NOT so long ago I wrote a little piece on atheism and the education of children. I happen to be in favour of both, in moderation, but in some eyes that disqualified me from commenting on either. Cheeringly, a prince of the Roman Catholic church then wrote in, perhaps having been at the Aquinas, to ask if Ian Bell could disprove the existence of God.
He got me there. If the truth be told, I can't even disprove the existence of leprechauns or Darth Vader. Unlike some Christians, I can't even disprove the reality of homosexuality: shows what I know. Come to that - and again learned folk have the better of me - I cannot even provide simple, systematic proof of the conditions necessary to create decent parents. Mercifully, there is no shortage of experts ready to make up for my shortcomings.
What makes a good parent? Down the years, in an endless torrent, the expertise has flowed. A lot of people have earned a very good living from the question. They have written books; broadcast TV programmes; filled magazines; held classes; delivered lectures and tips, homilies and sermons. Somewhere within the Sky box there is even an entire channel devoted to babies. From supernannies to professors by way of politicians and priests, there are many, many parenting geniuses out there.
Baffling, really. I mean, I hate to bring it up, but you would have thought one of them would have come up with an answer by now. Instead, whether child psychologists, agony aunts or men of the cloth, they have a cunning little formula into which all the many words can be distilled. What's a good parent? Someone who's not a bad parent.
If you have ever tried to raise a child, this can be a little disappointing. You want to say: is that it? Surely anyone can spot the bad ones? Apparently, anyone can. Just as we allow all those who fancy bringing a child into the world, inadvertently or otherwise, to have a go, so we grant perfect judgement to all and sundry. Who hasn't come across a lousy parent? No expertise required.
The trouble is, one unanswered question simply leads to another. We might all agree that beastly Mr and Mrs X would have done their children a favour by avoiding conception. We might manage a consensus around the belief that teenager Y should have waited a few years. We would meanwhile brook no real dissent over the brutal pervert Z. Then things become a little tricky.
Are lone parents poor parents simply because of their single status? The Tories tried to persuade us of that one not so long ago. To listen to them, an unhappy, uncaring couple was always to be preferred to a caring single mother.
What of people who divorce? Bad parents overnight, given all the upheaval faced by their children? Some still think so. What of women who elect to conceive, as these days they can, when they approach retirement age? Many frown. And women who work, because they wish to, or must, or both? A few will still assure you that this is not "ideal". Men who put in too many hours, or too few? Ditto.
You could go on. I will. Parents who pack their kids off to boarding schools? Parents who raise their children with religious faith, or with none? Parents who choose time-consuming jobs - politics, say? Parents who fail to share domestic burdens, or parents who "confuse roles" and share everything? Parents who cross the boundaries of race or faith? Parents who fail to provide or provide too much, trusting to the trust fund? What of adoptive parents, step-parents, foster parents, surrogate parents, parents who set themselves up as parenting experts?
You can only belabour a point for so long. This one is simple: if I extend the list much further, those exempt will count as a tiny minority in any society, far less in Western society. Traditionalists can bemoan the fact all they like, but there are many varieties of parent. In my naivety, I had almost come to believe that everyone knew it. I had also begun to imagine that parenthood should be open to all save the cruel, the abusive or the utterly incapable. I refer you to a previous remark: what do I know?
There was not much doubt that Holyrood would pass the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill last Thursday night. MSPs have become hardened to Scotland's culture wars. With their experience in the manufactured controversy over the "teaching" of homosexuality in schools, they understand the forces at work whenever issues of sex and equality come together, and they will no longer be browbeaten. In any case, who would not wish to see couples in "an enduring family relationship" - and how many of those are still around? - have the right to adopt?
I forgot. Only one sort of couple lacked that right before this reform. They may have entered into civil partnerships in far greater numbers than anyone predicted, suffering the usual abuse along the way. They may thereby have demonstrated as much commitment as anyone. They may therefore have shown themselves to be as fit as anyone to adopt, by any rational standard. But as I say, I forgot.
Gay, beyond the pale, not normal. Not as normal, certainly, as a thrice-married straight drunkard currently in desertion and behind with the child support. Not entitled to the same rights as a legally wed religious obsessive, or an offensive atheist with poor nappy-fastening skills: you know, the traditional family unit. How could it have slipped my mind that one part of Scottish society still believes such rubbish, and believes it with a ferocious certainty?
The underlying attitudes are not peculiar to Scotland, of course, but by European standards gay people in this part of the world are still forced to sit at the back of the bus. In England the argument has moved on, if that's the phrase, to arguments over proposed "sexual orientation regulations", intended to forbid discrimination. Hotels would no longer be able to bar gay people from their bedrooms. Schools would not be allowed to deny places to gay pupils. That sort of thing.
Churches in England have been lobbying hard. Lobbying against, that is, in a spirit of charity and social concern, rather in favour. Their faith schools and adoption agencies would be "at risk", they say. They have been slow to explain why that might be, but there has been no real need to explain. With no hint of shame, they demand exemptions from laws intended to end discrimination.
In these parts we have heard from Cardinal Keith O'Brien, among others, who has written of the decision to allow couples in those "enduring family relationships" to adopt as "gravely immoral". You name it (for O'Brien did). "Behavioural change, low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, increased mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, sexually transmitted infections and homosexual behaviour." All this from a "distorted social experiment aimed at redefining marriage, subverting the family and threatening the good of society".
I wouldn't say that celibate men are prone to exaggeration, but you could almost forget that the cardinal was writing about people. Perhaps he did forget. Roseanna Cunningham MSP took a slightly different tack, though with much the same end in view. Breaking with the SNP, she attempted to amend the Holyrood bill by striking out all references to civil partners, certain of whom may just be gay. She objected to a political "false consensus". She meant that voters, "the majority" who vote for legislators, would not care for "same-sex adoption".
The MSP also made reference to "nature's design" as a bar to one, but apparently only one, form of adoption. So what part of nature's design do straight couples fulfil when they raise as their own a child they have not conceived? How do single parents fit with the natural order? Step parents, churlish atheists? It might be better, I think, to wait until someone finds the pantheistic design team capable of answering the tricky ones.
In the meantime, best not be too pessimistic. The bill passed, after all. Annabel Goldie of the Tories - she must forgive me if I jumped to conclusions - found it in her Christian heart to give support. Unlike some of its Protestant brethren, the Church of Scotland also put old delusions aside and stepped up with the right answer. Our culture wars are far from over, but a few children are about to be better off. I thought that was the point.
