Sexual orientation "should take precedence" over religion

[fredv3b]

There is not, nor ever has been a right to adopt in the UK. Equality legislation has forced those wishing to discriminate to justify that discrimination. Catholic adoption agencies could not show (or even attempt to) that being adopted by a gay couple was a bad thing, regardless of whatever other qualities that couple might have, thereby justifying a blanket ban. The state has not imposed a blanket ban on traditionalist Christian couples from adopting, it has turned down a particular couple for particular reasons and has been able to justify itself in court.

[Wintereis]

I never said that they did have a blanket ban on Christianity to adopt or foster children, that would be rather ridiculous in a nation where the head of the Church is also the head of the Government. They seem to have a ban on people who hold the belief that homosexuality is immoral. I don't agree with those "Christians" in the least, I find them repugnant. But, just because I find their beliefs repugnant does not mean that I have the right to deny them equal access to a job or to the fostering of a child based on those beliefs without showing just cause. But you say their was justification. What was their justification? Was it backed up by scientific studies that show that people who do not think "homosexuality is OK" are bad parents? Who did the study? What other beliefs will the Government decide warrants a refusal of temporary or permanent guardianship and on what basis? In a custody battle, will the court have to find in favor of a parent who is OK with homosexuality even if that parent is unsuitable in other aspects? These are important questions we should be asking ourselves not just presuming that its right because it holds with our beliefs. Obviously, if the social workers had no past problems with the couple fostering children, then their is no direct evidence to support that they would have future problems with the couple fostering children. On the other hand, if the British Government believes that people who think "being gay is not ok" is damaging to children, what is the British Government doing to intervene with biological parents who believe that homosexuality is immoral? I'm sorry if my willingness to play the devils advocate bothers some of you. But it is my belief that we should be asking these questions not only of others but of ourselves as well. And I still have not said that I disagree with the judicial findings (which still seems to be the notion), because I do not nor can I find it in myself to agree wholeheartedly with them based on the evidence I have seen. I would love to be able to find an absolute right and wrong in this situation and I would like it to be with the GLBT community. But, I had already thought of the evidence Fred, Marshlander, and CW submitted in support of the courts findings. Please, if you have something more substantial, I would honestly be eager to hear it. I don't like the gray area when it comes to ethics.

[fredv3b]

I apologise if this is not as substantial as you would like. Although I understand your dislike for grey ethical areas, it means that you must stick to absolute black and white moral pronouncements.

But you say their was justification. What was their justification? Was it backed up by scientific studies that show that people who do not think "homosexuality is OK" are bad parents?

I don't think they claimed they are bad parents, as I understand it they claimed they are bad parents to gay kids (and they have no way of only sending them straight kids). I am not sure it was backed up by scientific studies, to me it stands to reason that if homosexuality is beyond conscious control (there is scientific evidence for that) being told that it is wrong to be gay is bad for your self-esteem (and there is evidence for poor self-esteem leading to poor mental health).

On the other hand, if the British Government believes that people who think "being gay is not ok" is damaging to children, what is the British Government doing to intervene with biological parents who believe that homosexuality is immoral?

Nothing, there is a right to become biological parents.

I'm sorry if my willingness to play the devils advocate bothers some of you. But it is my belief that we should be asking these questions not only of others but of ourselves as well.

I totally agree with your Socratic perspective.

[Wintereis]

I don't think they claimed they are bad parents, as I understand it they claimed they are bad parents to gay kids (and they have no way of only sending them straight kids). I am not sure it was backed up by scientific studies, to me it stands to reason that if homosexuality is beyond conscious control (there is scientific evidence for that) being told that it is wrong to be gay is bad for your self-esteem (and there is evidence for poor self-esteem leading to poor mental health

As far as the moral black and white, no, I just tend to not take sides in situation where the area is predominantly gray or, as in this incident, where the rights of one individual cannot be maintained without infringing on the rights of another individual.

As far as the self-esteem issue is concerned, that is something I have already acknowledged. That is where the right of one, not to be discriminated against for their sexual orientation goes directly against the right of one not to be discriminated against for their religious convictions. Though, it would be impossible to secure a child, any child from the potential of not being subjected to situations that can compromise their self-esteem. Specifically, when it comes to minorities issues, it is absolutely impossible to do so. Sad as that may be, it is true. In addition, unlike many minority groups, most gay people do not have the advantage of growing up in a gay family like most black people have the advantage of growing up in a black family, where strategies to deal with discrimination are often taught. Truelly, there is no answer to this problem short of brainwashing all of society into believing that homosexuality is as moral and virtuous as heterosexuality (it is impossible to get everyone to believe that no matter what you do) or placing all gay people inside bubbles of protection in order to preserve their self-esteem.

[Cardiganwearer]

This case can be debated on two levels. The first covers the law and whether it's right. Naturally I'll be arguing that it's right. Even if we look at adoption as a provision of goods and services issue it should be wrong to differentiate in that provision between heterosexuals and homosexuals. For brevity I'll leave it at that.

On the case in particular there are several issues. That the couple were succesfull adopters in the 90s does not help them here, the law has changed since then to protect gay people. Back in the 90s they wouldn't have been asked about there attitudes on this topic.

If you look at the judgement Johns & Anor, R (on the application of) v Derby City Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 375 (Admin) (28 February 2011) in section 7 we see that Mr Johns said that if he found himself the adoptive parent of a gay child he would try to "gently turn him round". This goes much further than just holding a belief.

Mr Johns similarly in section 62 says that if he found himself caring for a muslim child he would not take him to a mosque, that alone should disqualify the pair.

Their defence chose to take the poor oppressed christian line

"This case raises profound issues on the question of religious freedom and whether Christians (or Jews and Muslims) can partake in the grant of 'benefits' by the State, or whether they have a second class status" (emphasis in original). He continues, "The advancement of same sex rights is beginning to be seen as a threat to religious liberty". He asserts that "something is very wrong with the legal, moral and ethical compass of our country" and that "Gay rights advocates construe religious protection down to vanishing point." He submits that the State "should not use its coercive powers to de-legitimise Christian belief." He asserts that what he calls the modern British State is "ill suited to serve as an ethical authority" and complains that it "is seeking to force Christian believers 'into the closet'." He identifies the issue before the court as being "whether a Christian couple are 'fit and proper persons' (Counsel's use of phrase) to foster (and, by implication, to adopt) by reason of their faith" and "whether Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) views on sexual ethics are worthy of respect in a democratic society." The manner in which he chooses to frame the argument is further illustrated by his submissions that what is here being contended for is "a blanket denial on all prospective Christian foster parents in the United Kingdom", indeed "a blanket ban against all persons of faith", an "irrebutable presumption that no Christian (or faith adherent) can provide a suitable home to a child in need of a temporary placement", that "the denial of State benefits to those who believe homosexuality is a 'sin' must be premised on the basis that such beliefs are contrary to established public policy" and that what is being said amounts to this, that "the majority of world religions [are] deemed to have a belief system that could be described as bigotry or discriminatory because of a code of sexual ethics that some people disagree with."

The judges took a different view,

"It is hard to know where to start with this travesty of the reality. All we can do is to state, with all the power at our command, that the views that Mr Diamond seeks to impute to others have no part in the thinking of either the defendant or the court...

They continue in this vein for a couple of paragraphs.

I'll repeat my previous argument, they can think what they like, they still hate fags and still go to church on Sunday (twice, it would seem from the judgement). It has been pointed out by fredv3b that adoption is not a right in the UK. Their arguments about their religion being compromised are specious at best.

This is simply the religious right kicking back at what the rest of us call progress.

(If you've read this far, thank you for your patience!)

[marshlander]

Thanks CW. I spent a couple of hours yesterday trying to get my head round the judgement in your link and was going to attempt to point out something similar when I had a problem posting to GS last evening. You did a much better job anyway. I am sure I understood relatively little of the full implications of the document!

I was impressed that the judgement managed to steer a path round the difficult distractions of right and wrong as interpreted by different interest groups and deal with this case on the basis of current UK law. Mr and Mrs Johns have not looked after children in care since the early 1990s when the ghastly Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was still in force. The present landscape would now surely be almost unrecognisable for people who last looked after children when the law stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"!

The case also looked at whether the Johns might be eligible to look after children in particular tightly defined instances, but given their insistence that their priority would be to attend their church twice on Sundays, rather than spend time with a child that may be in need of extra attention, that they would try to "turn" a placed young person who was sexually confused or who identified as gay and amazingly that they would not be prepared to accommodate the needs of some Muslim children they pretty much broadsided their case against Derby City Council.

[Cardiganwearer]

Marshlander, thanks for that. When I posted that link I wasn't expecting anyone to actually read it.mile:

[Lilmy87]

Provocative heading I know, but this is the first time I think I have seen any authoritative statement of this kind (but you know it makes sense )

The story concerns a couple in Derby who withdrew their application to foster when it was pointed out to them that the views they hold on homosexuality, informed by their Pentecostal beliefs, are unacceptable.

BBC News - Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

I think the reporting that suggests it is about homosexuality taking precedence over religion are missing the point; it is not about promoting any particular view point, but the rights of the Looked After child over those of the potential foster carers. And so it should be! the Children Act 1989 ratifies that 'The welfare of the child is paramount'. As Fred points out, no one has a sacred right to foster, but all children have a right to a secure, safe environment, where they will be cared for an not encounter discrimination. Whether this is long term or just for a few days respite service, it applies equally.

The Johns' views are of course directly in conflict with this; they, are some of the more right wing columnist seem to feel a parents view on homosexuality are of little relevance- that one day the child might enquire about it, be given an answer, then move on. As others have pointed out, a gay young person could be placed with them. One could imagine if a child who has perhaps already encountered lots of loss and rejection in their life, to feel they might be gay. To be rejected once again would be extremely damaging. Or what if a gay teenager had been thrown out of their home for their sexuality? What if they were placed with the Johns? I think the real life impact their views could have on the young people they wish to support is what they fail to understand.

Also, their arguments that a child is being denied a loving home is strange anyways; the Local Authority has a duty of care to all children, so if a service was needed, it would be provided. It would have to be.

I wonder how a gay couple who expressed a hatred of a particular religion would fair? Maybe this would be a way to see if homosexuality really does have precedence over religion. I suspect they too would be turned down, if they stated they would stop a young person expressing and practicing their faith, as is their right. Because as has been stated, the absolute consideration is to the rights of the child.

Great discussion, Marshlander

[marshlander]

I think the reporting that suggests it is about homosexuality taking precedence over religion are missing the point; it is not about promoting any particular view point, but the rights of the Looked After child over those of the potential foster carers. And so it should be! the Children Act 1989 ratifies that 'The welfare of the child is paramount'. ...

Thanks, Lilmy. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Looking after children has become much more professional since the few weeks that Mr and Mrs Johns had a child to stay twenty years ago. Potential foster parents, even those offering respite care, are required to behave in a professional manner and always in the best interests of the child.