Wednesday, 24 January 2007

Adopting a worldview

So, it appears there will be "no exemption" from the upcoming SORs for Roman Catholic adoption agencies who want to go on providing the same service they have been for decades in line with the teaching of their church.

*Deep breath*

As a Christian (though not a RC), I believe that sex - a good gift from God - is for marriage, and that marriage means one man + one woman for life. Any stepping outside of (transgressing) these conditions is therefore sinful. I'm not married, so for me to have sex with anyone would be a sin. Likewise, homosexual intercourse is always sinful. However, this emphatically does not mean that I "hate gays". It is the action of which I disapprove, not the person. The fallaciousness of any comparison with racism should therefore be obvious. Nevertheless, I was sceptical about the protests from Christians against the SORs earlier this month. Does, I wondered, the hypothetical Christian hotelier check to make sure all his heterosexual guests in double rooms are married couples? Would the hypothetical Christian printer refuse to print leaflets for a Muslim organisation?

This issue, however, is different. In a letter to The Times, Ben Summerskill of Stonewall argues thusly:

No-one is denying people of faith the freedom to practise their religion.
However, such rights should not extend to refusing delivery of publicly funded
social services.
Excuse me, Ben, but these are children's lives we're talking about here, not a council house or access to the CAB. I imagine that, if you could, you would want to sue nature for not allowing same-sex couples to have their own children in the way that hetereosexual couples can. There are those of us who object to the government's trying to forcibly redefine the family; we have some bleak predictions about what the results of this will be and will not delight in being proved right. You do not have the "right" to have a child. No-one does. It's a privilege, not your entitlement as a citizen.

It would be stating the obvious to say that this represents a movement in society at large not only to "do these very things [and] approve of those who practise them" (Romans 1:32), but also to eliminate any disapproval of said behaviour. This has been witnessed by the CUs across the country having immense trouble putting on "Pure" courses at the moment, most notably Edinburgh, and anyone who read The Times' leading article on the adoption row which expressed an opinion on "the best way to change the attitudes of those few who remain convinced that the practice of homosexuality is a sin". Well, what if their attitudes aren't for changing, because of pesky things like the Bible's teaching and all that? When the Church of England chimed in support of the RCC with this letter a day after opposition was declard (better late than never), Archbishops Williams and Sentamu expressed their grave concern that a climate was being created
in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government
are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation,
evidence of which is already being seen both here and across the Atlantic where, for example, Daniel Dennett feels entitled to ask politicians to "sell their stock" in faith. "Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?" (Psalm 2:1).

I want to finish with two questions for anyone offended, or just unconvinced, by this post. Let's imagine that in, say, 20-25 years time, when the results of this social experiment are becoming clear, statistics reveal that boys brought up by two dads are much more likely than average to be gay themselves.
  1. Would that surprise you?
  2. Would it bother you?

1 comment:

David Anderson said...

Hi Matt,

I notice your blogroll links to me. Drop me an e-mail and say hello!