A law for one, a law for all?
And so it begins. A judgement handed down in a London High Court today has made an exception for Catholic Care, a Catholic adoption association, that allows for the association to refuse to consider gay and lesbian parents when finding homes for children.
Forget all the basics – that gay parents are no better or worse than straight parents by virtue of their sexuality, that it is reprehensible to make such judgments based on who you sleep with, that if we replaced gay people in the equation with, say, black people or disabled people, the uproar would be outrageous. The fact of the matter is that the rights of gay people have been restrained in a most dangerous way – so that discrimination has now been justified. Even more disappointing? The judgment handed down will serve to affirm the belief of over-religious idiots and the conservative right that discriminating against gay people is okay – if the Courts say that gay people can now legally be discriminated against, where do we draw the line?
Alongside this come a whole slew of new questions: what happens to the planned unified Equality Bill? What other exceptions can or will be made? How far will the exception be applied?
Read the full article here. What do you think about the judgment?
Another Galaxy?!?!
The most ridiculous thing, really. Over – religious and conservative right wing idiots are given yet another arm to continue being fascists.
It might be a mixture of really not knowing what to do. The Courts, I mean.
It might be that it’s all too queer and exhausting and the Courts honestly don’t know what or how to act. The Catholics preach discrimination anyway and the amount of money that moves around it…gives them power. That statement some catholics will find offensive- but convince us to agree!How? We’ve heard all this before!
It will be very surprising if we do not hear more from this mayhem.
Gay parents are brave people. Heterosexual parents also of course.
I say STAND UP and make a law for all!
Or let them be?!
In some ways it’s a logical consequence of multiculturalist politics though. The court’s aren’t being homophobic or irrational but simply following through with a deeply pervasive trend within British politics over the last three decades. Obviously I’m not defending this, only suggesting that this is one manifestation of a much wider issue. If you argue that ‘cultures’ deserve protection by the state then, logically, any group which feels itself under threat will eventually be moved to draw on that protection in pursuit of their own aims. A recent case suggests that environmentalism might be coming next….
Politics.Evolution.
And we’re coughing up our lungs.
To prove a point is not easy. Understanding comes in the dark…
This is completely disgusting! I couldn’t agree more with the question, where will this end? This sort of thing fans the flames of homophobia. I took a subject at a level at an all girls catholic school and the way the sisters treated sexually diverse girls’ was appalling. I know this is a major generalisation but I’m Jewish and in any religious context I’ve been in my sexuality has never been an issue. There is also the matter of there being children without homes when prepared gay couples are looking to adopt- such a waste! All because the bloody catholic church appear to be obbsessed with out dated religious guidelines!
I have to agree with Strawberry cheesecake… it’s a very difficult issue to have to deal with. What would people rather, thousands of children miss out on a home or only a few children miss out on a home due to gay parents? I would assume that there are fewer gay couples looking to adopt compared to the number of children looking for homes. So morally, what is more acceptable? Only having a few children that miss out on being re-homed or thousands of children missing out being re-homed because a legal ruling states that a religion has to change its religious stance resulting in the abandonment of a charity altogether? I know what I would prefer.
I’m not condoning this ruling at all but I can see how difficult an issue it is to rule on and like Strawberry Cheesecake pointed out; in a liberal society where all religious point of views have to be considered and respected would it be acceptable to rule against such a vast religious viewpoint when we are supposed to be living in a society that accepts all people, opinions and religions?
Surely if the boot was on the other foot there would be uproar amongst religious groups instead of it being uproar amongst a sexually orientated group. At the end of the day in todays rationale there is no right or wrong answer and no answer will ever be universally accepted.
To be honest I’m actually saying it’s the initial liberalism which is the problem because it leads to a ‘tolerance’ for homophobia. Obviously tolerance is a good thing but not if what’s being tolerated is intolerance. There’s a point at which you just have to say “no I don’t respect your cultural values” because otherwise you’re left with the difficulty you describe: not being able to defend tolerance because to do so would be deemed intolerant.
That’s a great point of view, Custard and Cheesecake.
Not funny when the minority is YOU. Not asking for a law. Asking for nuns to turn into lesbians.Asking for children not to be stuck in the middle of this religious and moral fight.
Yes. Women like you make a big difference. Your world is BIG.
But really – and now I shall indulge forever in my misery and silence – how big is your world? is a question that you have to work on strongly.It has many, many turns.
A thousand bows to all cakes.
xxx
Drop Scone:
No it’s not funny and like I said, I’m not condoning the ruling but then there is no right or wrong answer. If the ruling went the other way whereby the charity had to allow gay parents the right to adopt the charity stated it would abandon the charity. In my opinion, I’d rather have a charity that rehomed hundreds of children but did not indulge the rights of gay parents than no charity at all that left hundreds of children without a home just to allow a few gay parents their right to adopt.
I’m not religious by any means at all but I respect religions and the religious views that they hold and have held for thousands of years whether out dated or not. The way I see it, however, is the change in the religious stance regarding homophobia has to come from within the religion itself. It will never change from the outside from people outside the religious circle forcing it to change its views.
Can’t help pointing out the other great ways the Catholic Church cares for children. not only not letting them get adopted by discriminating against gay prospective parents but – OH – by covering up horrendous pedophilila and abuse scandals carried out by their priests in Ireland and Germany.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse
FFS.
There’s an article I wrote earlier about the Catholic Church and a statement they made to the UN on the reason for pedophilic priests – the problem, according to the Holy See, was not that these priests were kiddy fiddlers, rather it was that they were grown men tiddling young boys. As in, the problem was the homosexual nature of those situation as opposed to the actual pedophilia: http://themostcake.co.uk/right-on/the-gays-the-thing/
Further -put the situation in a different context. Say that it was black people that the adoption agency refused to consider as parents. Or even disabled people. How would that change the situation? Should we say that it’s better to give those children a chance at being adopted despite the discrimination that would be okayed?
And then extrapolate the situation – where should we draw the line? Should it be okay for a religious group to deny the use of its grounds or buildings for use by gay people? Should it be okay for a person to refuse entry to a hotel to a gay couple? Should it be okay for a landlord to say to a man or woman that they cannot live in his/her property because they’re gay? And finally, should a religious-based school, such as a CoE school or an RC school deny entry to a child because they’re gay?
My answer to all of those things is definitely a no – the provision of a service should not be withheld because, on religious grounds, or any grounds, there should be an exception. The rights of a disabled person should be the same as the rights of a woman, of a gay person, of a black person, of a Catholic, of a Hindu, Jew or Muslim. Everyone has the right to be treated like a human being and not as an anomaly, not someone who it is okay to discriminate against because of one’s religious beliefs. It is horrendous, and quite frankly, disgusting to hear people argue the opposite – there is no excuse for bigotry based on sexual orientation because that is all it is – plain and simple.
I’m a gay athiest woman but was raised in a family with catholic values. Church on a sunday was a dull as shit! Being instilled with catholic values as a child made coming out an incredibly difficult process. Especially when i compare it to my friends’ coming out stories who had a non-religious upbrining.
So my point is, many gay people have a mum, dad, sibling, who are catholic. Perhaps Catholic Care/The High Court Ruling should consider that gay people are born within catholic families every day. They absolutely should have a catholic agency that reflects how the world and families actually are. I’d happily be a case study for them.
It would be interesting to know what would happen if a hetro parent who Catholic Care ‘approved’ actually realised they had been gay all their life and decided to come out in later life, despite adopting several kids through Catholic Care. What then? Would they take the kids away from them? Are they suddenly not a good parent?
Sadly, some narrow-minded religious attitudes will never go away. Happily, gays aren’t either!
thanks decorative -that’s a really good point too..
Grow your hair. Peace.
What’s your view on Communism, petit fours?
I ran away from Italy and I’m not even gay!
Correct that…I am so gay now!!!
Should I live with no past or should I write letters to the Pope?
eh? communism?
actually just read @custard’s point – that’s fair enough too…