preference - I can't imagine my heterosexuality being conditioned away, and I suspect those of a homosexual tendency can't imagine their orientation being conditioned away either. Philosopher Rob Hughes points out on the Leiter Report:

Swinburne's assertion is at odds with the evidence that a person's future sexual orientation is determined before school age and possibly much earlier. He provides no evidence for his assertion that sexual experimentation influences orientation, either in his 2007 book Revelation, or in his 2008 reply to critics, or in the text of his recent talk.

He notes the problem with the scant evidence Swinburne cites for his view, and quotes the apology from Alan Chambers after the closure of the 'ex-gay' organisation Exodus International. Hughes says:

After the 2013 closure of the leading "ex-gay" organization, Exodus International, no informed person can seriously entertain the suggestion that "reparative therapy" works.

Hughes concludes:

In 2016, it is intellectually and morally irresponsible to assert without evidence that sexual  experimentation causes homosexuality or that people can change their sexual orientations through "reparative therapy".

The WHO policy document quoted before cites this document on the pointlessness, and bankruptcy, of homosexual 'cures':

Health professionals who offer “reparative therapies” align themselves with social prejudices and reflect a stark ignorance in matters of sexuality and sexual health. Contrary to what many people believe or assume, there is no reason – with the exception of the stigma resulting from those very prejudices – why homosexual persons should be unable to enjoy a full and satisfying life. The task of health professionals is to not cause harm and to offer support to patients to alleviate their complaints and problems, not to make these more severe. A therapist who classifies non-heterosexual patients as “deviant” not only offends them but also contributes to the aggravation of their problems. 

“Reparative” or “conversion therapies” have no medical indication and represent a severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons. They constitute unjustifiable practices that should be denounced and subject to adequate sanctions and penalties.

So given this overwhelming consensus among the relevant authorities, why doesn't Swinburne defer to them? In Swinburne's response to Pleitz, he only claims that his view is 'plausible', given the evidence, but it is clear that it is not. He is far too well informed to be ignorant of this literature.

Homophobia?

Therefore, I think Pleitz's original conclusion stands:

Swinburne’s argument against homosexuality is a clear-cut case of homophobia (section 4). The criticism of the premises of Swinburne’s argument shows that some premises are wrong and badly argued for and that there is an equivocation which renders the argument invalid (section 2). If Swinburne’s conclusion gained wider acceptance in the contemporary Western societies, this probably would lead to grave consequences for homosexuals (section 3). Thus, there is an extreme imbalance between Swinburne’s brief argument and the great harm that the endorsement of its conclusion would probably lead to. I conclude that Swinburne in his argument against homosexuality has moved beyond the limits of scientific philosophy, and into the realm of homophobia.

Christian response

As with mixed race marriage, research shows there is a similar reluctance amongst Christians to accept homosexuality as something that is not wrong in some way, and the controversy after Swinburne's talk shows that Christians tend to take such arguments more seriously than the non-religious. Not all of them, though, and it is to the credit of Michael Rea (the president of the SCP) that he expressed regret  on Facebook for the hurt caused by it. He paints the SCP as committed to diversity and inclusion (two of the good Christian traits!), so, perhaps understandably, distanced the SCP from Swinburne's views.

But this apparently innocuous paragraph has been cast by some of the more splenetic members of the Christian community as an assault on free speech and academic freedom (see here and here). Even one of the more reasonable Christian thinkers, Randal Rauser (a champion of analytic philosophy and defender of atheists, whilst being a strong critic of atheism), has called out Rea for his Facebook comment:

If Christian philosophers face censure within the Society of Christian Philosophers for articulating a dispassionate philosophical critique of homosexuality, then where can they express those views?

...and many, often thoughtful, commentators agree with him. I think, rather, that if Christian philosophers should expect no censure when discussing their views amongst other Christian philosophers then that discipline would have stagnated, signalling an end to normal debate on such matters among thoughtful Christians. Rea's comment is not the severest censure, in any case, and pales against the censure delivered to homosexuals by Swinburne in his talk. Imagine being a practising gay Christian in the audience listening to the professor blithely describing her having a homosexual orientation as a 'disability', and that she should be 'cured'.

Such censuring talk is surely inevitable when norms are being challenged, and whilst I can imagine it being abused (such as unreasonable claims of Islamophobia in response to criticisms of Islam, unreasonable claims of Christian persecution in response to judgments of secular law, and perhaps even the framing of reasonable moral censure as an attack on academic freedom), there seems little chance that Rea's comment will threaten Swinburne's, or other Christians', academic freedom, given how overly deferential even countries in the enlightened West are to religion. Religious discrimination against homosexuals is a completely appropriate target for opprobrium, just as religious discrimination against non-whites is. It's just part of the cut and thrust that determines the Overton window of what is acceptable in society.

The modern world has figured out that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and Christians should accept that they are on the wrong side of history on this one, and that people, hopefully including other Christians, will call out bad arguments against homosexuality as homophobic, even if they are made behind the privileged screen of religion. Unfortunately at the moment anti-homosexual sentiment is normalised in the Christian community to an extent that would be challenged in non-religious public fora. Comments such as Michael Rea's are, therefore, to be welcomed.

Read more »

William Lane Craig, Agony Uncle

In a remarkable question of the week, William Lane Craig responds to a common conundrum for theists: what to do when you fall in love with a non-believer, and in marrying them thereby go to hell!?

Yes, really; this chap (I assume) is worried that he will go to hell if he marries a non-believer. Rather than celebrating the joyous confluence in the lives of two human beings, and revelling in it for what it is, he seems pre-occupied with just his own well-being. This does not sound like the sort of selfless behaviour that characterises a healthy loving relationship. Whatever happened to true altruism?

His lover has said, sure, I'll convert to any religion to be with you (pretty selfless for a non-believer!):

So my question is this: if she does convert, how could I be sure that she really believes in Christianity? 

One might ask: how can one be sure anyone believes in any religion? The differences between religions are largely a result of arbitrary cultural currents, since their beliefs occupy that territory beyond the universally verifiable, so on the plus side it's pretty easy for someone to commit to something that might be as true as the next belief system; but on the minus side, theists are typically not impressed by people who treat their specific belief as a happy accidental one.

Craig's initial thoughts seem to hint at the difficulty of determining another's beliefs:

When I first read your question, Shane, I thought, “He’s got nothing to worry about! She’s ready to become a Christian, and the sincerity of her commitment is between her and God.”

But, he's worried:

But the more I thought about it, the more I came to think that you do, indeed, face a rather difficult situation.

Is he concerned about this couple's well-being? Well, not so much:

Forget about going to hell. What you should worry about, rather, is ruining your life by marrying someone who is a nonbeliever and therefore not God's will for your life. You don’t want to wander off the trajectory that God has in mind for you and so miss all that He has in store for you.

Craig agrees that this guy should be worrying about himself first of all. Apparently God has some trajectory in mind for him that, despite his omnipotence, could be diverted by this heathen-ess.

Well, the problem is that in this case her motives for becoming a Christian seem not to be that she has fallen in love with Christ but that she has fallen in love with you!

How could she have made such a schoolgirl error?!

A person who says that “she would convert to any religion” to be with you reveals that she has not understood that Christianity makes objective truth claims about reality.

Sure, but by saying that she would convert to any religion to be with the guy, she may have noticed that the objective truth claims of various religions are not objectively verifiable.

She seems to think of embracing a religion as akin to following fashion: you can change fashions without concern for truth. Such a woman has not yet arrived at the point that she can be trusted. For she seems willing to say or do whatever it takes to get the object of her desire.

And a Christian is doing what, exactly? Should not a Christian say or do whatever it takes to get the object of their desire, Jesus Christ?

You need to wait until you have proof-positive that she has fallen in love with Christ for his own sake, not for yours, and wants her whole life to be lived in obedience to him as Lord.

Despite homophobic Christian talk on the sanctity of marriage as one man, one woman, here Craig seems to be insisting that there be three people in every marriage: a husband, wife and Jesus Christ.

The difficulty, Shane, is that meanwhile you are in danger of getting inextricably bound up emotionally with her, so that your love of her will seduce you to do something that your mind tells you not to do. So you need to create some emotional space between you and her while you wait to see if her commitment to Christ is genuine.

Nice. Much better to eschew the possibility of a lifelong relationship with a potential soul mate than to risk the wrath of an imaginary god.

Read more »

Craig Slips Down the Fallacy Slide

William Lane Craig's serious response to same sex marriage advocates is to say that if marriage is treated as a social construct (which it is) rather than something with an essence (which it is not), this means 'anything goes', including goat marrying.

In his latest Question of the Week in which he allows that the law should be blind to the sexual orientation of those who want to marry, he says:

Marriage is by its essence a relation between a man and a woman.

...

The real question here, it seems to me, is whether marriage has an essence or is merely a social construct akin to driving on the right- versus left-hand side of the road. Those who espouse same-sex marriage want to deconstruct marriage so that what counts as marriage is just a matter of convention. Once we start down that route, anything goes: a man and two women, a man and a child, two men and a goat, etc. I see no reason at all to start down that road.

This is obviously the slippery-slope fallacy. There really is no more reason for the law to change to allow inter-species marriage after same-sex marriage is recognised than before it. It's revealing that one of the leading apologists for Christianity would resort to such a poor argument.

The history of marriage is the history of a social construct, although to say it is 'merely' a social construct is akin to saying that religion is merely a social construct. Of course it is, but there is more to it. The word represents a vast range of real world activities past and present, and normally it would hardly matter about the word, because it would simply come to also represent marriage between two men or between two women - which it has, for many of us, as a matter of fact. It's interesting that Craig considers the phrase 'gay marriage' misconceived, yet still says:

Laws permitting gay marriage would be clearly unconstitutional, since they would not be blind to the sexual orientation of the persons involved.

It's entirely clear what this means; Craig understands that the phrase is readily understood, even if he thinks it misconceived because he thinks marriage has an essence. But, of course, 'marriage' represents something that is going on in society, and it already exists, whether he likes it or not.

So the battle is not to stop marriage from changing; it has changed before and will change again, so the start down the road that Craig so fears has already happened - and it was nothing to do with same sex marriage, note.

The opposition here is just down to good old fashioned religious bigotry, I'm afraid.

Read more »

Craig's Communist Manifesto

William Lane Craig has produced some booklets for children:

Ah, sweet, and delightfully illustrated.

For forty years Dr. Craig has been drawing for his family pictures of the endearing characters Brown Bear, Red Goose, and their two children Charity and John. Now through the wonderful renderings by Marli Renee, these characters help to make deep theological truths accessible and exciting for your children. Brown Bear, Red Goose, and their children form a traditional—though rather unusual!—loving family in which Papa models the biblical role of fathers in bringing up children in the instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). The ten booklets in this series aim to stimulate intellectual curiosity in your children when they have questions about God. The stories thereby serve as a springboard to further conversations with them about spiritual things.

What's that? Brown Bear and Red Goose? The bear has long been representative of Russia, and the redness of Mother Goose shines from the front cover. Could it be any more obvious that these 'illustrated booklets' aim to spread communist lies to brave American children? And him posing as a supposedly mild-mannered God-fearing pater familias. Albeit one who is satisfied that a divinely inspired genocide is a good thing. Could it be that his life's work presenting frankly ludicrous apologia for Christianity was all along driven by an atheist agenda? It would explain some of his arguments. Or maybe I've been watching too much Homeland.

It's nice to see him promoting inter-species harmony, but even Rupert Bear observed the biological facts of the matter, reproductively speaking. I'll be interested to read the booklet where Brown Bear and Red Goose explain where babies come from, and then present the evidence for the evolution of species by natural selection ("Mummy, why are you and John of the order Anseriformes? Why shouldn't I eat you again?"). It seems obvious that this is a thinly veiled attack on opponents of same-sex marriage. Just because Brown Bear and Red Goose cannot have sexual intercourse a la Adam and Eve is no reason that they shouldn't feature in a Christian (or communist) booklet extolling the virtues of the Christian way of life (note the coded "traditional—though rather unusual!" reference to their arrangements).

Kudos to Dr Craig! A bold rebuttal of his own expressed bigotry against homosexuals. I never thought I would see the day.

Read more »

In Bad Faith

Gordon Wilson, of Solas

Eric MacDonald has written an insightful piece on the religious motivations behind political stances. He notes there are a number of issues where politicians base their views on their religious beliefs rather than their expressed arguments. He cites Matthew Parris's article in yesterday's Times (“Religion does not belong in the small print“) recounting an exchange Parris had with Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, on the latter's opinion of homosexuality (Nazir-Ali hummed and ha-ed, but refused to say that his antipathy was based on his religious beliefs).

Now, to be fair to the faithful, they should not use religious doctrine in the public forum of a secular society, which does rather put them between a rock and a hard place. Secular government must not be based on religious ideals, but most theists feel they must argue for their religious beliefs. In the end, they are reduced to putting forward poorly-supported prudential arguments based on little evidence and no principle. They try to avoid overt moral arguments, aware that their morality is founded in the divine. This, in principle, should disallow these arguments from the secular debate, although in practice a certain amount of latitude is granted to the faithful. The weasel words 'a matter of personal conscience' are wheeled out to protect their dogmatic morality.

I think this amounts to arguing in bad faith, because the religious are not plainly stating the reasons for their stance, but instead are offering arguments in which they don't really believe. By this I mean that if the secular arguments they put forward could be shown to be false, by, you know, reason and evidence, they still would not change their stance on the issue, because their religious convictions override any prudential arguments they might offer. But, we must concede, they are simply operating as they must in a secular democracy, and that is surely why religion and democracy are incompatible, as Eric discussed in a previous piece. The rather illiberal conclusion might be that religion has to be eliminated before democracy can be fully implemented. I think we may be tending toward that state of affairs, but in the meantime I'm happy not to pursue elimination  of religious belief in the overriding interest of plurality. And even in the long term I think an argument from plurality could be produced to outweigh the incompatibility of certain views to democratic processes. But everyone should be made aware of the status quo, and participants' dogmatic beliefs, for the sake of transparency.

Another example of this problem has just appeared on the BBC website: Ex SNP leader Gordon Wilson attacks gay marriage. Wilson's religious beliefs are not mentioned in the piece, but without even looking one knows that he is almost certainly attacking same sex marriage because of them. And sure enough, he's the Chairman of Solas - Centre for Public Christianity. (Solas also appears to be the soap box for David Robertson, a minister of the Wee Frees - the Free Church of Scotland - who has often argued for the sinfulness of homosexuality on the old RichardDawkins.net front page discussions.) Given his organisation's title, you would think Wilson would make it clear that his opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on anything other than his Christian beliefs.

Well, I say nothing other than his Christian beliefs, but, as if to prove my point above, Solas also parade some pretty dreadful secular arguments against same sex marriage, in their submission to the Scottish Government Consultation on Civil Partnership and Same-Sex Marriage. They are:

Stirring up Dissension: "By opening up this minefield on behalf of a tiny minority, as evidenced from the numbers from the Registrar General for Scotland mentioned above, the Government cannot be unaware that the same-sex issue affecting the clergy in our largest church is causing distress. Equally, we believe the gay rights lobby will not rest until all religious bodies, be they Christian, Muslim or other be compelled to conduct same-sex partnerships (or marriages) under equality law."

Causing distress to clergy is irrelevant if the action being considered is to implement equality delivering legislation. We would not consider the distress caused to racists of anti-racist legislation, because we recognise that equality takes priority. And slippery slope scare-mongering is also irrelevant to the argument for or against same-sex marriage. The document continues:

Despite the proclaimed desire of both the Scottish and Westminster governments to ‘consult’, we are concerned that there will be little consultation, because the presuppositions of the gay rights lobby have already been accepted by the cultural and political elites of our culture.  It is assumed (rather than rationally argued) that evidence of a tolerant ‘liberal’ society is that one is for gay marriage.  The conclusion has been predetermined before the consultation has even been had.  This is hardly the action of a mature, reflective and tolerant democracy. It is little wonder that there has been little civilised and tolerant discourse.

I don't see any 'presuppositions of the gay rights lobby' (the homophobia oozes from these phrases) other than one - equal rights. It's ironic that in a document devoid of rational argument the accusation is made that the pro-equal rights lobby assumes rather than rationally argues for their position, but in fact little argument is needed for same-sex marriage. It flows naturally from principles of equality, just as the Solas position flows naturally from their anti-homosexual Christian doctrine. I don't agree with their prejudicial doctrine, and they don't present any arguments why anyone should. They continue:

Same-sex Marriages Versus Opposite Sex ‘Marriages’: "Whilst politicians might like to talk about how tolerant and liberal they are, thinking that there is little of consequence for them in going along with this headlong rush to ‘redefine’ marriage, we would encourage them to stop and reflect that in fact this is a major step which has potentially extremely destructive consequences."

There's lots of this sort of evidence free alarmism - "The Government’s perceived wish to give same-sex couples the same status and rights ... is ill thought out and ultimately harmful."; "We again ask if there is minimal demand for same-sex partnerships, where then will come the numbers to warrant such a revolutionary change in society."; "2% is not a solid foundation for tinkering with something that has been the foundation of British and Scottish society for over 1500 years.  You do not mend ‘Broken Britain’ by breaking its very foundations." (my emphases). But no evidence is produced to show that letting two men marry, or two women, is going to lead to the undermining of Scottish society. How could it?

Nature of Marriage in Society: "The meaning of marriage is straightforward.  It is the union between one man and one woman, for the threefold purpose of mutual companionship, the procreation and upbringing of children in a secure environment, and the good of society."

But, once again, simply making an assertion does not an argument make. The meaning of marriage is not straightforward. There; I've gainsaid them. If they don't support their contentions I can dismiss them that easily.

Now, to be fair, throughout the submission, mentions of Christian morality and 'foundations' abound, and the defence of some supposed definition of Christian marriage (™)  is presented as a reason for their opposition to same-sex marriage. This reason would be bad enough, since it's simply dogma, but the actual conclusion we should draw is that these are not the reasons for their opposition; the true reason is that they believe that homosexuality is sinful. This belief is notably absent from the document. And the reason it is absent, I'm pretty sure, is because Christians know that the doctrine is homophobic. We should know this about them; they should declare that they believe in a homophobic doctrine.

Human Rights to Same-sex Marriage: "There is no human rights entitlement to same-sex marriages." 

They cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, and, because they don't mention same-sex marriage, conclude that the provisions don't support same-sex marriage rights. This does not follow, any more than their not mentioning marriage between people of different colour means the provisions do not support that.

However, they do go on and present something resembling an argument:

The generating and rearing of children is essential to the survival of the human race, and vital in Scotland which has an ageing population. Marriage is essential to the human condition; same-sex unions are a biological cul-de-sac.

But, setting aside the fact that same sex couples can raise families with assistance, this is irrelevant to the question of same-sex marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage is not going to decrease the rate of procreation in Scotland! Then, contrary to their assertion. the very existence of same-sex unions in the present day suggests that they are not 'biological cul-de-sacs', but even if they were, why should that count against them? We don't disallow heterosexuals from choosing to have no children.

Religious Celebration of Same-sex Marriages: "If unrest is anticipated over religious celebration of civil partnerships, then the comments made earlier on behalf of Solas apply with even greater force. By issuing this Consultation, the Scottish Government has effectively lit the blue touch paper. It should let well alone and leave the status quo in place, before causing needless stress to itself and its successors. It is the beginning of wisdom to recognise that you attack the essential building block of society at your peril." (my emphases)

The prophets of doom strike again. This overreaction to such a modest proposal is simply laughable. No evidence to support their assertions is presented. Much more spreading of despair and despondency follows, including the idea that extending marriage to same-sex couples somehow destroys marriage. Go figure.

Conclusion: "We do not however think that instigating gay marriage and thus undermining even further the Christian foundations of this society will lead to a better or fairer nation.   Indeed in our view, it will lead to further social disintegration, sexual confusion and greater intolerance, where any in public life or service, who dare to uphold the Christian view of marriage, will be ostracised and discriminated against."

But nowhere is there any evidence presented to support these assertions. In this respect, the document is a microcosm of religious thinking.

I have no doubt that if evidence was produced to show that same-sex marriage would have none of these consequences, Gordon Wilson would still oppose it, because of his Christian beliefs. That is why I call these 'arguments' from Christians in the public sphere (however much they are driven to it in secular democracies) bad faith arguments.

UPDATE: Take a look at John Danaher's discussion of the new natural law argument against same-sex relations, which suggests it's a religious argument masquerading as a secular one.

Read more »