Christians banned from foster parenting in the UK because of their views

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Solus_Christus
Solus_Christus

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Solus_Christus
Member since 2011 • 97 Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361469/Christian-beliefs-DO-lose-gay-rights-Judges-ruling-devout-foster-couple-lose-case.html

A Christian couple facing a foster parenting ban because of their views on homosexuality were told by a court yesterday that gay rights 'should take precedence' over their religious beliefs.

Owen and Eunice Johns heard that their values could conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of those in foster care.

The grandparents have already fostered 15 children and werepraised by social workers as 'kind and hospitable people' who 'respond sensitively'to youngsters.

Beliefs: The couple, pictured outside the High Court yesterday, said they were not homophobic but did not recognise civil partnerships between gay couples

Beliefs: The couple, pictured outside the High Court yesterday, said they were not homophobic but did not recognise civil partnerships between gay couples

Outside court, Mr and Mrs Johns, aged 65 and 62, said they were 'extremely distressed' and had 'only wanted to offer a loving home to a child in need'.

They believe homosexuality is 'against God's law and morals' – but said they are not homophobic and would 'accept and love' any child.

The Pentecostal Christians, who have been carers since 1992, had applied to Derby City Council in 2007 to restart fostering after a break.

But social workers raised concerns that their attitudes to homosexuality would conflict with the new Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

Traditional: The couple insisted they are not homophobic at the High Court but do not recognise civil partnerships between gay couples as marriage

The couple decided they were 'doomed to failure' and sought a clarification of the law over whether their religious beliefs excluded them from becoming foster carers.

Their case, heard last year, was supported by senior clergy including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey who, in an open letter, warned that gay rights were taking precedence over the rights of others.

During the case, the Equality and Human Rights Commission argued that children risk being 'infected' by Christian moral views.

Yesterday the retired couple's request for a ruling that faith should not be a bar to becoming a carer was denied at the High Court in London.

Their case was heard by one of the most senior members of the family court, Lord Justice Munby, who was sitting alongside Mr Justice Beeston.

It was ruled that there was no discrimination against them as Christians but that their views on sexual morality may be 'inimical' – or harmful – to children. In that situation, they ruled: 'The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence.'

The Johnses are considering an appeal but campaigners fear the ruling will be used as a blueprint for other councils to stop devout Christians from becoming foster parents.

The couple, who have four grown-up children and six grandchildren, had applied to be respite carers offering short-term placements for children aged between five and ten.

Mrs Johns, a retired nurse, said: 'This is a sad day for Christianity. The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We do not believe that this is so. We are prepared to love and accept any child.

'All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.'

High Court Judges Lord Justice Munby (left) and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation 'should take precedence' over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds

She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay and his partner in San Francisco.
Her husband added: 'We wanted to offer love and stability and security to a vulnerable child. Eight-year-olds we have looked after want to play, not talk about their sexuality.'

Yesterday the council denied that it had sought to discriminate against Mr and Mrs Johns on the grounds of religious belief, but added that it 'welcomes the judgment'.

Welcome to the future of America after same-sex marriages are allowed.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Good news about this intolerant Christian couple.

Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts

Good news about this intolerant Christian couple.

RationalAtheist
Fact!
Avatar image for MgamerBD
MgamerBD

17550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 MgamerBD
Member since 2006 • 17550 Posts
I find it horrible that people can't have opinions anymore. I'm also mad that they stopped these people from adopting kids because of their views. They were trying to do something good for the children. Its not like these people were bigots...just don't agree with same sex marriages which is understandable.
Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
Assuming they do not lynch homosexuals in their spare time, this is a bit much.
Avatar image for soulitane
soulitane

15091

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 soulitane
Member since 2010 • 15091 Posts
It's not like the people are nazis, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed the foster child.
Avatar image for mywalletsgone
mywalletsgone

1344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 mywalletsgone
Member since 2010 • 1344 Posts

Knowing the UK, if this were an Islamic family there'd be no problem.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127526 Posts
Eh... So the care they get now is better than the one one they will most likely receive if being brought by them?
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Good news about this intolerant Christian couple.

MgamerBD

I find some of you atheist in OT amazing. Worse then any bigoted religious person I ever met...Th ignorance and hate you spew for religion is astounding and even clouds your judgement of people doing good.

Thanks!

I don't think this foster-couple were doing good - not to all the children they lied to about homosexuality being unacceptable. They are free to believe what they want, but why should they be able bring it on other children in their temporary care - and in particularly vulnerable and confused state (that of being in the state care system).

Why not only allow people who are tolerant of other beliefs the responsibility of child-care?

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Good news about this intolerant Christian couple.

RationalAtheist

I find some of you atheist in OT amazing. Worse then any bigoted religious person I ever met...Th ignorance and hate you spew for religion is astounding and even clouds your judgement of people doing good.

Thanks!

I don't think this foster-couple were doing good - not to all the children they lied to about homosexuality being unacceptable. They are free to believe what they want, but why should they be able bring it on other children in their temporary care - and in particularly vulnerable and confused state (that of being in the state care system).

Why not only allow people who are tolerant of other beliefs the responsibility of child-care?

If one is intolerant towards those who are seemingly intolerant does that mean he is incapable of child-care as well? :P My brother is in the process of adopting his wife's niece and nephew. Under this view do you find it wrong of him to provide child-care for them as well? Side note: I have not seen you here in a while, I hope you are well.
Avatar image for Vesica_Prime
Vesica_Prime

7062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 Vesica_Prime
Member since 2009 • 7062 Posts

Knowing the UK, if this were an Islamic family there'd be no problem.

mywalletsgone

This really.

Avatar image for SapSacPrime
SapSacPrime

8925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 SapSacPrime
Member since 2004 • 8925 Posts

We won't be happy until every person in the country is a lying two faced back stabbing piece of **** in the mould of our politicians... if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion you can't force them too with a court order, get your point across by all means but for crying out loud stop being so thin skinned.

Avatar image for Solus_Christus
Solus_Christus

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Solus_Christus
Member since 2011 • 97 Posts

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Good news about this intolerant Christian couple.

RationalAtheist

I find some of you atheist in OT amazing. Worse then any bigoted religious person I ever met...Th ignorance and hate you spew for religion is astounding and even clouds your judgement of people doing good.

Thanks!

I don't think this foster-couple were doing good - not to all the children they lied to about homosexuality being unacceptable. They are free to believe what they want, but why should they be able bring it on other children in their temporary care - and in particularly vulnerable and confused state (that of being in the state care system).

Why not only allow people who are tolerant of other beliefs the responsibility of child-care?

There was no evidence that they actually spread their views onto their children. They're banned because they MIGHT spread their views on to children. And they would still love and accept any child that is gay
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#15 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

I'm all for gay rights. Yet they said they would have accepted a child being gay so i don't see the problem. I suppose they are afraid of a child being brought up by a religion that tells the child that he/she is broken, or wrong. Or for spreading homophobia? The parents didn't sound homophobic. It's fine to have an idea and to spread it. No matter what you teach a child, they can at some point think for themselves and change their beliefs.

Avatar image for Celldrax
Celldrax

15053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Celldrax
Member since 2005 • 15053 Posts

All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing

Well there you have it. It's no different from saying that homosexuality is wrong

Avatar image for Solus_Christus
Solus_Christus

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Solus_Christus
Member since 2011 • 97 Posts

Well there you have it. It's no different from saying that homosexuality is wrong

Celldrax

There's a difference between not saying something is a good thing and saying something is flat out wrong...

Avatar image for MgamerBD
MgamerBD

17550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 MgamerBD
Member since 2006 • 17550 Posts

All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thingCelldrax

Well there you have it. It's no different from saying that homosexuality is wrong

Its called having an opinion, having tradition, having your own sense of thought. Their not saying its wrong. Also this isn't about them this is about the children who need a home.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

If one is intolerant towards those who are seemingly intolerant does that mean he is incapable of child-care as well? :P My brother is in the process of adopting his wife's niece and nephew. Under this view do you find it wrong of him to provide child-care for them as well? Side note: I have not seen you here in a while, I hope you are well.mindstorm

Tolerance is the ability to live besides different beliefs. That is the thing this couple failed to do, then failed to pass on to the children being passed through their care.

I think it depends on your brother's ability to guide his new charge to be a tolerant person. Telling the person that being gay is a sin and you'll burn in hell for it hardly sets people up in life and typically wrecks the early years of many millions of people that do have homosexual feelings.

The UK legal system can be tolerant to all the UK public, but when the public use the law to get themselves into a position of authority then break the law (homosexuality being legal and anti-homosexual activities being illegal), your talk of the courts being intolerant misses the whole idea behind tolerance. The legal system demands the public to be tolerant of other peoples' sexual preferences.

P.S. Hi Mindstorm!

I hope you're well too - but I hope you're not drinking too much coffee!

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

There was no evidence that they actually spread their views onto their children. They're banned because they MIGHT spread their views on to children. And they would still love and accept any child that is gaySolus_Christus

That is not true. The evidence of their intolerance was the cause of their dismissal.

They would not accept a child that is gay They would tell the child that the child is a sinner. That's why they were sacked.

Avatar image for musalala
musalala

3131

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 musalala
Member since 2008 • 3131 Posts

Knowing the UK, if this were an Islamic family there'd be no problem.

mywalletsgone

I was thinking the exact same thing.

Avatar image for Solus_Christus
Solus_Christus

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Solus_Christus
Member since 2011 • 97 Posts

[QUOTE="Solus_Christus"]There was no evidence that they actually spread their views onto their children. They're banned because they MIGHT spread their views on to children. And they would still love and accept any child that is gayRationalAtheist

That is not true. The evidence of their intolerance was the cause of their dismissal.

They would not accept a child that is gay They would tell the child that the child is a sinner. That's why they were sacked.

Can't tell if you're being serious or not...
Avatar image for SapSacPrime
SapSacPrime

8925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 SapSacPrime
Member since 2004 • 8925 Posts

[QUOTE="Solus_Christus"]There was no evidence that they actually spread their views onto their children. They're banned because they MIGHT spread their views on to children. And they would still love and accept any child that is gayRationalAtheist

That is not true. The evidence of their intolerance was the cause of their dismissal.

They would not accept a child that is gay They would tell the child that the child is a sinner. That's why they were sacked.

It doesn't say that any where, they said they would be accepting of a gay child but they were not able to say being gay was a positive thing. I can't honestly see how being gay can be a good thing to be honest, my brother is gay and Im happy he is accepting of it himself now but it hasn't made his life easier.
Avatar image for Celldrax
Celldrax

15053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Celldrax
Member since 2005 • 15053 Posts

Its called having an opinion, having tradition, having your own sense of thought. Their not saying its wrong. Also this isn't about them this is about the children who need a home.MgamerBD

I just think that if such opinions were ever shared with the kids, they could grow up to become intolerant of same sex couples.....I don't know.....maybe the individualist side of my personality is rearing it's ugly head :P

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts

[QUOTE="Solus_Christus"]There was no evidence that they actually spread their views onto their children. They're banned because they MIGHT spread their views on to children. And they would still love and accept any child that is gayRationalAtheist

That is not true. The evidence of their intolerance was the cause of their dismissal.

They would not accept a child that is gay They would tell the child that the child is a sinner. That's why they were sacked.

My response to such a "sinner child" - "You're a sinner. I'm a sinner. However, that's okay because Jesus is awesome." :P I am not a fan of how it has become rigidly defined that if you believe homosexuality is wrong you are intolerant and if you endorse homosexuality you are tolerant. Why can there not be a middle option of "I may not agree with you but we can still be friends"?
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#26 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts

We won't be happy until every person in the country is a lying two faced back stabbing piece of **** in the mould of our politicians... if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion you can't force them too with a court order, get your point across by all means but for crying out loud stop being so thin skinned.

SapSacPrime
Damn those thin-skinned children who are hurt when their parents don't accept them for who they are... :roll:
Avatar image for Solus_Christus
Solus_Christus

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Solus_Christus
Member since 2011 • 97 Posts

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]Its called having an opinion, having tradition, having your own sense of thought. Their not saying its wrong. Also this isn't about them this is about the children who need a home.Celldrax

I just think that if such opinions were ever shared with the kids, they could grow up to become intolerant of same sex couples.....I don't know.....maybe the individualist side of my personality is rearing it's ugly head :P

That's like saying if the parents are republicans, they might share their opinions with the kids who could grow up being intolerant to democrats... Everyone has certain beliefs that is probably against the norm. If they have a good reputation for being extremely loving people, their private personal beliefs shouldn't affect it.
Avatar image for SapSacPrime
SapSacPrime

8925

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 SapSacPrime
Member since 2004 • 8925 Posts

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

We won't be happy until every person in the country is a lying two faced back stabbing piece of **** in the mould of our politicians... if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion you can't force them too with a court order, get your point across by all means but for crying out loud stop being so thin skinned.

Bourbons3

Damn those thin-skinned children who are hurt when their parents don't accept them for who they are... :roll:

Try reading the actual article maybe? how do people that spend so much time on a forum manage to misinteprete such small articles on a regular basis... they haven't hurt any children and they said they would be accepting of a homosexual child, they simply refused to go against their own beliefs in court. Perhaps you would prefer they lied?

Besides which how many gay children do you know? nobody is fit to decide that sort of thing until they are an adult. Children are children.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#29 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

We won't be happy until every person in the country is a lying two faced back stabbing piece of **** in the mould of our politicians... if somebody doesn't agree with your opinion you can't force them too with a court order, get your point across by all means but for crying out loud stop being so thin skinned.

SapSacPrime

Damn those thin-skinned children who are hurt when their parents don't accept them for who they are... :roll:

Try reading the actual article maybe? how do people that spend so much time on a forum manage to misinteprete such small articles on a regular basis... they haven't hurt any children and they said they would be accepting of a homosexual child, they simply refused to go against their own beliefs in court. Perhaps you would prefer they lied?

Besides which how many gay children do you know? nobody is fit to decide that sort of thing until they are an adult. Children are children.

I know the story, it's all over the news here. It was nice of the OP to single out a right-wing newspaper to link to... You'd be surprised at how early a child can work out their sexuality. I knew by the time I was 14 or 15, and plenty of gay people know at an earlier age. When you're going through that - and some people have a hard time working out exactly what their sexuality is - you don't need parents who believe homosexuality to be wrong. Anyone who described homosexuality as against 'God's law and morals' is homophobic, despite what they say. Homophobes shouldn't be raising children.
Avatar image for bigdcstile
bigdcstile

2236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 bigdcstile
Member since 2004 • 2236 Posts
Unless their views somehow, someway endangered the safety of the child or prevented them from providing them the care that they needed, then this is extremely unnecessary.
Avatar image for WWIAB
WWIAB

4352

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#31 WWIAB
Member since 2006 • 4352 Posts
Assuming they do not lynch homosexuals in their spare time, this is a bit much.mindstorm
exactly, you can think it's wrong, but as long as they don't spread their hate
Avatar image for Celldrax
Celldrax

15053

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Celldrax
Member since 2005 • 15053 Posts

That's like saying if the parents are republicans, they might share their opinions with the kids who could grow up being intolerant to democrats... Everyone has certain beliefs that is probably against the norm. If they have a good reputation for being extremely loving people, their private personal beliefs shouldn't affect it.Solus_Christus

You know that's not really the same thing. One's own individuality isn't the same as a form of government. But yes, I have no doubt that they are truly caring people......I wouldn't really care if their opinion was in answer to a question about such things.......I would only have a problem if they tried to force their view onto them......which I don't believe they would.......I mean, like I said, it's probably just that part of my personality coming into play.....I tend to get very defensive about these sort of things.

Avatar image for hakanakumono
hakanakumono

27455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 hakanakumono
Member since 2008 • 27455 Posts

This seems like too much. There is also a difference between hatefulness and misinformed beliefs. Many parents probably have the latter somewhere or another and it shouldn't prevent this couple from adopting.

Avatar image for hakanakumono
hakanakumono

27455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 hakanakumono
Member since 2008 • 27455 Posts

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"] Damn those thin-skinned children who are hurt when their parents don't accept them for who they are... :roll:Bourbons3

Try reading the actual article maybe? how do people that spend so much time on a forum manage to misinteprete such small articles on a regular basis... they haven't hurt any children and they said they would be accepting of a homosexual child, they simply refused to go against their own beliefs in court. Perhaps you would prefer they lied?

Besides which how many gay children do you know? nobody is fit to decide that sort of thing until they are an adult. Children are children.

I know the story, it's all over the news here. It was nice of the OP to single out a right-wing newspaper to link to... You'd be surprised at how early a child can work out their sexuality. I knew by the time I was 14 or 15, and plenty of gay people know at an earlier age. When you're going through that - and some people have a hard time working out exactly what their sexuality is - you don't need parents who believe homosexuality to be wrong. Anyone who described homosexuality as against 'God's law and morals' is homophobic, despite what they say. Homophobes shouldn't be raising children.

The world is changing. Kids don't follow everything their parents say as gospel, generally speaking, and sexual awareness starts to come around the age when rebellion and individual thinking would start to kick in. It's not really all that damaging a situation unless they're hateful.

Avatar image for Kcube
Kcube

25398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 Kcube
Member since 2003 • 25398 Posts

I dont know what to think of this.

If the children were their biological kids then this might be a bigger deal

I say just expose the kids to life..worked for most of us.

Avatar image for Stesilaus
Stesilaus

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 Stesilaus
Member since 2007 • 4999 Posts

Assuming they do not lynch homosexuals in their spare time, this is a bit much.mindstorm

Well, in Africa Christians DO still level accusations of witchcraft at "undesirables" and then proceed to murder them, often by burning them to death.

Given that children and homosexuals alike are often among the accused, I think the UK ruling was a prudent one.

In case you don't believe the claims I made above ...

Article: African Children Denounced as "Witches" by Christian Pastors

VIDEO: "Witches" Burned to Death in Modern-Day Africa (WARNING: Extremely graphic and disturbing)

Avatar image for keech
keech

1451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#37 keech
Member since 2003 • 1451 Posts

At first I was a bit torn on this article. On one hand I'm all for the freedom of expression and opinion. On another hand I have a 4 year old son, and wouldn't want him to be raised by people who think homosexuality is wrong on any level. No matter how mundane this couple expresses it, at It's core It's intolerance.

What this couple is basically saying is "We aren't homophobic, but gays shouldn't be allowed to get married." Now lets have some fun with wordplay here shall we? "We aren't racist, but black people shouldn't be allowed to vote." Discuss....

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178865

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178865 Posts
Not cool at all....
Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#39 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

At first I was a bit torn on this article. On one hand I'm all for the freedom of expression and opinion. On another hand I have a 4 year old son, and wouldn't want him to be raised by people who think homosexuality is wrong on any level. No matter how mundane this couple expresses it, at It's core It's intolerance.

What this couple is basically saying is "We aren't homophobic, but gays shouldn't be allowed to get married." Now lets have some fun with wordplay here shall we? "We aren't racist, but black people shouldn't be allowed to vote." Discuss....

keech

Tough question. Fight terrorism, not radicalism. On one hand this is like being guilty until proven innocent. I think it's fine for people to think bad things. Or to say bad things. So your example would be fine in my opinion, as long as they're not enforcing those things.

And there is where it gets fishy. We're talking about a childs upbringing. Parents will enforce certain things. Although it's fine for them to believe in whatever they please, we don't want the child to be miserable because he/she turns out to be gay I say that they should have let them have the child. You can't distrust people so broadly. If we can't trust one another even a little, we're not a society or a nation.

Avatar image for Stesilaus
Stesilaus

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 Stesilaus
Member since 2007 • 4999 Posts

Not cool at all....LJS9502_basic

I'm sure you wouldn't have objected if the story had concerned a ruling that prohibited a pair of child molesters from adopting a child.

Before you balk at the comparison, read this article by Richard Dawkins.

Empirical evidence would seem to suggest that the imposition of religious fundamentalist views can be more harmful than sexual abuse.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178865

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178865 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not cool at all....Stesilaus

I'm sure you wouldn't have objected if the story had concerned a ruling that prohibited a pair of child molesters from adopting a child.

Before you balk at the comparison, read this article by Richard Dawkins.

Empirical evidence would seem to suggest that the imposition of religious fundamentalist views can be more harmful than sexual abuse.

Bad analogy. Not liking gay marriage is not at all equal to being a child molester. And Dawkins is not the impartial voice I'd seek about anything in this regard.

Avatar image for Stesilaus
Stesilaus

4999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 Stesilaus
Member since 2007 • 4999 Posts

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not cool at all....LJS9502_basic

I'm sure you wouldn't have objected if the story had concerned a ruling that prohibited a pair of child molesters from adopting a child.

Before you balk at the comparison, read this article by Richard Dawkins.

Empirical evidence would seem to suggest that the imposition of religious fundamentalist views can be more harmful than sexual abuse.

Bad analogy. Not liking gay marriage is not at all equal to being a child molester. And Dawkins is not the impartial voice I'd seek about anything in this regard.

You won't shake my unquestioning faith in Richard Dawkins! :x

:P

Avatar image for Harisemo
Harisemo

4133

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 Harisemo
Member since 2010 • 4133 Posts

another blow to christianity. Christians need to back these foster parents

Avatar image for dunl12496
dunl12496

5710

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#44 dunl12496
Member since 2009 • 5710 Posts

America is the best, in my opinion any religion comes over opinion.

Avatar image for BlindBluMonstah
BlindBluMonstah

13858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 BlindBluMonstah
Member since 2009 • 13858 Posts

[QUOTE="mywalletsgone"]

Knowing the UK, if this were an Islamic family there'd be no problem.

Vesica_Prime

This really.

not really ;)
Avatar image for heysharpshooter
heysharpshooter

6348

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#46 heysharpshooter
Member since 2009 • 6348 Posts

The British government is the caretaker of those children, so they have exclusive rights to decide a childs foster family... there is really nothing that family can do...

They will have to concieve their own child or adopt a child from another country...

Avatar image for TheArGaia
TheArGaia

629

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 TheArGaia
Member since 2011 • 629 Posts

Muslims are strongly against homosexuality.

Does that mean they can't adopt too?

Avatar image for Solus_Christus
Solus_Christus

97

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 Solus_Christus
Member since 2011 • 97 Posts

At first I was a bit torn on this article. On one hand I'm all for the freedom of expression and opinion. On another hand I have a 4 year old son, and wouldn't want him to be raised by people who think homosexuality is wrong on any level. No matter how mundane this couple expresses it, at It's core It's intolerance.

What this couple is basically saying is "We aren't homophobic, but gays shouldn't be allowed to get married." Now lets have some fun with wordplay here shall we? "We aren't racist, but black people shouldn't be allowed to vote." Discuss....

keech
That's a bad analogy. First it's not that they believe that gay's shouldn't be married, its that they believe that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Which means that they don't recognize gay couples as being legitimately married. Second, race and sexual preference are two totally different things.
Avatar image for YellowOneKinobi
YellowOneKinobi

4128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 YellowOneKinobi
Member since 2011 • 4128 Posts

I'm just curious......... are there more kids than they can find parents for? Or the other way around? I can't help but wonder if a child is better off in an orphanage instead of a Christian home.

Avatar image for kev_stevens67
kev_stevens67

616

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 kev_stevens67
Member since 2010 • 616 Posts

It seems to me this ruling was unjusitified. This couple should have every right to foster a child. We used to be foster parents ourselves and are also very religious. What we gave our foster children was love and lots of it. It seems to me this couple is more than capable of doing that.