Labour Party Determined to Face Down Christians
January 25th, 2007 by Stephen
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have written to Tony Blair to argue that “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning”.
What is the issue? That government legislation supposed to protect gay people against discrimination may see the end of the Catholic adoption agency, as the church is forced to close its offices rather than be forced to place children with gay couples.
Now Labour’s position on the role of the family is trendy and confused. Claire Short (an ex Labour minister, although in the cabinet at the time she voted for war in Iraq) came out strongly on family issues when she was in office - making clear her view, shared by many of her colleagues, that traditional families are no more ideal for raising children than non traditional families.
The argument (against all the evidence) is that single parent households, cohabiting relationships, and - of course - gay relationships are just as good for children than the traditional nuclear family.
The evidence actually says the opposite. The ideal and most stable family structures are found where couples are married. Clearly not on every occasion, but the statistical evidence is quite certain.
Add to this the very clear moral view of the church - which in the sloppy relativism of the Labour party must surely carry equal authority with their own dogma: That whilst sexual orientation is itself not sinful, that homosexual acts are also not right (the Anglicans are more circumspect and say something like “less than ideal”). Now you have a quite clear moral dilemma - in attempting to avoid discrimination, should an adoption agency be forced to place children in circumstances they believe to be less than ideal?
This is wrong. Plain and simple.
I have said elsewhere that I don’t think anyone chooses their sexuality, and we should never hold that against them. Discrimination against gay people is clearly quite wrong. But are we to show our non discrimination at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in our society being sacrificed on the rock of inclusivity?
Children are not property to which we gain an entitlement. They are people. And these people need the support of our society. If the considered, consistent and thoroughly compassionate view of an organisation mitigates against placement of these children with one group or another, then society (in which there is clearly no consensus) has no right to intervene. It is wrong to intervene.
I’m not to the point where I agree that “no one chooses their sexuality”– I can agree that every person is born with a sin nature, but that one chooses whether or not to give into it. That being the case, I think this whole thing is wrong for the same reasons you have listed: Mainly, it’s not the best environment and someone shouldn’t be forced to place kids contrary to their moral beliefs.
The latter is a hard one, however. We can say “this is the ideal situation” but (and I don’t know the policies of these places) but is it better to have a child with a single parent than in an orphanage? Better to be with a homosexual couple than a foster parent?
Once you get to these harder questions people start to wedge and divide you. That’s when you have to either stand on a principle or you’re be sifted like sand.
I think they’re doing the right thing in a biblical context by refusing to follow the government’s orders (though a part of me hopes that they just change gears and do it unofficially), but I pray more for the children that will be placed by the government’s replacements.
I tend to think of homosexuality in terms of brain wiring. There are many conditions - such as transgenderism, sexual orientation, but also autism, dyslexia and who knows what else - that we live with in a fallen world, but which those who suffer from the condition cannot see any conscious choice that led them to the condition. It is the way their brains are wired up.
Now part of brain wiring might be genetic (although I don’t see a strong case for a genetic element in homosexuality!) part of it may be related to exposure to hormones in the womb (prolonged high levels of cortisol in the womb can lead to shy children with a propensity to lighter eye colours!) Part of it will be nutrition, and all the external stimuli a child receives as it grows up. Part of it will be the childs choices, but not in a conscious cause effect scenario.
The end result is a brain wiring that does not conform to what our society expects, and is often sub optimal. In terms of homosexuality, it certainly is sub optimal as the sexuality works against our biological imperatives to pro-creation, and has other obvious problems.
But we cannot hold this brain wiring against a homosexual any more than we blame a dyslexic for having trouble spelling!
Of course, a modern dogma is to assert that homosexuality is just a valid alternative sexuality - and in comparing it above with autism and dyslexia, I will have alienated people who believe this - because I appear to be saying it is a mental condition that we may one day be able to cure.
Which, of course, is exactly what I am saying. And this is why we need to have compassion for these people - to understand their very real frustrations and difficulties in struggling with their sexuality, and yet upholding the clear biblical teaching that sexual relations are designed only for the marriage relationship.
Gay people need our compassion and help. What they don’t need is a silly dogmatism that thinks of itself as relativistic whilst forcing everyone to agree that homosexual relations are just normal.
I listened to Albert Mohler’s program on the same subject. How utterly sad all this is…
Yes indeed. The government have put a decision off until next week on the issue - I’ll write again when there is some news.
[...] Tony Blair’s Labour Party today has refused to allow exemptions to Catholic adoption agencies regarding placing of children with homosexual couples. Instead they have given the agencies 21 months to comply with the law (which at least makes it no longer Tony Blair’s problem). [...]