Christian couple told: 'they cannot foster"

[capeo]

Which is why the foster carers are tested and tried before being allowed to foster a child.

This couple had fostered times before, and only now get ridiculed because they don't teach homosexuality as a good thing (Doesn't state that they teach it as wrong either.)

Why teach sexual orientations to children anyway!? Unless they're teenagers and need a bit of sex ed - which is based on sexual reproduction and not social sexuality.

Edit:

[/i]

Mrs Johns states, although she does not approve, she would not condemn the child and treat them as she normally would.

That is condemnation. That's like saying "I'm sorry I don't approve of you being black but I'll put up with it" to a black child. How exactly is that not condemnation? They'd be telling a child that what they are is wrong. And don't bother bringing up age as most gay people will tell you that they realized at a very young age that they were gay. If, as the article states, that a child comes home crying because he or she was being picked on for being gay how exactly can a bigot help nuture that child? By telling them their very nature is wrong? That's loving and nuturing?

[IronGhost]

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 20 vulnerable children.

But Eunice and Owen Johns have been forced to abandon their good work because they refuse to tell children as young as ten that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.

Full Daily Mail Article... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

its a sad story.....no wonder so many Brits are leaving England

I wonder where the Brits are going, then? To a magical land where there is no homosexuality -- the President of Iran recently said that their are "no homosexuals in Iran." Are the prissy Brits who think being gay is a "fetish" moving to Iran?

Or perhaps they are moving to Crawford, Texas, the home of George W. Bush, and setting up an encampement around W.'s Crawford Ranch. You'll find darn few gay cowyboys there, unless a few Broke Back Mountain variety slip in under the radar. After all, George W. has said that "homosexuals are sinners, but we are all sinners." This is enlightened. Here the gay-fearing Brits can find a home -- they can feel comfortable that "gays are sinners" yet, need to be forgiven and treated with passion because of their "illness." Call it: "The Great G.W. Gay Compromise." That is - "They're sinners, but as Christians, we must forgive them!"

Maybe the Brits who are leaving England can form a colony somewhere -- something like the Amish in the U.S. who go through great lengths to freeze their reality in the year 1715. They use no modern technology (even though they use smelted iron, which would have been advanced technology to a Bronze Ager) but whatever. The Brits leaving Merry Old England can find a home somewhere -- Perhaps a colony on the moon which is protected with a high technology domed "fairy filter."

Tally Ho.

[Sthenno]

I wonder where the Brits are going, then? To a magical land where there is no homosexuality -- the President of Iran recently said that their are "no homosexuals in Iran." Are the prissy Brits who think being gay is a "fetish" moving to Iran?

Or perhaps they are moving to Crawford, Texas, the home of George W. Bush, and setting up an encampement around W.'s Crawford Ranch. You'll find darn few gay cowyboys there, unless a few Broke Back Mountain variety slip in under the radar. After all, George W. has said that "homosexuals are sinners, but we are all sinners." This is enlightened. Here the gay-fearing Brits can find a home -- they can feel comfortable that "gays are sinners" yet, need to be forgiven and treated with passion because of their "illness." Call it: "The Great G.W. Gay Compromise." That is - "They're sinners, but as Christians, we must forgive them!"

Maybe the Brits who are leaving England can form a colony somewhere -- something like the Amish in the U.S. who go through great lengths to freeze their reality in the year 1715. They use no modern technology (even though they use smelted iron, which would have been advanced technology to a Bronze Ager) but whatever. The Brits leaving Merry Old England can find a home somewhere -- Perhaps a colony on the moon which is protected with a high technology domed "fairy filter."

Tally Ho.

Ditto. If Brits are leaving the UK because they find this offensive then I'll happily bid them adieu...

[GreyWeather]

That is condemnation. That's like saying "I'm sorry I don't approve of you being black but I'll put up with it" to a black child. How exactly is that not condemnation? They'd be telling a child that what they are is wrong. And don't bother bringing up age as most gay people will tell you that they realized at a very young age that they were gay. If, as the article states, that a child comes home crying because he or she was being picked on for being gay how exactly can a bigot help nuture that child? By telling them their very nature is wrong? That's loving and nuturing?

The 10-year old was a hypothetical example... the issue here is that the parents would have been prepared to tell the child that homosexuality was, in their view, 'bad'. I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's any different to someone being prepared to tell a child that being black or being a woman is 'bad'.

Because one is religion-based views, the other is bigotry...

The couples religion tells them that their god hates homosexualty. The woman is condeming it, I never stated she wasn't, what she said she would do is to continue loving and protecting the child.

Racism is bigotry and not supported by a persons religion, and that person would also no tolerate having a different-raced child and would not continue loving the kid.

My grandmother is christian and does not approve of my aunts homosexuality, but my grandmother still loves her and would defend her to the death. She'd do the same for my mother and uncle.

She does not condemn homosexuality - if she did she'd treat the gay kid differently and not really love them or protect them and thus shun them (the idea of, "well it's your own fault" if something happens) - the woman is just showing disapproval of it, would continue and explain why, then also explain it would not change her attitude of loving the kid and protecting the kid. Sexuality doesn't make the person, and this woman seems to know that explaining your veiws is better than pretending to be fine and truthfully accepting it. She isn't saying being gay is bad, she's saying she'd explain her christian faith to the child concerning homosexuality.

[Sthenno]

Because one is religion-based views, the other is bigotry...

The couples religion tells them that their god hates homosexualty. The woman is condeming it, I never stated she wasn't, what she said she would do is to continue loving and protecting the child.

Racism is bigotry and not supported by a persons religion, and that person would also no tolerate having a different-raced child and would not continue loving the kid.

My grandmother is christian and does not approve of my aunts homosexuality, but my grandmother still loves her and would defend her to the death. She'd do the same for my mother and uncle.

She does not condemn homosexuality - if she did she'd treat the gay kid differently and not really love them or protect them and thus shun them (the idea of, "well it's your own fault" if something happens) - the woman is just showing disapproval of it, would continue and explain why, then also explain it would not change her attitude of loving the kid and protecting the kid. Sexuality doesn't make the person, and this woman seems to know that explaining your veiws is better than pretending to be fine and truthfully accepting it. She isn't saying being gay is bad, she's saying she'd explain her christian faith to the child concerning homosexuality.

So you're basically saying that prejudice is OK, as long as it's backed up by a religious belief?

The fact that they would love the child regardless is neither here nor there. What if the parents concerned were fundamentalist extremists who adopted a non-religious child and explained to them that , though they love them no matter what, their personal belief was that the child would burn in hell if they didn't accept X religion as the word of god? Would that still be OK?

[GreyWeather]

I wonder where the Brits are going, then? To a magical land where there is no homosexuality -- the President of Iran recently said that their are "no homosexuals in Iran." Are the prissy Brits who think being gay is a "fetish" moving to Iran?

Or perhaps they are moving to Crawford, Texas, the home of George W. Bush, and setting up an encampement around W.'s Crawford Ranch. You'll find darn few gay cowyboys there, unless a few Broke Back Mountain variety slip in under the radar. After all, George W. has said that "homosexuals are sinners, but we are all sinners." This is enlightened. Here the gay-fearing Brits can find a home -- they can feel comfortable that "gays are sinners" yet, need to be forgiven and treated with passion because of their "illness." Call it: "The Great G.W. Gay Compromise." That is - "They're sinners, but as Christians, we must forgive them!"

I don't know why you're attacking a country based on a couple posters here on UM who see gay people as just a fetish... But whatever, be a fool if you want to.

You can't force people to accept something they don't. This is meant to be a free country, but are we really free if you can't do something because you don't agree with a social concept? Or have your own views.

Racism is pathetic in my opinion and I hate it, but they're free to have their bigoted views on society so long as they don't start killing or hurting other races. Because this is a free country, or it's meant to be. (Typing with a lack of bias here... Or trying to)

Pedophiles are thought to have an "illness", so due to your post, am I meant to move to a new colony so I can hate pedophiles? As I don't accept that it's an 'illness' that can be treated with medicine? I guess by your view I do. (Not even going to pretend I have no bias here.)

Mrs John is keeping her veiws to herself, but will explain her veiws to the child if it comes to it. And all you people can do is condemn a person with different views to your own, who is neither going out hurting those they themselves condemn or making a anti-(whatever) campaign. But for simply having their own veiws that are not the social-gov't view.

Pathetic... You all want freedom right? Well you have a very twisted concept of freedom.

Edit:

Oh and by the way, I do not agree with Mrs John's veiws on homoesexuality, it's normal and has been around for a long time. I myself accept it. But what I do agree with, is the freedom of this womans religion, her views and how she would handle the hypothetical situation as is mentioned in the article.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Chokmah

[capeo]

I don't know why you're attacking a country based on a couple posters here on UM who see gay people as just a fetish... But whatever, be a fool if you want to.

You can't force people to accept something they don't. This is meant to be a free country, but are we really free if you can't do something because you don't agree with a social concept? Or have your own views.

Racism is pathetic in my opinion and I hate it, but they're free to have their bigoted views on society so long as they don't start killing or hurting other races. Because this is a free country, or it's meant to be. (Typing with a lack of bias here... Or trying to)

Pedophiles are thought to have an "illness", so due to your post, am I meant to move to a new colony so I can hate pedophiles? As I don't accept that it's an 'illness' that can be treated with medicine? I guess by your view I do. (Not even going to pretend I have no bias here.)

Mrs John is keeping her veiws to herself, but will explain her veiws to the child if it comes to it. And all you people can do is condemn a person with different views to your own, who is neither going out hurting those they themselves condemn or making a anti-(whatever) campaign. But for simply having their own veiws that are not the social-gov't view.

Pathetic... You all want freedom right? Well you have a very twisted concept of freedom.

Edit:

Oh and by the way, I do not agree with Mrs John's veiws on homoesexuality, it's normal and has been around for a long time. I myself accept it. But what I do agree with, is the freedom of this womans religion, her views and how she would handle the hypothetical situation as is mentioned in the article.

You're still dismissing bigotry as acceptable because it's their "view". It's simply not a defendable stance no matter what the source of that "view" is, religious or otherwise. Nobody is taking their own kids from them or advocating such a thing but fostering a child is not the same thing. It's not a right. It's a job. And having a bigoted stance duly makes them unqualified for that job. Nobodies freedoms are being stepped on.

[glorybebe]

In this day and age, the last thing I would do to a child would be to open them up to ridicule or being picked on. A child who lives with a parental influence will quite often adopt the same attitudes. So, what? Do they want their child stabbed because of them saying something derogatory about a gay person? You have to remember that not everyone believes and thinks the same way as you and children will repeat what they hear at home and that can put them in danger. Right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation. Anyone with their heart in the right place would not want to endanger a child in their care. IMO, this situation could potentially do exactly that.

[GreyWeather]

The fact that they would love the child regardless is neither here nor there. What if the parents concerned were fundamentalist extremists who adopted a non-religious child and explained to them that , though they love them no matter what, their personal belief was that the child would burn in hell if they didn't accept X religion as the word of god? Would that still be OK?

Yeah it would. They explained themselves to the kid. They're entitled to their belief.

Thing is, Mrs John's doesn't seem the lady to do that. As you can 'tell' via the article, if you cared to read it. And this thread is based on her due to the article...

I'm 50% wrong about that obviously, I'm only going by the article here.

Atleast I'm sticking on topic... First time for everything

So you're basically saying that prejudice is OK, as long as it's backed up by a religious belief?

I'm not saying

Not saying that at all. Read what I post. I stated she went about the hypothetical thing decently, explaining her veiw on it to the child, but also reassuring the child.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Chokmah

[GreyWeather]

You're still dismissing bigotry as acceptable because it's their "view". It's simply not a defendable stance no matter what the source of that "view" is, religious or otherwise. Nobody is taking their own kids from them or advocating such a thing but fostering a child is not the same thing. It's not a right. It's a job. And having a bigoted stance duly makes them unqualified for that job. Nobodies freedoms are being stepped on.

You're right there, but this women isn't forcing her views on anyone. She said she'd explain her views, while still reassuring the kid.

Kids need a home, and they seem to have lost out on a decent foster-mother in my opinion.

If a vegan family fosted, would they be ridiculed for forcing their beliefs onto a foster child that loved eating bacon?

Or Atheists fosted a christian, and told the kid their religion is wrong and there's no such thing as god.

Or Muslims fosted a Jewish kid and told them Judaism is wrong, Islam is the one true path.

The list goes on. Fact is though, all foster carers will have differing views on different social aspects. What should be done, is to solely access if a person is fit enough and good enough to foster a child. And is willing to foster (may not agree, but can accept them for who they are) a christian, hindu, muslim, atheist, agnostic, vegan, homosexual ectectect kid and love them and protect them. If so, then good. If not, then find another foster carer to look after the kid.

Also, with this new 'law', many kids are gonna remain in foster care because christian families, Jewish families, islamic families, cannot agree to homoesexuality if they follow their religion to heart.

It's got it's pro's and con's obviously. But, the kids are gonna grow up without parents. (I'll be back much later. Happy debating~)

Edited February 28, 2008 by Chokmah

[Siara]

You can't force people to accept something they don't.

The problem is that we CAN force children to (verbally) accept something they don't. That's why we have to be extra sensitive to the needs of kids. Because they don't have the option of walking off and making a different choice. Also... they trust us. A gay kid who's been subjected to physical abuse doesn't need his next authority figure telling him he's going to hell.

[capeo]

You're right there, but this women isn't forcing her views on anyone. She said she'd explain her views, while still reassuring the kid.

Kids need a home, and they seem to have lost out on a decent foster-mother in my opinion.

But it's a WRONG and bigoted view. To me that's the whole of it.

If a vegan family fosted, would they be ridiculed for forcing their beliefs onto a foster child that loved eating bacon?

How one eats is quite a bit different than who they condemn. If they held the view the kid was bad because he ate meat, then they too would be unfit to be a foster parent.

Or Atheists fosted a christian, and told the kid their religion is wrong and there's no such thing as god.

Or Muslims fosted a Jewish kid and told them Judaism is wrong, Islam is the one true path.

Neither of the above would be acceptable either.

The list goes on. Fact is though, all foster carers will have differing views on different social aspects. What should be done, is to solely access if a person is fit enough and good enough to foster a child. And is willing to foster (may not agree, but can accept them for who they are) a christian, hindu, muslim, atheist, agnostic, vegan, homosexual ectectect kid and love them and protect them. If so, then good. If not, then find another foster carer to look after the kid.

Bigotry isn't a social aspect. Their view is based on mythology not in the real world. If they can't get past that than they shouldn't be foster parents.

Also, with this new 'law', many kids are gonna remain in foster care because christian families, Jewish families, islamic families, cannot agree to homoesexuality if they follow their religion to heart.

Then these religions need to come out the bronze age and step into the present with the rest of us. They've changed their views on hundreds of things as history advanced so they would survive. Time to do it again.

It's got it's pro's and con's obviously. But, the kids are gonna grow up without parents.

Unfortunately they are anyway. Foster care is the far from adoption. These folks just take kids for short periods. They do weekend respite care according to another article I read on it. That's why they had twenty foster kids in four years.

[InHuman]

I can't see how everyone is getting so worked up...

They are still fit parents and will care for the children, unless they start bullying the kids for being gay (which I doubt that are even sure of yet, kids are still getting used to their sexuality at their young age) or they treat them negativley then everyone has no right to judge.

I'm done. Goodbay.

[jaylemurph]

Yeah Jayle, perhaps! or perhaps i echo a massive percentage of the British population, who feel like they are being pushed into this premature modern & unrealistic way of thinking...You will probably find that three quarters of the planet aren't ready for this star trek utopia.....which coincidently will never happen....

the liberal idealist is living in a dream land......

Or perhaps you don't.

Perhaps you're just an old-school bigot looking to defend what can only be defined as hatred and deliberate ignorance through an unsupportable claim to populism. You may want to look at this article to see where your rhetoric positions you.

--Jaylemurph

Edited February 28, 2008 by jaylemurph

[Bill Hill]

I know this may come as a shock to you, but most people who accept homosexuality aren't doing so because they are 'forced' to... they're doing so because they're decent, normal human beings who recognise that what individuals do in their bedrooms is none of their damn business.

If it's no one's damn business, why is it even mentioned in the adoption process?

[Fluffybunny]

The bottom line for me here is that if we were to take this same article and exchange the words gay/homosexual with. say "Jewish" or "Muslim" or "Black" or whatever, then there would be absolutely no doubt as to how wrong the situation is.

A very few people aside (who havent learned what a "fetish" is), there is a right way to treat people all people, even when they are different. 60 years ago in this country there were people that were saying the same kind of thing against the rights for black people, and folks fought so that black people could have simple civil rights, but there too were people running around with opinions that they were not equals, so here it is again, history repeats itself. I wish I could say that there is no lynching this time, but that has happened here against gays by rednecks...

[Ciraxis]

I don't think anyone should be forced to teach the kids anything. They are raising these kids, let them teach whatever they want. I'm sure if the parents taught the kids that being gay was ok and that christians were evil, no one would have any problem. This tolerance BS is shutting down society. I'm going to go ahead and say its not normal to be gay, sorry but its not, it goes against the whole idea of expanding our race. So if I want to teach my kids that being gay is not normal, thats my right. Now let me make something clear, I don't hate gays, not one bit. But it really gets me ticked off when people think a child needs to hear about being gay, or even sex in general. I think we're cramming too much crap into kids heads these days, no wonder they are confused about being straight or gay. Why confuse the hell out of a child right at a time when their hormones are going crazy.

I just think this PC tolerance of everything has to stop. I wasn't raised to have other people think for me and tell me how to act and what to teach or preach or say. I can think for myself. Has it come to the point where we aren't allowed to teach our children our own values? What is the point of having children or fostering them if we cannot instill them with the ideas that we live by, hasn't that always been the way it is? Do you really want the government or othr groups putting their values and ideas in your kids head?

[Bill Hill]

I have the solution.. why don't they put gay kids with gay adoptive parents?

Then no one will be 'offended'

As we've seen, the local council adoption services policy is to place black children with black parents.

Much to the dismay of white adoptive parents who just don't care about ethnicity..

Council has issued an appeal for more people of black and ethnic minority origin to adopt or foster children.

There are 26 Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) children in foster care across Gloucestershire, but only six BME foster care households.

Adopters for older children and siblings are especially sought.

Councillor Paul McLain said: "We want to offer local BME children the chance to be cared for and brought up within their own cultural background."

He added: "Our children deserve the best possible start in life. That means offering the opportunity to foster and adopt to the widest possible range of people. It is always our first ambition to find a family to reflect the child's ethnicity."

bbc

[Neognosis]

They are raising these kids, let them teach whatever they want. I'm sure if the parents taught the kids that being gay was ok and that christians were evil, no one would have any problem.

Are you serious? You don't think anyone would have a problem with foster parents teaching their foster kids that christians were evil? What color is the sky in your world? Is it a nice shade of persecuted orange?

Regardless of the gay issue, FOSTER parents are there to care for a child until he/she is adopted or their natural parents take custody back. Until you adopt a kid, I think that you should not be teaching the kid anything that might be contrary to the wishes of the natural parents or the eventual adoptive parents. That goes for views on race, religion, sexuality, politics, etc. They are not "raising" these kids, they are supposed to care for the kids until someone comes along and adopts them.

So, my point is that the foster parents should not impose their views of anything on their foster kids. This is unrealistic, but there are some realistic boundaries. Plus, teaching a kid that homosexuality is wrong is, plain and simple, crippling the kid, as in today's society a prejudice against gays is going to cause you a lot of problems, such as potential difficulty getting employment, etc.

[GreyWeather]

But it's a WRONG and bigoted view. To me that's the whole of it.

It is, but there's the freedom of religion act. This new law makes it so that a persons personal religion comes second to another persons sexual orientation. And since when do 10 year olds and younger think about sexuality.

Bigotry isn't a social aspect. Their view is based on mythology not in the real world. If they can't get past that than they shouldn't be foster parents.

It's not, but this woman isn't condemning them, she explained how she would go about it. Which was a decent thing to do. You can't lie to a young homosexual about how everyone will except their orientation in the world. But like Mrs Jones did, was explain WHY she didn't approve of homosexuality, not condemn it. Otherwise she wouldn't have stated she'd still love and protect the kid.

Then these religions need to come out the bronze age and step into the present with the rest of us. They've changed their views on hundreds of things as history advanced so they would survive. Time to do it again.

They do. And a few sub-christian religoins slowly are, gay preists are coming out and some get to keep their 'jobs'. Same with Catholic preists were a short while ago protesting for the right to marry. But it's a 2000 year old book they believe in, so it'll never really change unless it's (once again) edited.

Unfortunately they are anyway. Foster care is the far from adoption. These folks just take kids for short periods. They do weekend respite care according to another article I read on it. That's why they had twenty foster kids in four years.

Ah I see, I always thought foster care was where the kid lived with the family but were still responsible by the state.

I agree the kids need protecting, if for some reason a 9 year old comes out the closet , but there are different ways of protecting them. One is telling them a big fluffy lie that everyone will accept their sexuality, another is explaining why there is intolerance through religion.

I'm just trying to be not-bias here. So I can see both views on it. Makes it more interesting for me and not your usual boring posts of "I agree with that!".

[capeo]

I don't think anyone should be forced to teach the kids anything. They are raising these kids, let them teach whatever they want. I'm sure if the parents taught the kids that being gay was ok and that christians were evil, no one would have any problem. This tolerance BS is shutting down society. I'm going to go ahead and say its not normal to be gay, sorry but its not, it goes against the whole idea of expanding our race. So if I want to teach my kids that being gay is not normal, thats my right. Now let me make something clear, I don't hate gays, not one bit. But it really gets me ticked off when people think a child needs to hear about being gay, or even sex in general. I think we're cramming too much crap into kids heads these days, no wonder they are confused about being straight or gay. Why confuse the hell out of a child right at a time when their hormones are going crazy.

I just think this PC tolerance of everything has to stop. I wasn't raised to have other people think for me and tell me how to act and what to teach or preach or say. I can think for myself. Has it come to the point where we aren't allowed to teach our children our own values? What is the point of having children or fostering them if we cannot instill them with the ideas that we live by, hasn't that always been the way it is? Do you really want the government or othr groups putting their values and ideas in your kids head?

How many times can this be said? Bigotry is not a value. Doesn't expand our race? What the hell does that mean? Perhaps you should read about the evolutionary advantages homosexuality gives a population. Perhaps you should read, period. Nothing can exist this long in so many species for so long without offering the population an advantage. And you're sick of BS tolerance? Yeah, that's what humans have too much of: tolerance. That's certainly the problem.

The real problem is that intolerance is considered a value by folks like you.

[Ciraxis]

I like being intolerant

[capeo]

It is, but there's the freedom of religion act. This new law makes it so that a persons personal religion comes second to another persons sexual orientation. And since when do 10 year olds and younger think about sexuality.

Religion should come second to a persons' orientation, color, sex, etc. As to the question of kids ten and younger thinking about sex? It's not a matter of wanting sexual congress it comes down to other sexual identity markers that start manifesting at a young age in things like social interactions, how they play, what interests them, etc. Children do have proto sexual thoughts and feelings at that age as well. That age and much younger actually but they are not directed with the urgency that puberty brings about they are generally highly exploratory.

It's not, but this woman isn't condemning them, she explained how she would go about it. Which was a decent thing to do. You can't lie to a young homosexual about how everyone will except their orientation in the world. But like Mrs Jones did, was explain WHY she didn't approve of homosexuality, not condemn it. Otherwise she wouldn't have stated she'd still love and protect the kid.

Of course you can explain to a child that life will be tougher as gay person but they need somebody close that isn't going to judge them. No matter how she explains why she doesn't approve it's no different than saying she doesn't approve of a certain skin color or any other such thing.

I agree the kids need protecting, if for some reason a 9 year old comes out the closet , but there are different ways of protecting them. One is telling them a big fluffy lie that everyone will accept their sexuality, another is explaining why there is intolerance through religion.

We're being hung up a bit on the age thing here. Any foster parent must meet these requirements. Saying ones that watch younger kids don't would be discriminatory.

I'm just trying to be not-bias here. So I can see both views on it. Makes it more interesting for me and not your usual boring posts of "I agree with that!".

And you're doing a good job.

[capeo]

I like being intolerant

Then you must love the hell out of yourself.

[__Kratos__]

See thats where it all goes so terribly wrong, they are being asked to condone Gay fetish'ism, why should anyone be forced to condone something they do not believe in, but then why should an unwanted/parentless child be excluded from a conventional home? which after all "the non conventional life style of their parents" led them into this situation in the first place.

i was once reading about the London gay fetish rights protest on the age of consent being lowered from 21 to 16, but the majority of those on the protest were in their forties...that in it self speaks volumes

i find the whole fetish scene & its political arm, very self serving, and very manipulative for its own agenda

They were asked not to preach bigotry towards children. Why should a gay child grow up feeling that it's wrong to have the feelings that they do? Even if the child isn't gay, I would assume it's ok to tell them that being gay isn't evil.

It's not like it's going to turn those kids gay either. If you look, plenty of straight parents have gay children.

How many times can this be said? Bigotry is not a value. Doesn't expand our race? What the hell does that mean? Perhaps you should read about the evolutionary advantages homosexuality gives a population. Perhaps you should read, period. Nothing can exist this long in so many species for so long without offering the population an advantage. And you're sick of BS tolerance? Yeah, that's what humans have too much of: tolerance. That's certainly the problem.

The real problem is that intolerance is considered a value by folks like you.

Ciraxis is right though on that it isn't normal. It it's normal because it goes against our survivial and being here. I don't think anybody can really deny that the reasoning for living is to pass on our genetic material to the next generation... Just like countless other animals do. Homosexuality is a glitch in that.