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

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
My argument has nothing at all to do with religion. I'm an atheist, brought up by atheists who got married in a registry office.

I don't have any evidence to hand, I just remember hearing many times in the past that kids brought up by two married parents (whether they got married in a church, registry office or at the Portsmouth SeaLife Centre for that matter) are *generally*, repeat, *generally* less likely to commit crime, have problems with booze or drugs, drop out of school or have kids themselves before they're ready than kids brought up by one or two unmarried parents. And this was not just someone's opinion, but statistical finding averaged over the population as a whole.
 
Last edited:
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
matt b said:
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.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Ever hear of 'don't ask, don't tell'?

I naturally don't agree on the Catholic church's position here but, like Rowan Williams, British Catholic leaders are in a pretty impossible position: no matter how much they might individually want to liberalise over issues such as homosexuality, the institutional inertia is massive and they are, ultimately, bound to the dictates of their creed in their public actions. So while most priests are happy to, in full knowledge, give Mass to gay couples in their congregations, when it comes to issues of public record - like adoption, or marriage - they have to defer to Rome. It's a bugger, it's wrong, but it's how it is.

What's more insidious about this legislation, however, is that it's legislating on matters of conscience, which is always bad. It's not hard to imagine the situation reversed - a law forbidding gay couples to adopt - framed as a matter of conscience. Can you imagine the outcry then?
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Rambler said:
What's more insidious about this legislation, however, is that it's legislating on matters of conscience, which is always bad. It's not hard to imagine the situation reversed - a law forbidding gay couples to adopt - framed as a matter of conscience. Can you imagine the outcry then?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand this argument. Perhaps I am being a bit simplistic, but either we live in a society where gay people, women, old people and non-white people should not be discriminated against, or we don't.

The only reason gay people are allowed to adopt these days is because of the immense amount of activism on the part of people and groups who are dedicated to creating a more equal society.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"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."
Click to expand...
I really think this is a very tricky one.
I have a problem with her not following her beliefs, if she believes that the state school system is good enough then why is she not putting her son in to it? I would say that this suggests that she doesn't really believe that and that she is a liar.
On the other hand, let's supposed that she has genuinely tried to make the state system as good as possible but recognises that at present it is good enough? Is she then tied to sending her son there knowing that it will not give him the best start in life that he deserves? Should she sacrifice his wellfare for some kind of political expediency? I believe that in this scenario she is as entitled to put her son in to a public school as anyone (though whether anyone is is obviously the next question) but I do believe that she has some kind of obligation to admit that by doing so she recognises that the state school system is not "fit for purpose" - which to my knowledge she hasn't done.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Originally Posted by Rambler
What's more insidious about this legislation, however, is that it's legislating on matters of conscience, which is always bad. It's not hard to imagine the situation reversed - a law forbidding gay couples to adopt - framed as a matter of conscience. Can you imagine the outcry then?"
Click to expand...
"I'm not sure I understand this argument. Perhaps I am being a bit simplistic, but either we live in a society where gay people, women, old people and non-white people should not be discriminated against, or we don't."
Click to expand...
I'm with Mr Eden on that one, what do you mean by "matters of conscience"? I thought that just referred to things where you feel that you have to do what is right. Most disputes rely on two different groups having different opinions on what is right and that's why you have a law - to sort this out. My conscience tells me that society should not discriminate against gays, the church's conscience (apparently) tells them that it should, does that just mean we have to forget about a law there?
 
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
IdleRich said:
Subliminal message in that post?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but couldn't be arsed to fix it. ;)

John Eden said:
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Perhaps I am being a bit simplistic, but either we live in a society where gay people, women, old people and non-white people should not be discriminated against, or we don't.

The only reason gay people are allowed to adopt these days is because of the immense amount of activism on the part of people and groups who are dedicated to creating a more equal society.
Click to expand...

Of course. But it is two completely different things to legislate that 'all adoption centres must accept gay couples' and to simply allow individual adoption centres to choose whether they want to accept gay couples or not. The former is a legislative nightmare that forces some adoption centres out of business (and where do those kids go...?), discriminates against people on issues of faith, costs money to administrate, and stirs up antagonism between social groups. The latter just lets people get on with it.
 
Last edited:
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
I mean, it's not like the Catholic church keeps its feelings on gay union to itself - you can go somewhere else, and it not like there's a shortage of kids who need adopting. There's a shortage of institutions trying to help those kids, and crappy, unnecessary laws like this only harm that cause.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yup - as a hypocrite, the least she can do is admit she's a hypocrite. (Although it has to be said that some people think that by admitting to hypocrisy, they somehow exculpate themselves from the crime of hypocrisy, which is not the case. But that's by-theby...)
The word that snags me in your post, Rich, is 'deserve' - I don't think her son is any more or less 'deserving' than any other kid with the same difficulties (and I know you know that, of course), he just happens to have the advantage of parents who have a few quid lying around. Of course, the fact that she has this option (and used it) is the root of the whole controversy.
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Rambler said:
Yeah, but couldn't be arsed to fix it. ;)



Of course. But it is two completely different things to legislate that 'all adoption centres should accept gay couples' and to simply allow individual adoption centres to choose whether they want to accept gay couples or not. The former is a legislative nightmare that forces some adoption centres out of business (and where do those kids go...?), discriminates against people on issues of faith, costs money to administrate, and stirs up antagonism between social groups. The latter just lets people get on with it.
Click to expand...

its a battle between discrimination on the basis of sexuality and 'discrimination'* on the basis of faith. as faith is chosen, it is the lesser of the two, it gives.

no-one is forcing adoption centres out of business, the catholic church has stated it will choose to close them rather than comply with the law

*in the same way that banning fox hunting was 'discrimination' against sadistic animal killers
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Rambler said:
Of course. But it is two completely different things to legislate that 'all adoption centres must accept gay couples' and to simply allow individual adoption centres to choose whether they want to accept gay couples or not. The former is a legislative nightmare that forces some adoption centres out of business (and where do those kids go...?), discriminates against people on issues of faith, costs money to administrate, and stirs up antagonism between social groups. The latter just lets people get on with it.
Click to expand...

40 year ago you could walk around London and see "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" signs up outside houses with rooms to let. Would you be happy to see the return of this matter of conscience?

The more I think about this the more I return to my original post. I am completely amazed that this bullshit has been allowed to operate - AT ALL. The sooner they close and the adoption process is taken out of the hands of bigots, the better.
 
Last edited:
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Of course. But it is two completely different things to legislate that 'all adoption centres must accept gay couples' and to simply allow individual adoption centres to choose whether they want to accept gay couples or not. The former is a legislative nightmare that forces some adoption centres out of business (and where do those kids go...?), discriminates against people on issues of faith, costs money to administrate, and stirs up antagonism between social groups. The latter just lets people get on with it."
Click to expand...
Of course it's two different things, that's what the whole debate is about isn't it?
I don't think the legislation does discriminate against people on issues of faith, it's treating everyone the same. It doesn't force centres out of business, it forces them to choose between ceasing discrimination and going out of business.
Leaving people to get on with it isn't a good thing if the status quo is bad.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Yup - as a hypocrite, the least she can do is admit she's a hypocrite."
Click to expand...
Well, if she said that she presides over a system of free schools that they are trying to improve but that there are better schools for those who can afford them until they do improve then she wouldn't be a hypocrite. Not exactly very Labour but not a hypocrite.

"The word that snags me in your post, Rich, is 'deserve' - I don't think her son is any more or less 'deserving' than any other kid with the same difficulties (and I know you know that, of course), he just happens to have the advantage of parents who have a few quid lying around. Of course, the fact that she has this option (and used it) is the root of the whole controversy."
Click to expand...
I think he deserves the best school, so does any child, I don't see any problem with that. I'm not making any claim relative to what anyone else deserves.
 
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
john eden said:
30 year ago you could walk around London and see "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" signs up outside houses with rooms to let. Would you be happy to see the return of this matter of conscience?
Click to expand...

Was their disappearance due to a change in the law? (Genuine question - I don't know)
 
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
matt b said:
its a battle between discrimination on the basis of sexuality and 'discrimination'* on the basis of faith. as faith is chosen, it is the lesser of the two, it gives.
Click to expand...

That seems a pretty shakey distinction. You don't 'choose' faith in the way that you choose a sandwich, it runs quite a lot deeper than that. In a battle between colour and sexuality, would colour win? And why impose discrimination against either?

matt b said:
no-one is forcing adoption centres out of business, the catholic church has stated it will choose to close them rather than comply with the law
Click to expand...

Come on, that's a bit disingenuous. The law prohibits them from operating in a particular way, but it's them choosing to close, rather than the law forcing them to?
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
^well, i don't feel that catholics are being discriminated in this case, they're just trying hard to say they are. they are however discriminating against homosexual couples.

they could decide to say 'we'll remain open and provide a service for all people regardless of sexuality etc because we're christians and we love everyone'
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
matt b said:
they could decide to say 'we'll remain open and provide a service for all people regardless of sexuality etc because we're christians and we love everyone'
Click to expand...

Now HOLD HARD there! You're suggesting the custodians of a religious tradition actually practise what they preach? What are you, some kind of GODLESS HERETIC? :rolleyes:
 
R

Rambler

Awanturnik
matt b said:
they could decide to say 'we'll remain open and provide a service for all people regardless of sexuality etc because we're christians and we love everyone'
Click to expand...

Damn right they should - and where they can most Catholics do; but it's a deeply institutionalised thing that is not going to get changed overnight - no matter how wrong it is.

There is a debate beginning in the Catholic church about homosexuality, and issues surrounding these adoption agencies are going to help invigorate that debate, but it will be a long time before priests feel able to openly sanction gay unions (through marriage or the adoption of children). In the meantime how is this law helping that debate? It's not, it's just going to get people more entrenched. Surely better to encourage change through debate rather than enforce it through legislation? (See also trying to ban Holocaust deniers.)
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
Rambler said:
Was their disappearance due to a change in the law? (Genuine question - I don't know)
Click to expand...

It was more like 40 years ago, of course. Apologies.

And yes, the first Race Relations Act in 1965 (amended 1968) would have been a factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top