Crosswords0 min ago
Should they be allowed to adopt?
43 Answers
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.
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I'm sure in their own minds these people are very genuine and think they are doing the right thing. However it is unacceptable that they would find themselves unable to support a foster child in their choice of sexuality, that would be extremely damaging to a child, not to mention would foster outdated views about others in the commuinity in that young mind. I agree though AOG, it is an awful pity that some compromise can't be found, but I fail to see, since they are so militant about their beliefs, how it could.
Your description, Ankou, of this couple as “religious loons” just about sums up the attitude of people who, when faced with something they do not like or agree with, resort to simple insults. How about if people who supported gay people and their lifestyles were to be described as “homosexual loons”. Very tasty, I’m sure.
To try to be a bit more constructive, the social workers’ attitude to this couple is a little strange to say the least and the reasons for the judgement delve into speculation which is, perhaps, not appropriate. Nobody (apart from the Johns) is being discriminated against; no gay people are being ostracised or persecuted. All the judgement suggests is that IF any child that the Owens may adopt turns out to be gay its adoptive parents MIGHT not provide it with the support it needs. Too many “ifs” I fancy.
Meantime social workers will not place black children with white adoptive parents (until the effects of a recent government ruling filter down) and thousands of black children remain in need of adoption. This couple could have helped that problem, but we mustn’t have anybody “off message” (that is, with any views contrary to the ruling liberal mafia) adopting children, must we? Far better they remain in care, being passed from pillar to post.
To try to be a bit more constructive, the social workers’ attitude to this couple is a little strange to say the least and the reasons for the judgement delve into speculation which is, perhaps, not appropriate. Nobody (apart from the Johns) is being discriminated against; no gay people are being ostracised or persecuted. All the judgement suggests is that IF any child that the Owens may adopt turns out to be gay its adoptive parents MIGHT not provide it with the support it needs. Too many “ifs” I fancy.
Meantime social workers will not place black children with white adoptive parents (until the effects of a recent government ruling filter down) and thousands of black children remain in need of adoption. This couple could have helped that problem, but we mustn’t have anybody “off message” (that is, with any views contrary to the ruling liberal mafia) adopting children, must we? Far better they remain in care, being passed from pillar to post.
<<Too many “ifs” I fancy.>>
No. There only needs to be one.
IF a child in their care declared him or herself homosexual they would be told that it was 'unacceptable' and 'not a good thing' by their foster parents.
Instead of support thay would potentially be undermined and perhaps damaged.
That child is the person who could be <<discriminated against; ostracised or persecuted>>
The fact that they are religious and choose to base their lives around a selection of superstition, stories and myths is also regretable and grounds enough anyway for hesitating to put children in their care.
.
.
No. There only needs to be one.
IF a child in their care declared him or herself homosexual they would be told that it was 'unacceptable' and 'not a good thing' by their foster parents.
Instead of support thay would potentially be undermined and perhaps damaged.
That child is the person who could be <<discriminated against; ostracised or persecuted>>
The fact that they are religious and choose to base their lives around a selection of superstition, stories and myths is also regretable and grounds enough anyway for hesitating to put children in their care.
.
.
To answer the question - no they shouldn't be allowed adopt, but due to age - they're in their 60s. But that's not what the story is about, it's about fostering and respite care and that's very different.
Should they be alowed foster? I don't think so - put a vulnerable young teen in there who has gender/sexuality issues and you have a recipe for disaster.
BUT - and it's a BIG BUT! - your own link states, tight up there near the top, that they withdrew their own application. Seems like they haven't the courage of thei convictions but that's never stopped the Mail printing a story
Should they be alowed foster? I don't think so - put a vulnerable young teen in there who has gender/sexuality issues and you have a recipe for disaster.
BUT - and it's a BIG BUT! - your own link states, tight up there near the top, that they withdrew their own application. Seems like they haven't the courage of thei convictions but that's never stopped the Mail printing a story
-- answer removed --
All very possible, Zeuhl. Of course it is far better to leave a child to languish in care because of the outside chance that it might turn out to be gay and that its adoptive parents might not support it in the way social workers think fit, than to place it in a loving home.
The problem is that social workers think it is only acceptable to place a child in absolutely ideal conditions when adoption is considered. These ideal circumstances are never bestowed upon children who grow up with their natural parents and even a slightly unsatisfactory adoption situation (and the situation speculated here can at worst be only slightly unsatisfactory) must be better than a childhood in care.
Despite your assertion there would be no discrimination against the child. Different viewpoints may be put to it throughout its life, but all children “suffer” that. It’s called being brought up – a luxury that children in care are rarely afforded.
The problem is that social workers think it is only acceptable to place a child in absolutely ideal conditions when adoption is considered. These ideal circumstances are never bestowed upon children who grow up with their natural parents and even a slightly unsatisfactory adoption situation (and the situation speculated here can at worst be only slightly unsatisfactory) must be better than a childhood in care.
Despite your assertion there would be no discrimination against the child. Different viewpoints may be put to it throughout its life, but all children “suffer” that. It’s called being brought up – a luxury that children in care are rarely afforded.
-- answer removed --
Christians should be allowed to adopt in the same way that anyone else can - but if they hold hardline views, they should be protected from vulnerable children. As we have seen recently - some Christians are completely unable to divorce their religious beliefs (based on a book if magical tales with fantastical stories) from the real world, where there are gay kids who wouldn't be happy being placed with 'Carrie's mother'.
What's important here is the well-being of the children involved, not the sensibilities of prospective adopters.
What's important here is the well-being of the children involved, not the sensibilities of prospective adopters.
agree with seadog, they should be allowed to be respite / foster carers for the right child, their views should be taken into account and, although I strongly disagree with their views, I'm sure they could still provide a much needed home to a child.
They should then be judged on how they have actually cared for a child.
They should then be judged on how they have actually cared for a child.
-- answer removed --
This actually has nothing to do with homosexuality or religion but of course that is what the headlines focus on.
If a couple wants to care for a child that is obviously vulnerable in the first place then there should be no risk of that child being further isolated by losing the support of the people who are supposed to be providing that care purely because of something that is pretty much outside the child's control. In this case there would be that risk so in the interests of the child that risk has now been removed.
If a couple wants to care for a child that is obviously vulnerable in the first place then there should be no risk of that child being further isolated by losing the support of the people who are supposed to be providing that care purely because of something that is pretty much outside the child's control. In this case there would be that risk so in the interests of the child that risk has now been removed.
