Thu 18th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Thu 18th Sep 2014 at 16:43pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Catholic Care loses its five-year legal battle

By on Friday, 2 November 2012

Childhood and Family Life

The adoption agency Catholic Care has lost its five year fight to reserve its services for heterosexual couples only, in a landmark court ruling.

The adoption agency based in Leeds, had taken its case to the Upper Tribunal in order to win the right to maintain charitable status while being permitted to refuse to place children with same-sex couples, in accordance with the charity’s Catholic ethos.

However, they were defeated today as the Charity Commission argued that the charity’s stance is “divisive, capricious and arbitrary” and undermined the dignity of homosexual couples whose parenting abilities are “beyond question”.

The tribunal concluded that Catholic Care had failed to come up with “weighty and convincing reasons” as to why the agency should be allowed to discriminate against gay couples who were trying to access their services.

Emma Dixon, who was representing the Charity Commission, told tribunal judge, Mr Justic Sales, that Catholic Care’s desried arrangement would violate Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and other characteristics. She said: “A requirement to operate within the tenets of the Church cannot constitute Article 14 justification.

“To do so would be to offer protection to the substance of the Church’s belief that homosexuality is sinful.

“To do so would not only be divisive, capricious and arbitrary, it would be excluding from assessment couples whose personal qualities and aptitude for child-rearing are beyond question.”

She added: “There is, as the charity now accepts, no basis whatsoever for calling into question the skills and abilities of same-sex couples as adoptive parents, including as parents of ‘hard to place’ children…it is not necessary to exclude same-sex couples in order to find suitable and loving adoptive parents for children.

“Indeed, the reverse is true. To excluse from assessment same-sex couple’s whose personal qualities and aptitude for child rearing are beyond question would be to allow considerations favouring marriage to prevail over the best interests of the chlid, which would be neither objectively justified nor proportionate.”

But Monica Carss-Frisk QC, who represented Catholic Care, argued that the Commission’s focus put the needs of children second and said it was “tantamount to putting the interests of the helper before those of the helpless”.

  • rjt1

    The Church’s position is not arbitrary: it cannot remake natural law according to its own preference; it can only respect it. On the contrary, it those who take a positivist stance who are arbitrary since they hold that morality is a construct determined by individuals/governments/majority opinion (take your pick). For the same reason it is not capricious.

    Finally, it is not “the substance of the Church’s belief that homosexuality is sinful” (Homosexuality is a disorder; homosexual actions entered into with some degree of knowledge and consent are sinful). Therefore, a decision based on such a premiss is at best confused and at worst ill-founded.

  • whytheworldisending

     
    I usually take the view that people can check out statistics for themselves as including them can make for tedious reading. However, fair point, particularly as nobody in government stats seems to be able to link the figures up or see the bigger picture. Here are the sort of statistics I have in mind:
    http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html
    says:-
    ·         5,115 offences of rape of a female child under 16
    ·         918 offences of rape of a male child under 16
    In other words, 918/6033, or 15.2% of children raped were boys and 84.8% of children raped were girls.
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/integrated-household-survey/integrated-household-survey/april-2011-to-march-2012/stb-integrated-household-survey-april-2011-to-march-2012.html
    says:-
    1.5% of the population are homosexual
    Conclusions
    If homosexuals were no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children, we would expect 1.5% of child rape victims to be boys and 98.5% to be girls.
    84.8% is less than expected, showing that heterosexuals are under-represented among child rapists.
    15.2% is 10 times what one would expect based on the proportions of homosexuals in society at large. Homosexuals are over-represented among child rapists.
    Homosexuals are 10 times more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals are.
    Cameron should stop trying to wriggle out of his pro-gay election strategy and admit he was wrong when he said he supports gay marriage because he is a Conservative. He should also stop talking about witch hunts and tackle the problem of child abuse out there – not least because some of the abusers are members of his party.

  • whytheworldisending

    http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resour...
    says:-·         5,115 offences of rape of a female child under 16·         918 offences of rape of a male child under 16
    In other words, 918/6033, or 15.2% of children raped were boys and 84.8% of children raped were girls.
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/integra...
    says:-
    1.5% of the population are homosexual
    Now if homosexuals were no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children, we would expect 1.5% of child rape victims to be boys and 98.5% to be girls.
    84.8% is less than the expected 98.5%, showing that heterosexuals are under-represented among child rapists.
    15.2% is more than 10 times the 1.5% figure which one would expect, showing that Homosexuals are over 10 times more likely to abuse children. That increased risk is why they should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay marriage  would encourage more adoptions by homosexuals, so gay marriage is a danger to children and must not be permitted by the state.

  • Acleron

    The first problem is identifying all male rapes as being performed by homosexuals and zero female rapes by lesbians. This is not necessarily true and must be substantiated before further analysis. Prison rape, for example, may be just availability, similarly with children.

    The second problem is that the report at ONS is self reported. Because of the rampant homophobia expressed in various parts of society, here being a good example, it is very likely that figure of 1.5% is under-reported.

    So, no, you do not have good data to support your opinion.

  • Megaera

    Hi there.  Sorry about the delay in replying – everyday life has to take precedence over the internet, especially when it involves children! :)

    On re-reading my response I can see that, as you say, I did not address your point, (this is what happens when I post late at night – I don’t do a sufficiently thorough job!).  I am not familiar with the particular Regnerus statement you refer to: please would you post a link to the reference for me?  Thanks in advance.

    I think it’s worth pointing out here that most people I have responded to in this comment thread have completely ignored the points I have made.  Only one person addressed the point I made in my reply to her, clarifying her meaning.  Once she had done so, I found that I agreed with the point she had been making, and I said so in my reply to her.  

    I don’t agree with your statement that there are no stable same-sex relationships.  The *only* gay people I know (three men) are all in stable relationships.  One is a couple who have been together for over 28 years.  I’m not sure how long the other man has been with his partner – just three years that I know of (it may be longer), but there is no sign of relationship trouble yet. :) 

    There are several publicly-known cases of long-term relationships among famous homosexual people.  
    Nigel Hawthorne and Trevor Bentham: 22 years (till Hawthorne’s death)
    Derek Jacobi and Richard Clifford: 39 years (ongoing)
    Edie Windsor and Thea Spyer: 42 years (till Spyer’s death)
    I can’t think of any more off the top of my head, and the ones I have described are pretty old-fashioned simply because I’m not much of a media person, so I don’t really pay attention to media gossip. :)

  • Megaera

    Thanks very much for your clarification, JabbaPapa.

    In my original statement, I meant the usage of word ‘state’ to be understood as defined in my subsequent comment and link.  It would be helpful is English was a little less profligate in the definitions it assigns to words, wouldn’t it?  So much easier to communicate clearly!

    Given that Ancient Rome had three different forms of marriage, each of which carried distinct rights and obligations, and one form of which could only be engaged in by those of the patrician class, I think it is difficult to argue that the state does not define marriage.  There have been cases of same-sex marriage in various cultures in history, from Native Americans to Chinese. 

    However, religions define Holy Matrimony (or the different religions’ equivalents of Holy Matrimony) and states do not, because different faith groups get to define what they do and do not believe, and what meaning their sacraments and ceremonies have for their adherents.

  • http://www.picsofcelebrities.net/blog/2012/05/08/voice-season-finale Cromulent

    The Regnerus quote is from the Nov 2012 issue of Social Science Research. Unfortunately I cannot point to a public copy of the entire essay; its under a pay wall. If you’ve got access to a university library this probably won’t be a problem. I wish I could do more here but I can’t.

    Nigel Hawthorne? Your 3 gay friends? This is pretty anecdotal stuff. Also I’m gonna wager none of those couples raised kids. Doing so itself is a strain on a relationship.

    And I didn’t say there were “no” stable same-sex relationships. But if you accept the proposition that stable parental relationships are best for child-rearing and an entire candidate class of relationships is shown to produce few that endure it makes sense to rule them out as adoption candidates.

  • Megaera

    Homosexual people have been raising children ever since there were people.  In some cases, they were their own children, often the result of a desperate effort to conform to heterosexual norms before they realised that that simply could not carry on (this is a natural consequence of homosexual people feeling disapproved of).  In others, homosexual people may have taken care of the children of other family members who were unable to do so, or who died.  As far as I am aware, all of the reputable studies that we have confirm that homosexual people function no worse as parents than heterosexual people do.  

    When we read the newspapers, we see that the vast majority of people who abuse or murder children – their own or others’ – are heterosexual (such as Fred West and the Moors murderers).  Does this mean that we should assume that heterosexual people are likely to be abusive parents?  Not at all!  It simply means that some people, hetero or homosexual, are likely to be abusive towards children.  The challenge is to identify those people before they hurt any children.  Adoption processes are supposed to be rigorous: those who are approved to adopt should be much better parents than us average Joes who have never been vetted or formally trained in child care.

    The vast majority of people are decent and well-intentioned and care for their children better than an institution can.  It is now widely recognised that children in institutions are at much higher risk of abuse than those in private homes. 

    I do think that ongoing studies of parenting generally would be helpful, as it may help us to identify parents and carers who are likely to abuse, and to protect at risk children before they are harmed. 

  • Megaera

    Please read my comment again, Katie: I didn’t say that cousins should not get married, but that UK laws state that siblings may not marry.  I have also said nothing against polygamists.

    I also did not say that animals should not marry, but that it is against UK law.  As it happens, I do hold a strong opinion that bestiality is inappropriate, not because I do not think that animals are intelligent (I do) but because of the consent issue I raised above.

    I think ‘brainwashed’ is an dangerous term to use when what you actually mean is that you disagree, simply because the insult can so easily be used both ways. ;)

  • Megaera

    Kasia, did you mean that comment as a reply to me or to somebody else?  I’m just confused because I have said not a single word about polygamists anywhere on this comment thread (for the record, I don’t think polygamy is inherently sexist).  Nor have I said that any group of people should not be permitted to adopt.

  • Knight

    Charitable status, once cherished, has been seriously undermined and abused in the last couple of decades. There are many ‘charities’ in existence which are nothing more than extremist political ‘think tanks’ that bring no tangible benefit to those in need in Britain. Some of those same ‘charities’ are directly responsible for the divisiveness that forces genuine charities to be shackled to the altar of political correctness in order to avoid loss of charitable benefits.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    And so the persecution gathers a little more pace. 

    Expect it to accelerate as the West free-falls into outright paganism.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    And so the persecution gathers a little more pace. 

    Expect it to accelerate as the West free-falls into outright paganism.

  • Megaera

    Ah yes, the 1.5% was the finding of the UK poll taken in the last year or so, wasn’t it?  It was a more recent poll in the USA which found 3% of openly gay people.  My apologies for the confusion.  

    I think its fair to say that the percentage in polls – whether 1.5 or 3 – is only the percentage of LGBT people who are openly homosexual.  There are many, many LGBT people who are closeted out of fear of rejection by their family or church.  Some are even driven to marry, in an effort to make themselves more acceptable, and that can mean they ruin the lives of their partner, who might otherwise have found a rewarding relationship with someone who loved her/him as we should all love our partners.

    Of course, people should not be discriminated against, regardless of how small a percentage of the population their particular group is.  A country in which Catholics make up only 0.5% of the population should still not discriminate against Catholics on the grounds of their religion.

    Re Regnerus, I am not ignoring your point, but you have raised the same point in a subsequent post, only more comprehensively, so I will reply to it there. :) 

  • Megaera

    Thank you for the information, and the attempt to find a link for me. :)  Unfortunately, I no longer have access to a university library, so I am unable to read it.  However, I did find this article which considers the same stats you refer to.  http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/don_t_let_criticism_of_the_new_gay_parents_study_become_a_war_on_science.html

    This article quotes David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, as saying the following of the conclusions Regnerus drew form his study: ‘Particularly confusing is the attempt to compare outcomes of children whose parents had a same-sex relationship (which is not an issue of family structure) with outcomes of children who grew up in bio[logical] two-parent married homes (which is an issue of family structure). Tangentially, if this study can’t tell us much of anything about family structure, it CERTAINLY can tell us nothing at all about the issue of marriage, gay or otherwise.’ 

    I agree absolutely that my acquaintances (I don’t know them very well, although I have known the couple for a long time through a mutual friend) and famous LGBT people are completely anecdotal evidence for stability in LGBT relationships: I did not mean for them to be taken as a representative sample.  I mentioned them only because you had said: ‘It doesn’t matter how good stable same-sex relationships are at parenting if in fact there aren’t any stable same-sex relationships.’ and I wanted to demonstrate that there are, in fact stable same-sex relationships that I, personally, know of, as well as public figures who have stable same-sex relationships.  This statement is also why I thought you believed there were no stable same-sex relationships.

  • Haldenrn

    Podex

  • whytheworldisending

    The data is good, and its not opinion, but fact. the statistics refer to rape, so more like 99.9% of the perpetrators will be men. You say “..may be..” which isn’t even opinion, but speculation. Similarly when you say “..it is very likely…” There is no such thing as homophobia. People aren’t afraid of homosexuals any more than they are afraid of drug addicts. They either pity them or disapprove of them. As a christian I pity them, but I wouldn’t agree that drug abuse should be promoted by law or taught in schools, so I don’t approve either. The statistics send a clear message, but in any event, when it comes to opposing common sense, natural instinct hard wired by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, and conscience infromed by thousands of years of faith, those who advocate change carry the burden of proof. It is for the homosexual lobby to come up with statistics to convince the masses that homosexuals are no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals. To be convincing, they need to be clear and simple. This they will never do. That IS my opinion, but its also just the way it is. There is a prima facie case against homosexuals on the basis of the statistics already referred to. Nothing you have said gives rise to a reasonable doubt.

  • whytheworldisending

    Yes. An appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal is possible.

  • whytheworldisending

    That sounds like the rich stifling the legitimate grievances of the poor by denying them access to justice.

  • whytheworldisending

    Britain should turn back to Christ so as to avoid the fate of all worldly empires down the ages.  

  • whytheworldisending

    So you haven’t had part of your city cordoned off as a “Gay Quarter” and you don’t have to put up with obscene “Gay Pride” marches. You must live somewhere nice in the sticks.

  • whytheworldisending

    But its OK that Stonewall are subsidized as a tax-exempt Charity? Respect? What a joke.

  • Acleron

    You haven’t answered the objections to the validity of that data and therefore your conclusions, you just claim it is ‘good’. That is a belief without evidence and can be discarded.

    It is up to you to produce the evidence, no part of society can be asked to ‘prove’ themselves, just because catholics have a downer on them. The data you present is no clear message of anything.

    There is nothing in biology or evolution to suggest your dislike and homophobia are hard wired, it is more likely the result of indoctrination reinforcing prejudice.

    How could anybody produce doubt in one so blind.

  • Acleron

    The empire went a long time ago. 

  • http://www.picsofcelebrities.net/blog/2012/05/08/voice-season-finale Cromulent

    Some wonderful confusion there from Blankenhorn. The parents who had a same-sex relationship could not maintain a stable structure, and Blankenhorn criticizes the study because it couldn’t and didn’t compare structures. There is no parallel structure to compare because there *is* *no* structure on the same-sex side.

    Just because there are stable same-sex relationships doesn’t mean they are normative. And the studies I’ve read on them suggest that “stable” very often means something different then it generally means in an opposite sex relationship.

    Of course none of those studies have large, rigorously constructed datasets like Regnerus has put together.

    BTW, if it isn’t clear already my use of the term “stable relationship” above meant relationships in which there is a child to be reared.

  • http://www.picsofcelebrities.net/blog/2012/05/08/voice-season-finale Cromulent

     Ack. More un-clarity from me. By “above” I mean previous posts in this thread.

  • whytheworldisending

    You said, “Prison rape, for example, may be just availability, similarly with children.”

    I say that is why children must not be made available (via adoption and “gay marriage”) to homosexuals.

  • whytheworldisending

    Its still going – we are not yet part of someone else’s empire, and I can think of 2 main contenders – that’s excuding the USA and Europe.

  • whytheworldisending

    “How many of the abusers in the Wrexham cover up were heterosexual?” None. They were an organised ring of homosexual monsters preying on neglected children and protecting each other by calling in favours from other homosexuals in positions of power in the media, the judiciary and the police. Practicing Homosexuals are part of a very big club, and represent a conspiracy against the voting public. Its time we had a referendum to hear what the ordinary British people actually want for their children. Too many politicians – even those not in the club – have lost the plot.

  • whytheworldisending

    Try telling that to a man and a woman who are having their child taken away from them because they can’t cope. Try telling them that you are a homosexual who is going to love their children. You know what response you would get, and it is a universally held gut response. Natural parents who love their children would be horrified to think of practicing homosexuals going near them. If homosexuals want to love children they need to get over their conditioning, and have their own.

  • whytheworldisending

    You don’t need evidence. The child will be taught that homosexuality is normal. That is untrue, therefore the child will be introduced to a deluded and referentially incoherent belief system and will have cognitive problems – particularly when their delusions are challenged by people who do not share those beliefs. This will cause them unecessary hardship. It starts in school, and actually I’m surprised that someone hasn’t documented the differential rates of bullying as between such children and their peers. But then the politically correct mob don’t want the truth. It is in any case highly unethical to use such children as guinea pigs, since by the time the social “experiment” – which your craving for evidence demands – is complete, the damage will have been done. Ultimately all evidence is subjective, as it is based on the experience of the senses. The constant demand for “evidence” by some posters in relation to every issue is symptomatic of the new idolatry – worship of “Science.” It is a form of tunnel vision. In the end, in politics, it is the will of the people that matters. If you want evidence of that, we should have a referendum on the rights of children and parents versus the rights of homosexuals.

  • whytheworldisending

    But you might have a problem sleeping if they didn’t go to bed early too and made a noise. We have to have SHARED values to get along with each other, and they have to be the right values. Relativistic morality leads to war and death. The source of shared values is religion (Ligare = to bind together) and the source of true religion is Christ. Its that or back to square one. Atheism isn’t an option.

  • whytheworldisending

    Actually the Upper Tier Tribunal judgement doesn’t say that anywhere. Read it and see for yourself. Divisive means “Creating discord or dissension,” and until homosexuals started demanding that the majority do what they say, there was no dischord or dissension. Indeed traditional marriage and family values are cohesive, and hold society together. “Capricious” means characterized by whim (a passing fancy) and so can hardly be applied to a stance based on thousands of years of tradition. “Arbitrary” means based only on individual judgement, but Catholic Care’s stance is based on moral principles that have been around for 2,000 years and are accepted by a third of the world’s population. “Bias” is a preference or inclination that inhibits impartial judgement. Now THAT says it all. Article 6 of the Convention guarantees – when determining civil rights and responsibilities – a fair trial before an IMPARTIAL tribunal. And justice must be seen to be done, so no homosexual judge should be allowed to preside at the appeal. When it comes to children, nobody can be “beyond question” but when it comes to the administration of justice, the impartiality of the judge has to be.

  • whytheworldisending

    Youi said, “As theists have little idea of natural law,…”

    Evidence? ….. Or “Baseless Assertion?”

  • whytheworldisending

    It is not a crime to refuse something to someone because of their sexuality. Women are refused entrance to male toilets because of their presumed heterosexual orientation. That goes for homosexual women also – although applying the same principle rigourously would mean they were barred from female toilets also. The law is an incoherent mess, since it takes no account whatsoever of people’s “sexuality” when determining the safety of the public or the privacy rights of the majority. Men are quite rightly barred from womens toilets, but that is based on a presumption of heterosexuality! Why aren’t homosexual men barred from mens toilets? When you try and reinvent this wheel you will find that it is no longer circular. That’s what you get when you ignore the wisdom of thousands of years.

    There are homosexuals who agree with the Gospel and Catholic moral teachings. Whether someone agrees with my religion or not is not the point. The point is whether practicing homosexuals should be refused unfettered access to other people’s children. I think they should regardless of whether they agree with my religion – although if they are PRACTICING then they do not agree, so there is an element of tautology here. Suffice it to say that I recognise the secular right of muslims (who do not “agree with my religion”) to adopt – as long as they are not practicing homosexuals. Religion in a sense has nothing to do with it. It is about protecting children and society from harm. And it is not just about homosexuals. I would object to Robert Thompson (one of the killers of James Bulger) adopting a child under his new identity even if he was marrried to some poor woman. “The government” of course would not regard that as a crime, but as Tony Blair said, it is God  they answer to.

    It is right to teach children to shun and avoid people who “love” evil.

  • whytheworldisending

    The judge is the future. Put your faith in the pleasure principle and corrupt politicians who promise you everything in the world you can possibly imagine in return for your vote, or in Christ who died for us. Heaven and Hell awaits. You choose, but just don’t inflict your choice on our children. Its their future which is being messed with.

  • Acleron

    Your argument with numbers was fatally flawed, so you then claimed you needed no evidence, and now, any evidence that is presented is going to be biased if a homosexual is involved? This is completely insane.

    You allege faults with a section of society from a point of overwhelming prejudice. I suppose it shows the hypocrisy in a group of people who claim they follow principles of peace and love.

  • Acleron

    You are the evidence. You have alleged that homosexuals are ‘disordered’. Homosexuality is a fact and is present in not only humans but many other species.

    You pretend that humans are special in the animal kingdom, but the evidence shows that they are not. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you don’t need evidence, do you.

  • celtictaff

     We are told what to do, more that once.
    2 Corinthians 6:14-18
    Sums it up well, but the church must now rid itself of every stain, sodomite priests were allowed to flourish and do Satan’s bidding. Time to fight back and rid our church of all Satanic influence.

  • whytheworldisending

    “Pious Catholic Heterosexuals” either have children of their own or accept God’s will where they have none. (Abraham and Sarah weren’t Catholic) Your post is good as an arty expression of your frustration at not being able to make people agree with your own personal opinions, but your exasperation flows from the fact that you are (a) on the losing side, and (b) cannot construct a valid justification for ignoring the statistics quoted. You may not like the statistics, but they are there and they are independently compiled. I won’t say “Get over it,” but gay-rights campaigners should simply accept the reality that 99.9% of natural parents do not want their children adopted by homosexuals.

  • whytheworldisending

    That’s your own personal opinion, but the statistics raise a prima facie case against homosexuals and the onus of proof is therefore on them to disprove the charge that they are a danger to children. Quibbling over decimal percentage points is not sufficient to justify ignorring the obvious conclusion raised by the statistics.

  • whytheworldisending

    In ACLERON’s first paragraph there is a misunderstanding of evidence. A judge does not present evidence. A judge judges all of the evidence from both sides. That is why they must be impartial. As to the evidence provided by the statistics – they are clear, however you are of course entitled to your opinion. Personally I don’t need the statistics because the same conclusions can easily be arrived at using logical deduction – assuming of course that our natural inclinations have been successfully suppressed by totalitarian Gaytheist propaganda, which is very unlikely indeed, since we didn’t get where we are today by suppressing our natural instincts.

    Your post shows a lack of understanding of the Christian faith, and a failure to appreciate the nature of prejudice. Not all prejudice is bad. Even Dawkins would tell you that. Prejudice has evolutionary significance. If we had to think through every decision we ever made we would not have survived this long. We are programmed to be drawn to avoid what is bad for us. Those who did not possess that programming did not survive to (in the case of hard-wired programming) pass on their genes, or (in the case of cultural programming) to pass on their values. A “Prejudice” against homosexuality – and equally importantly, promiscuity generally – is one of the mechanisms by which Nature has until now protected the human race from obliteration by pathogens related to STD’s like AIDs.

    The Christian faith includes obedience to God, who commands we love one another. Like any loving parent, God in his Wisdom, tells us what to do and what not to do, for our own good – because he loves us, but he made us free. Those who think that we can love one another while ignoring God are like children who disobey their parents by playing chicken on the motorway and sharing cigarettes with their friends. It’s not that their parents don’t love them; it’s just that with friends like that nobody needs enemies. Homosexuals need God’s love and Wisdom, but they are their own worst enemies. The parent who destroys the pack of cigarettes and keeps their child in is the one who loves them. The parent who lets them do what they like is, and the friends in wolves’ clothing, are the real hypocrites.

  • whytheworldisending

    In your first paragraph, you misunderstand. A judge does not present evidence. A judge judges all of the evidence from both sides. That is why they must be impartial. As to the evidence provided by the statistics – they are clear, however you are of course entitled to your opinion. Personally I don’t need the statistics because the same conclusions can easily be arrived at using logical deduction – assuming of course that our natural inclinations have been successfully suppressed by totalitarian Gaytheist propaganda, which is very unlikely indeed, since we didn’t get where we are today by suppressing our natural instincts.

    Your post shows a lack of understanding of the Christian faith, and a failure to appreciate the nature of prejudice. Not all prejudice is bad. Even Dawkins would tell you that. Prejudice has evolutionary significance. If we had to think through every decision we ever made we would not have survived this long. We are programmed to be drawn to avoid what is bad for us. Those who did not possess that programming did not survive to (in the case of hard-wired programming) pass on their genes, or (in the case of cultural programming) to pass on their values. A “Prejudice” against homosexuality – and equally importantly, promiscuity generally – is one of the mechanisms by which Nature has until now protected the human race from obliteration by pathogens related to STD’s like AIDs.

    The Christian faith includes obedience to God, who commands we love one another. Like any loving parent, God in his Wisdom, tells us what to do and what not to do, for our own good – because he loves us, but he made us free. Those who think that we can love one another while ignoring God are like children who disobey their parents by playing chicken on the motorway and sharing cigarettes with their friends. It’s not that their parents don’t love them; it’s just that with friends like that nobody needs enemies. Homosexuals need God’s love and Wisdom, but they are their own worst enemies. The parent who destroys the pack of cigarettes and keeps their child in is the one who loves them. The parent who lets them do what they like, and the friends in wolves’ clothing, are the real hypocrites. Love and Wisdom go together. Foolishess and Evil do too.

  • whytheworldisending

    To understand the concept, “disordered,” one needs to accept certain values. Value systems – if they are to be real and meaningful – are necessarily hierarchical. The value of one course of action is assessed in relation to the expected valued of the possible outcomes from following that course of action (ie, like EMV in decision analyisis). In a limited sense therefore, values are relative, howver moral relativism is nonsense because it presupposes that the process of valuing things can be carried out without reference to what is of ultimate value. The Atheist believes that there is no God, which necessarily implies that there is no basis for shared values. Anyone can convince themselves that they can decide for themselves what they value above all else, but they cannot construct a rational argument by which others are going to submit to that value system. In fact the atheist’s freedom to choose what to value is itelf illusory, since as consumers, we are programmed by worshippers of wealth, to accept the values they foist on us through marketing in order to get our money from us. Without God, society is disordered in the sense that the values of its members are randomly orientated and out of alignment with each other (like the dipoles of a magnet that has been dropped.) It is this fragmentation of people’s values by worship of money, that brings about disordered behaviour such as crime, war, sexual abuse of children, and corruption. Homosexuals are victims of this.

    As to to the “animals do it therefore it must be OK” argument, should Parliament pass the Equality (Wives killing their husbands after sex) Regulations 2012, simply because some spiders do?

    It is sad that you don’t think humans are special. God does.

  • Acleron

    Its is hardly ‘quibbling over decimal points’ when the basis of your analysis is undermined by lack of evidence that the numbers you are using represent your statements.

    Basically, you have a deep and rather unpleasant opinion and you are ignoring any criticism.

    There is the old statement of lies, damn lies and statistics, wrongly attributed to Churchill. But the originator was wrong, it is not the data that lies, it is the people who attribute that data with incorrect statements and conclusions.

  • Acleron

    So when the evidence supports you, you broadcast it but when it doesn’t you say you don’t need evidence. 

    You might read Dawkins a little more closely. He says we can trace the origins of emotion from evolutionary theory, but we don’t need to follow them. Prejudice is prejudice and that is the whole of your argument.

    Don’t lecture the rest of us on peace and love, you have neither for those you don’t like.

    Your quaint and silly beliefs may be necessary for you, don’t fall into the trap of believing that the rest of us need them.

  • Acleron

    ‘To understand the concept, “disordered,” one needs to accept certain values.’

    That is almost correct. But in fact, you don’t need to accept those values. If your ability to understand the rules of conduct of society is so damaged that you need somebody else to tell you what they are then you have a problem.

    Having somebody informing you of your mode of action in different circumstances may be necessary but leads to major problems. It means you cannot assess right and wrong but must follow a code that is written to try and cope with all eventualities. Law is constructed in this way and the (minor) law of unintended consequences means it has to be continually adjusted to fit. Following a set of rules designed for a totally different society and doing it without modification is a recipe for disaster. It leads you into such reprehensible acts as trying to deny rights to certain parts of society because of your prejudices. 

    But your set of rules aren’t actually that absolute, they have changed according to circumstances continually over 2000 years. Unfortunately, they are always far too slow to change and each time you are out of step with society, your religion and your out of date rules become less relevant.

    In another post, you mention evolution, you might consider that we are no more evolved than a bacterium, in that sense we are not special. It is easy to see that a highly cognitive species might justify their existence and from ignorance declare themselves ‘special’, then further justify that belief by saying some superior being agrees with them, the evidence shows that position to be false.

  • Megaera

    ‘But you might have a problem sleeping if they didn’t go to bed early too and made a noise.’
    Yes, I might, and that would be my cross to bear, since my early night was due to a religious injunction.  I might try to make life easier for myself by trying to live in a community of people who shared my religion, or by investing in ear-plugs.  But I would not have the right to insist that everybody go to bed at 8pm simply because *I* have to.

    I agree that we have to have shared values to get along.  That is what our legal system is for: to ensure that all people within a given area – whatever their religion – live together without causing one another too much harm.  So I cannot insist that everybody be in bed by 8pm because that is not within my rights, but, by the same token, I know that if there is an unreasonable level of noise after 11pm in a residential area, I am within my rights to call the police and ask them to put a stop to it.  Thus a balance exists between my needs and my neighbours’ needs.

    The ‘right’ values are those which take everybody’s needs into consideration, and which do not unduly burden any particular group.  The source of shared values in a nation *cannot* be religion, as not everybody in a nation shares a single religion, and while religions broadly agree on many aspects of morality, they are not in complete agreement with one another about *all* values.  To impose religious values upon all in a nation is to create a situation much like that in states whose secular laws are based on Sharia law.

    ‘Relativistic morality leads to war and death.’  Insisting that one’s own religion is the paramount authority also has – and continues to – lead to war and death.  Much of the history  of Christianity is marred by atrocities such as the Spanish Inquisition and the persecution of Catholics and Protestants at various times in British history.  In some Christian cultures, people (even children) are still tortured to death because people believe them to be possessed by demons, or to be witches.  In some Islamic cultures, people are also murdered for not adhering to religious rules.  While relativistic morality may lead to war and death, so does religious morality.  It has more to do with being human, I think, than to do with religion or the lack thereof.  A sense of entitlement to control other people’s lives according to our own personal sense of ‘how things should be’ is absolutely bound to lead to aggression every time.  

  • Megaera

    Please excuse the long delays between my replies: life is very busy.  I currently have a brief break from junk modelling, hama beads and perseveration about Donald Duck so I will attempt to answer you before I am innundated again. :) 

    I don’t think that Blankenhorn was confused: he was making the point that I made earlier: that the study can draw no conclusions about same-sex parenting as compared with opposite-sex parenting because it does not compare like with like.  Regnerus says of his own study: ‘It is not a study about parenting or parenthood, or parenting practices. I didn’t measure parenting practices.’ http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/10/26/friday-5-mark-regnerus/  

    It is poor science to conflate basic family structure with an experience which may have been a one-off event.  ‘Regnerus thinks the same-sex-behavior and opposite-sex-household categories are comparable.’  (same link)  Clearly, they are not.  Same-sex households and opposite-sex households are comparable; same-sex behaviour and opposite-sex behaviour are comparable.

    As I understand it, the point you are making is that opposite-sex relationships are more stable than same-sex relationships.  I think if we were to compare the set ‘all opposite-sex relationships’ with the set ‘all same-sex relationships’ that we would find similar results with regard to stability; the same if we compare ‘all opposite-sex encounters’ with ‘all same-sex encounters’.  To compare the set ‘opposite-sex marriages’ with the set ‘all same-sex encounters’ (not even relationships) as happened in the Regnerus study would clearly be a mistake.  Many opposite-sex encounters and relationships do not turn into lasting, stable relationships, and neither do many same-sex encounters and relationships.  Unless we compare ‘opposite-sex marriages’ with ‘same-sex marriages or civil partnerships’ then we are not comparing like with like and any conclusions we draw are meaningless.  Regnerus’ study may be helpful in indicating outcomes for children from stable and non-stable backgrounds.  But I think we already know that children fare better in a stable environment.

    To me, a stable relationship is a lasting (preferably mutually supportive) relationship.  My relationship with my partner was perfectly stable for 7 years before we had children, and it has continued to be stable since then.  If we had been unable to have children, it would still have been a stable relationship.  Couples who are unable to have children, or who are too old to have children, can still have stable relationships.

    However, addressing your use of the term ‘stable relationship’, it has to be said that there definitely are high-profile same-sex couples who are currently raising children in long-term same-sex relationships.  There will be many more in the same situation who are not high-profile. 

    BTW, I like your username: it sounds like something out of a Lewis Carroll book. :) 

  • http://twitter.com/knittingfamily lisa

    Can it legally stay open as a business without being classified as a charity? Is this about government funding and/or tax exempt status?