Gene Robinson

I struggle with the international Anglican communion on a number of levels, too numerous to go into here. Similarly, the controversy of homosexual clergy and bishops is complex and while I stand happily on the liberal wing, I find myself frustrated by people's inability to understand what it means for the church as a whole and to engage with questions of authority of the college of bishops (for the record, I'm in favour), unity (I'm not), and a swathe of sacramental theology (Don't know, but clearly an issue). Given this, I've not tended to pay any real attention to the American at the heart of the debate or ever listened to him say much.


This morning I did, and I regret doing it, for he is a fool. He was interviewed by BH this morning and so incensed was I by it that I went to the trouble of downloading it to listen to his rubbish answers again. They weren't quite a bad the second time round, but they were still illogical and inconsistent. Here's what I didn't like:

1. His inability to understand research: One of the things is so interesting ... all the research shows that the children of same-sex parents are no different in any way to the children of heterosexual parents

I don't know this corpus of research well, but it is bound to have some problems:
i. In order to get a baby as a same sex couple you really have to try, meaning you are probably pretty committed. So it's not like for like.
ii. There is no long term data. We simply don't have research for what happens over a long period of time
iii. (slightly nitpicking, but it's simply not true to say that all the research supports this. This largely biased analysis certainly doesn't
iv. For the record I also think there are probably a number of socio-economic and geographical biases in where same sex couples are recorded, but happy to be corrected

2. His smug arrogance: he claims that he doesn't claim to speak for the church of England, but he is quite linked to it. I mean, the Anglican communion does pay him and everything, but of course we know that those who oppose him simply "happen to be wrong." Lovely. OK for Jesus (and even he contradicted himself, as I once had to explain to an evangelical engineer at a recruitment dinner once) but not for a minor bishop.

3. His rank ignorance: what's so disturbing is why aren't the MPs arguing that there should be mothers? ... they sound misogynist, even patriarchal.
As was gently pointed out (and ignored) this is because it's part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. Has he in fact read the papers? Does he understand why this is happening? It would appear not. And "patriarchal," really.

In addition, he also accused Iain Duncan Smith of wanting to talk about fathers only when he specifically called for the addition of mothers anyway. Sigh.

4. His inconsistency. Having claimed already there is no difference between mixed and same sex unions on children, we get this gem: Most mothers are the ones we learn empathy and unconditional love from, not fathers. So, no contradiction there then.

Anathema indeed.