Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

All right, I don't have friends who are gay

Scurrfunge: You totally misunderstand.

I do work with teenagers and I find it incredible you can comment on my job. I have never in the last ten years even talked about homosexuality with my students ...I do my job,,(don't spend the whole day looking for issues)...listen, teach and have had great relationships with lots of kids...they have succeeded because I listened and DIDN'T judge them.

You are judging me... I don't equate homosexuality to drugs,promiscuity etc... I would never tell a child they are sinful....but I have views on things and so do you.

Listening to Radio 2 yesterday discussing this issue a lady who is on the Equality and Diveristy Commission and agreed with the judges ruling actually had sypmapthy with the couple and felt things had gone a little too far...now that is tolerance. She didn't scream at them for their Christian views!

Scurryfunge you did a real bigot bingo score last night, remember? Ignorance plus aggressive prejudice. I don't think saying you have gay friends is quite as bad as that.

Have you read the thread ilove? We're raking over old ground again...

You're all sounding a bit fanatical now so I'm off to do the vacuuming

rightpissed -I think you will find that ignorance and aggression are all yours, especially your wilful ignorance.

Grandhigh; ' they were prepared to tell a child they were sinful'

Were they? when did they say that?

No.. I haven't been aggressive at all. You have. Also you have a deep prejudice about Christianity. Expressed aggressively on this thread. That makes you a bigot. I have not been aggressive, and I have expressed no prejudice. Perhaps you should revisit the dictionary -- you do seem fond of throwing around the word bigot without really knowing what it means.

Ner ner ner ner ner ner! Can we get back on topic please?

It was your little friend who started with the Bigot Bingo!! like a child. Well done for calling her into line.

?My little friend?

This is getting silly now. I'm going now, I'll check back later to see if coherent discussion can be made by the pro-telling-kids-being-gay-is-bad camp. Doubt it though.

Just ignore rpo -she is derailing on purpose.

carmina -the couple stated they that they would tell a child that homosexuality was not acceptable(from a Christian stance presumably).

whereas "bigot bingo!" is a valuable contribution which you don't like being called on

loopy yes, your colleague in screaming "bigot" at people who disagree with you

I think the term they used was unacceptable, as it was a sin. I believe that it was during the interviews after the judgement.

Thing is, I don't think that these people are bad people, however much I disagree with their views. I'm sure that they don't approach each new child in their care with a leaflet on their views. The problem is, that we cannot tell which children will have issues with their sexuality,(and yes, I think an 8 year old can be aware of their sexuality, and be confused and scared by that awareness) so we cannot avoid a situation whereby this couple do a huge amount of psychological damage to an already vulnerable child. If they were able to say to the child that it was OK to be thinking these things, but that this was not their area of expertise, and they would help them find the support they needed, then that would be one thing. But this couple are saying that they so strongly feel that homosexuality is wrong, that they would be unable to put this aside in the interests of the child, and would have to tell the child their feelings were unacceptable.

RPO, I don't know if anyone has ever explained the nature of the internet to you, but those of us who disagree with you are not sitting in a room together, deciding what to post. One person mentioning bigot bingo does not invalidate all the arguments that are being made that you happen to disagree with. But acknowledging that might mean that you need to actually respond to the actual facts of the discussion.

rpo- the reference was an attempt to highlight the absurdity of ilmh's posts. I don't mind being called on it at all - it is just a way or recognising that certain arguments have predictable responses. (by the way, it is entirely predictable that you should derail at this point ).

I too don't believe these people are inherently bad -it is their views that are inappropriate for this era and the fact that they would be willing to act on their prejudices. The law has quite rightly picked them up on this.

Anyway...need to get on....will pick up later if it's still going.

SF;

Only if the subject came up though I'm sure - which let's face it, doesn't come up often in the average young Childs life.
When all said and done - this is just another example of Christianity ( and all religion ) being seen as outdated nonsense, and that religious people need not apply/ take a hike/ whatever - that's a bad thing imo and not going to help the 1000's of children in care who come from a religious background. -

And saying homosexuality is not acceptable ( from a Christian stance ) is not the same as telling a child she's sinful and will go to hell - I doubt Mr and Mrs Johns would have said that.

Granhighpoohba

I agree with you. I can say what I want to my own children but work for the public sector so take very seriously my responsibility to the young people I work with. I would never impose my faith on a student and in 10 years the subject of homosexuality has never come up...and many subjects have! It would never enter my head to call anyone sinful. I do my job...teach literacy to kids who have failed.

I work in a very diverse team - Christians, homosexuals, agnostics etc etc....we agree to differ and get on. None of the aggressive comments some have made on this thread.

The bottom line is for me this couple would have offered a loving home to a child...they had fostered for years with no complaints made about them. That is just my opinion.

Ok, explain to me the difference between "unacceptable (from a Christian stance)" and "sinful." (genuinely, I would like to know)

According to recent stats, 1 in 100 people in Britain are openly gay. 1 in 200 are openly bisexual. So reasonably common. The subject doesn't perhaps arise for most heterosexual children, but will arise for those that are homosexual or bisexual. Also, many of these children will not be "average" children, they will be damaged, vulnerable children who may as a result of abuse, have far more knowledge of sexual matters than the average child.

Poppy, these people would have offered a loving stable home on a temporary basis to a straight child who had no sexual issues. They would not be so equipped to deal with many of the cases that would be coming through their doors. What if a child was displaying inappropriate sexualised behaviours? How would they handle that?

As for no complaints, well most traumatised children don't make complaints. Particularly when they have been told that the fault lies with them.

Ilovemyhens - "I grew up with abusive foster parents and I'd have given my eye teeth to have been cared for by people like the Johns."

Yes, because you're not gay, are you?

"People are not solely defined by their sexuality. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - other things come first'

No they don't.

Sexual instinct is on the first rung.
Security on the second: knowing that you're safe and cared for, come what may, and perceived or otherwise.

Despite slight variations in the interpretations, needs such as family rate as either something that cannot be separated from the above, or not until the third rung, but not "first".

Loopy -- I think screaming "bigot" does undermine scurryfunge's argument, and I'm delighted that you disagree with her judgment that people like ilove are bigots. How refreshing.