Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
fixed

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.

What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?

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.

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.

This couple is in their 60s, they have no business being foster parents to begin with.

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.

Why not?

Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?

You are being facetious.

Both the Johns and Phelps don't approve of homosexuality. Cant you detect a difference in how they go about that, or how far the disapproval runs.


The Johns are being punished not for any real discrimination or homophobia, but for failure to endorse.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Amaya wrote:This couple is in their 60s, they have no business being foster parents to begin with.

Why?

If they eat right and keep healthy they have a good 20 years ahead of them.

Frazzled wrote:

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?

corpsesarefun wrote:

Amaya wrote:This couple is in their 60s, they have no business being foster parents to begin with.

Why?

If they eat right and keep healthy they have a good 20 years ahead of them.

Amaya wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Amaya wrote:This couple is in their 60s, they have no business being foster parents to begin with.

Why?

If they eat right and keep healthy they have a good 20 years ahead of them.

It's their choice, if they love a child enough to foster and care for it they will try to live long enough to do so.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Amaya wrote:This couple is in their 60s, they have no business being foster parents to begin with.

Why?

If they eat right and keep healthy they have a good 20 years ahead of them.

60 is the new 50! Haven't you heard man, since the Me Generation got old there is no Old!

Why not listen to the couple, as interviewed here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/03/110301_fostering.shtml

Make up your own mind if these are bigots who should not be allowed to foster children.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?

You are being facetious.

Both the Johns and Phelps don't approve of homosexuality. Cant you detect a difference in how they go about that, or how far the disapproval runs.

The Johns are being punished not for any real discrimination or homophobia, but for failure to endorse.

Er no.

They're being "punished" for failure to tolerate.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

Or in the words of that guy-

Genocide. Stem cell research. Dog food. Draw your own conclusions.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Genocide. Stem cell research. Dog food. Draw your own conclusions.

Soylent Green is made of...Alpo?

Kanluwen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?

You are being facetious.

Both the Johns and Phelps don't approve of homosexuality. Cant you detect a difference in how they go about that, or how far the disapproval runs.

The Johns are being punished not for any real discrimination or homophobia, but for failure to endorse.

Er no.

They're being "punished" for failure to tolerate.

If they said they would love any child, thats tolerance. Try again.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?

You are being facetious.

Both the Johns and Phelps don't approve of homosexuality. Cant you detect a difference in how they go about that, or how far the disapproval runs.


The Johns are being punished not for any real discrimination or homophobia, but for failure to endorse.

As the council, in loco parentis to the would-be fostered children, how far would you trust that distinction?

Look at the terrible things that have gone wrong in Hackney, with people believing devils have got into children and such-like.

Wouldn't it be better to send your children to foster parents whom you can trust not to have any trace of homophobia?

There isn't a fundamental human right to foster. The children lose more from a bad fostering situation than the foster parents gain.

Orlanth wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
What about the Westboro Baptists. Should they be allowed to adopt?

You are being facetious.

Both the Johns and Phelps don't approve of homosexuality. Cant you detect a difference in how they go about that, or how far the disapproval runs.

The Johns are being punished not for any real discrimination or homophobia, but for failure to endorse.

Er no.

They're being "punished" for failure to tolerate.

If they said they would love any child, thats tolerance. Try again.

And if that child grows up to be a homosexual?

What then?

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.

How many non-Islamic children were fostered by Islamic couples in the decade 1999-2009?

Kilkrazy wrote:How many non-Islamic children were fostered by Islamic couples in the decade 1999-2009?

Probably quite a few, I was referring to anti-muslim/anti-middle eastern people being able to adopt.

Additionally, the question that has not been answered, would parents who Disco be allowed to foster?

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.

Frazzled wrote:Additionally, the question that has not been answered, would parents who Disco be allowed to foster?

No..the rights of Disco Parents were abolished by the Anti-Polyester Acts of 1986.