Can’t affirm our inherent dignity? You’re still not our friend, no matter who you’ve fooled in Chicago. John Shore, a Christian activist who actually actively supports the LGBT community, had the following exchange with Andrew Marin of the Marin Foundation on Twitter. It’s revelatory:
Andrew Marin: [Part 1] You don’t know all the facts, neither does Dan [Savage]. Pls come to Boystown & talk to me & all the LGBT folks & activists that [Part 2] love & support us. Open invite always stands. Would love to hang.
John Shore: true! I don’t know all the facts. I did read lots of your work on your site; I never saw you say gay isn’t a sin.
[Here Andrew greatly surprised me by affirming that he has never said that being gay isn't a sin. I was less surprised when he quickly deleted that, and instead wrote:]
Andrew Marin: Let’s hv a convo then. U seem like a guy wanting to communicate the truth & not hear-say. Shame u didn’t reach out beforehand. [Part 2] Just wish convos happen. Problematic when respectable folks don’t take 1 extra step b4 they make public statements.
John Shore: I DID take the extra step: I read the articles by you on your site. That took real time.
Andrew Marin: Then u noticed I focus on cultural engagement regardless of belief system; not focusing on belief alignment. So we going 2 talk?
John Shore: Tell me homosexuality isn’t a sin, and we’ve got ourselves chat. Don’t, and we don’t–cuz then I already know who u r.
Andrew Marin: Tell me when 2 grown men must hv a prerequisite agreement before they can hv a simple convo? U nervous to talk instead of type?
John Shore: Why would I be “nervous” about talking to you? You play the middle for your own gain. Hardly intimidating.
Andrew Marin: All I want to do is have a real life conversation. Too much scapegoating online w/140 characters; not sufficient.
John Shore: “It’s no sin to be gay.” That was 21 characters. See how easy?
Shore sums up the conversation:
As of this writing Andrew has yet to respond. I’m confident that when/if he does, he won’t say anything beyond how important it is to continue the dialogue, to keep building bridges, to live in hope, to reach out in love, fuzzy, fuzzy, blah, blah, tastes great, less filling.
Why some people out there actually think it’s encouraging to “build bridges” with people who hate you is beyond me. I promise it does not ultimately enhance the lives of LGBT people to help them “dialogue” with people who won’t even affirm that their lives and loves are worthwhile. Andrew Marin pretends that he plays the “middle” on this, but that’s absolute BS. Why? Because he already affirms the “fundamentalist Christian” lifestyle. That’s supposedly the “other side” that he’s trying to help “build bridges” with the LGBT community. The fundamentalist straight Evangelicals? Their inherent dignity and worthiness is a given.
But not for the gays. Oh, no, not for the gays. But here, have some lovey-dovey feel-good pablum.
Marin’s self-appointed ambassador to the gays ploy seems more about protecting his fundraising base. As long as he remains vague and supposedly above-the-fray he can still receive support and funding from gay-affirming and social conservatives.
It is annoying that Marin exploits his heterosexual Christian advantage. Christian LGBTs don’t have the luxury of remaining vague or hypothetical about the morality of our attractions.
I don’t see how Marin can continue indefinitely with his sitting-on-the-fence posture. He is drawing fire not only from the LGBT side but also from the more obsessive obscurantists in the evangelical anti-gay camp:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexmarinloveisorientation.pdf
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/0830836268/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
If we don’t have the language to discuss something it probably isn’t real.
The post doesn’t argue that Andrew Marin is advancing a position only “to advance one’s position.” It is saying he acts gay friendly when he is not.
Survey Respondent — you are obviously a shill for a right wing group who has been assigned to this website. Thus you are permanently banned.
Do not come back.
Either Marin believes gay is a sin, in which case he’s no friend of ours, or he doesn’t but he won’t say so for fear of enraging those who do, which means he’s still no friend of ours.
I tend to agree that avoiding the gotcha questions forever is untenable. I’ve never been one to give much slack to those who will not give direct answers to direct questions — it irritates me and goes against what I feel is a mandate to ferret out the truth.
That said, I’ve been watching Marin for years in order to determine where his work would go — would it damage or would it help. There are many gays and lesbians out there deeply involved in their faith and hurting because of the turmoil they feel over the perceived dichotomy. I believe it is wrong of us to expect they will benefit from the kind of persuasion we offer, even if we give all the facts in the world — they simply don’t trust us.
There are also churches out there that will listen to someone they feel is coming from their understanding of the world. From my observations, Marin has had positive influences on both groups. Willow Creek, a huge church and one of the earliest Exodus affiliates, jettisoned Exodus and the idea of change largely to go with Marin’s far more neutral curriculum. Since then, as I understand it, they have progressed beyond even a need for that. This is a positive thing for us, and for LGBTs who share their faith.
I don’t know what the answer is here. I am not fully convinced either way, however I do know that Jay Bakker lost virtually all opportunities to do any good for us in such venues when he went on record disclosing his view that gay relationships were not sinful. I think perhaps we have to recognize that many need to crawl before they walk, and while what we do is effective and important for a large segment of the population, there are some who need someone like Marin to help them make the leap.
In this case, “if you aren’t for us you are against us” may be as short-sighted as it was when George W. used the phrase. At this stage of the struggle for rights and understanding, we may have to allow some creative freelancing of this type, albeit closely watched, to help those LGBTs in churches like Willow Creek, or who will be leaving the crumbling ex-gay ministries. The alternative may be to sacrifice people we can’t reach.
“…you are obviously a shill for a right wing group who has been assigned to this website.” W Besen
not
David Roberts,
How is it a “gotcha” question. “Have you stopped beating your wife? is a “gotcha” question. He had at least 4 ways he could answer the question if he believed being gay was a sin: 1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Maybe, or 4) I don’t know. For someone who’s ministry is centered on LGBT’s, this should be a question he’s asked and answered for himself years ago.
It seems ridiculous that he won’t answer that even the homophobic Catholic church will answer -NO! The do believe that engaging in homosexual acts is sinful, but they also believe that any non-procreative sex (within or out of a Catholic approved marriage) is a sin. So all those non-Catholics are sinners, not to mention those Catholics who have sex for non-procreative purposes.
If he can’t or won’t answer fundamental questions, then there is no place in which to engage in a discussion. If he rejects LGBT’s humanity (unless they embrace heterosexuality and his flavor of christianity),then why should we waste any time in hearing his views? They are the same as Fred Phelps’ views, only without the harsh rhetoric.
David
@David
By “gotcha” questions I meant those the answers to which both sides generally use to categorize an individual as “friend or foe.” Perhaps that wasn’t the best term to use, but it was 2:30 am ;)