Catholic adoption agencies may stay open after all
As expected, that the new equality legislation -- already in operation in Northern Ireland and soon to be introduced in England and Wales -- will be applied to Catholic adoption agencies.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has expressed his disappointment at the decision, which he sees as the imposition of a "new morality". Last week, the cardinal claimed that the new laws, which ban discrimination against gays and lesbians, could lead to the closure of the church's adoption agencies. This was seen by many as a threat: if the government introduces this law and applies it to our agencies, the cardinal was saying, we would rather close those services than be required to place children with gay couples. Some commentators have criticised the cardinal's strategy here: that kind of apparent threat is the "nuclear option" and it doesn't leave much room for negotiation -- tactically speaking, it's not the best first move.
How then should we read the cardinal's most recent comments. In response to Tony Blair's decision today, he has expressed the hope that
there may well be some way in which, without breaking the law, our Catholic services can continue in their work according to Catholic principles.
That's a little curious, isn't it? The cardinal and Tony Blair went eye-to-eye on this debate last week, one waiting for the other to blink. Now it seems that the equality legislation may not prove to be as insurmountable a problem (vis-a-vis theological principles) as we were given to believe last week. They say a week is a long time in politics. It's apparently a long time in theology as well.
Comments
In the interests of broadening the discussion,
...to put this in some perspective, the Government estimate was that only 3.5% of the gay community would take civil partnerships and as only around/less than 1% of the population is exclusively gay (Stonewall uses a figure of 5% with a broader definition of gay) then we are talking about a very very small number of gay couples indeed who might be interested in providing a permenant home for adopted children.
And how many of them would still choose to go to a Church adoption agency as opposed to a state one after this becomes law?
Is this the State imposing its onw one-size fits all morality on every citizen?
Also, it has to be noted that many are falsely comparing this "discrimination" to racism. The difference is that people have their race in their genes whereas there is no scientific consensus that homosexuality is inherent, as Will has conceded recently on this blog.
Where one identical twin is gay studies show the other is very frequently not.
This is also the position of landmark studies by Alfred Kinsey, the view of Outrage and Peter Tatchell, the latter insisting sexuality is fluid and a matter of choice - his words not mine.
What is root of this debate is between two worldviews, one rejects the authority of the bible on most matters as God's guide for human life whereas the other believes it. Homosexuality is just the current visible fissure.
Nonetheless, St Paul noted some of the members of the Corinthian church had come out of a gay lifestyle.
1Cor6:9;-
PB
Great.
In an unprecedented move akin to hell freezing over, I have to agree with PB. This is an attempt at universal morality, a law which seeks to remove from private parties the right to make their own judgements on matters which affect their organisations. It won't be long before 'women only' fitness clubs are forced out of that business model and 'men only' golf clubs are forced into this collectivist morality... and in this strange, irrational, politically-impelled world, there are people reading this who find 'women only' fitness clubs more legitimate than 'men only' golf clubs, and there are those who who don't think gender-based discrimination is the same as race- or sexual orientation- based discrimination.
That is because it is not rational rights-based lawmaking but irrational political correctness fueling this trend.
Is this one size fits all morality? No it's one law fits all justice. It's what's called equal protection under the law and equal due proscess where I come from.
Does the law reject the authority of the bible? Yes, the law has been based on other values which are agreed to in a democracy by the elected representatives of the majority of the people. This is one of its principal differences from theocracy, absolute monarchy, and other types of tyrannies. Places where a religious book is the law is where Sharia is practiced according to someone's interpretation of the Koran. I'm sure they don't allow homosexuals to adopt children in those societies. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if in some of them they stoned homosexuals to death, just like they stoned criminals in "biblical times." Social evolution is possible.
pb, please please can you stop restating the same point over and over again: you're hurting my head. Don't you get bored quoting the same thing about Kinsey and Tatchell? I won't even attempt to reply to it, since it's been pointed out to you in previous threads ad infinitum.
As for St Paul and the gay lifestyle? The first century world would not have ANY notion of a homosexual orientation AT ALL.
It was all a bluff then from the cardinal. Hmmmm.
Helen Hays
until this point disappears I am afraid I will continue to repeat salient facts.
If you head hurts perhaps it is becuase you are having trouble accepting or processing them.
If you are looking for somehting new, I dont remember the last time I mentioned that point on identifical twins or about Outrage (see post1).
NOTHING has been pointed out to me me yet about Kinsey and Tatchell that refutes their positions. Tacthell knows many gays who have gone straight and insists its a lifestyle choice. Kinsey also found many many gay men who went straight. science has not found homosexuality is inherent.
I have had exceptionally closed minded responses to these facts but nobody has even begun to overturn them.
That is the type of logic that is driving this legislation and that is why I continue to excercise my freedom of speech until it is forcibly taken from me.
PB
Helen Hays
until this point disappears I am afraid I will continue to repeat salient facts.
If you head hurts perhaps it is becuase you are having trouble accepting or processing them.
If you are looking for somehting new, I dont remember the last time I mentioned that point on identifical twins or about Outrage (see post1).
NOTHING has been pointed out to me me yet about Kinsey and Tatchell that refutes their positions. Tacthell knows many gays who have gone straight and insists its a lifestyle choice. Kinsey also found many many gay men who went straight. science has not found homosexuality is inherent.
I have had exceptionally closed minded responses to these facts but nobody has even begun to overturn them.
That is the type of logic that is driving this legislation and that is why I continue to excercise my freedom of speech until it is forcibly taken from me.
PB
I have no views
Very wise indeed Loulou
I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ARCHIBISHOP COULD CHANGE HIS MIND SO QUICKLY. IS THE CHURCH NOW GOING TO GIVE CHILDREN TO HOMOSEXUALS? ITS VERY STRANGE IF YOU NASK ME THAT HE WOULD SAY THEY WILL CLOSE ONE WEEK AND THEN THEY WONT THE NEXT. WAS IT A BLUFF? WAS IT A GAME OF CHICKEN WITH TONY BLAIR?
hmmm
dont knbow if post 1 was very clear.
what this law seems to mean is that church adoption agencies must forgoe their consciences on account of 3.5% of 1% of the population who will never go to their adoption agencies anyway but would prefer state ones.
PB
pb, there are nearly 4million gay people in the UK. I don't know how many in Ireland. But we have rights too, you know. Supporters of discrimination are from the dark ages. Science is against you on sexuality differences. Ethics is against you on your arguments for discrimination. Good manners is against you on your willingness to use religious language to abuse gays. Just because the basis for your abuse is religion (your religious conscience) doesn't make the abuse anymore acceptable or polite.
In post #1 Pb Wrote:
鈥淲hat is root of this debate is between two worldviews, one rejects the authority of the bible on most matters as God's guide for human life whereas the other believes it. Homosexuality is just the current visible fissure.鈥
Pb:
In Richard Holloway鈥檚 book 鈥淒oubts and Loves鈥 he has a marvelous ficticious letter purporting to be written by a trouble Christian to his fundamentalist aunt 鈥楧r. Laura鈥. The letter reads:
鈥淒ear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states that to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding one or two specific laws and how best follow them.
A. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the lord Leviticus 1.9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
B. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price?
C. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Leviticus15.19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I've tried asking, but most women take offense.
D. Leviticus 25.44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
E. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
F. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination Leviticus 10.10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
G. Leviticus 20.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20-20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you for reminding us again that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
End of letter ....
Regards,
Michael
Second submittal due to indication of 大象传媒 file server error. Disregard if this appears previously.
Re #14
Just by way of background for anyone who doesn't know, Dr. Laura Schlessinger is an American syndicated radio call in psychiatrist who gives advice to the love lorn and other troubled people based on a witches brew of psychology and biblical moralizing. She's based in Los Angeles but her radio show is heard all over the US. Here's her web site.
Even when I agree with her, I find her detestable. She also appears occasionally on television. In New York City, she goes head to head against her competitor Dr. Joy Browne who is a little softer in her advice and a little softer in the head.
I'd sure love to see Dr. Laura in front of Judge Judy's court. I think both Dr. Laura and Judge Judy have been divorced but for some reason, Judge Judy's husband (also was a TV judge) gave her a second chance although for the life of me I can't see why. I can just imagine life in their home. "You weren't paying attention and you burned the toast again" Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat. "He won't make that mistake again." I think Dr. Joy Browne is also divorced.
They say people go into psychiatry and psychology primarily to deal with their own problems. OTOH, I think people like Judge Judy just like inflicting punishment.
Hi Vicky
You appear to be projecting your stereotypes onto me. I nowhere said gay people didnt have rights. I have actually worked with gay couples on several occasions, once defending them against sustained public abuse.
In another case I have defended one from constant abuse in my own workplace.
Needless to say, the persons abusing them have no interest in attending church or studying the bible!
I believe people abusing tobbacco and alcohol and other drugs are sinning but I still fully and warmly relate to them as human beings made in the image of God, being courteous and polite at all times.
Can you substantiate;-
1) 4 million people being gay in the UK? That would be well over twice the population of Northern Ireland!!
2) Can you substantiate that science says homosexuality is inherent??? You might start by explaining why when an identical twin is gay the other is usually not; or how an aversion to reproduction could survive in the human gene pool; or how Peter Tatchell knows so many gays who have gone straight??? Even Will Crawley agrees science does not support you on this. The reason this is so important of course is that public sympathy is largely dependent on the concept that homosexuality is fixed and in no way a choice, a grey area few wish to discuss.
3) Where did I EVER use religious language to abuse gays? Another stereotypical prjection???
4) If you want to talk about manners, do you think the gay lobby might think twice about the children who will suffer if church adoption agencies feel forced to close (they have a right to a conscience too). With only 3.5% of the gay population projected to take civil partnerships and only 1-5% of the population gay, that is a very small minority indeed. Very few of them will be inclined to use a church aoption agency rather than a state one to excercise these new rights; in this whole debate it is ONLY assumed that it is the church that must move. The state is "forcing its morality down the throat of the church" and many children could suffer. The gay lobby can move just as easily as the church but there is a determination to use this case as a stick to beat the church because of long held grudges and to define a new absolute state morality; the children are the stick.
Michael, you often seem to get your fingers burnt on scripture ;-)
I never refer to Leviticus ref homosexuality as that was the law for ancient Israel but which Romans and Galations, Hebrews show is not binding on the church. We have been over this ground before reference the Ebionites, remember?
The bible mentions homosexuality frequently and ALWAYS in negative context. The bible mentions the heterosexual marriage concept frequently and always in a positive context.
I am not an expert on homosexuality which I appreciate is a very emotive topic for those involved. I am not more righteous such people them in my eyes, I have a fallen sexuality like every other human being.
fyi If you look at the hyperlink at the bottom of post 1 it puts a list of sins on a par with homosexuality, saying they are a bar to the kingdom of heaven but that some members of the church had left these practises behind;
-Fornication
-Adultery(including fantasy, as condemned by Christ)
-Idolatary
-Stealing
-Materialism/Covetousness
-Drunkeness
-Revilers
-Extortioners
-Homosexuality (active and passive partners)
For further information on homosexuality check out "desert stream ministries".
PB
Re 15:
The history of the Dear Dr. Laura letter can be read here.
Regards,
Michael
ps Mark: There does seem to be something wrong with the 大象传媒 server - I too have a lot of difficulty getting posts accepted.
pb,
Gay population is 3.6m in UK according to government stats.
source:
You should check out the new science on the physiological basis of homosexuality. This doesn't mean determinism. There is a physiological and psychological and social dimension to all sexualities including heterosexuality. That DOESN'T mean that there isn't some movement room. Thus, some straight men can enjoy some same-sex experiences, and some men who are mostly straight at one point in life may be mostly gay in another period of life.
You ask about abusive language and deny that you've used it? When you put gay people in a list including idolaters and extortionists, you are using abusive language. And constantly speaking of a "gay lobby" is insulting, so please stop that. Gay people are asking for equal rights, thats all.
I don't want any adoption agency to close. They just have to abide by the law. Discrimination is wrong. Full stop. This is not a fight about children suffering. Catholic agencies are already placing children with gay men and gay women. They've done this for years without a complaint. They say they will continue to do this. Their only complaint is being required to place a child with a gay COUPLE. You must see that this is ridiculous logic.