Civitas Blog

Well said, Mr Conway. The desire of the PC Left to force everyone to conform to their ideological template is unsurprising, the willingness of the rest of us to be herded along in the name of 'fairness' (a cant term if ever there was one) is astonishing.

In a free society, the right of non-association is crucial. No one, citizen or state, should have the right to tell me who to admit to my home, who to serve or who to speak to. If it's my property, then my priciples apply, and if you don't like them you are free to leave.

The Marxist Left recognises no distinction between the public and private realm, a trait common to all forms of totalitarianism (Nazis and Islamists are the same). The malign consequences of allowing discrimination are far outweighed by the malign consequences of outlawing it. It is only by experimentation, pluralism and the exercise of individual freedom and conscience that we can progress as a society. The smothering of freedom is the road to serfdom.

The only reason for this particular piece of misguided legislation is to pacify the gay lobby (to garner their votes), and to comply with the new political orthodoxy which is political correctness.

Forgive me if this sounds cynical, but the legislation in itself is a cynical act based on social engineering - left wing in style.

rhidian says "discrimination of people on the basis of their race is morally abhorrent, as it is on the basis of sexuality too."
I cannot see that this type of discrimination is any more abhorrent than discrimination on any other grounds, say, class, age, height, dress, culture or any other distinguishing feature. The truth is, we ALL discriminate according to our prejudices, and thus to attempt to criminalise certain thoughts is pointless and illiberal.This failure to accept that we can be disliked by others for any reason, logical or otherwise, is juvenile behaviour that prevents us from dealing with problems in an adult manner.If we are entitled to exclude others from our private homes, for any trivial or prejudiced reason,as we are, I cannot see why a hotelier should not choose who to give food and shelter to whosoever he chooses, either.The proper adult response to any such rejection is to look for an alternative, not to attempt to force others to "accept" you, contrary to their wishes and feelings.

CH just repeats his/her argument against the Catholic church's stance and tries to demonstrate that they are wrong.

But whether or not they are wrong is beside the point. There is, presumably, a reason why the Catholic adoption agency was asked to place a child as opposed to any other adoption agency. Perhaps the birth parent(s) wanted them to organise the adoption as he/she/they trusted their judgement and values. Are you saying that the state is better qualified to judge?

Again you go on about obeying the law of the land if they take taxpayers money. If it's the law, what does taxpayers money have to do with it? If they can behave differently provided they don't take taxpayers money, then it's nothing to do with the law - it's to do with policy. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, just that it's policy, not law.

Is it acceptable for a small minority of hotels to refuse rooms to black people, because most hotels welcome them "and so none of them will ever go short of board and lodging"? No, because discrimination of people on the basis of their race is morally abhorrent, as it is on the basis of sexuality too. Your argument is basically that it is OK for some people to discriminate, as long as not too many people do.

CH entirely misses the point.

It is quite possible to be against the Catholic church's stance on adoption and yet to believe that they have the right to have their own beliefs and policy. You have posted good examples of where you feel they are wrong (and many of us may well agree with you). But they may weigh factors differently. So who are you or anyone else to impose your view on them (or indeed, vice versa)? Has the Catholic church, in this instance, tried to impose its view on other people and other agencies?

Your last two sentences are very confused. If it's the 'law of the land', there is an obligation to abide by it whether or not they take taxpayers money (I'm not commenting here on whether the law is correct). Otherwise you are saying simply that the government should deny them taxpayers money because of policy.

I disagree. And it is not for the benefit of gay people - it is for the benefit of the children.

There are many cases where gays are more appropriate than straight people to adopt. Here are some examples of that.

Kate Hilpern, who helps to place children in new homes, and was adopted herself, explains why the Catholic church is wrong. She is a
professional in this area - here is what she says;

“There are some circumstances where I’d say it was preferable for a child to be placed in a gay or lesbian household. One little girl, in
particular, springs to mind who had been severely sexually abused. It was agreed by all the professionals involved that she would
benefit from a two-parent family, but it was also felt that she would gain from slow, cautious reintroduction to men in her life. A lesbian couple rose to the challenge and the result was the emergence of a child with
hope for the future, against all odds. ”

***

There is also the “T Petitioner” case in Scotland from 10 years ago - a legal precedent has already been established that if a gay couple is more experienced and qualified than a straight couple, then, in the best interests of the child, the child should go to the gay couple.

In this case, a male gay nurse (who was in a long-term stable relationship) was given custody of a very severely disabled boy. Why?
Because NO available straight couple had the experience and understanding that this man had in dealing with very serious health problems in the severely disabled. He worked as a nurse caring for disabled children in a hospital and NO straight couple came even close to meeting and understanding this boy’s needs like this man did.

The judge ruled that the nurse should have this boy because it was in the BEST interests of the CHILD to do so. Religion and sexual
orientation do not come into it. That was the ruling.

As children in the Catholic adoption agency are not available outside of it, it deprives them of the best possible parents in some cases. The Catholic church's stance reduces an already small pool of adopters - there are NOT enough for all of the children, most of whom have a variety of problems.

The Catholic church would rather they rot in the system instead of getting a sensible solution as mentioned above. That is what happens to many of the children.

That is cruel to the children to deny them the best situation possible just because of dogma.

BTW the law allows for the Catholic adoption to be run as they want as long as they don't use public money.

It seems that Catholics will not put their money where their mouth is. If you take taxpayers money (including that of gays) then you MUST abide by the law of the land - period.