PDA

View Full Version : Historian David Starkey defends anti-gay foster couple



PoliCon
03-04-2011, 09:00 PM
4 March 2011


Starkey 5mins Gay historian David Starkey has leapt to the defence of the Christian couple whose application to become foster parents was refused because of their anti-gay beliefs.

Speaking on BBC’s Question Time, Starkey said: “I am gay, and I am an Atheist, but I have profound doubts about this case.”

He said that his mother was a Christian, who had opposed his homosexuality, but that her “hatred and opposition made me what I am. Being nice and sweet about gays isn’t wholly a good thing.”

Starkey also said that he thought Christian hoteliers should have the right to turn away gay couples, and that he was concerned that these recent cases suggested an intolerant and oppressive “new tyranny.”

A High Court ruling last week prevented Derbyshire foster carers Eunice and Owen Johns from continuing to foster, on the grounds that their faith prevented them from condoning homosexuality.

http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/4952/4/03/2011/historian-david-starkey-defends-anti-gay-foster-couple.aspx

Novaheart
03-04-2011, 09:29 PM
The Pink Paper did a poor job of summarizing the issue.

These people were not denied simply because they hold a negative or bigoted view of homosexuality.

Owen and Eunice Johns, who are Pentecostal Christians, fostered children in the 1990s without trouble. But things changed after the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination provision in Great Britian's Equality Act 2006: When the Johns applied in 2007, a social worker barred them because they wanted the right to teach kids that a gay lifestyle is immoral. So, they filed a legal challenge based on religious discrimination.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/anti-gay-foster-marriage

The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters' right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple's lawyer's claims as "a travesty of reality".

"No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, ... the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case

Huge difference.

PoliCon
03-04-2011, 09:52 PM
I love how you ignore the point of the article and instead fasten onto something other than the point the article was making. Spin much?

Novaheart
03-04-2011, 09:59 PM
I love how you ignore the point of the article and instead fasten onto something other than the point the article was making. Spin much?

I think the DCF action and the ruling are the most important parts of the issue. Why should I care what some libertarian (whom I have never heard of) thinks jibes with his disjoint political philosophy?

PoliCon
03-04-2011, 10:03 PM
I think the DCF action and the ruling are the most important parts of the issue. Why should I care what some libertarian (whom I have never heard of) thinks jibes with his disjoint political philosophy?

spin spin spin spin spin. . . . . :rolleyes:

Novaheart
03-04-2011, 10:09 PM
spin spin spin spin spin. . . . . :rolleyes:

It was a question. What part of this do you think I ignored?

Apocalypse
03-04-2011, 10:56 PM
Most major religions view it as a sin.

Maybe they should have been teaching the kids Islam, then they could have told the kids that gays need to be beheaded instead. The liberal courts of Europe would have been pleased hearing that and patted them selves on their back for being tolerant toward those of a different faith.

fettpett
03-05-2011, 12:07 AM
It was a question. What part of this do you think I ignored?

that a gay athetist supports their choice :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Novaheart
03-05-2011, 12:50 AM
that a gay athetist supports their choice :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I thought I had covered that. He's obviously jumping through hoops to square his opinion with his philosophy.

I don't honestly think that most gay people actually have a problem with a bed and breakfast being able to discriminate. I think they can imagine themselves in the position of wishing certain people wouldn't stay at their own bed and breakfast (if they had one) or even sharing a bed and breakfast that they believed to be somewhat exclusive in some respect. For example, I doubt too many gay people want to share a clothing optional pool in Key West with uptight people.

And in the US, most small owner occupied residences are indeed exempt from anti-discrimination laws the last time I checked. Obviously, one cannot enjoy this exemption across the board. There is no reason for Marriott to be able to exclude gays, blacks, or mixed couples and at one time they probably would have, in addition perhaps to Jews.

All of which is quite different from putting children who might well already be abused into a household where the parents are so intent on "teaching" their prejudices that they would express a need to do so to a social worker and a court.

I would add that if these are Jamaican people, we might well be talking about considerably more than an opinion. I have read some incredible stuff from Jamaicans on the subject of homosexuality. They make Jerry Falwell seem almost intelligent and rational on the subject.

PoliCon
03-05-2011, 11:50 AM
spin spin spin spin spin spin spin

MrsSmith
03-05-2011, 01:07 PM
The Pink Paper did a poor job of summarizing the issue.

These people were not denied simply because they hold a negative or bigoted view of homosexuality.

Owen and Eunice Johns, who are Pentecostal Christians, fostered children in the 1990s without trouble. But things changed after the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination provision in Great Britian's Equality Act 2006: When the Johns applied in 2007, a social worker barred them because they wanted the right to teach kids that a gay lifestyle is immoral. So, they filed a legal challenge based on religious discrimination.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/anti-gay-foster-marriage

The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters' right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple's lawyer's claims as "a travesty of reality".

"No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, ... the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case

Huge difference.


We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do, was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.

I wonder how many gay parents are forced to teach foster or adopted children that Christian views are a good thing?

Isn't it strange that they had to mention Sharia law when the case involves Christians? I know the DUmmies can't tell the difference, but you'd certainly hope anyone in charge of a courtroom could.

Just like the case against the bed-and-breakfast couple, this is nothing but legalized discrimination.

Novaheart
03-05-2011, 02:03 PM
I wonder how many gay parents are forced to teach foster or adopted children that Christian views are a good thing?


Sexual orientation is not a religion.
Most gay people in Western countries are at least culturally Christian. I myself went to Catholic elementary school, Episcopal Sunday school, and was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

Your definition of Christian is not the definition of Christian.

PoliCon
03-05-2011, 02:05 PM
Sexual orientation is not a religion.
Most gay people in Western countries are at least culturally Christian. I myself went to Catholic elementary school, Episcopal Sunday school, and was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church.

Your definition of Christian is not the definition of Christian.

going through the motions does not make someone Christian any more than a straight guy having gay sex in porn makes him a homosexual. :rolleyes:

BTW - the way some gay people defend their orientation with religious zeal and fervor - I often wonder if it's not a religion.

Novaheart
03-05-2011, 02:11 PM
Just like the case against the bed-and-breakfast couple, this is nothing but legalized discrimination.

In America, the bed and breakfast couple would not have been compelled to accept the reservation from the gay couple. This is not a special exception to allow discrimination against gay people, it's that owner occupied dwellings are generally exempt from anti-discrimination laws. Owner occupied dwellings and small apartment houses are also exempt from Fair Housing Laws. That doesn't mean you won't get sued if you do, anyone can sue anyone, but it means the government will not pursue you for refusing to rent to gay people.

This is as it should be. Bed and breakfasts or the small resort guest houses like Key West are very intimate settings and the selection of the clientele is critical to the business model. I think bars and nightclubs should be able to do the same thing, but that gets really difficult to sort out between a bar and a restaurant.

Clearly there is a valid application for nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations. England tends to be more absolute than we do.

Odysseus
03-05-2011, 03:55 PM
The Pink Paper did a poor job of summarizing the issue.

These people were not denied simply because they hold a negative or bigoted view of homosexuality.

Owen and Eunice Johns, who are Pentecostal Christians, fostered children in the 1990s without trouble. But things changed after the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination provision in Great Britian's Equality Act 2006: When the Johns applied in 2007, a social worker barred them because they wanted the right to teach kids that a gay lifestyle is immoral. So, they filed a legal challenge based on religious discrimination.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/anti-gay-foster-marriage

The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters' right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple's lawyer's claims as "a travesty of reality".

"No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, ... the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case

Huge difference.

In other words, they were perfectly good foster parents until the government criminalized their beliefs. And nobody is asserting that Christians are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt as long as they don't actually act on their beliefs. Got it.