Catholic Bigotry?

[ans]

We do not yet know how that may negatively affect the child.

 

How do you propose we find out?

[willstain]

What we need is someone within the group who has been adopted and come through the whole thing to give us their opinion, this would only be one-sided, so if there was 2 people, one of which had been brought up in a M&F parental household and another in a M&M or F&F household we might have a balance first hand view. Of course how they turned out would be paramount. Personally I think every child should feel safe, loved and wanted and that being left in a childrens' home is not the answer.

[Chinahand]

Looks like the decisions been made: BBC Report

 

Downing Street has said there will be no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for Catholic adoption agencies.

But Tony Blair's official spokesman said the agencies would be given 21 months to prepare for the new laws.

 

The proposed measures are likely to face a vote in parliament next month before coming into effect on 6 April.

 

Prime Minister Tony Blair said he believed ministers had found a "way through" to prevent discrimination and protect the interests of children, which all "reasonable people" should be able to accept.

 

"There is no place in our society for discrimination. That's why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple.

 

"And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination."

 

Religious agencies will have a "statutory duty" to refer gay couples to other agencies, until the end of 2008.

 

The government hopes the extra time will allow the agencies' expertise and knowledge to be passed onto the secular sector, rather than being lost altogether.

 

Ms Kelly said the 21-month period would allow agencies to adapt. An independent assessment would be carried out to ensure expertise was not lost.

 

"During the period up to 2008 we will look to faith based adoption agencies to work with us on how they might adapt their methods of operation to meet the new legal requirements," she said.

 

"We all know that there is a wide range of potential adoptive parents out there, including lesbians and gay men who can provide a loving home for children."

[Cronky]

There is a very good piece on the issue in the Times to day by William Rees-Mogg:

 

EU law taking over . . .

 

The real issue is that we have been sold out to non democratic government by the EU. Gays can adopt if they want; it's just that they can't do so through a small Catholic agency. So what. EU culture says that the interests of the EU take precedence over the rights of the individual. I.e. dictatorship.

 

All the Catholic church is doing is stating an opinion and no one is being harmed by it. Blair and Cameron stamp on free speech and we will all suffer as a result.

[John Wright]

Non discrimination against lesbians and gays adopting is not EU. Its Human Rights. HR is not EU, its based on UN Universal Declaration and Council of Europe Convention of Human Rights, both of which pre date the EU by several years.

 

The Rees Mogg piece is a typical right wing anti EU rant. Take a piece of EU legislation, one that in this case sets a level playing field by outlawing sexuality discrinination in Employment then start discussing adoption. The two are wholly unrelated and he is little more than a charlatan for doing so.

 

If the EU is undemocratic, and there can be no doubt it is as undemocatic as our Legislative Council, at least, then the answer surelyis not to reject it but to work to democrtise it, for which it will require a constitution, of sorts.

 

Tories of course being even more intent than New Labour on rolling back democray in the adjacent islands can hardly be seen to seek EU democracy.

 

The only thing which is stopping Blair or Cameron turning UK into a totalitarian state is the HR Act and the European Convention. It is vitally important that we cherish it and protect it.

[Pat Ayres]

What if a couple, man and woman, are gay? There are such couples and they function perfectly and why not?

Is the issue man and woman or just 'not homosexual'?

[Cronky]

Yes, the EU is undemocratic but you have not a cats chance in hell of changing it. My parents were allowed a vote on the Common Market but my generation was never allowed a vote on the EU superstate. The Legislative Council may be undemocratic but in a very small island there is the possibility of changing the political system to suit the population.

 

I do not agree that the Rees Mogg article is a 'right wing anti EU rant' but I wouldn't mind if it was! If you read the article you will see that the EU actually allowed Catholic Churches to opt out. It's the British Government that is taking the law to it's extreme with the support of the opposition.

 

The article makes the fair point that it is wholly wrong to try and silence a minority viewpoint.

 

Let the Catholics have their opt out. Explain to me what possible harm would it do?

[John Wright]

Yes, the EU is undemocratic but you have not a cats chance in hell of changing it. My parents were allowed a vote on the Common Market but my generation was never allowed a vote on the EU superstate. The Legislative Council may be undemocratic but in a very small island there is the possibility of changing the political system to suit the population.

 

I do not agree that the Rees Mogg article is a 'right wing anti EU rant' but I wouldn't mind if it was! If you read the article you will see that the EU actually allowed Catholic Churches to opt out. It's the British Government that is taking the law to it's extreme with the support of the opposition.

 

The article makes the fair point that it is wholly wrong to try and silence a minority viewpoint.

 

Let the Catholics have their opt out. Explain to me what possible harm would it do?

 

Would you agree to an opt out if it was race rights, childrens rights, womens rights?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Christ's sake! Just read the William Rees-Mogg excerpt from the Times. Haha, I would have thought such a desperate rant would have been better placed in the middle of the Daily Mail, not the Times (as right-wing as it is).

 

The only reason I look over the offensiveness of the homophobia in this argument is that is it so moronic. It is such a desperate attempt to elicit the reader's support from bringing up ideas of nationalism, in making the reader falsely believe that his rights are being eroded, and in fact homosexuals have or will have more rights than him. Also, how stupid to refer to the Roman Catholic hierarchy as having views somewhat left-of-centre. The whole concept of right-wing and left-wing is quite relative anyway but such religious reaction is right-wing. To think this article is convincing based on argument and/or facts needs is almost surely homophobic, right-wing, and open to the demagogic style of media that appeals to prejudice, nationalism and the ridiculous new-age fear of political correctness.

 

 

I mean just read this again:

 

The historic basis of the English common law is one of pragmatism and precedence. Our law has been moulded over time to the shape of our English society. It represents the consensus of the English people over the generations. It has also been influenced by strong individual personalities, going back to the time of Henry II.

...blaa blaa blaa (I hate stuff like this, I mean how relevant is Henry II to modern times. What is he talking about in referring the consensus of English people over the generations, that is quite misleading. And what do I care more about: making sure the ancient wonderful laws of England remain unsullied or having some sensible legilsation which leads to less oppression and discrimination in society).

 

 

 

I found this most interesting:

 

The Catholic Church does not accept single-sex partnerships. That is a matter of religious doctrine. One does not have to agree with it to defend its right to be stated.

 

Fair enough I agree with that but there is a huge difference between defending the right of something to be stated and endorsing the active discrimination of certain peoples because of that doctrine.

 

The article makes the fair point that it is wholly wrong to try and silence a minority viewpoint.

Sorry Cronky but it isn't hard to pick up on some glaring contradicitons in your argument. You think it is wrong to silence a minority, ok, but that is not happening here. Nobody is silencing the Roman Catholic church, rather preventing them from taking steps to discrimination a MINORITY of people.

 

 

It was the right-wing, religious zealots who achieved what they wanted, viz. freedom from religious discrimination. It is the ultimate hypocrisy to then single out a group of people and discriminate against them. Whether it is because they think all queers are dirty or whether it is interpretation of scripture they should not and cannot discriminate. For them to be allowed to would fly in the face of all comparative legilsation and rights that have been afforded in the name of equality and freedom of oppression. To look at it the other way, to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt from a Catholic agency is obviously discrimination, it is oppression and it isn't right. Why just homosexuals?

If this is about the possible risk to the child then how can such discrimination be predicated on an assumption, and a homophobic (prejudiced) assumption at that. What are these assumptions and are these so-called possible risks more than those in bringing up children where the parents don't love each other, where there is abuse, where there is only one parent. That is the problem with the argument that DjDan propounds. Besides the whole talk of 'risk' is actually highly offensive and it really does highlight the homophobia of some members of the forum. In explanation, we don't talk of risk when a child has a poor, working-class, single mother, or maybe very old parents or even when a parent has died early in childhood, I could go on. However, in the context of same-sex couples it is about 'risk'. There is absolutely nothing to show that having a father and mother is crucial and such an argument is so heterosexist and gender-based it is largely redundant when specifically talking about the roles a same-sex couple take after adopting.

 

This isn't an issue about freedom of speech. Unlike what is stated in that stupid article this does not remove the Catholics liberties, if the cannot feel they can continue to arrange adoptions then that is their choice but so much for charity and good will.

 

I think what must be recognised is that any argument in support of the catholics wanting to discriminate against homosexuals is homophobic and nothing more.

[Chinahand]

YouGov poll showing how closely opinion is divided: 42% agreeing with a Catholic exemption; 43% disagreeing.

 

Interesting seeing the break downs; Conservatives: 57% in favour of an exemption, Liberals: 61% against. "55 and over": 56% in favour, "18 -34s": 51% against.

[Lonan3]

I shall do my best to respect your ability to applaud a decaying society.

As an (admittedly amateur) historian, however, I am very well aware that current set of mores that you appear to admire so unreservedly have been celebrated in previous times, have always been found to be destructive, and have eventually been rejected. I have no doubt that the same will eventually happen again.

 

Lonan3 are you really telling me that the decline of the Roman and Greek civilizations can be put down to homosexuality. Or if I'm picking the wrong cultures can you describe which other societies you've examined as an amateur historian which have declined and eventually rejected these so called mores.

 

... mores that .. have always been found to be destructuve, and have eventually been rejected.

 

FFS ALWAYS!

 

I've just spent a year reading a hugely complicated and detailed study of the life and works of Nietzsche - don't ask - I am what I am! His attacks on decadence and his certainty in the decline of western society has a massive resonance. He was writing about high Victorian Europe - I shudder to think how he'd write about the modern day with reality TV, the tabloid press, pornography, and the permissive society.

 

But for all Neizsche's condemnation of decadence, what I just cannot understand is how a middle class professional who works hard, saves, has a house, can be described as having destructive mores just because he's had a 15 year long loving relationship with another man.

 

What are these destructive mores that you are so certain exist in this relationship?

 

Yes if a gay couple are openly sexually promiscuous, take drugs, write off the values of education and commitment, then I fully agree they should not be permitted to adopt (but I think trying to say every gay, or even more than a minority of them, will behave like the worst cliche of a 1970s San Francisco Queer is just nuts, its like saying every American woman will behave like an LA Porn Star - something very previlent in the hatred Puritanical countries have of the USA)

 

The idea that you believe that homosexuality per say without any context to how these people actually live there lives is such an issue that it is responsible for the decline and fall of whole societies is just astounding. Do you really believe such things? That isn't a rhetorical question, I am frankly amazed.

Just to make it clear, my comment in response to ans' post was not specifically directed at homosexual relationships. It was, in fact, a more general observation that libertarianism in general has weakened, and led to the downfall of, many civilizations. That is why I chose the phrase 'current set of mores.' Perhaps it was inappropriate to widen the debate in that way, but I feel that it is another symptom of a world in which we are increasingly proclaimed to be free whilst suffering from more and more regulation.

Liberalism - as long as it does not go unchecked - is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Once the balance is tipped too heavily in its favour, however, it becomes deleterious.

The same, undoubtedly, can be said of excessive regulation of 'morality' by those who are only willing to apply their own definitions of it - particularly when such moral rectitude is allied to religious beliefs.

Going back to the original debate:

I do not see that it serves any purpose to force a code of conduct onto organisations that simply find them unacceptable - to the extent that many of the volunteers who work in this field, and have years of experience in placing children in suitable homes, will find it impossible to reconcile their beliefs with such an enforced code.

Furthermore, I am convinced that measures such as this are designed to placate and mollify the most vocal activists rather than responding to the needs of the situation. There is already a waiting list of couples who wish to adopt children (although I take John Wright's point that most of them are looking to adopt young, white children), and measures such as this one are a way of papering over the cracks in a cumbersome and innefficient system. Rather than tackle the faults in the system, it is so much easier to simply widen the net and appear to be tackling the problem

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I disagree Lonan3 it isnot about papering over cracks, it is rather simply about preventing certain groups from oppressing others. In this case the Roman Catholic want to actively discriminate against homosexuals. They shouldn't be allowed to.

 

The faults in the system were and are that certain groups and business could and do discriminate against homosexuals. If we are to live in a libertarian society nobody can turn around to one particular group and say "sorry, you can't have the same rights as us", that isn't the way it goes.

Either we all share the same citizen rights or none of us have any.

 

 

ThaThat YouGov Poll is quite shocking.

[hboy]

What if a couple, man and woman, are gay? There are such couples and they function perfectly and why not?

 

Like Will & Grace?

 

I can't believe the Catholic Church would hate Will and Grace (I bet most priests tune in)

[ian rush]

A somewhat throw away remark: isn't the UK state as a whole bigoted against catholics because of the Act of Settlement and the prohibition on the monarch marrying a catholic?

 

I'm still not 100% decided on the issue and don't / won't really feel qualified unless I have kids.

[P.K.]

I can’t help noticing that words such as ‘bigotry’ and ‘homophobic’ are beginning to appear in the debate. They are words which have been considerably devalued by excessive overuse, so they don’t particularly bother me. I now tend to regard them as the resort of the politically-correct, well-meaning but generally ineffectual do-gooder who finds their beliefs being undermined by debate.

I am sure they are the kind of people who, in their well-meaning way, believe that we should all encourage and support the gay ‘community’ (another word that has lost its meaning from overuse). It is no longer sufficient to tolerate homosexual relationships, it is apparently now expected that we should all promote and endorse such lifestyle choices as if they were at least equal, and possibly preferable, to our own.

There is a point at which liberalism swings the pendulum a little too far – and I think that we’re very close to that point now.

The problem is that ordinary people are left behind by it. They do not want to know about other peoples’ sexual preferences. There is no reason, normally, why they should. I do not, on meeting someone for the first time, announce my name and then add: “…And I’m ‘straight’/heterosexual, by the way.” I have experienced on a number of occasions, however, people introducing themselves and adding: “…And I’m ‘gay.’”

They sound proud of it… as if it is some kind of achievement. It isn’t.

What it means is that they have chosen a lifestyle that precludes the possibility of procreation. And having done that, I believe they ought to accept the consequences of it – rather than circumventing it by loudly proclaiming that they have their ‘rights’ (which never seem to be twinned with ‘responsibilities’ in today’s society) and that they include the ‘right’ to adopt and raise children.

They know that if they proclaim it loudly enough, and for long enough, the feeble politicians will leap onto their bandwagon – totally ignoring what the quieter majority of people would prefer, as usual – and usually end up giving them a greater degree of influence than this small minority could ever hope to achieve if they weren’t so vociferous.

I don’t care about the views of religious ‘bigots.’ They are no better and no worse than the gay ‘bigots’ they’re arguing with.

My opinion remains that the IDEAL upbringing for a child is in a loving family in which the parental figures consist of 1 male and 1 female.

A Lonan3 post I agree with - it must be Wednesday night!

 

I despise homosexuals a la Peter Tatchall. They know that if vociferous enough the representatives of the majority will roll over (sic) and his 2.5% minority will rule the day. I guess it makes the pathetic little man feel important but it is without doubt the tail most definitely wagging the dog.

 

Forget the numbers of "practising Catholics" being definitive. That's just the number who go to church and in this context it's completely meaningless. You don't have to go to church to be a good christian..... So for me it is highly likely that the Catholic Church "hierarchy" (for want of a better word) is representing literally millions of christians on this issue.

 

I personally find two men kissing quite repugnant - certainly not something I ever wanted my young children to see. Two women kissing less so but still uncomfortable - I guess I'm not quite in touch with my feminine side. I remember explaining to my daughters that lesbians were women who "liked DIY" and feeling quite smug with the description. After all, a lesbian couple were our neighbours for quite a few years so this description is based on observation.

 

The homosexual community promote the argument that what matters is "parenting" skills and therefore they have as much a right to demonstrate "parenting" skills as the rest of us. Unfortunately there is absolutely no way whatsoever that you can say with any certainty that a child would have turned out the same way whether bought up via a same sex couple or via a conventional mum and dad. Personally I think they need close role models from both genders to get a balanced view. To me that means any other upbringing is seriously skewed.

 

At the end of the day God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (with thanks to Bazza....). So the less credence paid to Tatchall's "gay rights issues" and his miniscule 2.5% the better.