Should they be allowed to adopt?

[anotheoldgit]

http://tinyurl.com/4nasdy5

Can't remember who first pointed this out in my previous post, because it was removed, or at least I could not find it when I went back to it.

Anyway this should make some take sides, their loyalties are about to become stretched, I think.

My own personal view I think it is disgusting that they are not allowed to adopt, for this ridiculous reason.

[Ankou]

new judge, for one who usually comes across as intelligent and erudite, statements such as ....

"How about if people who supported gay people and their lifestyles were to be described as “homosexual loons”"

makes you look like a buffoon. homosexuality, unlike religion, is not an ideology. it also doesn't set out, unlike religion, to discriminate against people who are different and don't conform to their lifestyle.

[youngmafbog]

Ankou, it was you that started the name calling - again. That was the point New judge was making.

And hey look, you have done it again.

These people should be allowed to foster. I am sure there are many children requiring care who are not homosexual and have religious beliefs. To deprive them of a loving home albeit temporary is libneralism dissapearing up its own jacksy

[gingejbee]

Just heard them arguing their case on Radio 2- they might start by improving their language skills so that they could be understood better.

[Ankou]

lol trigs

[anotheoldgit]

gingejbee

/// they might start by improving their language skills so that they could be understood better.///

Wow, I bet you don't half love call centres with that attitude?

[rov1100]

Put the problem in reverse. Can you imagine Gay couples who have adopted (no names....but initials EJ) encouraging the child to form hetrosexual relationships as it gets older?

[anotheoldgit]

/// During the case, the Equality and Human Rights Commission argued that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral views.///

So that puts a stop to all Muslims from fostering then, in case the children are also 'infected' by Islamic moral views?

Perhaps gay couples should also not be allowed to foster straight children, in case the children are also 'infected' by homosexual moral views?

/// their views on sexual morality may be ‘inimical’ – or harmful – to children.///

Perhaps Social Services should now be consulted first, if Christian's couples (who happen to hold a particular view on homosexuality) wish to raise a family, think of all the harm it could do to their future children?

I agree that laws should be made and upheld to protect homosexuals and other minorities from persecution etc, but the scales of equality have swung too far the other way now, and 'Gay Rights' are now interfering with the majorities freedom of speech and their liberties.

[jackthehat]

rov - You can not alter a persons innate sexuality.

EJ & DF will guide their child/ren to form healthy relationships (one hopes) wherever their focus lays.
Gay parents have straight children and vice versa.

[Ankou]

"Can you imagine Gay couples who have adopted (no names....but initials EJ) encouraging the child to form hetrosexual relationships as it gets older?"

yes, or no, depending upon the growing childs own sexual preferences.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// some Christians are completely unable to divorce their religious beliefs (based on a book if magical tales with fantastical stories) from the real world, ///

I assume you would also include Muslims and their book, in all this?

[Ankou]

aog, whats that got to do with the op ?

[New Judge]

You’re quite right, Ankou. Homosexuality is not a religion. However, followers of religion are (in general) no more worthy of the description “loons” than homosexuals. That was the point I was trying to make. I obviously did not do so very well, though youngmafbog seemed to get my drift.

I’m afraid your reaction to me pointing this out has reinforced my belief that there are a number of people around who immediately denigrate anything or anybody they are not comfortable with.

Everybody has different views, Ankou. Because you do not share them it does not make them “loons” any more than it makes you one.

[Ankou]

i wouldn't be offended if they called me an atheist loon. but that would be baseless. they are using their religious belief to justify their discrimination, which the judge has said is unlawful.

[sp1814]

AOG

Yes of course I would include Muslims, but yet again - it's Christians (like the B&B owners, and registrars) who cannot function properly because of their fervently held beliefs.

It is this simple...

You cannot place a vulnerable child with foster parents who, because of their beliefs, would cause the child further mental harm.

The Christians in this case are not being forced to accept homosexuality, but ARE expected to be able to support a homosexual teenager.

If they cannot do that then they cannot foster.

Why should their rights supersede the rights of a kid who has (say) been thrown out of their house because they're gay?

That would simply be insane. Why would anyone want that? Aren't there enough gay teenagers trying to commit suicide?

[natalie]

Religous people seem to ignore much of the Bible
for example nothing in there says anything against homosexuals adopting
it does say "no man should lie with another" But they dont have to be a "practicing
" homosexual to adopt just be in a loving caring stable relationship.
Jesus said on marriage "what god has formed let n man separate" yet we still allow divorce.
How can Christians not allow adoption within a homosexual relationship something Jesus had no opinion (we know) of but allow divorce!
xD

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

The Christians in this case are not being forced to accept homosexuality, but ARE expected to be able to support a homosexual teenager.

They have already said they are prepared to love and accept any child.

Read their words, nothing wrong going off there.

/// Mrs Johns, a retired nurse, said: ‘This is a sad day for Christianity. The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We do not believe that this is so. 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.’ ///

[sandyRoe]

Apart from anything else, are they not too old to adopt children?

[andy-hughes]

I for one would hear loud alarm bells ringing if I thought that anyone fostering (they are not trying adopt sandyRoe) had sufficiently entrenched views from what ever source - that would impinge on their ability to care for any child's personality and sexuality without fear or favour.

At a stroke, that encapuslates any fundamental religionists, any sexual bigots or any pursuasion - in fact anyone who cannot simply love a child unconditionally, without certain beliefs triggering a pattern of upbringing based on the beliefs of the carer, rather than the needs of the child.

This couple asked for a ruling - and they received one - it's a shame they didn't like the ruling they got, but the law must be obeyed, not agreed with.

I would question the suitability of anyone to care for a child if they have beliefs that countermand the simple ability to love and care for a damaged infant.

Doesn't the Christian faith preach 'Hate the sin, love the sinner'?

If that's too hard to practise, don't offer to foster children.