Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Christian Couple barred from Fostering


Leonardo

Recommended Posts

The problem is (if it hasn't been stated yet) is what if the little foster child turns out to be gay. How will their attitude impact that child. Will he/she be subjected to gender realignment ?

The potential to harm the child is the matter at issue here.

Br Cornelius

Yes and we know which has the highest potential and that's messing the child around as they will, trying to find somewhere to place it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • preacherman76

    26

  • Leonardo

    12

  • danielost

    12

  • HerNibs

    11

Yes and we know which has the highest potential and that's messing the child around as they will, trying to find somewhere to place it.

So policy should not take into account potential harmful outcomes, and should be made on the hoof.

Great.

In Britain at least it has become public policy not to condone bigotry in whatever form, and that effects all government and civil policy decisions - I think that represents progress.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This couples track record speaks for its self. They have raised 15 kids as loving caring foster parents. With all the abuse that goes on in foster homes, not directly advicating homosexuality should be the least of the states worries. Besides this opens a can of worms we certainly dont as a society want to open. According to this court every child raised in a Christian or Jewish, or Muslim home should be placed in the care of the state. This couple isnt even acused of trying to teach children anything about homosexuality. They are acused of not willfully teaching homosexual practice as a positive thing. When did it become a requirement to teach children in foster care that homosexuality is good? The kids are gonna learn that in school anyway. This is PC gone mad. And is reflective of what a evil world we live in.

My personal thanks to you, preacherman, for giving me the chance to quote myself!! :P

It's not a case of telling a child being gay is good, Daniel, it is a case of them not telling a child being gay is bad.

They have a choice to simply not make any value judgement, but they refuse to take that choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this should be treated as a "lesser of two evils" type of situation. On one hand, you have the foster care system, which is a system that is far from perfect and prone to abuse. On the other hand, you have a couple who has raised fifteen foster children and who hold fundamentalist views on homosexuality. Of course, the wellbeing of the child should be first and foremost, but, to me, living s childhood in foster care with no real rolemodels or parental figures is more harmful than the potentially bigoted outlook that might form on homosexuality from foster parents. Children who grow up in the fostercare system are, on average, more prone to many societal ills, like drug abuse, criminal activities, dysfunctional/codependent relationships, etc... I find that to be more worrying than if a child grows up to have to deal with some biased viewpoints, which they can decide for themselves whether they are acceptable or not.

A large portion of my family is racist and very religious, I grew up to be an atheist and see race as a non-factor. We all don't have to follow the example set before us, we can all choose once we get to a point in our lives where we question who we are.

What if these foster parents are totally moral, decent people in many other aspects of life and can teach these children many quality values? Should we not consider that, too?

Edited by H.H. Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this should be treated as a "lesser of two evils" type of situation. On one hand, you have the foster care system, which is a system that is far from perfect and prone to abuse. On the other hand, you have a couple who has raised fifteen foster children and who hold fundamentalist views on homosexuality. Of course, the wellbeing of the child should be first and foremost, but, to me, living s childhood in foster care with no real rolemodels or parental figures is more harmful than the potentially bigoted outlook that might form on homosexuality from foster parents. Children who grow up in the fostercare system are, on average, more prone to many societal ills, like drug abuse, criminal activities, dysfunctional/codependent relationships, etc... I find that to be more worrying than if a child grows up to have to deal with some biased viewpoints, which they can decide for themselves whether they are acceptable or not.

A large portion of my family is racist and very religious, I grew up to be an atheist and see race as a non-factor. We all don't have to follow the example set before us, we can all choose once we get to a point in our lives where we question who we are.

What if these foster parents are totally moral, decent people in many other aspects of life and can teach these children many quality values? Should we not consider that, too?

I appreciate that argument, HH, but it does ignore that the child will grow up and may hold the view that the foster care system should not have placed him/her in a family with prejudiced views. Just as the foster care authority should not promote prejudice to that child, so they should not place that child into a situation where prejudice is promoted.

That child, now an adult, would have a fair case against the authority in question, should he/she wish to pursue it.

Also, with respect, a comparison with natural family is not entirely relevant as one doesn't have a choice but be part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ones i feel sorry for are the little boys who grow up with two moms who hate him because he is male. or th reverse because she has two dads who hate her because she is female. much better to grow up in a loving family who might not like a gay person. and yes it does happen that a person can grow up with a mom and a dad hating them just because they remind them of the other parent.

I feel sorry for any kid of yours who might inherit your poor comprehension. Edited by Rlyeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

because if there is no god, then he couldnt made them wrong the gender. also if there is no god, then nature cannot make a mistake and make people the wrong gender. so if you think your the wrong gender then you have to believe in god.

Uh? So God is a god of mistakes?

Your mind is a scary thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh? So God is a god of mistakes?

Your mind is a scary thing.

He seems not to comprehend that nature has no mind to make mistakes with :blush:

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal thanks to you, preacherman, for giving me the chance to quote myself!! :P

Oh, I thought we were responding to the article, not assumptions. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that argument, HH, but it does ignore that the child will grow up and may hold the view that the foster care system should not have placed him/her in a family with prejudiced views. Just as the foster care authority should not promote prejudice to that child, so they should not place that child into a situation where prejudice is promoted.

That child, now an adult, would have a fair case against the authority in question, should he/she wish to pursue it.

Also, with respect, a comparison with natural family is not entirely relevant as one doesn't have a choice but be part of that.

That can and does happen for all sorts of reasons. Many FAR worse then having to live with parents who wont advicate homosexuality. But I guess thats ok, since those parents said all the right things at thier interview. Gay folks represent 4% of the population at most. The statistical odds they would even get a gay kid are little to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He seems not to comprehend that nature has no mind to make mistakes with :blush:

Br Cornelius

Nature sure seems to have a amazing ability to design extremly complex life forms, mindlessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature sure seems to have a amazing ability to design extremly complex life forms, mindlessly.

Thats Evolution for you, seems like magic unless you take the trouble to understand the mechanisms.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That can and does happen for all sorts of reasons. Many FAR worse then having to live with parents who wont advicate homosexuality. But I guess thats ok, since those parents said all the right things at thier interview. Gay folks represent 4% of the population at most. The statistical odds they would even get a gay kid are little to none.

Try not to misrepresent what others have specifically said. No one here expects advocacy for homosexuality - just acceptance of its reality and and a none prejudiced approach to it.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats Evolution for you, seems like magic unless you take the trouble to understand the mechanisms.

Br Cornelius

No one understands the mechanisms. Other then the adaptation part of evolution. We cant even begin to conceive how even the most simple forms of life came to be. There is order, there is information stored, and there is the ability to use that vastly complex information in a productive manor. There is nothing known in existance that you could compare using chance. Even the most intelligent scientists in the world admit they have no idea how any of this came about. Anyone who tells you different is a liar.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try not to misrepresent what others have specifically said. No one here expects advocacy for homosexuality - just acceptance of its reality and and a none prejudiced approach to it.

Br Cornelius

Read the article in the original post. These people have been denied the privilege of caring for these children specificaly cause they said they wont directly teach the children that homosexuality is a positive thing. They refuse to advicate homosexuality, that is the single reason we are speaking about it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one understands the mechanisms. Other then the adaptation part of evolution. We cant even begin to conceive how even the most simple forms of life came to be. There is oder, there is information stored, and there is the ability to use that vastly complex information in a productive manor. There is nothing known in existance that you could compare using chance. Even the most intelligent scientists in the world admit they have no idea how any of this came about. Anyone who tells you different is a liar.

There are some remarkably good guesses based on empirical observations of real life and experimental situations. It is not true to say that people do not have a very good idea of how these things happened - even down to the molecular level.

What you have to bare in mind is that there was a window of billions of years (an impossibly large time scale to imagine ) with billions of chance events taking place every single second of every single day of that period. The chance experiments which led to the existence of life were many trillions. What would be inconcievable would be to say that given that many tries that life would not come into existence given the conditions present within the planetary system. Once chance set the train in motion evolution is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything we see in the world today.

Move along God - no job for you here :devil:

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did and this is what it said;

They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

Not advocacy - just acknowledgement that some people are homosexual and that is morally acceptable. No one asked them to promote homosexuality and the article clearly states this.

Try again :blush: .

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one understands the mechanisms. Other then the adaptation part of evolution. We cant even begin to conceive how even the most simple forms of life came to be. There is order, there is information stored, and there is the ability to use that vastly complex information in a productive manor. There is nothing known in existance that you could compare using chance. Even the most intelligent scientists in the world admit they have no idea how any of this came about. Anyone who tells you different is a liar.

Evolution is never meant to explain how 'this came about', for that you'll most likely need Astronomy. Also, you're wrong about the scientists... So wrong. I love how people just claim 'well all scientists know this! or know that! or feel this!' when trying to prove a point. To me it shows they have no point. Just like when they try using to compare creation and evolution, something that explains natural selection and adaptation as opposed to something that explains the very creation of cells, our planet and the universe (which is not God by the way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some remarkably good guesses based on empirical observations of real life and experimental situations. It is not true to say that people do not have a very good idea of how these things happened - even down to the molecular level.

What you have to bare in mind is that there was a window of billions of years (an impossibly large time scale to imagine ) with billions of chance events taking place every single second of every single day of that period. The chance experiments which led to the existence of life were many trillions. What would be inconcievable would be to say that given that many tries that life would not come into existence given the conditions present within the planetary system. Once chance set the train in motion evolution is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything we see in the world today.

Move along God - no job for you here :devil:

Br Cornelius

Ahh the old "billions of years" argument. There is no amount of time that can make the impossible, possible. In fact that argument is just plan silly. The first simple cell had hours at most to over come a vast aray of impossibilities. Ive directly heard Dawkins himself say they have no idea how life came to be. No one does. There are pleanty of guesses. None of which have ever been remotly proven possible.

Someday, long after our time, macro evolution will be proven to have been a failed theory. As well as origin theories. If scientists who dont believe in evolution were allowed to speak, without instantly being black balled, defunded, and fired, we'd already be well on our way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did and this is what it said;

Not advocacy - just acknowledgement that some people are homosexual and that is morally acceptable. No one asked them to promote homosexuality and the article clearly states this.

Try again :blush: .

Br Cornelius

From the article

"They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable."

Translation- they were denied cause they wouldnt advicate homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh the old "billions of years" argument. There is no amount of time that can make the impossible, possible. In fact that argument is just plan silly. The first simple cell had hours at most to over come a vast aray of impossibilities. Ive directly heard Dawkins himself say they have no idea how life came to be. No one does. There are pleanty of guesses. None of which have ever been remotly proven possible.

Someday, long after our time, macro evolution will be proven to have been a failed theory. As well as origin theories. If scientists who dont believe in evolution were allowed to speak, without instantly being black balled, defunded, and fired, we'd already be well on our way.

The first life would most probably not have been alive at all - proteins and amino acids can exist for many years waiting for the right chance event to form something bigger and more complex. Everything is possible given enough time. As you say no one knows how life started but that doesn't automatically say that God was the cause. That is more rediculus than any of the other possibilities as it requires a supernatural event to happen when a natural event is perfectly adequate.

You hold onto your fantasies that evolution will be proven wrong, meanwhile the real world will leave you behind with you God of the little things.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article

"They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable."

Translation- they were denied cause they wouldnt advicate homosexuality.

Do you actually understand what advocacy actually means - to promote to favour to espouse. They were not required to do any of those things, simply not be prejudiced towards homosexuals.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is never meant to explain how 'this came about', for that you'll most likely need Astronomy. Also, you're wrong about the scientists... So wrong. I love how people just claim 'well all scientists know this! or know that! or feel this!' when trying to prove a point. To me it shows they have no point. Just like when they try using to compare creation and evolution, something that explains natural selection and adaptation as opposed to something that explains the very creation of cells, our planet and the universe (which is not God by the way).

I know evolution isnt meant to explain how life came to be. However, the theories regarding each go hand in hand. You cant have one without the other. Both deeply depend on non intelligent matter creating, storing, and putting into motion extremly complex information. It may be your opinion that there is no point, but Dawkins himself would disagree. I have directly heard him and other high level scientists admit they dont know how life came to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know evolution isnt meant to explain how life came to be. However, the theories regarding each go hand in hand. You cant have one without the other. Both deeply depend on non intelligent matter creating, storing, and putting into motion extremly complex information. It may be your opinion that there is no point, but Dawkins himself would disagree. I have directly heard him and other high level scientists admit they dont know how life came to be.

Not knowing is not the same thing as knowing God did it.

Many scientists do not know many things - but they still believe that given enough study and data - they will eventually know, they are simply in that state of not knowing yet. God is not the default fall back position here.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know evolution isnt meant to explain how life came to be. However, the theories regarding each go hand in hand. You cant have one without the other. Both deeply depend on non intelligent matter creating, storing, and putting into motion extremly complex information. It may be your opinion that there is no point, but Dawkins himself would disagree. I have directly heard him and other high level scientists admit they dont know how life came to be.

Yeah, they said they 'don't know' and have never said that a creator of any sort has, in fact they've explicitly said it's most likely not the case. Talking about 'high level scientists' you may want to check out any of Dawkin's books because in those he negates the necessity of a creator, something that Stephen Hawking has also said.

Here's a fun bit of reading for you:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.