And why should they not be expected to comply with equality legislation. What happens if a child who is gay comes to them. Children need support and fair treatment, not being told that they are wrong in some fashion. There's nothing wrong or illegal about being gay.
Elsewhere I have read that they also said that they go to church on a Sunday and weren't prepared to stay at home with children. That means that whatever the faith of the child's background,. be they a different denomination of christianity, a muslin, jew or even of no religious background, this couple will neither take them to a different religious service on a Sunday or stay at home with them. Seems to me their religious needs are being put before those of the children or potentially being foisted upon them.
The needs of the children come before the 'needs' of the foster parents.
More suspicious is the way they applied to Derby City council, but withdrew their application "believing it "doomed to failure" because of the social worker's attitude to their religious beliefs".
So they didn't wait for an actual decision by the authorities and instead got these "Christian Legal Centre" people involved to take their case to court and spread it around the Newspapers. The Christian Legal Centre are a delightful group that have taken on and blown several cases out of proportion that were of a similar nature, namely cases where christians had denied services to gay people or attempted to inappropriately choosing to lecture people in christian morals instead of doing their job. If you recall the fairly well publicised stories of the policeman who sent colleagues emails denigrating homosexuality or the councillor/therapist who refused to treat homosexuals, that was their handiwork too.
The Christian Legal Centre reacted to today's ruling with dismay and warned "fostering by Christians is now in doubt".
Nope, fostering by people who are prejudiced towards homosexuality is in doubt, please stop trying to distort fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:This is quite alarming because holding Christian views is now seen as de facto 'discrimination'.
It appears that moral teaching is now forbidden, I wonder what we have left, just PC dogma?
Being anti-gay isn't exactly a "christian view" is it? Loads of christians are not anti-gay. It's just some that get a bee in their bonnet about it.
Moral teaching isn't forbidden, it's telling childre that normal, harmless and natural (and perfectly legal) behaviour is 'wrong'. Can you imagine the effect upon a gay child finding themselves being fostered by this couple, being told that their feelings are not acceptable or are somehow wrong or immoral. Children in the care system are likely to be even more in need of support than those in stable families, the last thing they need is someone telling them there are things wrong with them and that their feelings and desires are not right.
Howard A Treesong wrote:And why should they not be expected to comply with equality legislation. What happens if a child who is gay comes to them. Children need support and fair treatment, not being told that they are wrong in some fashion. There's nothing wrong or illegal about being gay.
Elsewhere I have read that they also said that they go to church on a Sunday and weren't prepared to stay at home with children. That means that whatever the faith of the child's background,. be they a different denomination of christianity, a muslin, jew or even of no religious background, this couple will neither take them to a different religious service on a Sunday or stay at home with them. Seems to me their religious needs are being put before those of the children or potentially being foisted upon them.
The needs of the children come before the 'needs' of the foster parents.
More suspicious is the way they applied to Derby City council, but withdrew their application "believing it "doomed to failure" because of the social worker's attitude to their religious beliefs".
So they didn't wait for an actual decision by the authorities and instead got these "Christian Legal Centre" people involved to take their case to court and spread it around the Newspapers. The Christian Legal Centre are a delightful group that have taken on and blown several cases out of proportion that were of a similar nature, namely cases where christians had denied services to gay people or attempted to inappropriately choosing to lecture people in christian morals instead of doing their job. If you recall the fairly well publicised stories of the policeman who sent colleagues emails denigrating homosexuality or the councillor/therapist who refused to treat homosexuals, that was their handiwork too.
The Christian Legal Centre reacted to today's ruling with dismay and warned "fostering by Christians is now in doubt".
Nope, fostering by people who are prejudiced towards homosexuality is in doubt, please stop trying to distort fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:This is quite alarming because holding Christian views is now seen as de facto 'discrimination'.
It appears that moral teaching is now forbidden, I wonder what we have left, just PC dogma?
Being anti-gay isn't exactly a "christian view" is it? Loads of christians are not anti-gay. It's just some that get a bee in their bonnet about it.
Moral teaching isn't forbidden, it's telling childre that normal, harmless and natural (and perfectly legal) behaviour is 'wrong'. Can you imagine the effect upon a gay child finding themselves being fostered by this couple, being told that their feelings are not acceptable or are somehow wrong or immoral. Children in the care system are likely to be even more in need of support than those in stable families, the last thing they need is someone telling them there are things wrong with them and that their feelings and desires are not right.
Wow, I guess I think of more pathetic excuses than the argument above but it would take me a good deal of time. At the tend of the day its discrimination against Christians for PC dogma, while there are children who need good homes.
What if this were a couple of a different faith saying the same thing?
Being a Christian and finding homosexuality wrong is not a problem.
Believing homosexuality is wrong is not a problem.
Having children in your care and having views which may conflict with the emotional and psychological well being of children in your care is a problem.
Though, if you can find me a totally neutral foster family, I will give you all my hard earned cash.
Frazzled wrote:What if this were a couple of a different faith saying the same thing?
TBH they're not being treated this way just because they're Christian, it's "couples of a different faith", as you put it, that are getting away too easily. The solution is absolutely not to stop caring about everyone's equal value.
Wow, I guess I think of more pathetic excuses than the argument above but it would take me a good deal of time. At the tend of the day its discrimination against Christians for PC dogma, while there are children who need good homes.
What if this were a couple of a different faith saying the same thing?
Would a home where the child is attacked for who they are all the time be a good home?
You're focused on what you see as your own faith attacked... this is not the case here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:Being a Christian and finding homosexuality wrong is not a problem.
Believing homosexuality is wrong is not a problem.
Having children in your care and having views which may conflict with the emotional and psychological well being of children in your care is a problem.
Though, if you can find me a totally neutral foster family, I will give you all my hard earned cash.
Agreed. But add: Being Homosexual is also not wrong.
Frazzled wrote:Why would they be attacked? Thats as nuts as saying a Latino couple couldn't foster African American children, because their culture is different.
Would you allow atheist couples to foster? Its the same issue.
Ever see Saved? yea those camps where they send gay kids to be "fixed" are real. Can't tell me thats not abuse....
Orlanth wrote:This is quite alarming because holding Christian views is now seen as de facto 'discrimination'.
It appears that moral teaching is now forbidden, I wonder what we have left, just PC dogma?
Being anti-gay isn't exactly a "christian view" is it? Loads of christians are not anti-gay. It's just some that get a bee in their bonnet about it.
Moral teaching isn't forbidden, it's telling childre that normal, harmless and natural (and perfectly legal) behaviour is 'wrong'. Can you imagine the effect upon a gay child finding themselves being fostered by this couple, being told that their feelings are not acceptable or are somehow wrong or immoral. Children in the care system are likely to be even more in need of support than those in stable families, the last thing they need is someone telling them there are things wrong with them and that their feelings and desires are not right.
Here is the rub, the couple were willing to jump through all the hoops except 'tell a small child that homosexuality is good'.
The council wasnt after an agreement not to discriminate against gays, they asked for an endorsement of homosexuality, with the failure to endorse being read as discrimination. This is grossly unfair.
There is a huge danger in this because now to not approve of homosexuality is discrimination or homophobia leading to loss of status, in this case the inability to foster.
Frazzled wrote:What if this were a couple of a different faith saying the same thing?
It wouldn't make any difference, they can be a jew, muslim, atheist, doesn't matter all are free to foster and adopt. It's their attitude towards homosexuality which presents the problem not their stated religion.
There's no excuse for their prejudice towards homosexuality, saying "it's my religion" doesn't grant special dispensation either.
Though, if you can find me a totally neutral foster family, I will give you all my hard earned cash.
Point, besides how much lying will most foster parents now have to do to claim to be the true neutral. also what about other minorities, that means no Moslem adoption either or Jew. This is a minefield of PC dogma that will cause big problems.
I really do wonder if other groups are treated the same? Because if you think Christianity has problems with homosexuality you should try Islam.
Frazzled wrote:Would you allow atheist couples to foster? Its the same issue.
It's not the same issue at all. Would you let a couple of racist or homophobic atheists foster kids? No it makes them unsuitable because they are incapable of showing fair treatment and respect to everyone.
It's the "racist" or "homophobic" part of that above description presents the problem, not the "atheist". Just as in the reported case here. It's not their christianity that is the issue, loads of christians adopt kids, so do atheists and muslims, it's their views on homosexuality.
Frazzled wrote:Why would they be attacked? Thats as nuts as saying a Latino couple couldn't foster African American children, because their culture is different.
Would you allow atheist couples to foster? Its the same issue.
Ever see Saved? yea those camps where they send gay kids to be "fixed" are real. Can't tell me thats not abuse....
Since since you have no proof thats their nefarious plan then we're back to square one. What about the atheist couple would they be permitted to have kids? Again what about the hispanic couple. How can homosexual couples foster heterosexual kids? This concept is stupid.
After checking for criminal history or proclivities, the next step should be:
*Will the couple foster the kids to the best of their ability? Yes, or no. That is should be the test.
Orlanth wrote:I really do wonder if other groups are treated the same? Because if you think Christianity has problems with homosexuality you should try Islam.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that muslims are given a free ride on homophobia in the adoption system? What's the defence here, that you suspect muslims might be allowed a free pass, so these christians should definitely get one?
Frazzled wrote:Why would they be attacked? Thats as nuts as saying a Latino couple couldn't foster African American children, because their culture is different.
Would you allow atheist couples to foster? Its the same issue.
Ever see Saved? yea those camps where they send gay kids to be "fixed" are real. Can't tell me thats not abuse....
Since since you have no proof thats their nefarious plan then we're back to square one. What about the atheist couple would they be permitted to have kids? Again what about the hispanic couple. How can homosexual couples foster heterosexual kids? This concept is stupid.
After checking for criminal history or proclivities, the next step should be:
*Will the couple foster the kids to the best of their ability? Yes, or no. That is should be the test.
Agreed, personally I would have found this no less disturbing if the couple were Jewish or Moslem. The assumption that to fail to endorse 'homosexuality' is legally now a form of 'homophobia' is the sort of backward thinking we expect from a cheap junta.
Frazzled wrote:Since since you have no proof thats their nefarious plan then we're back to square one. What about the atheist couple would they be permitted to have kids? Again what about the hispanic couple. How can homosexual couples foster heterosexual kids? This concept is stupid.
After checking for criminal history or proclivities, the next step should be: *Will the couple foster the kids to the best of their ability? Yes, or no. That is should be the test.
On that basis you could have a couple of white supremacists adopting kids as long as they had a clean criminal record. You think that's a good idea? What if they get given a child with mixed ethnicity?
I suppose now I'll have someone desperately trying to describe how thinking a black person is inferior is a totally different case to thinking a homosexual is wrong. Even though both are perfectly natural.
Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Frazzled wrote:Since since you have no proof thats their nefarious plan then we're back to square one. What about the atheist couple would they be permitted to have kids? Again what about the hispanic couple. How can homosexual couples foster heterosexual kids? This concept is stupid.
After checking for criminal history or proclivities, the next step should be:
*Will the couple foster the kids to the best of their ability? Yes, or no. That is should be the test.
On that basis you could have a couple of white supremacists adopting kids as long as they had a clean criminal record. You think that's a good idea? What if they get given a child with mixed ethnicity?
I suppose now I'll have someone desperately trying to describe how thinking a black person is inferior is a totally different case to thinking a homosexual is wrong. Even though both are perfectly natural.
Orlanth wrote:I really do wonder if other groups are treated the same? Because if you think Christianity has problems with homosexuality you should try Islam.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that muslims are given a free ride on homophobia in the adoption system? What's the defence here, that you suspect muslims might be allowed a free pass, so these christians should definitely get one?
I don't think either can be fairly considered 'homophobic' without looking at the individuals concerned, first address this issue. However there is plenty of Islamic adoption in the UK, just as with any other group, and Islam is far more hardcore, yet we I see no record of similar objections by councils over Islamic adoption on those grounds.
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
So people oif faith shouldn't be allowed to foster?
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Welcome to Dakkas latest outed atheist extremist. How do you intend to get rid of the relgious then, camps, executions, 'educashun'?
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Welcome to Dakkas latest outed Troll. How do you intend to get rid of the relgious then, camps, executions, 'educashun'?
Fixed, and ask yourself, do you really expect a competent answer to your question?
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
You're right.
Also we should give everyone a frontal lobotomy so that nobody can have any thoughts to prevent conflict.
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
This is a great idea. With hundreds of families lined up at foster homes every day just hoping they can take a kid home with them, this will certainly eliminate some of the chaff. I feel bad for those poor Atheists and non-Christians who want to foster children, but aren't able to because of the shortage of children in the foster care system.
Regulating the massive availability of families who want to raise foster children is a good use of government resources.
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Welcome to Dakkas latest outed atheist extremist. How do you intend to get rid of the relgious then, camps, executions, 'educashun'?
they will all have to renew their licenses at the DMV. I'm not a martyr, I don't think I could survive the test of faith that would be required. I might convert to atheism just to avoid the hell of DMV.
Actually I pointed this out because in other threads I get a hard time explaining to atheist moderates that other atheists who want to make religion go away are a worryingly sizable fraction of the whole.
While we are at it perhaps adopting a liscense system for even being allowed to give birth would also help with over population (and foster children as a side note to some degree). Not being able to reproduce will ensure that children who already exist will be given a higher priority for loving parents. Make it a privaledge, not a right. That would remove a lot of failed parents from ever entering the system and help save resources, energy, time, etc. across the board.
Strimen wrote:While we are at it perhaps adopting a liscense system for even being allowed to give birth would also help with over population (and foster children as a side note to some degree). Not being able to reproduce will ensure that children who already exist will be given a higher priority for loving parents.
How are you going to stop it from happening? Did you read this in Mein Kampf or think of it on your own?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:This couple is in their 60s, they have no business being foster parents to begin with.
Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?
1. Adoption is different than fostering (just a point of order).
2. I don't think its an issue. They are too busy suing people.
Not in all countries. Adoption in Canada is much closer to fostering. Birth parents can still have visitation rights and can reclaim the child even when "adopted". True adoption is much rarer here it seems.
Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?
1. Adoption is different than fostering (just a point of order).
2. I don't think its an issue. They are too busy suing people.
Well, foster then.
Theoretically, if they weren't too busy being homophobic gaks to go into the fostering trade, should they be allowed to?
Meaning if they didn't assemble with various signs bearing colorful slogans but still held the same beliefs?...No they still shouldn't be allowed to foster/adopt or IMO come into contact with any young mind...ever.
Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?
1. Adoption is different than fostering (just a point of order).
2. I don't think its an issue. They are too busy suing people.
Well, foster then.
Theoretically, if they weren't too busy being homophobic gaks to go into the fostering trade, should they be allowed to?
No, but not for your reached for reason. Their intent to raise the fosters as best as possible would be considered suspect in light of their on the road lifestyle and activites that put their existing children at phsyical risk and out of school.
The thing I really don't get about this is how is religion or homophobia any different to other beliefs?
Believing in god and the bible is no different to believing in homeopathy or believing in aliens (things we cannot prove but mostly cannot disprove), why should believing or disbelieving in any of these things influence rights?
For that matter homophobia is no different to the latent anti-Muslim/middle eastern racism that is rife in the UK yet the latter can adopt and foster with no qualms.
Kilkrazy wrote:How many non-Islamic children were fostered by Islamic couples in the decade 1999-2009?
73. All children were removed from the homes for "smelling too much like curry."
As much as I'd like to be for this, I'm having trouble. People have their beliefs. I was taught that being gay is wrong growing up yet I'm gaying it up with the best of them (half the time, anyway). I'm not sure how big of an impact it has compared to their already bs situation. I'd be more considered with religion in general getting near them, but again, I survived it too. I think both sides need to chill and kids should be taught balanced views so they can decide later in life what they actually believe.
....For the record...I'm in no way against Christians fostering children,there are a lot of kids out in the world that need good homes.
What I'm against is anyone in being granted custody of a child,who would then fill that child's head with Racism,Homophobia or any such vile ideas.
FITZZ wrote:
....For the record...I'm in no way against Christians fostering children,there are a lot of kids out in the world that need good homes.
What I'm against is anyone in being granted custody of a child,who would then fill that child's head with Racism,Homophobia or any such vile ideas.
Well there you go, calm rationality to the rescue.
Kilkrazy wrote:How many non-Islamic children were fostered by Islamic couples in the decade 1999-2009?
73. All children were removed from the homes for "smelling too much like curry."
As much as I'd like to be for this, I'm having trouble. People have their beliefs. I was taught that being gay is wrong growing up yet I'm gaying it up with the best of them (half the time, anyway). I'm not sure how big of an impact it has compared to their already bs situation. I'd be more considered with religion in general getting near them, but again, I survived it too. I think both sides need to chill and kids should be taught balanced views so they can decide later in life what they actually believe.
I agree its not so much about the fact that they will be taught X or Y, but more about the fact that some people will send kids off to "special camps" to have an issue beaten out of them (or do it themselves). If the "parents" seem to be of that mindset then the kid should not be placed in their care (or should be removed from their care), if it is the kid you are worried about. Mental trauma can be scaring but the human brain is a very capable system and able to adapt to many situations and still come out on top. The main goal is to get kids out of the tax payers system and into a privately funded family that wishes to spend their resources on the child. At that point leave it to the child to grow up and make up its own mind in time, just like an unfortunate child born to parents that wish to brain wash it. Where are the bleeding hearts for these poor, trapped souls, born to a life of lies?
Kilkrazy wrote:You made a claim with a numerical basis. A reasonable member of the public would say numbers were related to that.
What?
Seriously where did I say anything about large amounts of islamic parents adopting or fostering non islamic kids?
corpsesarefun wrote:The thing I really don't get about this is how is religion or homophobia any different to other beliefs?
Believing in god and the bible is no different to believing in homeopathy or believing in aliens (things we cannot prove but mostly cannot disprove), why should believing or disbelieving in any of these things influence rights?
For that matter homophobia is no different to the latent anti-Muslim/middle eastern racism that is rife in the UK yet the latter can adopt and foster with no qualms.
@ Orlanth:
Yes, because clearly people don't lie when their wants would be affected if they told the truth.
Frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of their advanced age.
It's unfair to foster children(especially younger children, like toddlers) if they're adopted and then a natural demise occurs to one of the caregivers.
Kanluwen wrote:
@ Orlanth:
Yes, because clearly people don't lie when their wants would be affected if they told the truth.
Frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of their advanced age.
It's unfair to foster children(especially younger children, like toddlers) if they're adopted and then a natural demise occurs to one of the caregivers.
Advanced age? Thats not sane. Do you even know anyone over 30?
If they are fostering US style the kid is only around a few months maybe a few years. If its more of an adoption style then you're still talking to maturity. Better to have older parents who love you then be in an orphanage. Ask my Dad, he'd tell you stories to make you cry.
Strimen wrote:Perhaps removing relgion would benefit all then. Since they all conflict on what is right and wrong, what is good and evil. Instead work within the laws which are created by the people for the people in a democratic government of elected individuals. Then you wouldn't have to worry about any of this.
Welcome to Dakkas latest outed atheist extremist. How do you intend to get rid of the relgious then, camps, executions, 'educashun'?
Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas. Stop trying to use "well my beliefes are...." as an excuse to persecute others. Instead hold people accountable to the laws of the nation and if you do not like those laws then vote to have them changed. I live in a democracy where this is possible, if you move here then you must obey the laws regardless of your ideals. Because religion is wide spread and multi-facted and a dime a dozen there are no laws based upon it in Canada and those that are are slowly removed and replaced with laws that are created by elected officals of the people of this country.
We welcome you to bring your culture and your beliefs to our country and celebrate them in your own way. But you will still be held accountable for any laws you break. Honour killings are still murders in this country. Persecution of an individual for their prefered sex, skin colour, gender, ideals is still illegal. Just because your religion says so does not fly here. People should be held accountable for their actions and be condemed by a jury of their peers. Not an invisible being(s) which fail to manifest themselves on a regular basis to hand out judgement of their own and that no one can agree on who, what, where or how many there are.
Kilkrazy wrote:How many non-Islamic children were fostered by Islamic couples in the decade 1999-2009?
73. All children were removed from the homes for "smelling too much like curry."
As much as I'd like to be for this, I'm having trouble. People have their beliefs. I was taught that being gay is wrong growing up yet I'm gaying it up with the best of them (half the time, anyway). I'm not sure how big of an impact it has compared to their already bs situation. I'd be more considered with religion in general getting near them, but again, I survived it too. I think both sides need to chill and kids should be taught balanced views so they can decide later in life what they actually believe.
I agree its not so much about the fact that they will be taught X or Y, but more about the fact that some people will send kids off to "special camps" to have an issue beaten out of them (or do it themselves). If the "parents" seem to be of that mindset then the kid should not be placed in their care (or should be removed from their care), if it is the kid you are worried about. Mental trauma can be scaring but the human brain is a very capable system and able to adapt to many situations and still come out on top. The main goal is to get kids out of the tax payers system and into a privately funded family that wishes to spend their resources on the child. At that point leave it to the child to grow up and make up its own mind in time, just like an unfortunate child born to parents that wish to brain wash it. Where are the bleeding hearts for these poor, trapped souls, born to a life of lies?
Can foster parents even send kids to camp? And while this is possible, does that mean it's likely? For that matter, who among us isn't a little racist or is physically incapable of sending kids off to a camp? A line gets drawn somewhere, it's just fuzzy where the right spot for it is.
Kanluwen wrote:
@ Orlanth:
Yes, because clearly people don't lie when their wants would be affected if they told the truth.
Frankly, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because of their advanced age.
It's unfair to foster children(especially younger children, like toddlers) if they're adopted and then a natural demise occurs to one of the caregivers.
Advanced age? That's not sane. Do you even know anyone over 30?
If they are fostering US style the kid is only around a few months maybe a few years. If its more of an adoption style then you're still talking to maturity.
We're not talking about a 30 year old professional here, Frazzled.
We're talking about a couple in their late 50s, early 60s.
Better to have older parents who love you then be in an orphanage. Ask my Dad, he'd tell you stories to make you cry.
'Older parents' doesn't necessarily mean they're the age of most people's grandparents.
Kilkrazy wrote:You made a claim with a numerical basis. A reasonable member of the public would say numbers were related to that.
What?
Seriously where did I say anything about large amounts of islamic parents adopting or fostering non islamic kids?
corpsesarefun wrote:The thing I really don't get about this is how is religion or homophobia any different to other beliefs?
Believing in god and the bible is no different to believing in homeopathy or believing in aliens (things we cannot prove but mostly cannot disprove), why should believing or disbelieving in any of these things influence rights?
For that matter homophobia is no different to the latent anti-Muslim/middle eastern racism that is rife in the UK yet the latter can adopt and foster with no qualms.
Large numbers, small numbers, no numbers, schmo numbers, when you start to issue statements like this;
For that matter homophobia is no different to the latent anti-Muslim/middle eastern racism that is rife in the UK yet the latter can adopt and foster with no qualms.
you need to back it up with some facts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to send your children to foster parents whom you can trust not to have any trace of homophobia?
And how wopuld you find such people, or be so sure.
Perhaps a good start would be not to pick parents who say their religion makes them believe homosexuality to be a sin.
You seem to be really misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I meant homophobia is equivalent to racism yet there are no problems for people who have anti-muslim or anti-middle eastern sentiments if they attempt to adopt or foster.
Kanluwen wrote:
We're talking about a couple in their late 50s, early 60s.
Oh God they're practically mummies! In the words of the immortal bard: Nuts.
Better to have older parents who love you then be in an orphanage. Ask my Dad, he'd tell you stories to make you cry.
'Older parents' doesn't necessarily mean they're the age of most people's grandparents.
Again, that not only lacks clarity, it lacks sanity. I don't know what planet you're on but it aint Earth. Parents willing to adopt are rare. Parents willing to foster are even rarer. You would doom kids to an orphange vs. loving parents because of...age?
corpsesarefun wrote:You seem to be really misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I meant homophobia is equivalent to racism yet there are no problems for people who have anti-muslim or anti-middle eastern sentiments if they attempt to adopt or foster.
When you make a statement like that, if you can't back it up with some research, you're just pulling stuff out of your arse.
Kilkrazy wrote:Madonna loves adopting and she's in her 50s.
And you have to wonder if they'd allow it if she weren't Madonna.
Frazzled wrote:Parents willing to adopt are rare. Parents willing to foster are even rarer. You would doom kids to an orphanage vs. loving parents because of...age?
Knee-jerk reaction much?
While parents who are willing to adopt are rare and parents willing to foster are even rarer--the standards for those parents shouldn't simply be "they're willing and we've got a buttload of kids to unload!".
While orphanages are terrible, there's plenty of horror stories that come out of these supposedly "great" people who are willing to adopt/foster.
Kilkrazy wrote:Madonna loves adopting and she's in her 50s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:You seem to be really misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I meant homophobia is equivalent to racism yet there are no problems for people who have anti-muslim or anti-middle eastern sentiments if they attempt to adopt or foster.
When you make a statement like that, if you can't back it up with some research, you're just pulling stuff out of your arse.
This says that white couples are having trouble adopting mixed and Asian children, because of prejudice against them. This contradicts your statement.
Am I being insanely unclear or just smashing my head against a wall.
Here i'll put my point in caps, bold AND speech marks for you "THERE ARE NO LAWS AGAINST RACISTS ADOPTING".
This is unlinked to how many racists do adopt, this is unlinked to how many Muslims adopt, it is unlinked to how many Asians or mixed race children are adopted and it it unlinked to any statistics.
Jesus is it really so hard to point out an inconsistency?
Kilkrazy wrote:Madonna loves adopting and she's in her 50s.
And you have to wonder if they'd allow it if she weren't Madonna.
Frazzled wrote:Parents willing to adopt are rare. Parents willing to foster are even rarer. You would doom kids to an orphanage vs. loving parents because of...age?
Knee-jerk reaction much?
While parents who are willing to adopt are rare and parents willing to foster are even rarer--the standards for those parents shouldn't simply be "they're willing and we've got a buttload of kids to unload!".
While orphanages are terrible, there's plenty of horror stories that come out of these supposedly "great" people who are willing to adopt/foster.
Name one that would come out because of an older parent smartass. Its literally like saying "the house is on fire, but because this ladder is older we're not going to climb down on it, but take our chances in the fire instead. "
Strimen wrote:
Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas.
What agenda, the council had no problems with the family other than on this point of doctrine. By all other accounts they are model foster carers.
If therer is any agenda it is in a growing intolerance of religion veiled under human rights.
Strimen wrote:
Stop trying to use "well my beliefs are...." as an excuse to persecute others.
Noone is trying to do that except groups condemning the couple, like Stonewall who don't see any need to hide heir contempt. And I thought we were supposed to be against intolerance.
Strimen wrote:
Honour killings are still murders in this country. Persecution of an individual for their prefered sex, skin colour, gender, ideals is still illegal.
What has that got to tarnish a couple wanting to adopt? If you wish to sniff out bigotry by link religious people because of other religious people, of a different faith mind you, who practice honour killing; then congratulations! You have found a bigot, it might not be the bigot you were looking for.
Strimen wrote:
Thoughts
Yes, I thoroughly recommend them when taken to a fair and honest conclusion.
Strimen wrote:Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas. Stop trying to use "well my beliefes are...." as an excuse to persecute others. Instead hold people accountable to the laws of the nation and if you do not like those laws then vote to have them changed. I live in a democracy where this is possible, if you move here then you must obey the laws regardless of your ideals. Because religion is wide spread and multi-facted and a dime a dozen there are no laws based upon it in Canada and those that are are slowly removed and replaced with laws that are created by elected officals of the people of this country.
We welcome you to bring your culture and your beliefs to our country and celebrate them in your own way. But you will still be held accountable for any laws you break. Honour killings are still murders in this country. Persecution of an individual for their prefered sex, skin colour, gender, ideals is still illegal. Just because your religion says so does not fly here. People should be held accountable for their actions and be condemed by a jury of their peers. Not an invisible being(s) which fail to manifest themselves on a regular basis to hand out judgement of their own and that no one can agree on who, what, where or how many there are.
Thoughts
Great post with a great sentiment, even if it doesn't pertain wholy to the thread, haha!
Orlanth wrote:I really do wonder if other groups are treated the same? Because if you think Christianity has problems with homosexuality you should try Islam.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that muslims are given a free ride on homophobia in the adoption system? What's the defence here, that you suspect muslims might be allowed a free pass, so these christians should definitely get one?
I don't think either can be fairly considered 'homophobic' without looking at the individuals concerned, first address this issue. However there is plenty of Islamic adoption in the UK, just as with any other group, and Islam is far more hardcore, yet we I see no record of similar objections by councils over Islamic adoption on those grounds.
But the council aren't concerned with 'christian adoptions', merely the particular beliefs or these particular christians. Lots of christians adopt kids and the council are not making any general policy against christian applicants.
Frazzled wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Since since you have no proof thats their nefarious plan then we're back to square one. What about the atheist couple would they be permitted to have kids? Again what about the hispanic couple. How can homosexual couples foster heterosexual kids? This concept is stupid.
After checking for criminal history or proclivities, the next step should be: *Will the couple foster the kids to the best of their ability? Yes, or no. That is should be the test.
On that basis you could have a couple of white supremacists adopting kids as long as they had a clean criminal record. You think that's a good idea? What if they get given a child with mixed ethnicity?
I suppose now I'll have someone desperately trying to describe how thinking a black person is inferior is a totally different case to thinking a homosexual is wrong. Even though both are perfectly natural.
Discrimination on the basis of "race" is illegal.
Discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation is illegal too. What's your point?
_________________________
Anyway, this wasn't solely about them 'not wanting to promote homosexuality'. And by promote we merely mean they have to say that it is ok, we're not asking them to march in a gay pride. If they have to foster a child their refusal to support that child in their orientation could be detrimental to that child.
But as I commented in an early post, there were other issues too.
"The issue of how church activities would fit in with offering respite care, which often happens at weekends, was discussed. Mrs Johns stated she felt she could not give up going to church which she attends twice on Sundays and was doubtful about alternating with her husband if she could not take a child with her."
So bascially, their faith came before that of the child. They wanted to go to church and were not willing to reorganise their lives around the needs of individual children. They wanted their foster kids to go with them to their church rather than offer to remain at home with them or accompany them to alternative services. So what if the child comes from a jewish, islamic or non-religious background? So much for putting the child's needs before your own.
Now the whole thing about them "merely wanting to not have to tell young children that homosexuality was okay" is them trying to frame their views in the best way possible, no doubt at the advice of these Christian Legal Centre people. What the judgement says is that they had "strong views on homosexuality, stating that it is "against God's laws and morals"" and that "having a different sexual orientation was unnatural and wrong".
Now that's a bit more than merely declining to say "it's okay"
And...
"In our initial discussion on this issue, when asked if, given their views, they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative. Eunice at this time also mentioned a visit she had made to San Francisco, in relation to it being a city with many gay inhabitants. She commented that she did not like it and felt uncomfortable while she was there"
So they feel uncomfortable at the thought of dealing with a child unsure of their sexuality, and feel uncomfortable even being around gay people. I mean on one hand they claim to love every child equally, and yet seem to say that they would prefer not to foster a child who might be unsure of their sexuality.
Or when asked to look at these scenarios look at the answers they give...
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay. 2 A young person who is being bullied in school regarding their sexual orientation. 3 A young person who bullies others regarding the above. 4 Someone in their care whose parents are gay.
Eunice's response to the first situation was that she would support any child. She did not offer any explanation as to how she would go about this. On a previous occasion when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would "gently turn them round". In the second situation, Eunice said she would give reassurance and tell the child to ignore it.
So basically they were a bit vague about how they would support the child, or would actually attempt to change them away from being gay.
Does all this add up to an entirely healthy atmosphere to put child, some of whom may be gay, turn out to be gay or be unsure of their sexuality? Is it really just a case of them being discriminated against because they wouldn't 'promote' homosexuality or is it actually the case that there are a hell of a lot more reasons for bells to be ringing that these might not be entirely suitable people to have on the foster care books.
Or you know, we could just carry on shrieking about how the council are stopping christians adopting kids and letting the muslims and atheists do what they like. The quality of debate here is rock bottom.
Strimen wrote:Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas. Stop trying to use "well my beliefes are...." as an excuse to persecute others. Instead hold people accountable to the laws of the nation and if you do not like those laws then vote to have them changed.
Just to be clear, your argument would be the same if the elected officials were "so called 'believers,'" correct? Because as long as you have laws made by man, you're going to get people injecting their personal preferences into the law.
Strimen wrote:I live in a democracy where this is possible, if you move here then you must obey the laws regardless of your ideals. Because religion is wide spread and multi-facted and a dime a dozen there are no laws based upon it in Canada and those that are are slowly removed and replaced with laws that are created by elected officals of the people of this country.
How are the laws on the books that are based in religion not laws "that [were] created by elected officials."
If democratically enacted laws is your baseline, how are religious laws bad?
Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to send your children to foster parents whom you can trust not to have any trace of homophobia?
And how would you find such people, or be so sure.
Perhaps a good start would be not to pick parents who say their religion makes them believe homosexuality to be a sin.
What difference does that make, we are talking about 'traces of homophobia' which is different from 'viewpoints on homosexuality'. To assume one is the other without good reference to confirm it in the individual smacks of bigotry, real rather than imagined. Which is odd seeing as you set the bar rather high by looking for traces of discrimination rather than full on discrimination.
Lets hit this one on the head, dislike does not mean intolerance and disapproval does not equate to discrimination. To go from one to the other requires a burden of proof, one that has now sadly been erased. To do this in the name of equality and fairness is a gross hypocrisy.
Strimen wrote:
Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas.
What agenda, the council had no problems with the family other than on this point of doctrine. By all other accounts they are model foster carers.
If therer is any agenda it is in a growing intolerance of religion veiled under human rights.
Strimen wrote:
Stop trying to use "well my beliefs are...." as an excuse to persecute others.
Noone is trying to do that except groups condemning the couple, like Stonewall who don't see any need to hide heir contempt. And I thought we were supposed to be against intolerance.
Strimen wrote:
Honour killings are still murders in this country. Persecution of an individual for their prefered sex, skin colour, gender, ideals is still illegal.
What has that got to tarnish a couple wanting to adopt? If you wish to sniff out bigotry by link religious people because of other religious people, of a different faith mind you, who practice honour killing; then congratulations! You have found a bigot, it might not be the bigot you were looking for.
Strimen wrote:
Thoughts
Yes, I thoroughly recommend them when taken to a fair and honest conclusion.
You missed what I was responding to. All of my quotes above were in response to a particular persons statement on how I would remove religious people. My answer was to not remove them. Simply make them obey the laws and not what ever they say is a part of their religion and therefore ok to do. My responses are not about the couple involved in the adoption dispute, but about religion in society as a whole which is what I was responding to in the section I quoted in my post. Please try to keep on track with the discussions that is why I quoted what I was responding to.
Strimen wrote:Simple, obey the laws of the land and not retoric spread by so called "believers" who have their own agendas. Stop trying to use "well my beliefes are...." as an excuse to persecute others. Instead hold people accountable to the laws of the nation and if you do not like those laws then vote to have them changed.
Just to be clear, your argument would be the same if the elected officials were "so called 'believers,'" correct? Because as long as you have laws made by man, you're going to get people injecting their personal preferences into the law.
Correct.
biccat wrote:
Strimen wrote:I live in a democracy where this is possible, if you move here then you must obey the laws regardless of your ideals. Because religion is wide spread and multi-facted and a dime a dozen there are no laws based upon it in Canada and those that are are slowly removed and replaced with laws that are created by elected officals of the people of this country.
How are the laws on the books that are based in religion not laws "that [were] created by elected officials."
If democratically enacted laws is your baseline, how are religious laws bad?
At some point certain very old laws were not created by elected officals but lifted from a relgious text, a monarchy, dictator, peace treaty, indocturnated natives, etc. But we have begun to work those out of the systems over time. There are various forms of law in use today (ex. Nepolionic Law) that are very old and still in use, but have since been worked on by democratic society. That is how some laws are still "Not" created by elected officials.
And again I have no issue with religion in and of itself. I have an issue with people trying to use religion to work around things they don't like about a government's system in which we the people have an ability to change and affect. If I lived in the Vatican then I would be asking for a governmental reform/revolution, so that we could implement a fare and just system for all occupants of the nation regardless of religion/race/sex/etc to abid by and formed by a democratic government and not a dictatorship/monarchy/tyrant/whatever that takes power away from people.
