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

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

Yea I more then understand what advicating means. To tell a child that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable life style definnitly falls under that catagory.

Also, just cause they wont advicate homosexuality doesnt mean they would be prejudice tward homosexuals. That is your assumption, as well as the assumption of this court.If they are knowledgable bible believeing Christians, then they will be more then capable of expressing love tward all, even if they dont agree with thier life style. Those are the questions they should have been asked, before they denied children a loving caring home. I wonder how the kids at the orphanage would take it knowing they will continue to live in hellish conditions simply cause people assume this couple, who have already dedicated a big part of thier lifes to children like themselfs, have been branded unfit cause of thier religious beliefs? Bet that wouldnt go to well.

Edited by preacherman76
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

Yea I more then understand what advicating means. To tell a child that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable life style definnitly falls under that catagory.

Also, just cause they wont advicate homosexuality doesnt mean they would be prejudice tward homosexuals. That is your assumption, as well as the assumption of this court.If they are knowledgable bible believeing Christians, then they will be more then capable of expressing love tward all, even if they dont agree with thier life style. Those are the questions they should have been asked, before they denied children a loving caring home. I wonder how the kids at the orphanage would take it knowing they will continue to live in hellish conditions simply cause people assume this couple, who have already dedicated a big part of thier lifes to children like themselfs, have been branded unfit cause of thier religious beliefs? Bet that wouldnt go to well.

Not for their religious belief - for their expressed prejudice towards homosexuals.

I think it very difficult for a person who believes homosexuality to be morally wrong and repugnant to set those beliefs aside and accept that childs homosexuality as a natural part of their personality.

This is the issue. If they honestly expressed the position that a child been homosexual presented no issues for them - then I am certain they would have been accepted as foster parents. They failed that test.

I am certain that there are many Christian foster parents who passed that test and are now successfully fostering.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Protiens were waiting for the chance? Are you saying these elements had a will? That through trial and error, eventualy became life? I thought you didnt believe in intelligent design?

Creation by something eternal, is no more ridiculas then saying life, or this universe for that matter created its self from nothing. In fact, science, from what we know, and observe, practicaly demands it. Everything known had a begining, and is in a state of decay. There never, at any point, could have been a state of nothing. If it was so, nothing could ever be. Yet everything had a begining. Something must be eternal. Something must have always existed, and all things known must have derived from that eternal something. Its as good, if not better a theory then any.

Till its observed, you are lieing to yourself when you say "a natural event is perfectly adequate." Prove its natural.

Anyhow, I dont want to get this thread close for derailing, nor do I care to continue a conversation with a guy who feels he has to insult people cause he cant handle the fact that not everyone see's things the same as himself. So its back to the OT for me.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for their religious belief - for their expressed prejudice towards homosexuals.

I think it very difficult for a person who believes homosexuality to be morally wrong and repugnant to set those beliefs aside and accept that childs homosexuality as a natural part of their personality.

This is the issue. If they honestly expressed the position that a child been homosexual presented no issues for them - then I am certain they would have been accepted as foster parents. They failed that test.

I am certain that there are many Christian foster parents who passed that test and are now successfully fostering.

Br Cornelius

Right, that is the problem, your assumptions. How can you get a answer wrong, that you werent even asked? How do you "fail that test"? Did they fail the test when they self sacrificed years of thier lifes providing a loving caring home for 15 other children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protiens were waiting for the chance? Are you saying these elements had a will? That through trial and error, eventualy became life? I thought you didnt believe in intelligent design?

Creation by something eternal, is no more ridiculas then saying life, or this universe for that matter created its self from nothing. In fact, science, from what we know, and observe, practicaly demands it. Everything known had a begining, and is in a state of decay. There never, at any point, could have been a state of nothing. If it was so, nothing could ever be. Yet everything had a begining. Something must be eternal. Something must have always existed, and all things known must have derived from that eternal something. Its as good, if not better a theory then any.

Till its observed, you are lieing to yourself when you say "a natural event is perfectly adequate." Prove its natural.

Anyhow, I dont want to get this thread close for derailing, nor do I care to continue a conversation with a guy who feels he has to insult people cause he cant handle the fact that not everyone see's things the same as himself. So back its back to the OT for me.

You are speculating about things you can never know, and drawing conclusions which you can never support.

I much prefer to leave them in that state of unknowable rather than generating (or adopting) creation myths to explain something beyond explanation. There may indeed be a God of creation - but until evidence emerges to support that position - it seems very unreasonable to accept a 5-3000 yr old myth which bares almost no relationship to the data we do actually know.

The question seems unanswerable and it deeply offends me when people assume they have some special Divine knowledge to the contary.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, that is the problem, your assumptions. How can you get a answer wrong, that you werent even asked? How do you "fail that test"? Did they fail the test when they self sacrificed years of thier lifes providing a loving caring home for 15 other children?

I am making no assumptions - simple restating their exact position. It is you who are trying to make assumptions.

They failed the test when "they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable."

Its very simple really and there no wriggle room to make that statement acceptable to the social services or the Judicary.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are speculating about things you can never know, and drawing conclusions which you can never support.

I much prefer to leave them in that state of unknowable rather than generating (or adopting) creation myths to explain something beyond explanation. There may indeed be a God of creation - but until evidence emerges to support that position - it seems very unreasonable to accept a 5-3000 yr old myth which bares almost no relationship to the data we do actually know.

The question seems unanswerable and it deeply offends me when people assume they have some special Divine knowledge to the contary.

Br Cornelius

I never claimed divine knowledge. I specificaly said it was nothing more the a valid theory.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protiens were waiting for the chance? Are you saying these elements had a will? That through trial and error, eventualy became life? I thought you didnt believe in intelligent design?

Creation by something eternal, is no more ridiculas then saying life, or this universe for that matter created its self from nothing. In fact, science, from what we know, and observe, practicaly demands it. Everything known had a begining, and is in a state of decay. There never, at any point, could have been a state of nothing. If it was so, nothing could ever be. Yet everything had a begining. Something must be eternal. Something must have always existed, and all things known must have derived from that eternal something. Its as good, if not better a theory then any.

Till its observed, you are lieing to yourself when you say "a natural event is perfectly adequate." Prove its natural.

Anyhow, I dont want to get this thread close for derailing, nor do I care to continue a conversation with a guy who feels he has to insult people cause he cant handle the fact that not everyone see's things the same as himself. So back its back to the OT for me.

He never said anything about intelligent design :rolleyes:

No... It is pretty ridiculous given the fact we can date the age of the universe via radiation and it's around 13.7 billion years old, wanna know how old our planet is? 4.6 billion years... But... Wait! That means a creator didn't even bother making our planet for 9 billion years, what else was he doing, twiddling his thumbs? Assuming he has thumbs that is...

But wait... We're supposedly made in God's image...

So how old is our race? 200,000 years old... Well ****, that means for 13.6 billion years God didn't even bother making us!

Then again you say there can't be nothing. Do you know this? No. It's just that the human mind cannot comprehend 'nothing' and nobody is certain whether anything preceded the universe but there's no way to tell and we'll probably never know but that doesn't mean God or a creator did it because they would have to of created themselves as well, something that (as you state) is impossible. So in arguing for a creator you're actually arguing against him as well. Why is that you may ask, well, it's because you're using pigeon science. Nothing has to be eternal, in fact nothing has to be anything, it's a complete fallacy to say that everything in the universe must abide to what you recognise is true.

Oh right, it's a theory as good as any which is why creationist 'scientists' are usually mocked and laughed at by their peers. It's not a good theory as it has absolutely no evidence behind it at all. Which is why it isn't even a scientific theory unlike evolution and the big bang which are scientific theories not just a theory in the English sense of the word.

Sorry but no, it's not as good as other theories and it's not accepted as the dominant theory by any respected scientist, only pseudo-scientists that have no clue what they're talking about like Ray Comfort and William Dembski.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am making no assumptions - simple restating their exact position. It is you who are trying to make assumptions.

They failed the test when "they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable."

Its very simple really and there no wriggle room to make that statement acceptable to the social services or the Judicary.

Br Cornelius

How does that translate without assumption, that they will teach bad will tward homosexuals?

This is descrimination cause of religious belief. Its as cut and dry as can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never said anything about intelligent design :rolleyes:

No... It is pretty ridiculous given the fact we can date the age of the universe via radiation and it's around 13.7 billion years old, wanna know how old our planet is? 4.6 billion years... But... Wait! That means a creator didn't even bother making our planet for 9 billion years, what else was he doing, twiddling his thumbs? Assuming he has thumbs that is...

But wait... We're supposedly made in God's image...

So how old is our race? 200,000 years old... Well ****, that means for 13.6 billion years God didn't even bother making us!

Then again you say there can't be nothing. Do you know this? No. It's just that the human mind cannot comprehend 'nothing' and nobody is certain whether anything preceded the universe but there's no way to tell and we'll probably never know but that doesn't mean God or a creator did it because they would have to of created themselves as well, something that (as you state) is impossible. So in arguing for a creator you're actually arguing against him as well. Why is that you may ask, well, it's because you're using pigeon science. Nothing has to be eternal, in fact nothing has to be anything, it's a complete fallacy to say that everything in the universe must abide to what you recognise is true.

Oh right, it's a theory as good as any which is why creationist 'scientists' are usually mocked and laughed at by their peers. It's not a good theory as it has absolutely no evidence behind it at all. Which is why it isn't even a scientific theory unlike evolution and the big bang which are scientific theories not just a theory in the English sense of the word.

Sorry but no, it's not as good as other theories and it's not accepted as the dominant theory by any respected scientist, only pseudo-scientists that have no clue what they're talking about like Ray Comfort and William Dembski.

Save it for another thread. If we keep talking about it, they will close it.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save it for another thread. If we keep talking about it, they will close it.

... :lol:

Okay, okay.

However the discrimination isn't against religious beliefs as then you'd be calling 'hate for homosexuals' a religious belief. Would I be allowed to adopt a child if my 'religious belief' entail being a white nationalist, most of whom are Christians by the way.

It's funny that you're so uppity about them being discriminated against when they discriminate against others, it's just the kind of poetic irony that I love

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does that translate without assumption, that they will teach bad will tward homosexuals?

This is descrimination cause of religious belief. Its as cut and dry as can be.

You seem obdurately to misunderstand the point. If they fostered a homosexual child they have stated that they would teach them that that lifestyle was unacceptable. They have a choice here and they made their choice that if the situation arose they would teach the unacceptability of homosexuality to a homosexual child - which in this case would have a direct mental harm to the foster child. They could be christians who accept homosexuality as a valid genetic expression - they have chosen not to do so and so cannot foster. This is protection from prejudice - not prejudice against them.

Maybe the issue is that certain forms of Christianity have prejudice built in, and therefore those forms are becoming socially unacceptable.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread has been hijacked and turned into an evolution/intelligent design debate. Don't we have enough threads that deal with that exact same topic?

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

You seem obdurately to misunderstand the point. If they fostered a homosexual child they have stated that they would teach them that that lifestyle was unacceptable. They have a choice here and they made their choice that if the situation arose they would teach the unacceptability of homosexuality to a homosexual child - which in this case would have a direct mental harm to the foster child. They could be christians who accept homosexuality as a valid genetic expression - they have chosen not to do so and so cannot foster. This is protection from prejudice - not prejudice against them.

Maybe the issue is that certain forms of Christianity have prejudice built in, and therefore those forms are becoming socially unacceptable.

Br Cornelius

When did they say that? They said they wouldnt teach homosexuality was a positive thing. Equivilent to doing nothing. You assume they would lean tward the negative and teach homosexuality is a bad thing. They never said that. This is the assumption Im talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... :lol:

Okay, okay.

However the discrimination isn't against religious beliefs as then you'd be calling 'hate for homosexuals' a religious belief. Would I be allowed to adopt a child if my 'religious belief' entail being a white nationalist, most of whom are Christians by the way.

It's funny that you're so uppity about them being discriminated against when they discriminate against others, it's just the kind of poetic irony that I love

Non aproval and hate are 2 totaly different things.

I cant speak for "they". I have nothing but love for my fellow man. I havent seen anything actualy spoken to suggest these people are any different from my self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said;

".......they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable."

That means that they would by default teach it as unacceptable.

Or are you trying to convince us that they would make no comment :w00t:

Don't you just love these little word games, where someone tries to dance on the head of a pin and not say what they actually mean. At least this couple stated their principles and stuck to them - despite the consequences.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said;

".......they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable."

That means that they would by default teach it as unacceptable.

Or are you trying to convince us that they would make no comment :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Like I said, saying they wouldnt do something isnt the same as saying they WOULD do something.

And if they were asked by the child to make a comment, they should be free to express what they feel about it in a loving way. This isnt Nazi germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, saying they wouldnt do something isnt the same as saying they WOULD do something.

And if they were asked by the child to make a comment, they should be free to express what they feel about it in a loving way. This isnt Nazi germany.

So you expect them to lie and conceal their beliefs on this.

Nice Godwin :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you expect them to lie and conceal their beliefs on this.

Nice Godwin :tu:

Br Cornelius

How is not saying anything lieing?

I expect them to do what they have done for years. Give kids who otherwise wouldnt, a chance at being raised by loving parents. Kids who you want to denie a good home, cause you cant conceive that the parents dont think like you. Not all Christians are in the "God hates fags" membership.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is not saying anything lieing?

I expect them to do what they have done for years. Give kids who otherwise wouldnt, a chance at being raised by loving parents. Kids who you want to denie a good home, cause you cant conceive that the parents dont think like you. Not all Christians are in the "God hates fags" membership.

But these one's certainly seem to be.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But these one's certainly seem to be.

Br Cornelius

How so? I couldnt advicate homosexuality in a positive light, that doesnt mean I hate anyone. I certainly would never teach that to my child. Yet I have 2 gay friends who come to me for spiritual advice. I love them like brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some ambiguity in the OP article. Mr and Mrs Johns did not indicate that they would promote anti-gay teachings, as opposed to heterosexual teachings to children they would foster. To quote them from the article, they said: "All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing".

When or if the subject of homosexuality came up, the Johns' couple could well have steered a neutral course, without being anti-gay, thus avoiding any conflicts of interest.

As the article states, "The couple, who cared for about 15 children in the 1990s, have called for a public inquiry into the matter". This indicates that there could be a future court hearing about their case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some ambiguity in the OP article. Mr and Mrs Johns did not indicate that they would promote anti-gay teachings, as opposed to heterosexual teachings to children they would foster. To quote them from the article, they said: "All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing".

When or if the subject of homosexuality came up, the Johns' couple could well have steered a neutral course, without being anti-gay, thus avoiding any conflicts of interest.

As the article states, "The couple, who cared for about 15 children in the 1990s, have called for a public inquiry into the matter". This indicates that there could be a future court hearing about their case.

If the child they raise in foster realises he or she is gay, will Mr and Mrs Johns then be okay with telling that (now young adult, presumably) that being gay is good?

If not, then the local authority cannot allow them to foster, because the local authority cannot know when a child will grow up if they will realise they are gay. There is no 'gayness test' one can give to a young child (except in South Park).

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some ambiguity in the OP article. Mr and Mrs Johns did not indicate that they would promote anti-gay teachings, as opposed to heterosexual teachings to children they would foster. To quote them from the article, they said: "All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing".

When or if the subject of homosexuality came up, the Johns' couple could well have steered a neutral course, without being anti-gay, thus avoiding any conflicts of interest.

As the article states, "The couple, who cared for about 15 children in the 1990s, have called for a public inquiry into the matter". This indicates that there could be a future court hearing about their case.

I think there should be a court hearing. If this is an example of how strict they are going to be then virtually no one would be able to foster children. If the child grows up and wants to date someone from another race what are they going to say? If the child grows up to be a Democrat and they are Republicans are they going to discourage them? If the foster parents are Atheists and the child decides to be a Christian are they going to vilify them and call them ignorant? There are too many variables to consider and I think they have a good case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there should be a court hearing. If this is an example of how strict they are going to be then virtually no one would be able to foster children. If the child grows up and wants to date someone from another race what are they going to say? If the child grows up to be a Democrat and they are Republicans are they going to discourage them? If the foster parents are Atheists and the child decides to be a Christian are they going to vilify them and call them ignorant? There are too many variables to consider and I think they have a good case.

Take a hypothetical situation that you are fostering a child, Michelle.

If that child realises they are gay (and you disapprove of homosexuality - hypothetically), or wish to follow a belief that you disapprove of (but is not harmful to the child), etc. Will you tell that child that what they wish to do is good. Would you support them positively, because it is what they want to do - who they are?

If you would do this, and I believe there are many, many couples who foster who have this attitude towards the children they foster, then this suggests that your fear of few couples being able to foster are unfounded, and that any case the Johns might bring to appeal, might just have the same result for them.

Edited by Leonardo
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.