Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

Also do you want to look up concur in the dictionary. I don't know who you think you're concurring with but I haven't said it.

The thread isn't just about you rightpissed - I can agree with what others have said, you know

I wasn't actually aware that the Church of England, or any other faith for that matter, determined what was a sin according to the law of the land.

Homosexuality is perfectly legal, therefore it is not a sin.

Scurry, I know you don't think you are a bigot, but then neither do most bigots. I explained why you're a bigot. You don't understand, but you are prejudiced against in quite an aggressive way. You are using the fact that people agree with you as justification. That's rather nasty and a sort of ducking of responsibility, as if you don't have to think for yourself. Wrong and bigoted are wrong and bigoted, whether ten or ten thousand believe it.

If this is 5-8 year olds (excuse me not knowing) I'm not sure the issue of homosexuality will arise. It's a rare child that is conscious and aware of their sexual tendencies at that age. School sex education, if it covers the homosexual part, will cover it very fairly. So I'm not sure that a children's home would be preferable to this couple under those circumstances.

And again: the CoE view is that homosexuality is not a sin, but being an active homosexual is a sin

So my son can only be saved from sin if he doesn't enter into a relationship with another man. Therefore depriving him of a loving relationship.

Homosexuality is legal of course, but Christians believe it is a sin. They also believe sex outside marriage is a sin, although that is legal too. They also believe envying your neighbour's ox is a sin, although to my certain knowledge that is legal also. Not sure what your point is there.

I don't think anyone is saying that believing it's a sin entails determining it to be the law of the land. Who has said that? I think you are over-interpreting again biwi as before.

Smallwhitecat does make a good point. I could add to it with my point above: should active Christians or Muslims be forbidden to foster or adopt teenagers, because they disapprove of sex outside marriage? Should they be allowed to adopt a shoplifter when they believe "thou shalt not steal?"

Er, I don't think I am a bigot because I am not a bigot. There is no ducking of any responsibility here.

You are just using your religion to reinforce your own prejudice.

Your (non)argument is based on having your bigoted views challenged and retaliating by saying "no, you are a bigot, no returns".

That's all.

I don't think anyone is saying that believing it's a sin entails determining it to be the law of the land. Who has said that? I think you are over-interpreting again biwi as before.

I didn't say that either! Read my posts more carefully.

And how on earth am I over-interpreting anything here?

"They shold be regarded as child welfare issues full stop. I have some sympathy with the argument that these people shouldn;t be allowed to foster becasue they could damage the development of a homosexual child. I have none at all with the argument that they shouldn't be allowed to foster becasue it's discriminatory."

Yes, this is very well explained. I think these two issues are being conflated.

However I would disagree that placing a gay 5-8 yo with them rather than a children's home would necessarily be bizarre, cruel and inhumane, or even damaging. If it's judged that their approach would be damaging, that's a different thing entirely to their views in and of themselves being damaging.

"I wasn't actually aware that the Church of England, or any other faith for that matter, determined what was a sin according to the law of the land."

You said it here. You implied that other people believe this to be the case.

"Er, I don't think I am a bigot because I am not a bigot. There is no ducking of any responsibility here."

But you are a bigot: you are ignorant about Christianity but you aggressively express prejudice against it.

"You are just using your religion to reinforce your own prejudice." I don't have a prejudice against homosexuals. I left a church because the vicar did. You are assuming I have a prejudice because I am a Christian. That will be your ignorance and bigotry at work again.

"Your (non)argument is based on having your bigoted views challenged"

I don't have any bigoted view.

"and retaliating by saying "no, you are a bigot, no returns"."

No, I really think you are a bigot, and now I think you're quite childish also.

That's all.

I was responding the assertion that homosexuality is a sin.

It is the Church/other faiths, apparently, that say it's a sin.

Our legal system decides what is and is not a sin.

I would imagine that many people like me believe this to be the case.

Better?

Not really because I don't understand the point of what you're saying.

The Church (and other faiths) believe homosexuality is a sin, yes.

The legal system decides what is a crime, I would say, but I'll give you sin.

This is the case, it's not an issue of belief or otherwise.

What is your point?

"I would imagine that many people like me believe this to be the case."

Why is this an issue of belief? It's an issue of fact.

Not sure what the argument is here.

rightpissed,
You say you are a Christian and that Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (see where I am going here?).

Who are you to judge someone else's sexuality?

You said you left your church because the minister was unpleasantly homophobic. What is pleasant homophobia all about then and why do you find that preferable?

Continue to throw the "yes but, no but" argument at me but I really have to go and make dinner. Will try to catch up later.

rightpissedoff:

I'm a Christian and I dont beleive homosexuality is a sin.

Don't tar us all with your own homophobic brush please.

Don't tar me with the homophobic brush either

Learn to read lovey.

But you are judging the situation and suggesting that people who are homophobic should be allowed to foster children.

SO that suggests that even if you are not homophobic yourself, you support the right of people to be homophobic and to be allowed to be so even if the welfare of children is at risk through it.

Sounds homophobic to me.

I'm sure it does, but that'll be the rush to judgement kicking in.

I think it's more sensitive than that. As I said earlier [ibid: learn to read] there is a difference between holding a view, and the approach and the way you express that view. It's very possible that the welfare of a child is not put at risk at all: indeed, if the alternative is a children's home, the welfare of the child may benefit.

Did you hear the couple interviewed on the Today programme this morning? The wife was asked what she would say to a foster child placed with her who identified as gay or who said they thought they might be gay. After much bluster, the best she could come up with was "we'd work through it with them - we would still show them that we loved them" and when pressed, made it abundantly clear that "working through" would involve telling the child that homosexuality was a sin/wrong.

So they are unfit to care for children who may be gay. And as no one knows if a child is going to be gay or not, ergo they are unfit to care for children. I think the Christianity bit is a total smokescreen. I couldn't give a toss what's behind their views TBH

I haven't got any bigotry SGM -- there you go with the assumptions again. For people who hate prejudice, you do all seem to jump around in it like a ball pool.

In fact I find it quite an issue: I am supposed to believe something in the Bible, and I don't, and I'm friends with people whose "lifestyle" I'm suppose to condemn, which I don't, and don't have an inkling of instinct or desire to condemn. It wouldn't occur to me if it wasn't in the Bible, so when I think about it there is a conflict.

But I do know many Christians who are able to be extremely mature about these issues. I think calling it homophobia is almost mistaken, somehow -- you get the impression of some awful skinhead violent thug. Whereas it's quite painful for a lot of believers, who understand that it's deeply painful to be excluded and judged, particularly for homosexual Christians.

Also I don't deny that there are homophobic people in the church, as well as people who aren't homophobes, but because of their religion they feel they need to convert, convince, "cure", heal and so on. I have found however that for the average middle stump Anglican it's not like that at all.