19/2/2007
"Should Catholic adoption agencies be
allowed to turn away gay couples?"
Monday 19th February saw the eighth Public Speaking Forum of 2006/7. The topic was "Should Catholic adoption agencies be allowed to turn away gay couples?". The speakers were Steve Molloy and James Fraser in favour of the proposition and Anna Welsh against. James Nolan acted as Chairman. The meeting took place in the Hub due to the unavailability of any other rooms in the Guild. No cake was present due to the impecuniosity of Steve, however Cadbury's Snaps were provided. The initial vote was cast in favour of the opposition.
Steve opened the discussion by making the point that this debate is about two conflicting rights; the right to freedom of religion and conscience, and the right not to be discriminated against. In this instance he put forward the point that by forcing Catholic adoption agencies to accept gay couples, the government is proposing to infringe on what is essentially a conscience issue and would thus depart from present government practice such as MPs not facing the party whip when a conscience issue is voted upon, and the rights of doctors with consciencious objections to abortion not being forced to partake in them. He stated also that the Catholic agencies have both religious and social reasons for refusing to allow homosexual couples to adoption and that these should be respected in these specific instances rather than simply being dismissed as bigoted.
James approached the issue from that of pragmatism against principalism. He proposed that for society as a whole allowing gay couples to adopt is a positive step, but also that Catholic adoption agencies, acting as voluntary organisations, perform a very valuable service to society, yet in any event the agencies amount to only 4% of the total. He expounded the view that the loss of these agencies, which have high success rates with difficult cases, would represent a greater blow to society than allowing that 4% to continue with their discriminatory policies. He emphasised the fact that allowing these agencies to continue as such would not represent a barrier to gay adoption as the agencies had already agreed that they would provide a list of other organisations to gay couples should the agencies be approached by them, and that this represented a pragmatic way forward in which gay adopters would not be shut out of the system, whilst allowing Catholic agencies to act in a way which did not infringe their strongly held religious convictions. The alternative being that they would close forever and thus society would lose the valuable service they provide.
Anna, opposing the idea, stated that to allow one instance of discrimination may be just the start of legitimising a form of discrimination insofar as the government would appear hypocritical in stating that discrimination is wrong and yet allowing it to continue on the basis of the religious beliefs of a minority group. She explored the notion that once legislation is passed, many religious groups slowly but surely modify their position so that it is compatible with the law of the land as this enables easier co-existence, and that it is the job of the government to lead the way in showing clearly which actions are acceptable and which are not in an increasingly secularised society. She made the point that essence people are entitled to their religious beliefs and to manifest them where they do not affect others, but where that manifestation affects the rights of those who do not share those beliefs, then it is legitimate for governments to legislate against them.
There then followed the usual audience debate in which these and other issues were discussed including the fact that some agencies will only place children with families commensurate with the child's cultural heritage, and whether that amounted to discrimination, the dichotomy betwen criteria applied on a case-by-case basis and the blanket ban in the presently discussed situation, and of course the old chestnut of the suitability of BNP supporters to be adoptive parents.
The final vote went in favour of the proposition, quite a swing. It was resolved that the next week's forum would be "The Internet: On balance a good thing or a bad thing?".
allowed to turn away gay couples?"
Monday 19th February saw the eighth Public Speaking Forum of 2006/7. The topic was "Should Catholic adoption agencies be allowed to turn away gay couples?". The speakers were Steve Molloy and James Fraser in favour of the proposition and Anna Welsh against. James Nolan acted as Chairman. The meeting took place in the Hub due to the unavailability of any other rooms in the Guild. No cake was present due to the impecuniosity of Steve, however Cadbury's Snaps were provided. The initial vote was cast in favour of the opposition.
Steve opened the discussion by making the point that this debate is about two conflicting rights; the right to freedom of religion and conscience, and the right not to be discriminated against. In this instance he put forward the point that by forcing Catholic adoption agencies to accept gay couples, the government is proposing to infringe on what is essentially a conscience issue and would thus depart from present government practice such as MPs not facing the party whip when a conscience issue is voted upon, and the rights of doctors with consciencious objections to abortion not being forced to partake in them. He stated also that the Catholic agencies have both religious and social reasons for refusing to allow homosexual couples to adoption and that these should be respected in these specific instances rather than simply being dismissed as bigoted.
James approached the issue from that of pragmatism against principalism. He proposed that for society as a whole allowing gay couples to adopt is a positive step, but also that Catholic adoption agencies, acting as voluntary organisations, perform a very valuable service to society, yet in any event the agencies amount to only 4% of the total. He expounded the view that the loss of these agencies, which have high success rates with difficult cases, would represent a greater blow to society than allowing that 4% to continue with their discriminatory policies. He emphasised the fact that allowing these agencies to continue as such would not represent a barrier to gay adoption as the agencies had already agreed that they would provide a list of other organisations to gay couples should the agencies be approached by them, and that this represented a pragmatic way forward in which gay adopters would not be shut out of the system, whilst allowing Catholic agencies to act in a way which did not infringe their strongly held religious convictions. The alternative being that they would close forever and thus society would lose the valuable service they provide.
Anna, opposing the idea, stated that to allow one instance of discrimination may be just the start of legitimising a form of discrimination insofar as the government would appear hypocritical in stating that discrimination is wrong and yet allowing it to continue on the basis of the religious beliefs of a minority group. She explored the notion that once legislation is passed, many religious groups slowly but surely modify their position so that it is compatible with the law of the land as this enables easier co-existence, and that it is the job of the government to lead the way in showing clearly which actions are acceptable and which are not in an increasingly secularised society. She made the point that essence people are entitled to their religious beliefs and to manifest them where they do not affect others, but where that manifestation affects the rights of those who do not share those beliefs, then it is legitimate for governments to legislate against them.
There then followed the usual audience debate in which these and other issues were discussed including the fact that some agencies will only place children with families commensurate with the child's cultural heritage, and whether that amounted to discrimination, the dichotomy betwen criteria applied on a case-by-case basis and the blanket ban in the presently discussed situation, and of course the old chestnut of the suitability of BNP supporters to be adoptive parents.
The final vote went in favour of the proposition, quite a swing. It was resolved that the next week's forum would be "The Internet: On balance a good thing or a bad thing?".
posted by Debating and Public Speaking Society | 8:59 AM
