Monday, January 29, 2007
Cameron to back adoption row law
There'll be squeals from the ill disguised bigots who squeal about everything, as well as genuine concern from those who are uneasy about the effects of the law (and let's not let the two be conflated, as the former have been pretending to) but David Cameron has announced that in the absence of any compromise on the adoption issue he will vote for the anti-discrimination law when it comes before Parliament. (BBC News: Cameron to back adoption row law) This is one of those days when I feel very proud of my party's leader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
6 comments:
So your happy that some one can be accused of a crime just on the feelings of another person and then has to prove they are innocent ( as is now going to be the law in Northern Ireland ) ? Its a bad law - ill thought out and ill-temper and anger are all that are likely to come of it.
By the way the word Bigot is being flung around here far too much. Wikipedia's defintion is "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."
On that basis the SORs laws are the very example of Bigoted legislation as they allow no tolerance.
First off I very clearly distinguish between those who seek exemptions/oppose this law because of specific concerns about the right way to go forward and those whose opposition is based in often ill-disguised homophobia. The latter are biogts throught and through and I make no apology for calling them such.
The law is based on the principle of extending equality of goods and services provision to cover discrimination on the basis of sexuality. I don't see what is wrong with providing the consumer with those rights.
And as a Christian I am sickened of the way the issue of exemptions for adoption agencies has been made out to be a struggle between secularism and Christianity. Christianity does not preach discrimination. Jesus came for us all. Christianity does not codemn all. The only people Jesus condemned were religious zealots. Where does it say that a gay couple are unsuitable to adopt and must be referred elsewhere?
How is it compatibe with indivial liberty and choice to prevent people choosing what to do on the basis of the freely chosen behaviour of others?
As I recall Jesus is said in the gospels to condemn "sexual immorality" , did anyone before about 1960 argue he didn't think homosexuality was wrong. Given his disciples preached against homosexual behaviour (in the words of Paul "those who bugger and are buggered") why didn't make it clear
Also this is discirmtion per se so now you can't object to gay orgies ect taking place in a business you own even if you accept some gay relationships as equivilnat to marriage
Tim,
A provocative thought - in Reflections of the Revolution in France, Burke wrote:
"[I]n this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them. We are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason, because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages. Many of our men of speculation, instead of exploding general prejudices, employ their sagacity to discover the latent wisdom which prevails in them. If they find what they seek, and they seldom fail, they think it more wise to continue the prejudice, with the reason involved, than to cast away the coat of prejudice and to leave nothing but the naked reason; because prejudice, with its reason, has a motive to give action to that reason, and an affection which will give it permanence. Prejudice is of ready application in the emergency; it previously engages the mind in a steady course of wisdom and virtue and does not leave the man hesitating in the moment of decision skeptical, puzzled, and unresolved. Prejudice renders a man's virtue his habit, and not a series of unconnected acts. Through just prejudice, his duty becomes a part of his nature."
Surely, tradition - traditional practises, traditional values - are the taproot of conservatism. to defend the monarchy, for example, is to stand against the firy blast of all the reason of the modern world with only tradition as a shield. While conservastism has never been hostile to change, it has preferred gradualism. It has traditionally been the conservative view, I had thought, that only a manifest injustice (or a profoundly, pervasively and indiviously misguided policy, such as those upended by Margaret Thatcher) suffices to radically upset the longstanding traditions of a nation.
If conservatism no longer stands by Burke and Oakeshott, what does it stand for? What are the animating principles of modern conservative thought in Britain today?
I must say, threatening to close down your service to vulnerable children because you don't want to change your policy on gay couples, despite all the evidence suggesting that they are equally capable of providing a stable, secure and loving environment conducive to positive family relationships, doesn't dispose me to seeing these people as full of tender loving compassion. So if anyone, but anyone, says to me again, "think of the poor children"...
Incidentally, I have a new name for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor - Cardinal Tarmac Murphy O'Pointless
God, I'm funny. :)
PS. Make sure you sign the petition to have Patsy sacked as Health Secretary - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/sack-patsy/
Outsider - I guess I see it not as a question of liberty, but a question of how tax payers money should be used to fund adoptions.
IMHO, when health and social services are provided to the public, the policies and manner in which they are provided should be based on solid principles developed from an evidence base.
There is research which suggests that same sex couples who have or adopt children provide an equally good environment as opposite sex couples. Therefore, imho, that's good grounds to allow them to adopt children, with all the assessment, checks and support given to opposite sex couples.
I don't think government money should be funding a service which discriminates on the basis of religious prejudice. Although, I do think charities and churches and individuals can think and do as they like so long as they do not harm anyone else.
But when it comes to my money - it should be used in a responsible way, determined by social research, not ancient prejudice.
Another question could be asked - how would you feel if an agency was discriminating against ethnic minority couples? (People sometimes get offended when I ask that question - I don't mean that sexual orientation is comparable in all ways to one's race, but I do find it interesting, that overt racial discrimination is considered totally unacceptable by our society, while we still waver over discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.)
CA
Post a Comment