Born this Way or Choose this Way, but Should it Ever Matter

Lady gaga’s new song has been a big hit around the world and has been widely used by the GLBT community as a theme song as such to help spread the message that they are born the way they are so do not punish them for that.

I can see how it is a valid argument but is it really valid for everyone?

Scientists are mixed as to whether or not pedophiles are born with their sexual desires or if they are developed. Is it a valid argument for someone who has an sexual attraction towards people who are not yet of the legal age of consent to claim they are born that way so it is wrong to deny them of their rights to be happy? Now I am not trying to compare anyone who is homosexual to a pedophile as heterosexuals claim to be born they way they are as well. I just want to look at the argument itself.

When one persons interest is restricted by law, is there a right to challenge the law as it is restricting their civil liberties? What happens if they are not “born that way” but can not deny their feelings as being true? Is there a difference there?

When underage people choose to seek out older partners for romantic reasons, is this act wrong? Both partners are willing and no one is being harmed, so why should it be forbidden? What happens when the parents of the underage person is ok with the relationship? Should the law be waived or as society do we consider it wrong out of principal? Why not lower the age of consent so that no one has to be denied their right to be happy if they are willing and consent?

“Sister Wives” is putting a public face on polygamy in the world that does not involve a compound or under age girls being given in marriage to old men. This new loving and personable face is changing the view that many have on polygamy and what the great wrong is with it. So if the people are willing and legally able, why cant the law be modified to allow that sort of legal union?

What happens when family members discover they have romantic feelings for each other? Should the love between a father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and brother be denied just because it is frowned upon by society? Why should they not have the right to choose what is right for them if they are willing and consenting as well? Why does society have the right to dictate what types of love are acceptable and deny others their right to be happy?

These are arguments posed by Franklin Kameny over his many years as an activist. It is a logical to argue for these stances when you have to use the same argument to support your own stances. If you are going to claim that you have a right to be happy and society should not dictate what love is, then you have to figure out how to defend your position when you deny that same right to other people. Kameny is a noted gay activist and has praised by President Obama for his leadership as an activist. Now just because Kameny supports these positions does not mean all homosexuals do. None of my gay friends think any of these positions are acceptable, but they also can not give me a reason why their position is acceptable while the others aren’t.

So what is the valid argument? Does society need to step aside and allow every desire to be explored as long as no one gets hurt? Are there certain things that we must forbid and if so how do we determine what those are? Removing religion from the equation, is there not a reason to allow for all behavior?

U.K. High Court Upholds Bar on Christian Foster Parents over Homosexual Views

From The Christian Post:

The U.K. High Court suggested Monday that traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality are “inimical” to children.

The ability of Christians to foster children has been thrown into doubt after the High Court made clear today that it would not intervene if local authorities stop Christians with orthodox views on sexuality from becoming foster parents.

Clarification had been sought from the High Court over whether married Christian couple Eunice and Owen Johns could continue to foster children after Derby City Council blocked their application because the couple had said they would not be willing to promote the practice of homosexuality to a young child.

Both parties wanted clarification on whether the couple should be excluded from consideration as foster parents under Britain’s equality laws because of their Christian beliefs concerning marriage.

The landmark ruling, handed down by judges Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson, suggested Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics would not make suitable foster carers.

The judges stated that if children were placed with parents who have traditional Christian views “there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children.”

They noted that there was tension between the equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation, but ruled that in regards to fostering, “the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence.”

The judges argued that there had been no religious discrimination against the Johns because they had been excluded from the fostering application process as a result of their moral views on sexual ethics rather than their Christian beliefs.

They added that the right to manifest religious belief outlined in the European Human Rights Act was only a “qualified” right, particularly where it concerned potential carers who wish to manifest a belief that is “inimical” to the interests of children.

The ruling also implicitly upheld a submission from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission stating that children risk being “infected” by Christian moral beliefs.
There is now little chance that the Johns, who have previously fostered 15 children, will be able to foster children unless Derby City Council reverses its decision to halt their application process.

The Johns spoke of their disappointment in a joint statement following the ruling.

“We wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need but because of this ruling we are unsure how we can continue the application process,” they said.

“We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and a vulnerable child has probably now missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home.

“We do not believe that our ordinary Christian moral views are infectious, contrary to what the Equality and Human Rights Commission believes.

“Being a Christian is not a crime and should not stop us from raising children.”

The Christian Legal Center, which supported the Johns’ court bid, said significant areas of public life were now becoming “out of bounds” to Christians who do not want to compromise their beliefs.

It said that the outcome of the Johns’ case was just the latest in a series of recent rulings against Christians and further evidence of a “hostility” in the judiciary towards Christians.

CLC director Andrea Minichiello Williams said Britain was now leading Europe in intolerance against religious beliefs.

She expressed her concerns for the future of Christians living in Britain.

“If Christian morals are harmful to children and unacceptable to the state, then how many years do we have before natural children start being taken away from Christians?” she said.

“There is a great imbalance in the law at the moment, resulting in ordinary people suffering.

“The situation must be addressed by Parliament as the judiciary have failed to stand for civil liberties but have capitulated to the agenda of the homosexual rights lobby.

“We cannot have a society where you are excluded just because you don’t agree with the sexual ethics of the homosexual lobby.”

The CLC said it will now press Prime Minister David Cameron to launch an independent inquiry to look into whether or not it is lawful for Christians to be excluded from the foster care system on the grounds of their religious beliefs.