Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

boo,
Saying one life over another is good or bad is judgemental. A "gay" life is one you have no control over. You might as well say, "being a natural brunette" is a good life. It is neither good nor bad....it is a natural state.

why shouldn't i?

"If you're a Christian then you're wrong too.

Or are you just cherry picking what your faith is telling you?"

Yes. Its part of my faith to cherry pick. Its part of my faith that 'no man shall be compelled to believe what he doesn't believe'.

The type of eejits who spout this all Christians believe bollocks either as a stick to beat Christians with or as a cover for bigotry are usually not interested in theology at all and couldn't even explain the difference between the views of St. Paul, St. augustine, St. Thomas A or Luther. Its Daily Mail Christianity at its worst and only very rarely (if ever) a true, considered opinion uninfluenced by the politics inherent with a united global church.

Why would you sit a child down and explain about Homosexuality?

Because a friend is gay
because they are unsure about their own sexual preferences,
because they watch eastenders,
because their parent is gay
because their sibling is gay
because they are interested
because a common insult in the playground is 'you are gay'

I could go on.

straightbat

It's positively true what you say...there's no denying it.

there's homophobia in religion on so many levels so should they give a blanket ban on Christians?

scurry i am not asking why i shouldn't promote homosexuality over heterosexuality. i am asking why i shouldn't say a homosxual life is a good one.

Even the Daily Fail acknowledge in their headline that the decision was not because they were Christian, it was because of their views on homosexuality.

"Christian couple lose High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexuality"

Outside court Mrs Johns said:

"We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics. The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We have been told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that our moral views may "infect" a child, we do not believe that this is so. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

She seems to be a little mixed up since as discussed above, "homosexuality is not acceptable" is distinctly different from "the practice of homosexuality is a good thing".

Quote from article: "Mrs Johns has said in the past: ?The council said, ?Do you know, you would have to tell them that it?s OK to be homosexual?? But I said I couldn?t do that because my Christian beliefs won?t let me. Morally, I couldn?t do that. Spiritually I couldn?t do that.?"

It's not that she refused to "pomote" it; she was point blank refusing to say that it is acceptable. So being gay is unacceptable. What does she think all those nasty gay people - maybe even some of her foster children - should do with their unacceptable lives? Throw themselves under buses?

"usedtobeyoung *
Why would you sit a child down and explain about Homosexuality?

__

The issue isn't about explaining Homosexuality (Bearing in mind that Heterosexual couples don't have the 100% insight into this so they may be ill informed)

It's about suggesting that it's a good life.

This is car crash t'internet. Hymie your making no consistent points at all, just for the fun of it how about you actually clearly state what your argument is.

BooyFuckingHoo
scurry i am not asking why i shouldn't promote homosexuality over heterosexuality. i am asking why i shouldn't say a homosxual life is a good one.

Why not wait until they ask?

And again...what would a heterosexual person know about a homosexual relationship other than the obvious?

"there's homophobia in religion on so many levels so should they give a blanket ban on Christians?"

No, that would be stupid. The vast majority of Christians aren't homophobic. Not all homophobes are Christians, or even religious. The obvious solution is to ban homophobes rather than a diverse group of people who probably aren't but possibly might be homophobes. It would also leave the laughable situation of gay Christians not being allowed to foster in case they are homophobic.

So, once a child has been, as you say, discarded, and they feel humiliated, rejected, posibly ashamed because they have been victimised because of their sexuality, the last thing they need is to be driven through the night by a social worker to be placed with Mr and Mrs Chrsitians from Derby and, when they eventually, haltingly disclose something of their confusion and isolation, to be met with closed lips and no re-assurnace that they are evcen 'aaceptable'.

That is why the judge made the right decision.

Hymie - have a look at the many threads in MN over the last years where women (some women, not all, but it's not rare) report that their DH's go up the wall if their little boys play with dolls, push toy pram, wear pink etc, and think it will affect their sexuality. And why do so many teenage boys end up getting kicked out because they are gay? I don't know why, I just know that it happens.

balloonballs
This is car crash t'internet. Hymie your making no consistent points at all, just for the fun of it how about you actually clearly state what your argument is.

I've made my points now read back if you want to.

StewieGriffinsMom
Cus, heterosexuality is clearly a better way of life with no domestic violence, rape within marriage or the fact that two women a week are murdered by their-- mostly male partners.

___

Who mentioned extremists?

straightbat

Some childrens homes are run by religious institutions.

social services don't ban them from looking after children do they?

The couple can still practice their religious beliefs. If they have their own children, they also have the right to bring their children up in them.

What they do not have the right is to bring up someone else's child - for whom parental responsibility is held by the state and the birth parent(s) - in such a way that could damage a potentially lesbian or gay child. The state has a responsibility towards the children in its care. The state's responsibility towards potentially lgbt children is, in my opinion, greater than the right of the couple to foster children.

A foster child isn't the child of the foster parents. Those with parental responsibility for a child get to determine in what, if any, religion or with what opinions a child is brought up. There is no "right" to bring up someone else's child, especially when you hold views that could potentially be harmful to that child. If said child grows up and wishes to hold homophobic views - that is their choice. But if he or she grows up to be lgbt, that is unlikely to be their choice and they need to be in a supportive environment.

hymie, why are you assuming i am heterosexual? why are you assuming i have no experience of a homosexual life? why don't you just answer the question?

what reason do you have for why i shouldn't say a homosexual life is a good one? what is not good about it?

Think I'll give it a pass thanks.

and even if i wait until my child asks, i still have to answer their questions so what reason should i give them for why a homosexual life is not a good one?

I didn't assume anything Boo.

But if you want to make it about you that's your choice.

You asked a question and you got an answer.

But the suggestion that a heterosexual can explain what homosexual life is like, whether it's good or bad is a nonsense.

My dd aged 4 sat in the car one night and said that the teacher had said that girls could marry girls. "is that true?" Yes, I said I heart secular education!

That's almost indoctrination Portofino.