whilst goody gets it, why not the church(es)?

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Hmm, this is a tricky one. For a start, far more people will admit to having a problem with homosexuality - especially in a context as sensitive as adoption - than will admit to being racist. Furthermore, Catholic adoption centres have said they'll close rather than be bound by the new rules, which will mean that rather than simply not helping gay couples adopt, they won't be helping ANY couples adopt.

I personally think it's sad that so many people think that a child being brought up by a gay couple is intrinsically wrong, but in this particular case I think forcing this law on religious adoption agencies could do more harm than good by simply reducing the chances of children being adopted full stop. There must be plenty of non-religious agencies, after all. In fact there might even be agencies *specialising* in helping gay couples adopt, for all I know (anyone else know?).
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Catholic adoption centres have said they'll close rather than be bound by the new rules, which will mean that rather than simply not helping gay couples adopt, they won't be helping ANY couples adopt.

I'm not sure I see the problem with this, though?

Won't parents who want to adopt kids then be able to go to agencies which are not hampered by bigotry? And consequently increase the resources they have?


Am I missing something here?
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
the catholic adoption centres already place children with single individuals who are gay as well as single mothers (according to newsnight, last night), so there seems to be a lack of consistency in their moral position.

i get the feeling they have seen a gap they can exploit -both the minister involved in the legislation (ruth kelly) and blair have expressed sympathy with their position.

i'd like the centres to close, but i get a horrible feeling a deal might be done :(
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Kelly is a mentalist, she's mixed up with those Opus Dei nutters Dan Brown wrote about in The Da Vinci Code(!). She also supports faith schools, which I see as a disaster in the making.

Still, I think it was wrong of the papers to have a go at her for putting her (severely disabled) son in a fee-paying specialist school. I think anyone prepared to put political principles or public image before the welfare iof their own kids isn't fit to be a parent.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Still, I think it was wrong of the papers to have a go at her for putting her (severely disabled) son in a fee-paying specialist school. I think anyone prepared to put political principles or public image before the welfare iof their own kids isn't fit to be a parent.

no, fuck her. the whole point of principles is that you stand by them, not say 'its good enough for you, but not for me'. she was the education secretary who destroyed funding to special schools.

fucking wankers' behaviour.
 

Gabba Flamenco Crossover

High Sierra Skullfuck
no, fuck her. the whole point of principles is that you stand by them, not say 'its good enough for you, but not for me'. she was the education secretary who destroyed funding to special schools.

fucking wankers' behaviour.

No I disagree. It's not her we're talking about, it's her son, and it's not fair for him to be put through a shit school life because of what his mother does or doesn't believe. She's making a good choice as a parent. It just happens to throw a sharp light on the many terrible choices she made as a cabinet minister, which she's rightly taking flak for. But insisting her son should go without the correct educational care as penence for her uselessness seems a bit medieval to me.

C4 news were reporting that Blair has caved in to cabinet and backbench pressure on this tonight, and has stopped pushing for an exemption for catholic agencies. Looks like the beautification of St Tony ain't going to happen then. Shame.
 

swears

preppy-kei
It's like the Church of England has had to modernise and compromise more and more, and look like a bunch of wet blankets over every issue, and now they're crying "NO! We're not taking it any more!" I'm an atheist, so I couldn't give toss, anyway.

Is there any evidence that a kid brought up in a traditional mum and dad situation will be more happy and well adjusted?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Is there any evidence that a kid brought up in a traditional mum and dad situation will be more happy and well adjusted?

There's a truckload of evidence that kids brought up by married parents do better, in the most general sense, than kids of unmarried couples or single parents. It's just that gay couples can't (yet) get married, although this new civil partnership seems to amount to much the same thing, in reality.

So basically, I think kids brought up by two people who've made a public commitment to each other - whether they're of opposite or the same sex - have the best start in life. Of course, being brought up by one loving, attentive parent is still better than being brought up by a couple who either fight all the time or couldn't give a toss about the welfare of their kids.

On the subject of Ruth Kelly, I'd like to agree with GFC that just because she's a lousy cabinet minister (which I think she is), doesn't mean she has to be a lousy mother. Although I was unaware she was responsible for cutting funding for special schools for disabled kids. :(
 
Last edited:

john eden

male pale and stale
So basically, I think kids brought up by two people who've made a public commitment to each other - whether they're of opposite or the same sex - have the best start in life.


Oh well, that's my daughter knackered then.

"They never married, you know. Said they didn't believe in it, the bastards. Something about not needing the state or church to legitimise their relationship... WELL THAT'S NO GOOD TO ME NOW, IS IT? IS IT? YOU WANT SOME, DO YER?"
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"No I disagree. It's not her we're talking about, it's her son, and it's not fair for him to be put through a shit school life because of what his mother does or doesn't believe."
If she truly believed in state schools then there wouldn't be a problem because she wouldn't have taken her son out. The problem arises because how she acted does not chime with what she professes to believe.
I think that there are mitigating factors in that she sent her first two sons to state schools whereas the one in question has some kind of special needs so you could make a case that this is an exceptional incident. On the other hand the local authority has a good record for dealing with special needs children so maybe not.

"Is there any evidence that a kid brought up in a traditional mum and dad situation will be more happy and well adjusted?"
I'm not sure but I know that at my school if you had been the kid with two Dads you would have had a terrible time of it. For sure, it would be better if everyone accepted kids with gay parents but I wouldn't like to be the trail-blazer for that acceptance.

"Won't parents who want to adopt kids then be able to go to agencies which are not hampered by bigotry? And consequently increase the resources they have?"
I think that's what's going to happen after yesterday/this mornings news. Nobody dares to say it in that language but I reckon it's got to be a good thing.

As an aside, I feel for Rowan Williams, I think that he is a basically decent man in an impossible position. I don't think that he is homo-phobic but he doesn't want to be the man who presides over the break-up of the Anglican Communion or whatever it's called. Unfortunately for him, I think it's basically inevitable as it proves harder and harder to square an outdated organised religion with a constantly changing society.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh well, that's my daughter knackered then.

"They never married, you know. Said they didn't believe in it, the bastards. Something about not needing the state or church to legitimise their relationship... WELL THAT'S NO GOOD TO ME NOW, IS IT? IS IT? YOU WANT SOME, DO YER?"

Don't be so ridiculous. I'm talking about general trends and statistics, and you give me a single counter-example as if that invalidates the whole argument? I'm sure you're a great dad, but if you look at the stats, which are obviously averaged over millions of families, the set-up that is most likely to be associated with kids growing up into well-adjusted adults is two married parents. Of course there are going to be counter-examples, there always are.
 

john eden

male pale and stale
Don't be so ridiculous. I'm talking about general trends and statistics, and you give me a single counter-example as if that invalidates the whole argument? I'm sure you're a great dad, but if you look at the stats, which are obviously averaged over millions of families, the set-up that is most likely to be associated with kids growing up into well-adjusted adults is two married parents. Of course there are going to be counter-examples, there always are.

I was only having a laff. But my main point is that there may be some other factor involved in all this, above and beyond marriage.

For example I daresay most kids who are sexually abused have parents who have made a public declaration blah de blah. Largely because that is the most common situation for a kid to grow up in.
 

tht

akstavrh
No I disagree. It's not her we're talking about, it's her son, and it's not fair for him to be put through a shit school life because of what his mother does or doesn't believe. She's making a good choice as a parent. It just happens to throw a sharp light on the many terrible choices she made as a cabinet minister, which she's rightly taking flak for. But insisting her son should go without the correct educational care as penence for her uselessness seems a bit medieval to me.

Still, I think it was wrong of the papers to have a go at her for putting her (severely disabled) son in a fee-paying specialist school. I think anyone prepared to put political principles or public image before the welfare iof their own kids isn't fit to be a parent.

this is completely wrong, her son is dyslexic which cannot really being considered as 'severely disabled' (compared with severe physical defects, autism, schizophrenia etc)

the school she is sending her son to specifically caters for dyslexic children whose parents want them to pass the common entrance exams, so with attention to their needs these children can be as intellectually and socially developed as the other highly privileged prep school kids taking the same exams
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, sorry I jumped at you. :)
Speaking of counterexamples, someone I know well was brought up by her dad after she was about 12 or 13 because her mum moved out, simply because the dad was such hard work to live with (as a husband), and this massively improved the daughter's quality of life, because she wasn't constantly exposed to two people screaing at each other all the time. For this reason, she gets really angry when she hears about couples in failing marriages staying togther "for the sake of the children", because it's much better for kids to be brought up by one parent who loves them, than by two parents who fight all the time, even if they both love their kids.

Talking about married vs. unmarried couples, I guess it just seems that a married couple are more likely to have *chosen* to have kids (or at least, decided to get married when a kid was on its way), compared to an unmarried couple.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Well of course they are - to her.
I'm not trying to justify her decisions as a minister, only her decisions as a parent. As has already been pointed out, why should her son (who is autisitic, I think) suffer just because she's a bad politician?

well, she's decided to enter public life, so her decisions as a parent and as a politician who has been responsible for the continued running down of special needs support cannot be separated.

why should plenty of other kids suffer? she could have left her son in the public sector (tower hamlets has relatively good special needs support), and worked within the system to make it better- she has the power to enforce positive change.

she's a coward with no political convictions and a hypocrite and yet another example of the 'do as i say not as i do' political class.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Talking about married vs. unmarried couples, I guess it just seems that a married couple are more likely to have *chosen* to have kids (or at least, decided to get married when a kid was on its way), compared to an unmarried couple.

evidence?

surely in a more secular age people are making a positive decision NOT to get married (myself included, until my girlfriend gets really, really hacked off with me- 8 years and counting)- the hypocrisy of the unreligious getting married in church, the denial of those in authority the power to legitimise a couples love for each other. etc
 

john eden

male pale and stale
It is also worth pointing out that the school costs £15,000 a year.

So she has presided over an education system which most people will access, safe in the knowledge that she can escape its failings by stumping up a large wad of cash.

She is therefore in a uniquely privileged position, which is why I am afraid the "doing the best thing for her son" argument doesn't wash with me. She has had options most of us will never have.

Mr Tea - yeah that is roughly the same thing that happened to my partner. No worries, I should use more of these -> :)
 
Top