Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

Should Christians be stopped from fostering because of their faith/belief?

LINK

I think there's a jump to a conclusion here, about the nature of the couple.

We changed churches because our vicar was extremely virulently and unpleasantly homophobic. However I have no problem with clergy who express their views sensitively, quietly, but, yes insistently, that an active homosexual "lifestyle" doesn't sit easily with them or with their church. I think it's possible to hold this view, and express this view, without being inhumane, bizarre or cruel.

Well, it's academic whether I would allow it or not, rightpissedoff, as my son is 19 and therefore perfectly entitled to lead any kind of life he wants!

But it is bizarre and cruel to say that you hate homosexuality but not the homosexual - in other words, my son would be perfectly acceptable to mariepuree as long as he doesn't indulge in any homosexual behaviour. Then he is to be hated. To quote MP again 'hate the sin not the sinner'.

How would you feel if you were that person, knowing that if you behave as is normal to you, you will be hated? That is bizarre and cruel.

I think her case was: that the couple are as capable of being as loving, generous and warm-hearted with a gay child as with a straight child, and that the alternative of children staying in care could very likely be worse than living with such a couple.

I don't think it was tremendously hard to understand.

Sorry about the extra * in there

No - she specifically said 'hate the sin but not the sinner' - and Being against the act of homosexuality is not the same as being against homosexuals.

I am trying to point out that this is what is bizarre and cruel. Because one is very much linked to the other.

I am not doubting that the couple in question believe themselves to be loving and caring.

Still trying to imagine what a senstive, quiet bigot might look like [mind boggles].

Well, it is quite hard for me to understand actually.

a) are they "as capable of being as loving, generous and warm-hearted with a gay child as with a straight child"? I see no evidence of that. How do you know?

b) this isn't simply about the sexuality of children, but about those around them and indeed the wider world.

C) "the alternative of children staying in care" doesn't make sense. They are 'care'. Are you assuming that this couple have kindly plucked said hypothetical child out of a children's home? Very unlikely indeed. And anyway, they are respite carers. This makes no sense at all.

I think it's academic from a much younger age than 19. Unless foster carers are prepared to do a "Carrie" and isolate any charges from all outside influence, any cared for child would be exposed to a great deal of positive media about homosexuality. I imagine that positive contacts themselves would be harder to come by, as the couple wouldn't have an "open" circle of friends.

It's not bizarre and cruel to say that. Christians (some Christians) think homosexuality is a sin, so they do put it on a level with other sins. But they (we) think everyone is a sinner in some way or another, so the driving force is love.

People complain that Christians make no attempt to understand: but I think there's a failure to understand or try to understand Christianity. It is a case of "sin, not sinner". It's not bizarre, or cruel: it's a way of embracing a world that is sometimes difficult to understand and to accept.

"it's a way of embracing a world that is sometimes difficult to understand and to accept."

No, it's a cop-out for bigots who want to appear not to be bizarre or cruel but have no better way of explaining to the non-bigoted world why they think in such a way.

Yes, by care, I mean a children's home. My view is coloured by a female relative, senior in the social work world, who has sat on many boards of inquiry into children's home abuses. That has definitely coloured my view. I'm very suspicious of reassurances that everything has changed now, though I'm not up to date on oversight issues at all.

Just reading through.

I think you're a bigot about Christianity. There are a couple of you who are bigots yourselves.

ie you don't understand and despite this you violently and aggressively express a prejudice against.

Maybe my definition of bigot is wrong but it seems to suit the circumstance.

'Care' is a catch-all term for looked after children.

Very few residential childrens homes exist, and certainly young children are incredibly unlikely to find themselves in one at any point in their care period, unless they are very difficult to place, ie. extreme needs.

Is homosexuality a sin, though? And who said so, and where?

There is no real need to try to understand any religion if the driving force is bigotry. Too many people hide behind religion because it suits their way of prejudiced thinking.

Oh no, I'm not bigoted against Christians. I firmly believe that people who preach and practice intolerance and hatred do so because they are bitter people, and simply use whatever religion or other excuse they can find to justify their views. This couple chose Christianity.

Actually, on Radio 2 today, they seemed to be saying that they wanted the right not to have a homosexual child placed with them- so they have changed their arguments as the day has progressed!

Quite what they would do if a child was placed with them that then turned out to have homosexual feelings. I don't know how they would be able to support them in a loving way without saying that their feelings were OK? "You're a sinner, but I still love you despite that"isn't the same as saying "It's fine to be who you are". There has to be a hiererchy of rights where there is a clear conflict, and the rights of someone not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality has to override a religious belief because there is no choice over ones sexuality, whereas a religious belief is just that- a belief that can and does change.

About 14 pc of 60,000 looked after children are in homes. That's about nine thousand children in children's homes.

Loopy, I think you are quite bigoted. For a start, you think that Christians preach and practise (sp) intolerance and hatred and you judge them on that. Scurryfunge thinks people take up religion because they are bigots in the first place, and judges them on that.

I think you are both more intolerant than any Christian I've ever met, apart from my horrible homophobic vicar.

I call you bigots because you are quite ignorant about Christianity but make terribly aggressive and offensive judgements about Christians.

"Is homosexuality a sin?"

Well I think the CoE view is that homosexuality is not a sin, but being an active homosexual is a sin. But within the CoE there are many, many Christians, as everyone knows, who think that an act of love must come from God, so homosexual love can't be any different.

I'm not c of E, but I thought it was fornication that was the sin, so anyone having sex outside marriage is a sinner, and homosexuals can't marry in church. Problem would be solved if they were allowed to marry in church, no?

No, I think there is specific reference to "lying with a man". There's a specific reference to it. You can tell I'm not a very good book-larnin' Christian. I'm pretty sure because lesbians have always said, well we're not mentioned so we must be ok -- we ain't never going to lie with a man! Anyhow. The marrying in church doesn't work because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Noeye, call me suspicious but I think you might be trying to score points. Good luck with that.

Not sure about the taking up of religion but would concur that religion nurtures a certain kind of hate and some people embrace that feeling.

If I am a bigot, rightpissed, then at least the law is on my side.

"Too many people hide behind religion because it suits their way of prejudiced thinking."

That's where you said it, also you said that the driving force of religion is bigotry. This is why I think you're bigoted yourself. I don't understand what you mean about the law being on your side. If I was in the wrong I wouldn't want the law on my side. But if you're proud of that, or if you justify your bigotry by that, how forward thinking of you

You called me a bigot.
I don't think I am a bigot.
If upholding the law means I am a bigot, then so be it.
That was my point.

"About 14 pc of 60,000 looked after children are in homes. That's about nine thousand children in children's homes."

Yes, but not 5-8 year olds (the group for whom this couple had been previously approved to foster). The vast majority of those 9000 or so will be older teens, having been through a string of broken down placements.

"Loopy, I think you are quite bigoted. For a start, you think that Christians preach and practise (sp) intolerance and hatred and you judge them on that. Scurryfunge thinks people take up religion because they are bigots in the first place, and judges them on that."

No, what I said was that bigots preach and practise intolerance and hatred, and that bigots who do can be found to cling onto establishments that make them feel acceptable for doing this. Not all Christians are bigots by a long stretch.