The government has been accused of "rail-roading" through gay equality laws that, Catholic adoption agencies argue, will force them to close.Some Tory MPs criticised the "unseemly haste" with which ministers sought to pass regulations through Parliament.
But an attempt to get them thrown out was defeated, by 310 votes to 100.
Well there's a surprise! But to those currently getting their knickers in a twist about this issue - where have you been for ten years? It could be argued that the legacy of the Blair years will be just as much about the curtailing of genuine debate as it will be about Iraq.
This piece of legislation is, of course, part of the Equality Act (pdf here).
Now, the idea that we should not refuse goods and services on the basis of race, religion, gender or disability and now sexual orientation is one that I hope most people would find it hard to disagree with.
To quote the PM himself...
There is no place in our society for discrimination.
But hold on one moment. That's not quite true, is it Tony?
There are exceptions in the Act, some of which cover religion; and they would seem to allow a religious body to withhold services precisely for the reasons that the catholic church is putting forward. Surely this means that the law has actually agreed that it is right and proper for there to be some "discrimination".
And we know why this is; for example a church can refuse to appoint someone as it's leader who doesn't hold to the beliefs of the church. Apart from the loony end of the humanist movement, most people would see the sense in this.
So is what the government is saying is that they want us to all be equal but they want some to be more equal than others? (To misquote Snowball)
That may be unfair; perhaps it is better just to say they do recognise that, in some situations, one person's human rights overrule another's. In this instance they are saying that a gay person's "right" to adopt overrules a catholic's right to believe that a particular lifestyle is harmful for children to be brought up within.
If we have a society containing differing views, ideas and standards they will sometimes compete. The question is; how can we best fit these together - and which "rights" come first? Do some need to be legislated away completely?
Now clearly some rights need to supersede others. My right to life needs to come before the "right" of someone to kill me - whether it be because of the colour of my skin, my sexuality, my religion or just that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But what about self defence? There, we would argue that someone could lose his right to life because of his action in trying to kill me. Or what about a rapist? Would we not argue that a woman (or man) was hardly acting unreasonably when they grabbed the gun of their attacker and killed him.
Now this is not philosophy for philosophy's sake. the point is we make value judgements about people and their actions all the time; and we act upon those value judgements (and sometimes enshrine them in law).
We would expect, even demand, that adoption agencies make such value judgements; to make moral decisions about which families will make good parents. In fact if they did not, if they allowed adoption at random, to anyone, we would soon have outrage (no pun intended) in the press and parliament.
To use an extreme case, would we not expect an adoption agency to refuse to place a child with someone on the sex offenders register?
And that is where the debate should be; what are the "qualities" that we believe make people suitable to adopt. Which lifestyle choices are going to help, or harm?
One can hardly have missed that it is just a few days to the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain. We now regard the slave trade with abhorrence; but clearly this was not the case 200 years ago. Our "moral compass" has shifted (and thank God - and Wilberforce - for that!) But it took debate to get the slave trade outlawed - and one of the good things about debate is that you can change people's minds! And if you change their minds, the legislation, if needed at all, becomes only a "back up" for cases of those who cannot be persuaded.
But the problem is that there is no debate here!!!
We are supposed to simply accept whatever the current fashion of the "liberal" elite and popular media happens to be. And if we don't agree - well they'll bring in a law to force us to "behave".
And God help you if you dissent; you will find yourself shouted down and probably given the "hater" label. So, to use the current subject if you were brave (foolish) enough to voice opposition to such legislation, "homophobe" will be the cry. Well, maybe, but maybe not. Maybe it is just a different moral position - and are we not supposed to live in a country that espouses free speech? Or is that only when your speech agrees with the prevailing view?
Now I can only think of one reason for not debating - because you don't have a credible argument to put forward!
labour equality debate equality+act adoption christianity
0 comments:
Post a Comment