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

Its called a Liberal attitude. Being accepting of other people personalities and preferences with limits of social acceptability. Surprisingly most people are naturally Liberal in their outlook - so there are no shortages of people capable of meeting the standards expected of them when applying for adoption.

The problem is that if you have a conservative outlook, you find it difficult to accept others difference's. This was once the norm and generally accepted - but in Britain attitudes have shifted to Liberalism in matters personal. This couple is simply out of touch with modern social norms.

Br Cornelius

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

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".

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?

I was also raised in a conservative, Republican, Christian household. and everyone has accepted him and loves him.

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.

I think the pertinent question is quoted above...whether they would tell a small child that it's a good thing. How small is small and how young are they going to be when they realize they are gay? There are many ways to make it matter of fact that some couples are two women or two men without showing approval or disapproval. My favorite nephew is gay and also happens to be a Christian. He's known since he was about 11 that I don't believe in God because the subject never came up before then. I wouldn't have made it a point of discussion before say, a need to know basis. I didn't use the exact wording of being Christian or gay as a good thing...more like I don't have a problem with that and everybody is different.

I was also raised in a conservative, Christian, Republican household and everyone accepts him and loves him.

Edited by Michelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the courts on this. If this couple happened to have a foster child in their home who was gay, that child would be damaged from being insulted by the beliefs this couple holds that would stand to affect the child's mental and emotional well being. Fostering is a privilege, not a right. There are enough bigots in the world as it is, lending opportunity to foster yet another one for the future isn't a right nor a privilege. But it is a blessing when it can be stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the best way to solve the situation, without going to court, is for the judge to interview the other 19 children that the Johns fostered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't use the exact wording of being Christian or gay as a good thing...more like I don't have a problem with that and everybody is different.

In a sense, we are both different...we know a lot more gays than athiests. You could say that I'm a bigger minority :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the pertinent question is quoted above...whether they would tell a small child that it's a good thing. How small is small and how young are they going to be when they realize they are gay? There are many ways to make it matter of fact that some couples are two women or two men without showing approval or disapproval. My favorite nephew is gay and also happens to be a Christian. He's known since he was about 11 that I don't believe in God because the subject never came up before then. I wouldn't have made it a point of discussion before say, a need to know basis. I didn't use the exact wording of being Christian or gay as a good thing...more like I don't have a problem with that and everybody is different.

I was also raised in a conservative, Christian, Republican household and everyone accepts him and loves him.

Thanks for the reply, Michelle.

As I said in my OP, I realise the decision would likely be divisive and that any decision would inevitably lead to some form of discrimination. In this case, I accept the child's needs (even if only potential needs) overrule the needs of the foster carers, as harsh as that may be on those carers who may be genuinely good people who just happen to hold a prejudice.

I also want to clarify that positive reinforcement need not mean using specific words - as you indicate when you say you might not use the word 'good' when discussing your nephew's lifestyle and choices with him. The OP article suggests that the couple saw the homosexual lifestyle not only as not good, but also not acceptable. This would not lead to positive reinforcement and I can understand why the decision went against them if that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense, we are both different...we know a lot more gays than athiests. You could say that I'm a bigger minority :hmm:

The barristers in these situations and will always come out the winners and probably the only ones to gain anything which is a pity.

Now whilst I understand why there are these laws I do think that they are carried to the Nth degree and end in harming those who were supposed to be protected.

I would hope that given all the stated and obvious position of the carer's that they could be trusted to do what was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, being gay has nothing to do with thinking or feeling like you are the wrong gender.

Gay is two people of the same sex. It isn't one guy who really wants to be a girl so he only likes other guys.

Nibs

thats funny since i have had some tell me otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its called a Liberal attitude. Being accepting of other people personalities and preferences with limits of social acceptability. Surprisingly most people are naturally Liberal in their outlook - so there are no shortages of people capable of meeting the standards expected of them when applying for adoption.

The problem is that if you have a conservative outlook, you find it difficult to accept others difference's. This was once the norm and generally accepted - but in Britain attitudes have shifted to Liberalism in matters personal. This couple is simply out of touch with modern social norms.

Br Cornelius

sorry it is the liberals how have a problem accepting people, as this thread proves. think like us or stay home and dont come out and practice your religion in front of us. as long as people think like you you have no problems as soon as you find someone who doesnt think like you, you end up with an 8+ page thread telling everyone how evil this couple is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry it is the liberals how have a problem accepting people, as this thread proves. think like us or stay home and dont come out and practice your religion in front of us. as long as people think like you you have no problems as soon as you find someone who doesnt think like you, you end up with an 8+ page thread telling everyone how evil this couple is.

I have not decryed this couple, I have pointed out that their attitude to homosexuals makes them unsuitable foster carers for obvious practical reasons. I do not care very much what they do in their own private lives (because I am a liberal), but the days of them dictating what is acceptable socially are long gone. Do you get the difference - religion is a personal private choice which anyone is free to make, society is secular and so religion has no place in dictating the social values of that society. If everyone were Christian this would make no practical difference, because we would still follow christian morality - but that is not the reality we live in and that is just a plain fact which some seem unable to come to terms with.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not decryed this couple, I have pointed out that their attitude to homosexuals makes them unsuitable foster carers for obvious practical reasons. I do not care very much what they do in their own private lives (because I am a liberal), but the days of them dictating what is acceptable socially are long gone. Do you get the difference - religion is a personal private choice which anyone is free to make, society is secular and so religion has no place in dictating the social values of that society. If everyone were Christian this would make no practical difference, because we would still follow christian morality - but that is not the reality we live in and that is just a plain fact which some seem unable to come to terms with.

Br Cornelius

Not really. Liberalism has takin over and become the dictator. Least in England. Whatever. If people are ok with whatever kids would have moved in, now staying in the orphange, or the streets, or in abusive homes, then nothing can be done. At least they are protected from those evil Christians. Score one for the children. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. Liberalism has takin over and become the dictator. Least in England. Whatever. If people are ok with whatever kids would have moved in, now staying in the orphange, or the streets, or in abusive homes, then nothing can be done. At least they are protected from those evil Christians. Score one for the children. :mellow:

I personally do not think that this decision will make a significant impact on the numbers of children in orphages. The people coming forward to foster who display biogoted attitudes to minorities can only be a tiny minority. I do not feel your concerns are well founded.

It represents a personal tragedy to this couple, but little more.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do not think that this decision will make a significant impact on the numbers of children in orphages. The people coming forward to foster who display biogoted attitudes to minorities can only be a tiny minority. I do not feel your concerns are well founded.

It represents a personal tragedy to this couple, but little more.

Br Cornelius

What if only one child gets left behind. That would make you feel better about it? I guess thats easy enought to say, sitting behind your computer. Probably wouldnt be so easy if you were the one left behind.

Edited by preacherman76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats funny since i have had some tell me otherwise.

Don't know who told you otherwise but they too are mistaken.

sorry it is the liberals how have a problem accepting people, as this thread proves. think like us or stay home and dont come out and practice your religion in front of us. as long as people think like you you have no problems as soon as you find someone who doesnt think like you, you end up with an 8+ page thread telling everyone how evil this couple is.

I don't care who thinks what as long as they don't impose their "thoughts" and beliefs onto some one else.

I don't think this couple is evil. I'm sure they are perfectly nice and have great intentions.

But, this couple, raising children are acting basically as employees of the state. They are paid, monitored and approved of by the state. Qualified to be good caregivers to children in need.

Years ago, it wasn't "wrong" to work children as adults, it wasn't wrong to beat your wife, it wasn't wrong to own other human beings as slaves. Today, we as a society have evolved to understand human rights.

As "employees" of the state this couple need to follow what the state dictates and what is appropriate. Today, it's NOT illegal or immoral (in the legal system) to be gay.

If this couple wants to continue caring for these children then they too need to evolve and recognize the rules of the state they are "working for".

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know who told you otherwise but they too are mistaken.

I don't care who thinks what as long as they don't impose their "thoughts" and beliefs onto some one else.

I don't think this couple is evil. I'm sure they are perfectly nice and have great intentions.

But, this couple, raising children are acting basically as employees of the state. They are paid, monitored and approved of by the state. Qualified to be good caregivers to children in need.

Years ago, it wasn't "wrong" to work children as adults, it wasn't wrong to beat your wife, it wasn't wrong to own other human beings as slaves. Today, we as a society have evolved to understand human rights.

As "employees" of the state this couple need to follow what the state dictates and what is appropriate. Today, it's NOT illegal or immoral (in the legal system) to be gay.

If this couple wants to continue caring for these children then they too need to evolve and recognize the rules of the state they are "working for".

Nibs

If the "rules of the state" say that a fostercare parent MUST advicate homosexuality, then you have a point. But Id be willing to bet that law cant be found anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the "rules of the state" say that a fostercare parent MUST advicate homosexuality, then you have a point. But Id be willing to bet that law cant be found anywhere.

Hi PM! :) How you doing?

Ah, but I didn't say they MUST advocate homosexuality. My point is that if the state says that foster care parents must follow the rules of the state and the state says that they cannot teach "intolerance" or that they must raise a child in an environment that the child feels loved and accepted, then the foster parents must refrain from teaching or implying that there is something wrong with the child because of their sexual orientation.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi PM! :) How you doing?

Ah, but I didn't say they MUST advocate homosexuality. My point is that if the state says that foster care parents must follow the rules of the state and the state says that they cannot teach "intolerance" or that they must raise a child in an environment that the child feels loved and accepted, then the foster parents must refrain from teaching or implying that there is something wrong with the child because of their sexual orientation.

Nibs

Im much better now that you are here nibs :)

Seriously nibs, these people never claimed they would be intolerate of anyone. To tolerate you accept that person existance, and stance, but you dont have to like it. These people have never said they would be anything less then kind loving parents to anyone. All they said was that they wouldnt teach a child positive things about homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im much better now that you are here nibs :)

Aw :wub:

Seriously nibs, these people never claimed they would be intolerate of anyone. To tolerate you accept that person existance, and stance, but you dont have to like it. These people have never said they would be anything less then kind loving parents to anyone. All they said was that they wouldnt teach a child positive things about homosexuality.

Well, the article gives limited information on the individuals but for the state to have all of a sudden decided that they shouldn't be care givers due to their stance on homosexuality I assumed that there had to have been an incident. I may have assumed wrongly. If this couple just abstains from discussing homosexuality but shows unconditional love regardless of orientation then yes, I think they would have a case.

BUT - if a couple (any, not just this couple) refuses to go along with what the state says they must do as state "employed" caregivers then the state is perfectly right to remove them.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

a few queries if i may:

with the above in mind should couples be given 'gay attitude' tests prior to them conceiving?

in your opinion is it more harmful for a child to be brought up in an environment where homosexuality is frowned upon? or in a care home?

should parents who smoke be prevented from fostering or adopting children?

how about parents whose views are very extreme to the left or the right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw :wub:

Well, the article gives limited information on the individuals but for the state to have all of a sudden decided that they shouldn't be care givers due to their stance on homosexuality I assumed that there had to have been an incident. I may have assumed wrongly. If this couple just abstains from discussing homosexuality but shows unconditional love regardless of orientation then yes, I think they would have a case.

BUT - if a couple (any, not just this couple) refuses to go along with what the state says they must do as state "employed" caregivers then the state is perfectly right to remove them.

Nibs

They were asked a series of questions. One of which was somthing to the effect of 'Would you express homosexuality in a positive light' They said no. That was the incident.Think about it, if there was dirt on these people, the article would have said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, people who hold prejudice and hate towards a group of people aren't capable or intelligent enough to raise a child.

"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."

Yea, sounds like hate mongers to me. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were asked a series of questions. One of which was somthing to the effect of 'Would you express homosexuality in a positive light' They said no. That was the incident.Think about it, if there was dirt on these people, the article would have said so.

Well, while my personal opinion is (as you know) that no one should teach that homosexuality is a bad thing, I'll have to watch this situation because I'm not sure that people aren't over reacting.

I'd like to know more about the history of the foster parents (but we probably won't hear about this case again).

I don't agree with this couple but I'm not sure they aren't being vilified.

Dunno, gonna have to think about this one.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a few queries if i may:

with the above in mind should couples be given 'gay attitude' tests prior to them conceiving?

in your opinion is it more harmful for a child to be brought up in an environment where homosexuality is frowned upon? or in a care home?

should parents who smoke be prevented from fostering or adopting children?

how about parents whose views are very extreme to the left or the right?

The state is the official care giver in this situation. It has a well defined set of rules concerning what it considers suitable care and not placing a child in a situation in which it could be exposed to prejudice is one of those rules. Materially it is little different to it not been allowed to place that child in the care of a know paedophile, wife beater or serial offender of any colour. It is a simple matter of degrees with expressed homophobia been on one end.The law is not a pick and choose mix.

Last time I looked the state did not regulate the internal conduct of families, unless that conduct broke the laws of the state. it therefore has absolutely no mandate to intervene in the internal affairs of a family.

There is a huge difference here - the state has legal responsibilities to those in its care which it cannot and will not pick and choose over. That literally is the end of it.

How flexible would you want the state to be, who has the authority to make such arbitory decisions ? This is why the law exists.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The state is the official care giver in this situation. It has a well defined set of rules concerning what it considers suitable care and not placing a child in a situation in which it could be exposed to prejudice is one of those rules. Materially it is little different to it not been allowed to place that child in the care of a know paedophile, wife beater or serial offender of any colour. It is a simple matter of degrees with expressed homophobia been on one end.The law is not a pick and choose mix.

Last time I looked the state did not regulate the internal conduct of families, unless that conduct broke the laws of the state. it therefore has absolutely no mandate to intervene in the internal affairs of a family.

There is a huge difference here - the state has legal responsibilities to those in its care which it cannot and will not pick and choose over. That literally is the end of it.

Br Cornelius

so what do you think about the state not allowing mixed race adoptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so what do you think about the state not allowing mixed race adoptions?

Personally I would be against that, but I can understand the logic of why it wouldn't be allowed. Mixed race children generally have a harder time of it than single race couples and so there is again a potential harm involved.

Br Cornelius

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.