Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

marie, that won't be love then you are talking about -love doesn't generally involve conditions or judgements about what you are.

You think it's only love if you wholeheartedly approve of everything they do?

I don't.

More likely to be love, if you love them anyway.

It's easy to love someone like you. It's hard to love people who are very different. It's part of Christianity to practise that.

sgm fair enough, but am wondering how much of this is a generation issue?

I am saying rightpissedoff that you cannot separate the behaviour from who you are. We are not talking about a choice about behaviour here - if someone is gay, they are gay. To talk of loving them "even though they are gay" is so negative and offensive.

Vulnerable children are not protected by keeping them in care. Not necessarily, not in many cases. Being fostered by Christians may be the lesser of two evils

Well that's the thing: how do you know they won't love them? Is loving them anyway different from loving them? How is that offensive? It's a stronger love in some ways.

If my child is a drug addict I would love him unconditionally AND I would do everything to help him with his addiction (some people are medically proned to addiction so could be argued it is part of them).

In the real world, everybody judges everybody, even parents judge their children. Does not mean parents do not love their children unconditionally.

The real world does not function soley on absolutes (if you disagree with homosexuality then you must be against homosexuals - utter rot). Jesus loved everybody unconditionally. He said to the woman at the well "to go and sin no more". Hate the sin but not the sinner. A concept lost on many in this debate. .

They are respite carers. "Loving" the child has nothing to do with things.

What matters is that vulnerable children, who are more likely to be facing stigma and difficulties in their lives, should be placed with professionals who are able to act in a professional manner, the manner in which they are trained. If a doctor is unable to stick to the ethics of their job, they get struck off. Same for foster carers. This isn't about religion, but bigotry.

Saying that putting a gay person with this couple would be inhumane is really a bit disgusting. It trivialises inhumanity. Really, leaving children in some of the conditions which we know obtain in care, when there's a loving couple ready to look after them short term, now that's pathologically driven and not necessarily in the best interests of the child at all.

Because you are placing a judgement on something you have no control over - can't you love someone irrespective of their sexuality. The love you describe sounds more like religious pity.

marie, you have gone from thief comparisons to drug addicts.

you lost me when you used the phrase 'gone PC mad' OP.

I'm sure a lot of parents love their children irrespective of their sexuality. I'm sure a lot of parents love their children irrespective of a lot of things.

Scurryfunge, of course you can love someone regardless of their sexuality - does not mean you have to agree with their sexuality.

Imagine this hypothetical situation:

You are eight years old. You are placed in temporary care because your family have split up and neither parent is currently able to look after you. You are young, vulnerable and scared.
You find out that the reason your parents split up is because your mum found out your dad is gay. You love your dad, and think he is a really good person. You go to the adults employed to take care of you, and ask them about your dad's situation, because kids at school have been telling you bad things about your dad. Your new foster carers tell you that they don't believe being gay is a valid life choice.

Where does that leave you, the vulnerable child?

Regardless of whether the couple are otherwise suitable to be foster carers, this absolutely precludes them. If there were able to swallow their personal beliefs and deal with the matter in the manner in which they have been trained, the child would be supported properly, and they would keep their jobs.

Good post Loopy.

The point is if they had managed to keep their bigoted views to themselves and not let these views have any impact whatsoever on fostering then it would not have been an issue. the danger here is that bigots find it very hard to keep their mouths shut, so usually fall foul of the law and common decency.

So. My son is gay. Let me get this straight. Him being homosexual is OK, but his participation in any kind of homosexual lifestyle is not? Am I understanding you, mariepuree?

Where on earth does that leave my son? I can acknowledge that he is not interested in girls, but I can't allow him to have a sexual relationship with another man?

That is both bizarre and cruel.

And, for what it's worth, it has absolutely nothing to do with religious views. I can't understand what you think the debate has been closed down - there is no debate to be had!

I rest my case.

I'm off.

Wow...that was pretty vile, marie.

It's not really not allowing, worthit. I can't ban my children from smoking or drinking or playing the guitar or chewing gum or anything past a certain age. I can't remember what mp said, but given that children will be exposed to a great deal of "acceptance" media and so on (I don't know what to call it) I don't think this should be a banning matter, compared to what they can offer and what would be the alternative.

I think you are saying something is bizarre and cruel that hasn't been suggested. The legal age for sex is 16? So not allowing or otherwise doesn't really come into it. I mean, I will express my disapproval of any sexual relationship under 16 or 17 but that doesn't mean my children will be traumatised by my disapproval.

Not sure there was much of a case to be rested, mariepuree ...

Can anyone explain to me what her case was?