Sexual orientation "should take precedence" over religion

[jbrowder24]

The bad thing is it they'll twist it to make it look like the agency is preferring gays over Christians, which would get certain groups up in arms. The truth is that they didn't deny them because they are Christian; they denied them because they wouldn't love a child unconditionally. Unfortunately, some people won't be able to make that distinction.

[Genersis]

I saw this story on the news.
But the way they rushed through it i didn't understand what they were saying.:redface:

"We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

Once again, the christians miss the point.
Its not about saying its a GOOD thing.
Its about not saying its a BAD thing.

Shame though. As far as i know, there aren't ENOUGH people adopting.
So a child has just missed out on a home.
Even if it wouldn't of been a perfect home.

Oh and is it true that Catholic adoption agencies wont adopt to gay couples?
If thats true they may as well turn away atheists and anyone non-catholic.

[fredv3b]

Oh and is it true that Catholic adoption agencies wont adopt to gay couples?
If thats true they may as well turn away atheists and anyone non-catholic.

The gay issue isn't an issue any more due to the equality act. In any case it was never the agencies decision, if the local social services department don't know any suitable would-be adoptive parents for a particular child they ask adoption agencies if they do.

Catholic adoption agencies did not restrict themselves just to good church-going catholic couples.

[marshlander]

There was an interesting discussion with the couple on today's (1st March 2011) Today broadcast on BBC Radio 4. If you get a chance to listen, start up the BBC player from BBC - BBC Radio 4 Programmes - Today, 01/03/2011 and fast forward to 1:51:40.

Sad really.

[Wintereis]

Thank you Marshlander, quite an ethical quandary. If you think about it, on one hand, you could potentially be subjecting a child to a very traumatic circumstance, on the other, you are punishing individuals for their beliefs--essentially trying to control thought. On a societal level, neither is good.

[Cardiganwearer]

(snip) you are punishing individuals for their beliefs--essentially trying to control thought. On a societal level, neither is good.

The couple have not been punished, there has been no fine or inprisonment, they have sinply failed in a job application because their potential employers deemed them unsuitable. This has happened to most of us at some time and few of us view it as a punishment.

The law is not trying to control their thoughts and applying it hasn't done that. They thought homosexuality a bad thing before the law was applied to them and they still think that. They've simply been denied the opportunity of passing that on to a minor who has no choice in who gets to care for him/her. They are still free to present their ideas to anyone who will listen, all they've been denied is privileged access to a captive and probably uncritical audience.

On a societal level this is all good.

[marshlander]

...quite an ethical quandary. If you think about it, on one hand, you could potentially be subjecting a child to a very traumatic circumstance, on the other, you are punishing individuals for their beliefs--essentially trying to control thought. On a societal level, neither is good.

Indeed, Wintereis, that is how these events are being made to appear. I've woken up this morning trying to work out why this particular incident unsettles me so much. Mr and Mrs Johns are obviously sincere people, but something, somewhere has gone horribly wrong. Mrs Johns says in the interview that "the message of love goes a long way" and she's right, but isn't she being rather selective in applying what has become known as "The Golden Rule"?
The Golden Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She also says that the "sex orientation act" came into force "because of homosexuals". I suspect the truth is nearer to the notion that such a law may not have been necessary were it not for people like her thinking they are being perfectly reasonable in denying their services to gay people.

"The homosexual act needs to be scrapped because the effect is it is denying a child a home" is again only one interpretation of these events. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations says nothing about denying children a safe and loving home, or indeed any kind of home. Surely it is some foster parents and adoption agencies who are the ones that are no longer offering their services because they are not prepared to recognise that their attitudes to minority sexualities potentially undermine a child's well-being and contributes to perpetuating discrimination in wider society?

Mrs Johns asks "Does Christians have to compromise their faith?" No, of course not! No one is requiring them to compromise their belief in their god of choice. The physical manifestation of the god they claim to believe in said nothing about homosexuality. At some time, though, an anti-gay rhetoric became bolted on to Christian belief and it is this prejudice that one hopes they might be able to leave behind, not their faith.

"We will not compromise our principles" - even when those principles are grounded in prejudice and unfairness? Again, very sad, because this news interview followed directly on from the religious "Thought for the Day" slot where the speaker had just delivered an essay bearing the message that a lot of problems in the world are caused because an issue has become "a matter of principle"!

[Cardiganwearer]

Here's a link to the full judgement in the case

Johns & Anor, R (on the application of) v Derby City Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 375 (Admin) (28 February 2011)

You will find (thankfully near the top) evidence presented that Mr Johns said in one of the interviews that he would "gently turn" a gay child if presented with one. This goes so much further than simply disaproving of a childs orientation; were I of a paranoid disposition I would almost suspect the couple of trying to procure children for the purpose of changing there attitues.

It seems also that the respite care thing arose from the refusal of full foster care status.

[marshlander]

Thanks, CW. Fascinating!

[Wintereis]

The couple have not been punished, there has been no fine or inprisonment, they have sinply failed in a job application because their potential employers deemed them unsuitable. This has happened to most of us at some time and few of us view it as a punishment.

The law is not trying to control their thoughts and applying it hasn't done that. They thought homosexuality a bad thing before the law was applied to them and they still think that. They've simply been denied the opportunity of passing that on to a minor who has no choice in who gets to care for him/her. They are still free to present their ideas to anyone who will listen, all they've been denied is privileged access to a captive and probably uncritical audience.

On a societal level this is all good.

Hmm, that is an interesting perspective. But I cannot agree that it is simply that cut and dry of a situation. I already stated that potential emotional trauma could come from allowing a child to be subjected to those beliefs. There is no question about that. But, you state that they simply failed in a job application, but they failed in their job interview because of their religious convictions. They were punished because they were not allowed to care for a child who needed care and were not able to get the job that they had successfully completed many times before because of their religious beliefs. If you think about it, it is not that much different than the Catholic Adoption Agencies denying gay couples the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation with the belief that gay couples could potentialy traumatise the child or a person being refused a job because of their sexual orientation. It is a way of controlling behavior and, therefor, controlling thought in my opinion.

Really, though you and I hold that our sexual orientation is essential, biological . . . there is nothing more to that than a conviction, a faith that we were born gay. There is no conclusive evidence either way despite a bevy of scientific studies searching for that answer.

I think that we should be careful in thinking that all victories for GLBT rights are necessarily a victory for all mankind. I cannot force myself to think in absolutes: them or us. It is not the way my brain works nor would I wish it to work thus. Frankly, in this situation, I don't see a good or easy answer. Both sides, in my opinion, have very valid arguments. I wanted to acknowledge that there is more to this issue than what is being said. And I did say both, to me it seemed you wanted to paint me as being on the side of the religious couple, which is not at all the truth.