A homophobe by any other name...

This is a reference post, and I plan on linking to this post often. In fact I think that any article I write detailing the varying degrees of homophobia and prejudice leveled at the gay community by the religious folk will have a link to this post as standard.

It has probably come to the attention of most rational people that many of the 'issues' that religious people have with gays - campaigns, court cases and attempts at repealing or stifling laws - can be solved with one very simply activity:

Swap the word "gay" with "black". Or "Asian". Or "Jew". Or any other historically persecuted group. How does it sound now?

It should be perfectly obvious to any clear minded individual who is lacking any indoctrination or inherited bigotry that there is no way that sentiment such as "Being black is not OK: it is morally wrong." or "Jews don't deserve equal rights - their are sinful and evil ways have no place in our society." would be accepted in public at large. So why are such things said about gays with such regularity? It is common place and tolerated to a degree by many people - because it is a mainstream religious ideal!

The second example above sums up the situation clearly: There is no way that the general public would allow such rhetoric. It is patently absurd to even suggest such an idea as Jewish people being 2nd class citizens.

However the first example is very likely to get the reaction "Well of course 'Being black is not OK' wouldn't be tolerated. It's overtly racist and plain silly: You can't not-be-black if that is your skin colour!"

But this is exactly the point! Homosexuality is often described by religious homophobes as being "a choice": A sinful activity engaged in by evil people who are rebelling against god.

I could speak at length about this, but I think it is simple enough to ask a question in response to those who think being gay is a choice: "When did you decide to be straight?"

You did not 'choose' to be gay - it is part of your nature, the same way your eye and skin colours are part of your physical construction that you cannot change. (I should also make a quite point: "Cured" gays are a myth. Really.)

Whilst on the subject I think it is worth pointing out that a persons religious beliefs most emphatically are a choice. Granted the religious person might have some hang-ups from their indoctrination as a child but the fact remains that religious beliefs are chosen. This is perfectly obvious to anyone who takes the time to stop and consider that, as holy texts etc have to be taken on faith, there is no evidence for any religious belief save personal experience (which has relevance only to the individual). As such the religious person is free to choose what they wish to believe - hence why so many disregard more annoying parts of the Old Testament. This is precisely the reason why a devout member of religion A can suddenly convert to religion B with no ill effects. This happens all the time! The person can then be vehemently opposed to whatever the 'beliefs' religion B thinks morally subordinate as soon as they've done the mental paperwork. What I find incredulous is that nobody bats an eyelid when this occurs, and it does so as often as to be deemed 'normal'.

It is worth noting that many Christians (and others) will state that they do not have a problem with homosexual people as such, rather they have a problem with homosexual acts: By all means you can be gay - just don't do anything gay! I make this point not to excuse such homophobes but just to let it be known that I understand where some people are coming from. I don't agree with them one bit as I believe "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a smug one size fits all excuse beloved by people who understand that their beliefs and opinions are abhorrent but like to excuse their actions as being dictated by the sky fairy. "Hey, I don't make the rules. Take it up with the big guy upstairs!" No. Those people can answer in the here and now.

I dismiss that sentiment outright - such people will have to get used to being called bigots.

Homosexuality is not a 'choice' and homosexuals should not be classified as 'sinful' (whatever the hell that means - Christianity: cutting you and selling you band-aids since 325AD) for choosing to engage in sexual activity. They have the right and it is absolutely none of your business.

Being of the opinion that gay people are morally abhorrent, evil and 'sinful' means that you are a nasty, bigoted person whose ideas have no place in the modern world. You are no better than a racist, an anti-Semite or a sexist. I wish to make it clear that I think society would be better off without your outdated and disgusting notions. I welcome the day your kind of thinking dies out and leaves us free of your prejudice. For sure, you can be a kind and loving person in other areas of your life - but the fact remains you have a mental block that harbours a festering cess pit of horrible hangups.

As soon as vocal and non-vocal Christians et al accept the plain and simple fact that homosexuals are no different to heterosexuals and are completely natural, the sooner humanity can leave such unsavoury prejudice where it belongs: In the past.

Fostering couple lose out

I think it's only right and proper to begin in the here and now.

The day I decided to start this blog, 28th February 2011, it was announced that a Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, have lost their case against Derby City Council over their wish to foster children.

Back in October the CLC reported that a devout Christian couple had been banned by their local authority, Derby City Council, from fostering children due to their 'sincerely held religious belief' that homosexuality is 'unacceptable'.

In 2007 Derby City Council withdrew the Johns' application to be foster parents because of their Christian, biblical views on marriage and the family. link

The couple had previously fostered nearly 20 children over the years but in 2007 their application was rejected. I can't find details as to how or why the council found out about the couple's deeply held religious convictions that means they think homosexuality is evil incarnate (am I assuming too much?) except for what is reported in the Judgment which can be found here. Point 6 describes the John's discussion with a social worker. I shall discuss the Judgment later on.

After they had their application turned down the Johns either took their plight to the CLC or were contacted by them. No doubt the CLC leapt with glee upon this obvious case of the state discriminating against a harmless old couple of bigots Christians and undertook to take the case to the High Court. Quite obviously this was a case of the Johns' rights being impinged, their religious rights. Right?

Wrong.

Originally this post was to contain a lengthy rant as to how the Johns are not being discriminated against by having their religious convictions taking a back seat to others' basic rights. However I decided to split the post so that this deals specifically with the case and ruling rather than go into why these people are so wrong. Instead it can be read here, if you're interested.

The Judgment, located here, contains a number of interesting points that are not mentioned in the numerous newspaper articles I've read, nor in the CLC article lamenting their loss.

Point 6 in particular caught my eye:

... when asked if...they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative.

So this loving, caring, oh-so-Christian couple who are instructed by their god to love everyone no matter what, wouldn't be able to support a gay youth struggling with their sexuality. And these people don't understand why the High Court deemed them unfit to foster any more children? She did back track on this in a later interview, however Mr Johns seemed to be of the opinion that such a child should be 'gently turned around'.

With regards their visit to a gay relative in San Francisco, which was mentioned in the Daily Mail:

She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay, and his partner in San Francisco. link

The Judgment contains this:

She commented that she did not like it [San Francisco] and felt uncomfortable while she was there.

How very interesting. I wonder why that information was left out of the various pro-Johns reports? Also left out is the fact that Mrs Johns wouldn't feel able to take a child to a mosque. Just saying.

Something glaringly obvious from the details of the Johns' application is the contradictions in how they planned on raising any children placed with them:

... at a much earlier stage in the process Mrs Johns had assured a social worker that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child...

and

.... Mrs Johns stated she felt she could not give up going to church which she attends twice on Sundays and was doubtful about alternating with her husband if she could not take a child with her. Her husband agreed ...

But of course, forcing a child to attend church twice on a Sunday isn't imposing a belief system at all.

It is interesting to note that the Johns held the opinion that they were being discriminated against for their religion from the offset:

She felt that her beliefs would not affect how she was able to care for a young person, and stated that we were really saying that they could not be foster-carers because they are Christians.

From this point the Johns had made up their mind that their application was being refused because they were Christians, rather than because their were homophobic. They appear to have gone to their press with their story, forcing the Council to reiterate that the issue was due to their homophobic views rather than their religion.

The CLC article announcing the terrible news that the Johns had lost is peppered with infuriating half truths and skewed opinion.

...the High Court has suggested that... homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.

By now it should be fairly obvious as to my opinion of the above. "Conscience" - The last hold-out for those who have no decent argument against the terrible reality of equality.

...the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience...

Again - They have the right to their conscience, but they do not get to skew a child's attitude by expression those views in an authoritative manner i.e. as foster parents.

This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs.

Yes. They. Can. To imply that there is even ONE Christian who does not pick and choose which bits of the Bible they want apply to their own life is laughable. I posit that no two Christians live in exactly the same way or believe in exactly the same god.

There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.

Firstly: Good. I hope this leads to a decrease in children who are forced to listen to bigotry.

Secondly: This demonstrates the point I made in the other post. This phrase is particularly loathsome: "...promoting the practise of homosexuality..."

The CLC would have you believe that children are being told they have to be gay. This is NOT the case, it never has been and it never will be. To suggest otherwise is an obvious ploy and is utterly contemptible. It forces us to ask: Why do people and organisations like the CLC need to lie in order to further their aims?

The Johns case is just another in a long line of CLC failures. I would like to think that very few people are concerned with the fact that religious bigotry failed to gain any headway in the High Court, but there are enough people upset by the ruling that lead me to believe that more people need to know and understand the truth of the matter, particularly when many media outlets take a sympathetic stance on 'sincerely held' religious convictions.

As such, I shall continue to document the CLC's campaign of intolerance.

Links

1 - CLC: Breaking News: High Court Judgment suggests Christian beliefs harmful to children. Fostering by Christians now in doubt. 28.02.11

2 - CLC: High Court to decide whether Christians can foster

3 - The Telegraph: Christian couple who cannot accept homosexuality challenge their fostering ban

4 - Daily Mail: Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights: Judges' ruling against devout foster couple

5 - The Judgment

And I think it's worth noting, should anyone supportive of the CLC reads this post, I listened to Wham! while I wrote the above. Ha.