I’ve been wrestling with a moral dilemma.
As many of my regular readers know, I am of the opinion that discrimination on the basis of something over which one has no control, such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., is morally repugnant. To me it’s plain logic; to many it is not, as it conflicts with deeply held beliefs – and as we all know from personal experience, beliefs invariably transcend logic and even hard evidence. This cognitive dissonance is the tragedy of the human condition.
Being what is generally termed a 'non-believer', I struggle with the proposition that one’s choice of religion is something over which one has no control, as one is able to subject religion to critical analysis and reach an educated opinion as to both its moral veracity and metaphysical truth. Indeed many decide to leave religion or even choose one other than the one in which they were brought up. You cannot, however, decide to suddenly become Asian, or homosexual.
Yet millions of people belong to a particular religion through no fault of their own, simply resulting from an accident of birth – which cannot be selected at will. Therefore there is an element of inevitability surrounding belief systems (be they religious or otherwise) which become the foundation of one’s self-view.
The dilemma I’m wrestling with is the one of whether religious people should be subject to anti-discrimination legislation, particularly the Catholic adoption agencies with respect to the adoption of children by gay couples.
Whereas, till now, I have firmly believed all – regardless of their religious beliefs – should be subject to the law of the land, I’m slowly beginning to think they should be free to decide according to their own conscience. I would add a rider to this, that being that they should be free to decide according to their conscience, providing they have no monopoly on adoption – or whatever is under consideration in an anti-discriminatory sense.
If I were to start an adoption agency that refused to place children with say red-headed people, then I should be allowed to do this, as there would still be routes to adoption for red-headed people. I must reiterate that I would never, ever, place defenceless children with red-headed adoptive parents. Please don’t think I would even consider harming children in this manner, it’s merely a ‘for instance’.
All joking aside, the thought at the forefront of the mind of anyone engaged in placing children with adoptive parents should be the best interests of the child – and Catholics sincerely believe it is in the best interests of the child to not be placed with a gay couple. However much I may disagree with their belief, it is nonetheless sincerely held and not susceptible to logical persuasion.
There is also the argument that placing a child with a gay couple could put the child in acute danger of bullying and ridicule at school, as unfortunately there is still a high proportion of the populace which is homophobic. Until such time as homophobes become an anachronistic minority, there is no denying that the risk of ridicule is very real, and could therefore harm the psychological wellbeing of a child place with adoptive parents who are gay, regardless of the love they would receive from such parents.
However, this Utopian state of affairs when homophobia becomes an anachronism is unlikely to occur if we pander to discriminatory religious belief – that being the crux of the dilemma, along with whether the rights of gay couples (however justifiable they may be) supersede the needs of a child?
Perhaps the agenda should be to first eliminate homophobia and only then introduce the adoption of children by gay couples.
I’d be interested in your thoughts.