A Bit of a Rant

[auriol]

My view isn't trendy, and it sure as hell isn't going to be popular, but it's my journal and my opinion.

If anyone would like to actually debate the issue, please feel free - that's how we all learn and develop. I welcome it.

I'm bored with people jumping on the 'easy target' that is the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic, but i watch a hordes of

Comments

[nicky_cky]

This is an odd one, because both sides seem to me to be right. It's a paradox. Of COURSE no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sexuality; but equally, of COURSE the church cannot in good conscience place a child in the care of people who they consider not to be suitable parents.

I totally agree that IF the church cannot be given an exemption on this, then we also cannot give exemptions on other, similar grounds: no more jobs demanding only women cleaners in women's toilets; no more female only taxi/bus drivers; no more requiring that the LGB rep be LGB; no more 'we particularly welcome applicants from the Asian community...'

I would imagine that Catholic adoption agencies also wouldn't want to place children with unmarried couples, or indeed non-Christian couples. Which is definitely religious discrimination. So is it also wrong for a religion to discriminate on the basis of religion?? Or are there circumstances when we should be flexible about these things?

[auriol]

"This is an odd one, because both sides seem to me to be right. It's a paradox. Of COURSE no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sexuality; but equally, of COURSE the church cannot in good conscience place a child in the care of people who they consider not to be suitable parents."

You've hit the nail on the head. Both sides of the argument are compelling and entirely understandable, and there appears to be no acceptable compromise between the two.

I think I may have an idea, which is the closest to a compromise, and I'd be interested in what any of you think of it:

Abortion is legal in the UK in certain circumstances, and require the signatures of 2 doctors to procure. Christian doctors who are religiously opposed to abortion may not refuse a woman an abortion, but they can refer the lady in question to another doctor for approval if they feel that signing the forms is against their faith. Could we not have the same with adoption?

[auriol]

"I totally agree that IF the church cannot be given an exemption on this, then we also cannot give exemptions on other, similar grounds: no more jobs demanding only women cleaners in women's toilets; no more female only taxi/bus drivers; no more requiring that the LGB rep be LGB; no more 'we particularly welcome applicants from the Asian community..."

My point entirely. It makes a huge amount of sense that the LGB rep is LGB, but insisting on it is bigoted. In addition, if we're going down this route, then having ANY services solely available for individual groups (whether based on gender, religion, sexuality, political persuasion etc) must be outlawed.

If we want equality and no descrimination, then Masonic Lodges, Working Men's Clubs, Labour Clubs, Women's interest groups, LGB societies, the Black Police Federation, and all other similar organisations must be banned tomorrow.

I don't think we're ready for that yet.

[poppymayhem]

That point is interesting to me as in going for a counselling position with the survivors network, they employ females only as the company works with female survivors of rape/sexual assualt/domestic violence

[auriol]

Well, I think you have a point, even if the point is only that we don't have a safe and all-encompassing answer to the question

[poppymayhem]

In Brighton, yes, there is a charity called ManKind, which exists for exactly the same reasons Survivors Network does (I think they deal with some other issues like eating disorders, but it is a male only service). I don't know if similar equality exists in counselling networks outside of Brighton

[auriol]

I probably have about equal numbers of malle and female friends, but there are subjects I generally don't discuss with male friend, more for their comfort zone than mine! I guess I've taken my vues on this from my husband who, when hearing words on the phone like 'episiotomy', 'hysterectomy' and 'period', is frequently known to announce 'lady talk!' and leave the room or put his headphones in. The other main reaosn is that I doubt they'd be interested.

There are some services that have to be for specific groups, such as counselling, medicine, services for people with disabilities etc., and I think we all recognise that. It's just knowing where the line should be that is the problem that no-one can confidently answer.

[kol]

I only bring this up because it is a commonly propogated myth, the national black police association is open to all members of the police force.

http://www.nationalbpa.com/

[auriol]

And that's fantastic and how it should be, but the clue is in the title.

Why do we need a black police association? We didn't have a airwomen's association in the RAF, because we were all aircrew, regardless of what gender we were. Surely all police officers are equal, so why differentiate?