Craig: gay marriage is “really odd” because “homosexuals typically don’t have lasting partnerships”

Dear William Lane Craig: fuck you you fucking fuck.

Backstory: I’ve started following William Lane Craig on Twitter. I long ago decided not to read most of the new stuff he puts out, but hey why not. Mostly I’ve ignored the stuff I see from him in my Twitter feed, but when I saw him tweet a link regarding gay marriage, I knew I had to check it out.

I didn’t know quite what to expect. I knew Craig had been guilty of promoting anti-gay pseudoscience in the past, but I expected him to be more on the defensive now that a majority of Americans support marriage equality. But no. Instead, Craig just repeats a number of old lies about gays and lesbians:

The odd thing about this is that homosexuals typically don’t have lasting partnerships or relationships. Dr. Thomas Schmidt, in his book Straight & Narrow says that only 8% of homosexual men, and 7% of homosexual women, ever have relationships lasting longer than 3 years. He says, “the number of homosexual men,” and I’m quoting now, “who experience anything like life-long fidelity becomes statistically speaking almost meaningless. Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience, it is virtually the only experience. Life-long faithfulness is almost non-existent in the homosexual experience.

So what is this desire to be married to each other when they don’t really stay together? Well, despite the rhetoric about gay marriage and the need for equal rights, and so forth, if you actually talk to homosexual activists about this, what I think you’ll discover is that what the real agenda is is not obtaining the right to marry, rather the agenda is to deconstruct marriage itself, so that it is no longer by its very nature a union of one man and one woman. I remember talking with one homosexual activist who told me that, “Gay marriage is old hat now. That’s not the interesting thing.” She said, “What I think is really unjust is marriage period altogether the institution of marriage is unjust.”

By turning marriage into a socially constructed reality that doesn’t have a nature, marriage can then be whatever you want it to be. Not just the union of a man and another man, but also even two men and a woman–three partners in marriage. Or it could be a man and a child. Or maybe even a man and his dog, if he feels close enough to his pet to want to marry it. The point is that it just becomes anything that you want it to be. The goal here, the real agenda, is to undermine marriage as an institution by deconstructing it. And since marriage is the most important institution shaping civilized society, those who value our society and that institution, I think, need to be stalwart in our defense of marriage as having an inherent nature of being a union between one man and one woman.

I’ve debunked Thomas Schmidt’s book here. As for the “homosexual activist” who supposedly said all marriage is unjust, I’d believe the story if it were anybody but Craig telling it. Given Craig’s history of lying about his opponents, I confess I’m suspicious. Even assuming he was telling the truth, he isn’t trying very hard to find out the views of those “homosexual activists” if he thinks she speaks for the majority.

And of course, even people with more radical views on marriage don’t literally want marriage to be “whatever you want it to be” when that includes parties who obviously can’t consent to sex. That’s just a vicious slander. (Not long ago, I saw a really great infographic for explaining gay marriage ≠ people marrying their pets to homophobes. Anyone know what I’m talking about?)

[Edited to add & clarify: of course most gay relationships, like most straight relationships, don’t last a lifetime. But the idea that lifetime, or at least long-term-hopefully-for-life relationships are so rare among gay people that it’s totally baffling why they’d want to get married, is a lie.]

I’ve previously argued that given Craig’s history of lying about his opponents, anyone who debates him should insist on speaking first so they can get their message out before Craig has a chance to lie about them. But now I’m going to go further and say no one should share a stage with this bigot at all.

I wouldn’t say that if it were merely that Craig is an anti-gay bigot. Rather, I say that because he’s a bigot who, when he’s clearly losing the argument, instead of putting his energy into pretending his position isn’t bigoted, doubles down on spreading lies about a minority that is just now gaining full legal equality.