(March 1, 2011 at 12:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I love the hypocritical nature of some atheists in these forums. Most of you would gladly accept secularism as a good form of government since it separates church and state, and yet most of you support the rejection of Christians from being foster carers or adoption parents because they have beliefs that don't gel with your own, or indeed, with most of society.

You're generalising this just a wee bit aren't you? Geez this is like Void's rant part 2. >.> We're not against Christians fostering children outright - it's when they can't keep their religious bigotry to themselves, when they indoctrinate children, force their prejudices unquestionably and uncritically onto innocent infants, corrupting their mindsets so that they too will grow to discriminate against other people under same sex relationships and civil partnership we get the problem.

Quote:There is no stipulation (nor should there be) that foster parents or adoption parents are not allowed to teach their children about their beliefs, just as there is no stipulation that normal parents cannot teach their own children about their beliefs.

Under the Equality Act 2010 there is.

Quote:The government isn't in the business of creating and upholding morals. The government should create and uphold laws, and one of those laws is the protection of religious beliefs.

That's what the Equality Act 2010 is there for.

Quote:The government should no more deny a homophobic religious person the chance of adopting a child as it should an anti-religious homosexual. People's beliefs should be protected under the law, end of.

Unless said beliefs are discriminating others on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.

The question seems a moral one and not a legal one. There are many people with differing views on homosexuality and the religious divide isn't that line. Morality has to remain a choice, or morality isn't served.

(March 1, 2011 at 4:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The question seems a moral one and not a legal one. There are many people with differing views on homosexuality and the religious divide isn't that line. Morality has to remain a choice, or morality isn't served.

Obviously we all have different views, but it is moral for these Pentecostal Christians to regard same-sex couples as unacceptable?

(March 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Let me ask you a question? If a Christian Scientist couple was denied adoption because they stated that they wouldn't provide the child with medical care other than prayer, would you still be saying that they should be allowed to adopt? I didn't think so.

In the case of Christian Scientists and denying medical treatment, there is a body of case law (at least in the US) where the state can step in and override the parents religious beliefs to provide treatment for the child. Same with Jehovahs witness.

This is over cases where the child is the natural born progeny of the aforementioned.

What makes anyone think that adoption boards will be less picky when we have the above is beyond me.

(March 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Obviously we all have different views, but it is moral for these Pentecostal Christians to regard same-sex couples as unacceptable?

Morals are subjective and individual. How they feel about same-sex couples is their choice, but where it becomes immoral is when their morals are forced onto others and this is obviously where the concern of the authorities is.

No one has a right to force their own moral values onto others and unfortunately this is what religion does and regards their church as having a monopoly on moral standards.

Fortunately, even the attitudes of churches and religions become outmoded and unacceptable as laws(as opposed to individual morals) change to reflect the general attitude of society. So let's hope, in the future, that same-sex couples and marriage will be broadly accepted as being acceptable and "normal".

Religions shouldn't force moral values onto anyone (it contradicts the basis for religion: the right to choose to believe) and neither should government.

The government isn't forcing them to do anything.

It is just refusing to grant them a privilege.

Adoption is a privilege. Not a right.

Stop being such a child.

True christianity is not forced, it is taught, it is up to each individual to choose to believe or reject. I will agree that to teach a child from an early age a person or couple will have a greater influence on any decision but isn't that one reason people have children is to pass on their beliefs. Personally I haven't seen many parents that do not care what their children believe (that is those parents who care about their child), that includes secular and religious. Different people have different beliefs and that means different moral standards and the courts nor any other government agency has the right to dictate those beliefs unless those beliefs are a detriment to a childs physical health. I believe that murder, stealing, cheating, lying and ect. are moral issues and not just legal matters, I also believe that homosexuality is a moral issue and not necessarily a legal matter and I would have taught my children the same, I however would not have taught them to hate homosexual people that would be bigoted. To teach a child your moral principles is not bigotry, to teach a child your moral principles colored with hate is bigoted and as far as I'm concerned immoral.

Quote:True christianity is not forced, it is taught,

Religious belief is usually an accident of birth,inculcated ,before the age of reason. There is no choice involved.The claim that such teaching is not forced is disingenuous at best.

A true Christian ? Who gets to decide? You?


Your true Christian sounds a lot like a true Scotsman.



PS: I strongly disagree with the decision not to allow the Christian couple to adopt,on the grounds that the decision is cherry picking hypocrisy of the first water.To be consistent every prospective couple would need to be tested for bigotry on a variety of subjects,--and guess what?: PEOPLE TELL FUCKING LIES! This pair of drongos are being punished for being honest.

(March 1, 2011 at 10:22 am)FaithNoMore Wrote:

(February 28, 2011 at 1:03 pm)theVOID Wrote: So no pentecostals can adopt either? What about Evangelists? Mormons?

Loving the authoritarianism guys...

Fight fire with fire.

In this case it's more "Fight bigotry with bigotry", not something I could support.

(March 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm)Skipper Wrote: So we should let racists foster children Adrian? Nazis? After all peoples beliefs "should be protected under the law". This was a couple that clearly stated they couldn't tell a child it was acceptable to be gay, so as far as they are concerned being homosexual is unacceptable, this is something we shouldn't be teaching kids in the same way we shouldn't be teaching them that it's wrong to be black or Jewish. Besides, this case has nothing to do with government. It's the courts.

Refusing to tell a child that it is acceptable to be gay isn't automatically being bigoted, there is still the option that they refuse to talk about it.

Quote:Again, like I said, this is anti-homophobic not Anti-Christian. I have no problem with religious people fostering or adopting as long as they don't take the parts of their book that teach intolerance or hatred and other dated views that are not compatible with a modern society and push them on the child that is in their care.

What if it was an Atheist couple teaching their adopted children than religious people are deluded idiots?

(March 1, 2011 at 9:22 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The government isn't forcing them to do anything.

It is just refusing to grant them a privilege.

Adoption is a privilege. Not a right.

Stop being such a child.

The government is telling them that their particular refusal to tell the child that it was acceptable to be gay negates their ability to be good parents and thus they are refused the ability to adopt, regardless of the very real possibility that these people could otherwise be great parents.

They DID NOT say that they would raise the child to be homophobic, only that they would not present any positive attitudes towards gays.

MOST Catholics would be of the opinion that being gay is not a positive thing and subsequently wouldn't teach their children that, should we prevent all of them from adopting too? If we did we would do far more harm than good.