The Big News
WARNING. This is a post in which I pontificate. If you are uninterested in my pontifications (which I perfectly understand), read no further.
The big news story at the moment (aside from yet more supposed 'incompetence' at the home office) is the threat of Catholic adoption agencies to close down if they have to provide adoptions to gay couples. What I think is funny is that, in the debate that I listened to on Radio 4, all of the representatives of the 'catholic side' agreed that gay couples were quite capable of being good parents and producing perfectly well adjusted children. Since the idea that having gay parents is detrimental to a child's mental health/identity is the only rational argument against gay adoption, this is tantamount to an admission of dogmatic discrimination. Telling the difference between dogmatic and rational discrimination is as easy as asking the person why they are discriminating. A rational discriminator will give you a rational reason like, for example, 'because 90% of children brought up by gay couples have hairy palms and are blind'. Rational discrimination, in the rare instance that it is not a cover for dogmatic discrimination is ok with me. Because it will cease if the rationale is shown to be incorrect. A dogmatic discriminator, on the other hand, will answer 'because I was brought up that way' or 'because that is in keeping with the teaching of my group' (the catholic representatives on Radio 4 went with the latter). Dogmatic discrimination is bad. Not the least because it is based on a feeling that is so often wrong (yes, that is a thinly veiled reference to Iraq). But also because there is no mechanism by which this discrimination can be undermined. You can offer a dogmatic discriminator all the evidence in the world that things would be better (for children no less!) if only gay people were allowed to adopt, and they will continue to say 'that's just not how I was brought up' or 'it's still contrary to the teachings of my group'.
One final thing: The dogmatic discriminator will often use the 'turn the tables' argument. They will say 'isn't it discriminating against me that I have to allow gay couples to adopt in contravention of my beliefs?'. This argument is, in fact quite correct. But it only applies to one's right to discriminate in private life. It does not apply to the general public (who have a multitude of dogmatic views about gay couples and adoption) and thus cannot apply to anyone (person or agency) acting as a representative of the public.
So here's the summary: Rational discrimination OK because, if it is wrong, it can be eliminated. Dogmatic discrimination BAD because it is a) based on something that is prone to error and b) cannot be changed even if it is quite obviously wrong. People have a right to dogmatic discrimination in their private lives/organizations (if the want it), but not when they are acting as representatives of the public. What to do? Simple. Cut public funding to catholic adoption agencies. That way, they won't be acting as representatives of the public and, if they survive, they can continue as private agencies that turn gay couples away.
The big news story at the moment (aside from yet more supposed 'incompetence' at the home office) is the threat of Catholic adoption agencies to close down if they have to provide adoptions to gay couples. What I think is funny is that, in the debate that I listened to on Radio 4, all of the representatives of the 'catholic side' agreed that gay couples were quite capable of being good parents and producing perfectly well adjusted children. Since the idea that having gay parents is detrimental to a child's mental health/identity is the only rational argument against gay adoption, this is tantamount to an admission of dogmatic discrimination. Telling the difference between dogmatic and rational discrimination is as easy as asking the person why they are discriminating. A rational discriminator will give you a rational reason like, for example, 'because 90% of children brought up by gay couples have hairy palms and are blind'. Rational discrimination, in the rare instance that it is not a cover for dogmatic discrimination is ok with me. Because it will cease if the rationale is shown to be incorrect. A dogmatic discriminator, on the other hand, will answer 'because I was brought up that way' or 'because that is in keeping with the teaching of my group' (the catholic representatives on Radio 4 went with the latter). Dogmatic discrimination is bad. Not the least because it is based on a feeling that is so often wrong (yes, that is a thinly veiled reference to Iraq). But also because there is no mechanism by which this discrimination can be undermined. You can offer a dogmatic discriminator all the evidence in the world that things would be better (for children no less!) if only gay people were allowed to adopt, and they will continue to say 'that's just not how I was brought up' or 'it's still contrary to the teachings of my group'.
One final thing: The dogmatic discriminator will often use the 'turn the tables' argument. They will say 'isn't it discriminating against me that I have to allow gay couples to adopt in contravention of my beliefs?'. This argument is, in fact quite correct. But it only applies to one's right to discriminate in private life. It does not apply to the general public (who have a multitude of dogmatic views about gay couples and adoption) and thus cannot apply to anyone (person or agency) acting as a representative of the public.
So here's the summary: Rational discrimination OK because, if it is wrong, it can be eliminated. Dogmatic discrimination BAD because it is a) based on something that is prone to error and b) cannot be changed even if it is quite obviously wrong. People have a right to dogmatic discrimination in their private lives/organizations (if the want it), but not when they are acting as representatives of the public. What to do? Simple. Cut public funding to catholic adoption agencies. That way, they won't be acting as representatives of the public and, if they survive, they can continue as private agencies that turn gay couples away.
posted by Derek at 1:56 PM
2 Comments:
Well pontificated Wilson. There has always been little (i.e. weak or outdated) justification for the public funding of Catholic adoption agencies, but these things manage to slip under the radar easily...
Didn't the Catholic adoption agencies go through a similar thing with single mothers? And unmarried couples?
Generally speaking though, the law doesn't allow certain types of discrimnation even by private organizations, when they are causally connected to serious socioeconomic marginalization, and other public order concerns. Restaurants can no longer put up those infamous signs in many parts of the Western world that once read "No Irishmen, Dogs or Blacks Allowed". Private employers cannot refuse to hire women or blacks, on grounds of belief that they are inherently inferior, no matter how deeply that belief is held. I am sure there would be public outcry and legal reprimand if the Catholic adoption agencies would only work for white parents, or if they facilitated the adoption only of boys who look like the baby Jesus. Of course this too is contested, but the point is that it is not immediately and obviously clear why private discrimination against gay parents (preventing them from being such) should not be equally regulated as gender and race discrimination in similar cases, or specifically with regards to these types of agencies. To this is added the fact that the state is public guardian of the interests of children generally, and has always legislated on their behalf against private sphere behaviours which jeopardize those interests. It is clearly in the best interests of the child to be adopted by a capable parent, rather than to be an orphan. I would guess that at least 20% of adoptions are of orphans (vs. the now popular surrogacy or babies who are not yet born but already designated).
As for the "turning the tables" argument, you are right that in many cases it is correct. But it is certainly not a conversation stopper. At some point enough public resons accrue that require rational discrimination against your dogmatic discrimination.
FYI, the literature on the theory of public reason is really growing now, so I bet you someone has written on this. I know the prof. I TA for wrote a similar (conceptually) paper on gay marriage...
Ooh... chocolate. I am distracted. Later Derek.
Of course, everything you say is quite correct. Next to your pontification mine is amateur at best:-)
Plus, I never used the words socioeconomic marginalization, which is clearly a mistake...
Post a Comment
<< Home