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.

corpsesarefun wrote:

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.

Some stats would be nice.

Death before Disco?

Kilkrazy wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

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.

Some stats would be nice.

Why? It was totally unrelated to what I was saying.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Why is it I have the sudden desire to find an old Lite Brite set and start playing it?

You made a claim with a numerical basis. A reasonable member of the public would say numbers were related to that.

Frazzled wrote:Death before Disco?

Depends on the "Disco".





....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.

Kanluwen wrote:

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?

Do what they said they were going to do, love the child. Tolerance again.

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.

And finally:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

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.

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

Again look at the difference between a mild manner couple and murdering fanatics.

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.

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

The Council social workers endorsed them in all other aspects of care.

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.

Wow, this thread blew up.

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'?

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

Strimen wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

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.

Depends on your country and adoption/foster systems.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

corpsesarefun wrote:

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.

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.

It took me five seconds on Google to find this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racial-prejudices-damaging-adoption-rates-2191587.html

This says that white couples are having trouble adopting mixed and Asian children, because of prejudice against them. This contradicts your statement.

Kilkrazy wrote:Madonna loves adopting and she's in her 50s.

50 years, or 50 child care workers?

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.

It took me five seconds on Google to find this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racial-prejudices-damaging-adoption-rates-2191587.html

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?

Kanluwen wrote:

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:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

Here's the judgement...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

Now there's a bit that reads...

"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.