Fostering/Promotion of same sex relationships

[flip_flop]

Has common sense prevailed?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /news/news.html?in_article_id=491221&in_page_i d=1770

[Gromit]

It is good that the couple have seen sense and signed a reworded contract which effectively says the same thing. It is a shame that their faith prevents them complying with the law. Maybe in future the council should think twice about allowing children be fostered by christians.

It is a shame they have put this boy through such an ordeal just to prove a moral point. Better to have signed the contract and treated the boy like all the other children they have successfully adopted.

[China Doll]

Consistency in ignorance is never worth celebrating.

[Lucy Thomas]

Will the idiots at Somerset Council now be held to account for ever entering into this shameful debacle. They have severely disrupted the life of a (supposedly) troubled child and called into question the morals and decency of, on the face of it, good, caring foster parents.

You can hold a gun to peoples' heads but what they do after that is up to them. The couple may have signed the contract but I doubt they will suddenly start to say what a wonderful thing homosexuality is.

Thse interfering busybodies at the council should be immediately removed from their posts.

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry, but Christian couple who think that homosexuality is a curse of the devil should not be allowed to foster (and I am not saying that this couple do think this)

Yes, common sense has prevailed - the couple have agreed that they will not discriminate on sexual orientation grounds - surely a prerequisite for any fostering parents.

What would happen if this troubled child turns out to be gay?

The initial contract was probably drawn up incorrectly and it has now been rectified - problem solved.

[LoftyLottie]

I agree with Gromit (once again!). The foster child's welfare and happiness was oviously less important to this couple than their so called religious principles. Most people would have signed even though they might not have agree with it in order that they could continue to foster and help needy children. So much for being good, kind and caring people!

However, like Lucy, I think it's an absolutely ridiculous thing to have to sign such a contract.

[Supernick]

Anyone who fosters a child should be doing so in an environment that promotes equality. What if they said that due to their beliefs they were not prepared to promote racial equality? It's entirely right that they have to sign an agreement of this nature.

Having said that, this doesn't appear to have been handled desperately well by the social services, and the child should not have been taken away which undoubtedly caused a lot of distress.

I'm not saying that the Mathericks are bad people. Far from it. I find them entirely admirable, and they could teach any one of us a lesson in caring and dedicating your life to somethig worthy. But a child deserves an upbringing where equality of their fellow human beings is promoted

[anotheoldgit]

It's alright then for social services to take away a child from a loving hetrosexual couple, all in the name of political correctness?

Yet in this liberal thinking society we now find ourselves in it seems perfectly alright , to foster out young boys to homosexual couples.

I am not saying that for most part they would be perfectly safe in a loving relationship, but why take a chance. Before all of AB comes crashing down on me, I ask this question, how many parents on this site would (given the choice) choose to leave their young sons in the care of a hetrosexual couple or a homosexual couple?

Yes I know there would be alot of uneasiness, head turning, whispers, is anyone listening? but I think the answer would be the former rather than the latter.

[ruby27]

The carers had 'resigned' as carers, they therefore were no longer registered as foster carers. The local authority can not allow children to remain with unregistered foster carers.

[ruby27]

AOG

Statistically if you are concerend about your child being at risk of abuse when in foster care, it is safer to leave your child with homosexual males than hetrosexual males. Most abuse is committed by hetrosexual males, so gay men are terrifically safe.
Statistically if you are worried about your child turning out gay, most gay children had straight parents, so its safer to leave your children with gay couple.
Statistically if you are worried about your children turning out like AOG, its safer to leave your children with gay men rather than narrow minded white britiish christians with a narrow and traditional viewpoint.

[jno]

great, bring them up as Christians like these

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/ 0,,2203227,00.html

[LoftyLottie]

Well put Ruby. You have said all I wanted to say, but much better than I could have done. I don't know if the person who prompted your reply purports to be a 'Christian'. If he is, I really do hope I am right in assuming that he isn't a real example of the majority of those of Christian faith.

[Oneeyedvic]

It's alright then for social services to take away a child from a loving hetrosexual couple, all in the name of political correctness?

No, they took a child away from a couple who would not sign their legal agreement. They have now changed the terms and conditions of the agreement (which most rational people will agree with) and therefore the child can be reunited.

Would you be happy fostering a child to a family who thought it was wicked and sinful to be gay?

[Booldawg]

same-sex relationships is something has has to be tolerated by todays society - not championed.

[grasscarp]

I think that nobody should be forced to promote something that they dont want to.

[ruby27]

Booldawg - in your view, others like myself have a different opinion. For some, a gay relationship is a positive first choice.

grasscarp - they had a choice. To sign the contract which ensured that they were fulfilling statutory obligations as Local Authority foster carers, or they could choose to privilege their religious views over and above their duties.

[anotheoldgit]

Most abuse is committed by hetrosexual males, so gay men are terrifically safe.

ruby21

If a male commits a sexual act with another male, does that not make him homosexual, bi-sexual or at the least in possession of homosexual tendencies.

Statistically if you are worried about your children turning out like AOG, its safer to leave your children with gay men rather than narrow minded white britiish christians with a narrow and traditional viewpoint.

Why do you have to be so personally rude with your answers ruby? Is not one allowed to have their own personal opinion on a subject, without being labelled narrow minded White British Christians?

I think these venomous words are not only racist, against the White British, but also insulting and offensive to Christians.

Are you not aware that some Blacks, other nationalities, and other religions also have very strong feelings on this matter? Muslims are a good example.

Or would not your own narrow minded Liberal Left leanings, allow yourself to similarly label Blacks or Muslims for example.

Regarding possessing a traditional viewpoint. I have a traditional viewpoint on many things, and most of these have a firm moral footing, and I believe they should remain traditional?

[Oneeyedvic]

So to repeat the question AOG: "Would you be happy fostering a child to a family who thought it was wicked and sinful to be gay? "

[anotheoldgit]

Why not, if that is their belief. It does not make them any more unsuitable to foster.

They may have their own feelings regarding homosexuality, but instill other values to bring them up to be good law abiding citizens, something we are a little short of these days.

[ruby27]

AOG
If a male etc. No. Forced sexual intercourse by heterosexual males on non consenting males does take place, but is not homosexuality, it is sexual abuse. Any one who is anti homosexuality in my view is dogmatic and narrow minded what ever their religious or cultural persuasion

I unreservedly offer my apologies for my rudeness towards you. I get too passionate and fail to comprehend the impact of my intemperate and impetuousness comments may have.
You and I are free to disagree, but I have not right to be personally insulting. Sorry. However I maintain my right to lambaste your opinions as I am sure you will continue to do with mine.

[Oneeyedvic]

To instil into a gay child that what they are is wicked, sinful or disgusting is child abuse. Pure and simple.

Still, I am sure that you think it is perfectly acceptable for these children to be 'cured' by the birch. Good old fashion values.