Young Women Using Vocal Fry When They...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Christian Foster Parents
93 Answers
Yesterdays news - A Christian couple are forbidden to foster any more children because they refuse to instruct the 11 year old boy in their care about homosexuality being an acceptable alternative lifestyle, and to take the lad to homosexual discussion groups.
I haven't got a link yet.
I'd like to learn your views on this.
Personally, I think it is terrible and another example of political correctness gone too far.
I haven't got a link yet.
I'd like to learn your views on this.
Personally, I think it is terrible and another example of political correctness gone too far.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. 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.
The regulations do not impose a duty to 'promote' homosexuality.
In fact, reading the story from a slightly less hysterical source, the Torygraph, I find this: "[The Mathericks] said that officials had advised them that if children in their care expressed an interest in homosexuality, they would be expected to take them to gay support group meetings."
The words 'active promotion of homosexuality' come from the Mathericks, not the local authority.
How is this an unreasonable demand? They are not being told to promote homosexuality to a hetero child.
These people are saying that if a child in their care was gay, they would stop it from attending groups or getting information about its sexuality, and they do this because they are lead to believe homosexuality is a sin, because of their religious beliefs.
It's religion gone mad, I tell ya.
In fact, reading the story from a slightly less hysterical source, the Torygraph, I find this: "[The Mathericks] said that officials had advised them that if children in their care expressed an interest in homosexuality, they would be expected to take them to gay support group meetings."
The words 'active promotion of homosexuality' come from the Mathericks, not the local authority.
How is this an unreasonable demand? They are not being told to promote homosexuality to a hetero child.
These people are saying that if a child in their care was gay, they would stop it from attending groups or getting information about its sexuality, and they do this because they are lead to believe homosexuality is a sin, because of their religious beliefs.
It's religion gone mad, I tell ya.
I worry more about children of natural parents being brought up as racist and homophobic. This couple appear not to be homophobic in the sense that they consistently go on about homosexuality being evil, that the bloke at the end of the road is a big fat poof etc...they are simply going to address any questions asked about homosexuality as it being wrong in their eyes.
I just heard the foster dad in an interview on TV. Apparently the couple were ''required to promote homosexuality''.
I have a problem with this notion ~ as I cannot believe homosexuality can be promoted. It appears your sexuality can be marketed like a Nintendo DS...how ridiculous!
I just heard the foster dad in an interview on TV. Apparently the couple were ''required to promote homosexuality''.
I have a problem with this notion ~ as I cannot believe homosexuality can be promoted. It appears your sexuality can be marketed like a Nintendo DS...how ridiculous!
taking the religion issue out of it - i don't think parents should promote either homosexulaity or hetrosexuallity to children - simply allow children to learn as they are ready and become who they were meant to be from the day they were born - either way.
I do think though that Political Correctness has gone mad when it means children should be placed in hostels instead of with family's who care for them... of course children should not be with people who force beliefs on them but surely some level of common sense should mean the childs best interest is put first on a case by case basis rather than adhering to rules... it just always seems to be the kids who suffer :-(
I cannot say if these foster parents are good or bad as I don't know them but perhaps the child should be asked what he wants - at 11 he is certainly old enough to at least have his opinion taken into account
I do think though that Political Correctness has gone mad when it means children should be placed in hostels instead of with family's who care for them... of course children should not be with people who force beliefs on them but surely some level of common sense should mean the childs best interest is put first on a case by case basis rather than adhering to rules... it just always seems to be the kids who suffer :-(
I cannot say if these foster parents are good or bad as I don't know them but perhaps the child should be asked what he wants - at 11 he is certainly old enough to at least have his opinion taken into account
Why is why this so called 'promotion' requires the child to express an interest first. It is not down to the parents to instigate this. What the law says is that if a child does come to the realisation that it is gay, carers must allow that child to access materials/ groups etc that will allow it to develop as a healthy happy human being, not refuse because of some religious or ethical objections.
It is not about teaching kids about sexuality of any orientation before they are ready.
It is not about teaching kids about sexuality of any orientation before they are ready.
But in most circumstances a gay child rarely �comes out� until well into early adulthood � of course they may have felt or experienced homosexuality � but how likely is it that before the age of 16 or 18 that they would confide in their parents (let alone foster parents) that they felt they were gay? Of course one or two might, but by this point, it is likley the child would be well out of foster care anyway.
It is a shame that the story makes the anti-Christian band wagon such an easy one to jump on, and regardless of my personal views and opinions (which by no means share those of the �Christians� in this thread, or the Mathericks) I am guilty by association.
I know many non-religious families who have - and would - beat up, abandon and expel their own children if they though they were gay. Many many people have a problem with the idea of �promoting� homosexuality or even accepting it. It is a social issue not a religious one, the religious ones will be left behind in the dark, but the social ones will remain with us for a very long time regardless.
It is a shame that the story makes the anti-Christian band wagon such an easy one to jump on, and regardless of my personal views and opinions (which by no means share those of the �Christians� in this thread, or the Mathericks) I am guilty by association.
I know many non-religious families who have - and would - beat up, abandon and expel their own children if they though they were gay. Many many people have a problem with the idea of �promoting� homosexuality or even accepting it. It is a social issue not a religious one, the religious ones will be left behind in the dark, but the social ones will remain with us for a very long time regardless.
Oh I see what you mean. Casting the homosexual aspect aside for a moment�..
Let�s just suppose that your County Council states that they are �committed to promoting the interests of children and young people and welcomes foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths�. And for instance they placed a child in your care. And lets suppose that the Council had a form you had to sign which said that if the child at age 11 decided they wanted to be a Catholic (or Jewish or Muslim) you would have to teach them that this is acceptable and encourage them to join church (temple etc) groups and accompany them to church, would you sign it Waldo? And would you carry through with it? Or would you refuse to sign on principle and non-belief?
Let�s just suppose that your County Council states that they are �committed to promoting the interests of children and young people and welcomes foster carers from all backgrounds and faiths�. And for instance they placed a child in your care. And lets suppose that the Council had a form you had to sign which said that if the child at age 11 decided they wanted to be a Catholic (or Jewish or Muslim) you would have to teach them that this is acceptable and encourage them to join church (temple etc) groups and accompany them to church, would you sign it Waldo? And would you carry through with it? Or would you refuse to sign on principle and non-belief?
I think it's a slightly different issue, to be honest. Being gay is not something one chooses, one's religion is (or, at least, religion may be something that people absorb via cultural osmosis, but it's not inate).
However, if I were to be a carer, I would accept the rules.
In a wider sense, as a parent, my duty to my child is not to bring her up to believe what I believe, but to give her the ability to think critically enough to appraise the world for herself. While I hope she would think my general views on life were good ones, I don't deceive myself that we will end up thinking the same.
However, if I were to be a carer, I would accept the rules.
In a wider sense, as a parent, my duty to my child is not to bring her up to believe what I believe, but to give her the ability to think critically enough to appraise the world for herself. While I hope she would think my general views on life were good ones, I don't deceive myself that we will end up thinking the same.
Yes but you see, I don�t think that this couple had anything against homosexuality (subjective as I don�t know them personally). I don�t think their sense of duty was in question. I think the issue was them being required by a new law to do something that went against their beliefs. If the law said you had to do something that went against your beliefs (regardless of the child�s choices or innateness) you might feel differently about signing it. Could you really see yourself saying to a child that "being a Catholic is ok and I will support you in that", even though you find the religion abhorrent?
If a non-religious foster couple refused to sign the form on the basis that they believed homosexuality was immoral and depraved, would it have made national headlines? I doubt it.
If a non-religious foster couple refused to sign the form on the basis that they believed homosexuality was immoral and depraved, would it have made national headlines? I doubt it.
Well again that is subjective. Who is deciding what is good for the child, you or the law? I am doubtful to believe that an outright atheist would sign a form that made them agree to bring a child up in an organised religion � even if the law thought it was for the good of a child and your beliefs said otherwise.
Of course this is a general statement, but then that would be like saying that all Christians are degenerate homophobes. Isn�t it.
Of course this is a general statement, but then that would be like saying that all Christians are degenerate homophobes. Isn�t it.
From the report, so it may not be accurate. This couple could not sign the agreement, so they made the choice to resign as foster carers. The Local Authority would have no choice but to remove the child from non registered carers. I can not see that the LA went to the press, so it was the carers?
I think if they had not been Christian the press wouldn't have run the story. Being white Christians is going to be the epitome of Britishness as far as the DM is concerned, they are the victims of the loony pc brigade. I imagine the DM and the Express would have had quite a different take if it was black Muslims who resigned as carers when they could not accept that behaving lawfully would be at odds with their religious viewpoints.
I think if they had not been Christian the press wouldn't have run the story. Being white Christians is going to be the epitome of Britishness as far as the DM is concerned, they are the victims of the loony pc brigade. I imagine the DM and the Express would have had quite a different take if it was black Muslims who resigned as carers when they could not accept that behaving lawfully would be at odds with their religious viewpoints.
Octavius
Foster carers already have to promote a child's religious needs, this is enshrined in the law. So foster carers who are not religious have to accept if they want to be carers that they have to, and foster carers of one religious faith have to accept they would have to promote a faith that may not be theirs.
Foster carers already have to promote a child's religious needs, this is enshrined in the law. So foster carers who are not religious have to accept if they want to be carers that they have to, and foster carers of one religious faith have to accept they would have to promote a faith that may not be theirs.
Octavius
Not at all, I met some once and they are really far more normal and nicer than I ever expected.
WaldoMcFroog. There is an argument that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are choices. The view is that we are sexual beings and will be sexually active with both genders, just with the opposite sex for procreation. So that for some homosexuality is a positive choice, rather than something inflicted upon them.
Not at all, I met some once and they are really far more normal and nicer than I ever expected.
WaldoMcFroog. There is an argument that both heterosexuality and homosexuality are choices. The view is that we are sexual beings and will be sexually active with both genders, just with the opposite sex for procreation. So that for some homosexuality is a positive choice, rather than something inflicted upon them.
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Music5 mins ago
Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News8 mins ago
