h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Since it's really quiet here ...

Are the Churches (both C of E and Catholic) within their rights to refuse to place children with gay couples as parents? Should they be legally obliged to do so, or would that be compelling them to act against their conscience, and so be discrimination?

Gif

Yes they are within their rights...

Maybe we should however be asking the question of whether or not the organisation of child adoption should be left in the hands of religious groups or should be organised by a secular authority.

Whisky is right.

Religious groups have no special qualifications to decide the fate of others. Their own laws actually forbid them to judge.

Heterosexuality is both a self-serving and self-preserving mainstay of most religions because it produces familes to carry on. And this preference for heterosexual relations disqualifies them completely to judge those with other sexual orientations.

But let's face it, a genuine biolocical need for child bearing is unlikely to be present in gays, so one has to wonder if their capacity for child rearing would prove fruitful.


~jwf~

If someone wants to have the church find someone to adopt their child, then I don't see what's wrong with having the church making decisions about the adoptive parents.

If the church's are prejudiced against homosexuals, then wouldn't that be part of the values that the biological parent wants when they chose to have the church find a family to take in their child?

Is the market for the adoption of kids big enough that many specialty agencies can all have room to specialise? We seem quite happy to allow groups meeting the specific needs of specific people in other cases. In the rush to be equal, are we in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

The churches led the way in child adoption at a time when the secular state didn't care. Doesn't the greater good not outweigh a minor iniquity?

"But let's face it, a genuine biolocical need for child bearing is unlikely to be present in gays, so one has to wonder if their capacity for child rearing would prove fruitful.

Your basing this idea on what?

The fact that two people of the same sex who are attracted to each other know they cant have childen and therefore must not want children. Dont know for sure that the two ideas have to be mutually inseperable.

Im not going to go on a slippery slope argument here I dont think we should stop faithers doing down gays because it will encourage other of their arguments. im saying that *any and all* of their mumbo jumbo must come second to secular rules or what's the point in having secualr rules. If they can fit neatly in without unreasonable disruption fine but I think denying other people a basic human need just because they arent straight is uncontinable in a civillised society.

I notice with interest the prime movers in the the Holy Roman Church have not got up in arms about having to now offer equal rights to employment to gays who apply for jobs in their faith run schools.

The idea of Catholics suddenly not wanting to employ gays would give evertyone a good laugh.


Sorry SWL the argument that the church cares more or does it better because they did things first is not really a fair one. They started at a time when the state didint have the capacity or funds to do so. Yes the church started many schools hospitals unviersities etc... but that has little bearing in my mind on what's happening now.

one love

If the Catholic Church were the only agency providing adoption services, then clearly, any discrimination would be unconscionable. But they're not. If we can happily accept discrimination in other areas so that a minority might be better served, upon what basis can we justify forcibly making people act against their own beliefs?

Even if & when the Catholic Church is forced to toe the line on this issue, do you honestly believe they are going to provide the same level of service to all in matters that are steeped in such sensitivity? Is it really fair to do so?

Laws are transitory, reliant upon the political fashion of the day. Shouldn't we be looking at this from the viewpoint of an organisation that has been providing a service successfully for centuries.

I'm not saying the Church cares more or does it better, but their motivation is different. They view this as a service to mankind, not a career path. We should at least respect that.

My view is that the Church's position on this is one of discrimination, pure and simple. I can't help wonder how much sympathy they would get were their view to relate to - say - skin colour instead of sexual orientation. Is there a difference that I'm missing?

What I do find interesting is their justification that to force them not to discriminate is itself discrimination.

Gif

We should not discriminate against any one because of their skin colour, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

So we have a dichotomy in action here. Gay people should not be denied the right to adopt, neither should Christian's be forced to do something against their belief system.

As said above the Church adoption agencies do not have a monopoly on available children. However, is not forcing a religious based to do something against their beliefs not also discrimination?

So while the legislation is seeking to remove discrimination it is at the time disciminatory. So yes there should be exceptions and the rule is not perfect as it stands.

Hi DD,

I certainly agree with your first sentence there - "We should not discriminate against any one because of their skin colour, religious beliefs or sexual orientation."

And you are also right about this being a case where two groups' rights are in conflict.

But would you therefore be against any anti-discriminatory legislation in principle? I don't see how any legislation of this nature could work if there are exceptions for anyone who disagrees with it.

Gif

"If the Catholic Church were the only agency providing adoption services, then clearly, any discrimination would be unconscionable.

Why is it should we allow people to break the rules, if the rules are good enough for everyone else in the country why do one set of people get the right to say we *have to* treat others differently and simply break laws others have to follow?


"If we can happily accept discrimination in other areas so that a minority might be better served, upon what basis can we justify forcibly making people act against their own beliefs?

We do accept reasonable discrimination true. Where is the reasonableness in the requests of the catholic church? Do we accept other unfounded prejudices as reasons for breaking the law?



"Even if & when the Catholic Church is forced to toe the line on this issue, do you honestly believe they are going to provide the same level of service to all in matters that are steeped in such sensitivity? Is it really fair to do so?"

Would you be saying the same thing if Muslims were asking to be exempt from British laws which goverened the way they treated other British people? Lets say for instance a female teacher in a hig school asked to be exempt from teaching boys who she considered "men" in terms of physical development?



"Laws are transitory, reliant upon the political fashion of the day. Shouldn't we be looking at this from the viewpoint of an organisation that has been providing a service successfully for centuries.

Some tobbaco firms used slave labour on their tobbaco plantations should they be allowed to use it now?



"I'm not saying the Church cares more or does it better, but their motivation is different. They view this as a service to mankind, not a career path. We should at least respect that.

Yeah everyone in the church does it for the good of the children...have a think about that. Whilst everyone who works in social services is a money grabber and ladder climber who forgets about their case load the minute their shift is over...sorry you are very very wrong here.

Hi Giford considering I speak as a bi-sexual, Christian male with Liberal political leanings that might shed some light (or possibly confusion) on the above.

By forcing this law unto Chruch based organisations the workers there will probably not feel able to continue the service they are already providing because it is opposed to matters of their conscious. The same way that some Muslim shop keepers do not stock alcohol as a matter of conscious and some shops and businesses in areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland still refuse to open on Sunday for the same reason.

If this were to happen there would be a suddend void in the number of agencies offering an adoption service for a large number of orphaned and abandoned children which surely is in nobodys best interests.

The principles I've based my argument on are based on the European Convention on Human rights. So exceptions should not be made in way people treat other people under British law. However, respect has to be a two way street people should not be forcing their veiwpoint down other people's throats to the point of exclusion but vice versa people need to respect other people's beliefs and abide by their considerations.

This is a toughy no denying that but there are flaws in what the governemnt are trying to acheive here and it will cause more difficulties than it is actually attempting to amend in its current form.

I definitely agree that if the churches stop offering an adoption service, that would be a Bad Thing. I think it's something like 4 or 5% of adoptions are placed via Catholic agencies, which is a lot of potentially happy kids.

However, your analogies with selling alcohol and Sunday trading don't seem to hold, as you have a group treating everyone differently. If I went into a shop for a whisky and the guy told me he didn't sell alcohol because he was Muslim - or he was closed on Sunday because he was a Christian - I would have no problem with that.

If, on the other hand, he told me he wouldn't sell alcohol to me because of my sexuality, religion or race, but would happily sell it to others more like himself, I would be deeply offended.

Where we have a minority treating everyone the same way, fine. Where we have a minority (or a majority) treating some groups differently, not fine.

That applies equally to the adoption agencies and to the government - wherever possible, there should not be exceptions to laws based on sexuality, faith or race in my opinion.

Gif

>> I don't see how any legislation of this nature could work if there are exceptions for anyone who disagrees with it. <<

Exactly right.
As a wise man once said, "You can't legislate taste."

As for blicky's query about the source of my contention that something is missing in the biology of gays. Well, I was in fact 'asking if' and not actually declaring that perhaps the lack of a biological motivation to have kids might render parenting moot. It is my experience that mothers are better mothers than fathers.

~jwf~

So as with Queen Victoria lesbians for you dont exist and are objects of fantasy (much like for a lot of heterosexual men).

Ive seen terrible mothers and terrible fathers. A good and nurturing parent is not something that is pre-determined in my experience by gender or biological connection to the child or children.

one love

>> A good and nurturing parent is not something that is pre-determined in my experience by gender or biological connection to the child or children. <<

We must agree to disagree then, because I'm on the verge of suggesting your view is a potentially lethal combination of liberal wishful thinking and macho insensitivity to the true nature of biology in reproduction and child rearing. I'm sure if you had working ovaries you'd see it my way.

~jwf~

Fair enough if you really want to you can think what you like. It's often said that I wont let other people think what they like, but there are somethings it's not a good idea to go around misgudedly believeing.

"Mother knows best"...far too often they don't I have worked with a depressing number of neglected children. Sometimes its because their mothers have mental illnesses, drug addictions, learning dificulties appallingly somtimes its because their mothers have been lazy, greedy and wreckless in regard to raising their children.

Like I say nurturing instincts are neither guranteed nor excluded by whether or not you have a aternal or biological link to a child.

one love

I see where your experience has shown you many unhappy exceptions to nature's general rules and I can understand the conclusions you have drawn. But I do encourage you to reconsider looking at it from the right end of the telescope to get the wider picture. Perhaps a vacation is in order.

In that same light you may want to allow me more choices on my view of "lesbianism in the Victorian era". While it is not something I think about too often, and would therefore have no strong opinion, I did resent you allowing me only the two textbook extremes of 'denial' or 'obsession' because I am usually a middle of the road kinda guy inclined to make up and constantly review my own mind.


~jwf~

As someone who would close all faith based institutions tomorrow - with the exception of churches - I feel this legislation is once more putting laws into statute books where there was hardly any need for them.

Legislation is not the answer to everything, very often its give and take and common sense.

Can we also remember that homosexuality is not a guarantee of good parenthood either.

>> ...close all faith based institutions tomorrow - with the exception of churches... <<

Of course I'm of the live-and-let-live skool but I have to ask if I might have missed some intended irony there. Do you really separate churches as distinct from a variety of other institutions and somehow exempt from your desire to see these closed?

If anything, they serve more good than the religious services.
peace
~jwf~