Home Politics & Debate

Christian Couple Barred from Fostering

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Outside of a situation where the adopted child is homosexual I don't see any reason why holding the belief that homosexuality is immoral would impair the couple's ability to be good parents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Outside of a situation where the adopted child is homosexual I don't see any reason why holding the belief that homosexuality is immoral would impair the couple's ability to be good parents.
    I don't think the ruling is over the belief they would be bad parents for holding their belief homosexuality is wrong. But it certainly holds a point. It could be branched out further, should couples who are members of the KKK be allowed to adopt? Should couples who support specific parties like the BNP not be allowed to adopt?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Outside of a situation where the adopted child is homosexual

    But how do you know?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good, I'm glad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Them being Christian has nothing to do with why they are not allowed to adopt.

    It is their views, not all christians share the same views.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I support the ruling. I was always taught that the golden rule in christianity was tolerance, to treat others as you would wish to be treated. Those that try to support personal prejudices by citing abstract and outdated parts of any religious text are offending to both their faith and their wider community. That or they're to impressionable and sheep-like to think for themselves. Either way, they shouldn't be raising children. This is why I disapprove of organised religion. Rant over.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JavaKrypt wrote: »
    I don't think the ruling is over the belief they would be bad parents for holding their belief homosexuality is wrong.

    The article seemed to imply that their prejudice against homosexuality was the thing preventing them from adopting. I assumed that the agency responsible for reviewing their application would make a decision based on whether or not they found the couple for be fit parents. Am I mistaken?
    Big Gay wrote: »
    But how do you know?

    You don't I guess.
    G-Raffe wrote: »
    Them being Christian has nothing to do with why they are not allowed to adopt.

    It is their views, not all christians share the same views.
    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Everyone has views. The fact that they may or may not be dictated by dude in Rome has nothing to do with it. I suppose if you don't like homosexuality and are atheist that's ok with the adoption people? Just as long as whatever mental opinions you may have are arbitrary and not dictated by any recognised religious dogma, that's ok then.

    Jesus wept, pun intended.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Outside of a situation where the adopted child is homosexual I don't see any reason why holding the belief that homosexuality is immoral would impair the couple's ability to be good parents.

    they might have gay parents, gay relatives, gay friends which would make it confusing for the child, but even without those things, its best that people dont bring children up to be homophobic.
    Itd be the same if a racist couple wanted to adopt/foster too
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are a lot more intolerant faiths than Christianity out there, don't Muslims believe being gay is immoral too? Just an example, not picking on one specific faith before anyone comments..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Everyone has views. The fact that they may or may not be dictated by dude in Rome has nothing to do with it. I suppose if you don't like homosexuality and are atheist that's ok with the adoption people?
    I very much doubt that.

    Incidentally, that article is Daily Fail at its finest, and has got more spin in it than my washing machine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Same story in the Guardian.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They've fostered 15 children before so they've clearly been deemed as suitable on all other fronts. It's a shame they have to be bigots on this issue. I'd wager it's still likely to be of net benefit to a kid to be fostered by these two, rather than have them stay in the home they need respite from.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    from the guardian article
    The court heard that Mrs Johns said she would not compromise her beliefs but did value young people and said she would support them. Diamond said she told the council: "There's got to be other ways of going on without having to compromise my faith."

    this seems to imply that she wouldn't let her personal beliefs affect the way she treated/brought up a child. in an ideal society your own personal views shouldnt affect the work you do but i guess it isn't as easy as that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was on the news this morning that the rules are going to change, soon white couples will be able to take children from ethnic backgrounds... Why the fuck couldn't they anyway?????? Isn't that rascism..? And don't start sayng 'positive discrimination' cos that's shite, discrimination is wrong full stop, it's NOT ok for some and not for others, just WRONG..
    I have some very good Asian pals that foster kids, they have two lovely white girls and as it happens their so called parents are rascist, just thought that was funny, big kick up the arse to for them eh?? Haha
    Any good foster parents should be able to take in any kids, shouldn't matter what colour or bloody religion they are... I am sure they'll be better off than in a home..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TJT6768 wrote: »
    It was on the news this morning that the rules are going to change, soon white couples will be able to take children from ethnic backgrounds... Why the fuck couldn't they anyway?????? Isn't that rascism..? And don't start sayng 'positive discrimination' cos that's shite, discrimination is wrong full stop, it's NOT ok for some and not for others, just WRONG..
    I have some very good Asian pals that foster kids, they have two lovely white girls and as it happens their so called parents are rascist, just thought that was funny, big kick up the arse to for them eh?? Haha
    Any good foster parents should be able to take in any kids, shouldn't matter what colour or bloody religion they are... I am sure they'll be better off than in a home..

    im sure they are?

    i thought it was seen as more beneficial for kids from ethnic minority backgrounds to go to adoptive parents of the same background so that the child can learn about their culture etc. but im sure it isn't against the law for it to be different. correct me if im wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can't think it's right for say a Muslim couple to take a Christian child in but not the other way around? That's the point I was making, sure it would be ideal but the world doesn't work that way, and it's sad but true that not as many ethnic parents will foster or adopt ethnic kids(let alone any others) as much as white or Christian parents do.. And that's THE ONLY reason they're changing the rules, kinda pisses me off a bit that it should be a fair system..
    I thought equality meant just that, not some are more equal than others.. My friends are a rare breed sadly.. I think what they're doing is amazing, they have no plans to 'convert' the kids, but I am sure that would be the same the other way round too..
    Just my opinion like..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I may be barking up the wrong tree but I suspect this particular couple are providing a useful conduit for various legal eagles to commence battle on the apparent contradictory controversy brought about by the Equality Act.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I may be barking up the wrong tree but I suspect this particular couple are providing a useful conduit for various legal eagles to commence battle on the apparent contradictory controversy brought about by the Equality Act.
    Eh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Same story in the Guardian.

    And its the 3rd paragraph by the time they mention that the couple are Christians.
    In the Daily Mail article it was the main headline.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    While in principle, a homophobic couple aren't the ideal people to foster children, I'd argue that just like any other parents foster parents only need to be 'good enough'.

    If they are good foster parents in other ways, and don't have an actively homophobic household then they should still be considered as foster parents.

    It's not for the council to police how parents think, fair enough how they behave and the attitudes that they promote in their home to foster children, but not how people can think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They've fostered 15 children before so they've clearly been deemed as suitable on all other fronts. It's a shame they have to be bigots on this issue. I'd wager it's still likely to be of net benefit to a kid to be fostered by these two, rather than have them stay in the home they need respite from.

    I agree, and I think liability is the main reason for demanding perfection in foster parents. If they put a child in a family that damages it, they will be blamed, even if the judgement of the risks clearly favoured that option. It's the psychological difference between actively putting a child in a dangerous situation, and not removing it from a dangerous situation. I don't think it's good for a kid to grow up in a homophobic household, particularly as there's a chance of that being a real issue to that child in the future. But on the balance of risks, I'd bet it's far less damaging than the reasons for them being candidates for foster homes in the first place. And in the absence of large numbers of families willing to do this job, I don't think perfection can be expected, and this is ultimately a rather minor complaint in the grand scheme of things. Unless of course you go the Danish route, and give every child in care their own personal care worker until they're 18, which gets far better results anyway. It's expensive, but I'd be interested to know the savings when we're talking about a group that is far more likely to become a burden on the state in one form or another in the long run.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lea_uk wrote: »
    Eh?

    The Equality Act gave birth to the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.

    The Equality Act outlawed discrimination whilst providing goods and services on the grounds of religion and belief.

    The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations addendum outlaws discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

    My suspicion was that this couple had been used as pawns (by a special interest group) to test the law (since only the couple themselves would have standing to do so). That is just a guess, as I have not seen the court papers, and the newspaper reporting is usually (legally, at least) off base.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fucking hell GOS, that's one of the only sensible things I've seen you post on here.
Sign In or Register to comment.