Today I read some articles on a court case against a Christian foster couple. They were apparently banned from fostering because if their beliefs against advocating homosexuality, despite them saying they would still look after and care for someone who was gay.
Now as annoying as this kind of "new" persecution against Christians can be, it's not really that which annoys me most. What gets me is that in one article it was quoted as saying that matters of sexual orientation take precedence over matters of conscience on the basis of "equality".
When.. Or rather, how, did the law end up like this? How has it become that having a clear conscience of your actions is second to whether you like men or women? I understand there are lots of issues with homosexuality and prejudices and hate towards people, but I still can't see how defending who people want to be with has become more important than some form of justice.
Plus, it's meant to be about being equal etc - well how is it equal to those with differing moral standards? This is why I think human rights and equality can't always work together; one way or the other something has got to give in order to let the other "right" be exercised. And once it does, the balance is tipped and it's not so equal anymore. But with homosexual rights being pushed so much by the govt., it doesn't matter who else loses their right to their freedom of expression and life or morals, as long as gay people don't feel marginalised.
Sometimes I think the law cares more about protecting peoples feelings than anything else these days...
Article Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html
Childcare legislation has always been rightfully more concerned with the protection of the child than with rights or equality. This isn't about gay rights, freedom of conscience, or equality, and shouldn't be. Thus the laws (only now being repealed) that children must be adopted by parents of the same race. It was a racist law allowed to survive because it was said to be better for the child. If orientation is truly inalterable, as I believe science can conclusively show is *usually* the case, then telling a child s/he can change is an incredibly deep and dangerous wound, regardless of whether the parents say it lovingly and continue to 'accept' the child.
ReplyDeleteEssentially what is happening is this: The parents believe that the emotional distress caused by trying to choose to be straight is worthwhile and justifiable for the sake of morality, and believe that this effort will lead to a real change in the individual. The adoption agency believes that the emotional distress is not worthwhile or justifiable, and will not lead to a real change in the individual. If the parents were right, they should be allowed to raise a child. But if the position of the adoption agency is correct, then perhaps these parents should not be allowed to raise a child, because regardless of rights and equality, these parents will quite possibly cause immense harm to the child.
I think that in most cases homosexual orientation is innate and inalterable. So do the adoption agencies and the courts. If this is truly the case, then the potential parents in question are no more acceptable candidates than parents who will tell a black child 'We believe your choice to be black is wrong, but will love you anyway'. Such people should not be given charge of a child.
The rights of the parents should not be relevant at all. Most countries, including the 'liberal' France, still ban gay adoption because it is considered harmful to the children. The courts sincerely believe that having homosexual parents is damaging to the children, and thus make the right decision by disallowing me from ever adopting (were I French). Any other decision would be blatantly irresponsible of them, unless they have the sudden realisation 'Jordan would make a brilliant father'. Likewise, courts that believe saying 'you can be straight' to a gay child is very damaging to the child (which, given the gay teen suicide rates, is potentially a valid claim) must ban Evangelical parents from adopting. It is the only sensible thing to do in the best interests of the child, unless the potential parents make it very clear that they understand the issues facing gay teens and can outline some sort of approach that is sensitive to these issues. It is very very easy to say 'I love you but don't support your lifestyle' while doing hundreds of tiny things that scream 'you are less of a person now, and we don't really love you because we hate that which you claim you are'.
And now, a bit of racism from me:
ReplyDeleteThe parents look Jamaican. Jamaican Pentecostals. Do some research on Jamaican Pentecostals and their likely attitudes toward homosexuality and tell me you would trust them with your gay son. Jamaica is one of the most homophobic places on the planet, followed in quick succession by most of the other places black Pentecostals usually come from. It's racist of me to think 'black Pentecostal.... probably homophobic'. But, as you know, I think this because I've been hurt so much by black Pentecostals. So much that every time one of them stepped up to the pulpit at Mattersey I spent the entire sermon in fear of when they will infer that I'm not human (while, of course, saying things that they think are loving).
That paragraph got too personal and you can feel free to ignore it. For the record, I have had several incredible moments of true love from black Pentecostals, which are usually profoundly moving and sincere in a way white Pentecostals could never parallel. They're just so heavily outweighed with moments of 'ow!' that it will take years before I see a black Pentecostal without instantly tensing up, completely against my will.
So, in conclusion, based on the knowledge they have the courts have made the right decision. It isn't at all a question of the rights of the parents and shouldn't be, but a question of how those parents will react when their adopted son comes out of the closet. A response of 'we love you but disagree' can be just as damaging as eviction or physical assault when it's said in such a way that means 'you will never be the same person to us again'. Adoption agencies must be allowed to watch out for this behaviour, though hopefully they will use sober judgment in discerning which parents will actually love their children more than their ideology.
Thanks Jordan I hope you don't think I'm being too ignorant here or too simplistic. From all the conversations we've had, you've helped me have better understanding of the psychology that goes on with these issues. And I do always take that into consideration a lot more now since knowing you than I ever might have before. I think, although this post began with annoyance over that case, it kinda turned into my general annoyance of our overtly PC country and the effect that is having on everyone and the way it's shaping the minds of individuals.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think the freedom it supposedly gives is an illusion to the control it actually has.