On page 7, we read:
Partners and “next of kin”And further down the page:
Using the terms “husband”, “wife” and “marriage” assumes opposite sex relationships only and will automatically exclude all LGB people. Using the term “partner” and “they/them” to refer to the partner will avoid this problem. This is also inclusive of all heterosexual couples, regardless of their marital status.
ParentingBe clear: these people will never be satisfied. This is not about avoiding nasty name-calling or "gay-bashing." They want to stop you talking to sick children about their mothers.
LGBT people can and do have children, sexual orientation or gender identity has nothing to do with good parenting or good child care. According to a Scottish wide survey11, one fifth of LGBT people have children. Some children will have been born or adopted into heterosexual relationships before a parent had ‘come out’ and some are born into samesex relationships or adopted by an LGB individual. Individual circumstances lead to varied family structures and parenting arrangements. It is important to be aware of this. When talking to children, consider using “parents”, “carers” or “guardians” rather than “mother” or “father”.
H/T Catholic Action UK
10 comments:
Surely the label should be 'Sick Humour'.
PS; I 'm still trying to work out how Local Government and BT fit in....
Ken
It is crazy. Even if homosexuality were okay, the language is not exclusionary--the replacement is worse: plain bland, and wrong!
Recently, someone nameless told me I was not allowed to say "man hours", or "man-power". I refused.
"In brief," the Director summed up, "the parents were the father and the mother." The smut that was really science fell with a crash into the boys' eye-avoiding silence. "Mother," he repeated loudly rubbing in the science; and, leaning back in his chair, "These," he said gravely, "are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant."
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (chapter 3), 1932
this blog entry and these comments all seems to represent a very smug attitude, who are we to judge other people's life choices,and family situations. My christianity taught me that God is the judge.
Also, given that lots of people do not live within the narrow parameters of a nuclear family, children are often raised by people whom are not their natural birth parents and of course it is right to consider this when referring to their family situation. It is right to refer to a "guardian" or "parent" rather than specifics of "mother or "father".
Do Stonewall wish to stop you talking to sick children about their mothers? This is not indicated in the quoted text. I believe Christainity is inclusive not exclusive Fr Tim
No, by no means smug: concerned and somewhat angry would be nearer the mark. Nobody is suggesting here that we "judge" other people's family situations or their culpability. As to life choices, we are certainly entitled to judge that a particular life choice is objectively against the natural law.
Stonewall are indeed trying to discourage the use of the terms "Mother" and "Father" and to impose the view that the family is just one choice among many.
Catholics have always been involved in caring for children from various backgrounds. And good Catholic carers have always been sensitive to children's different situations.
This is about something different: the imposition of secular relativism.
Is the imposition of secular relativism inclusive or exclusive?
It excludes those who are not secular relativists.
Hi, I'd like to link to the Fair For All ... pdf document but I can't seem to manage it. Is that a problem my end or yours?
I just tested the link and it worked OK. If you haven't done so already, it would be worth trying right-click and "save link as" to save the pdf to your hard drive rather than trying to open it in a browser window.
Excellent - thank you. The link worked, it took quite a long time to download but got there in the end. I have now saved it to 'my documents'.
Post a Comment