The · Region · of · the · Winter · Stars

What strange things come out of procrastination.

I, for example, have spent some time developing a ( Grand Unified Theory of Doctor Who )

Anyway, there are the thoughts. Every time I turn this over in my mind to tell someone, I think of new parallels that work and other nifty implications, so I think I might be on to something. Thoughts?

Why do so many Christians wanting to preach salvation back up the key points of their arguments by saying 'as it is written in the Bible'?

I mean, if the person you're talking to is not a Christian and has no particular reason for being one (hence the need to explain it to them), why should they regard the Bible as any sort of authority?

No, saying 'the BIBLE is the true WORD of GOD' doesn't help. That's a claim that's been made for many different messages; how is anyone to know that you've got hold of the real deal?

Although I've more or less given up livejournal, occasionally I come across some issue which I'd like to clarify in my own head by writing it out and see what sort of reactions I get. Today this has coincided with me having a bit of spare time while some bread dough rises, so I thought I'd give it a go.

I've been reading some of the BBC's comments on the current controversy over the gay rights bill. Here it is. It's taken me a lot of the day to work out what I think about this. Now that I've worked through the confusion to some concrete ideas I'm finding it frustrating that my own understanding makes no difference to the debate.

The question, summarised, is: should it be compulsory for a) all adoption agencies to consider homosexual couples as prospective parents and b) all guest houses, hotels, etc. to give homosexual couples a room together with a double bed if they have one.

Those who support these proposals say that it is a breach of the human rights of the couples who are denied a double bed in every place they might reasonably ask for one, and similarly a breach of their rights for an adoption agency to deny them the opportunity to adopt a child.

Those who oppose say that it is a breach of the rights of a Catholic adoption agency to force them to place children with gay couples, as that goes against their beliefs. These agencies will close down if the bill goes through. Also, they say that it is a breach of the human rights of the owner of the guest house, hotel, etc. to force them to treat a homosexual couple in the same way as they would treat a heterosexual couple if that goes against an article of faith - in the media it's always specifically Christian faith, once more, though no doubt there are Islamic guest houses which would find this just as objectionable.

Looking at the argument, the first thing that strikes me is that I wish we'd never settled on assigning everybody 'rights' as the way to counter injustice. It tends to make the whole thing swing on the 'what's in it for them?' line rather than 'what is the correct course of action for a government under such circumstances'.

We have two principles: a) it is wrong to deny someone a service because you object to their way of life and b) it is wrong to force someone to do something which is contrary to their beliefs. The involvement of principles and religion, not to mention the emotive matter of adoption, is inclined to make this sort of thing increasingly difficult to untangle - not least because principles in opposition demand compromise from a governing body, not a sweeping single answer. Our current government is very good at pursuing a principle, good at taking action on an issue but very bad at governing (or taking reasoned, sensible and restrained action), which of course makes this sort of thing harder.

To find my own solution to the problem I had to decide what principles I would personally apply. My list of positions runs something like this:

• The government should try to act in a way that allows as many people as possible to do what they want to do. This goes along with a responsibility to respect and protect as many citizens as possible. Note the 'as possibles'.


• It is reasonable for a gay couple to ask to adopt a child. Personally I am not sure whether homosexuality is wrong or right - a better case can be made against it than for it from the Biblical texts, but it is an arguable point and I'm not going to make outright statements either way. If it is a sin, then it's important to remember that so are greed, pride, envy, scorn, casual sex, dishonesty, anger and a multitude of others. Some of these are likely to prevent a couple being allowed to adopt and some are unlikely to be noticed. There are never going to be any perfect couples. Why single out homosexuality as the one sin which prevents someone acting as a parent?


• It is reasonable for an adoption agency to refuse to place a child with a gay couple if they consider homosexuality to be a serious threat to the child's development - and in particular if parents who placed the child with that adoption agency may have done so because they shared those views.


• There are plenty of adoption agencies who will place children with homosexual couples. Any homosexual couple in the UK who wishes to adopt a child will be able to find someone to consider them. Therefore, though the government might want to fortify that situation in law, the government hasn't got a leg to stand on by trying to make it universal. If a couple wants to adopt, what difference does it make if they can only adopt from 96% of the agencies in the country? That sounds like plenty of options to me!


• Not so sure about the guest house owners, but inclined to think that they should be required to be civil, welcoming and to offer a room, but not forced to offer a double bed if that goes against their consciences. If they must, by law, make their position clear at the outset and also not allowed to just turn people away into the night, then I don't think it would harm anyone not to make the thing universal.


• Ultimately, the government isn't being called upon to make a pronouncement on the ethical side of the situation. They're being called upon to prevent citizens that they are responsible for being mistreated as far as they possibly can. If the world were perfect then this sort of thing might be resolved, but as it isn't, we're left with a need for a set of measures that make the best possible compromise.


• In this issue, who is actually suffering? Those homosexual couples who are forced to spend a night in separate beds aren't exactly being put through a horrific experience. Those guest house owners whose country is legislating against their consciences are worse off, though probably not on a 'horrific' scale. If good orphanages have to close down then arguably the thing has gone too far.


• I wish Christians didn't always find it so hard to be loving about the sins of others. If we were really acting as mini Christs then I think we'd be better regarded, even if positions of principle were unchanged.

Phew. That's a harrowing sort of thing to plough through. Any opinions?

Summer searing out the hearts of leaves,
hot heaviness spread wide across the land
and trees of green from side to side that stand
yellowed only by distance, like far corn sheaves.
The air is warm as a hot bath is warming
through lazy pollen-motes the bees come swarming;
a buzz of summer industry soothes late days
which slip by, shortening, yet still enwrapped
in sleep-dazed quiet. On dry paths flap
the fallen leaves, the few that know the season,
though all the world forgets. For some reason
these dead things remember autumn; they still bear
the dusky death that summer ought to bring,
or has brought, but all else know not death, stay where
the blasting heat has taken them, the undead trees,
plants curling sickened in the nightmare breeze,
the rotten rings of fungus petrified. The lengthened year,
fevered with summer, stays. The world's way halted,
though only the oncoming chill itself has faltered,
mechanical a clock still turns, the days move on;
October ends. November burns, slowly, in the dead sun.