Saturday, October 27, 2007

A Glimpse Into the Future

In the name of "non-discrimination" the British government has taken a foster child away from these good people.

Here is how the Daily Mail reports the story:

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

Fearing God rather than man, Mr. Matherick would not compromise his beliefs: "I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."

Let’s quickly analyze the spread of the civil rights mentality and its application to homosexuality.

Is homosexuality a right? Given that not all sins are crimes, what does that imply about homosexuality and the responsibilities of the state?

First, we need to define civil rights, which can be done in a number of ways.

Civil rights may be freedom rights, whereby individuals are free to act without legal coercion or the interference of the state (examples include free assembly, free speech, etc.)

Civil rights may also be benefit rights, implying that a person has the "right" receive something from others. The alleged right of the disabled or elderly to welfare provisions or the "right" to health care or education will suffice as examples.

A third possibility is that civil rights may mean non-discrimination rights; that services can’t be denied to people based on a characteristic (e.g, you can’t discriminate in housing against Blacks).

The first and third understanding of civil rights are obviously connected. If you cannot legally discriminate that presupposes that the behavior is a freedom right. It would be contradictory for the law to protect (say in employment or housing) what it does not allow as a freedom.

The problem with granting non-discrimination status to homosexuals is that it deprives Christians, and many others, of their right to shun moral perversion.

Greg Bahnsen put the matter succinctly: "If someone feels that Christians are wrong to feel such aversion to practicing homosexuals and that, therefore, they must be compelled by civil law to refrain from discrimination, he will be imposing his own moral principle or conviction on them. Moreover, he will create a favored class of people who gain an unfair position in the job market, for by making his sexual perversion known the homosexual is likely to court with a discrimination suit."

In short, there is no neutrality, and we will be governed either by the law of God or the word of man.


Blogger ikantspel said...

This is just terrible!

12:12 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home