(March 3, 2011 at 6:07 am)theVOID Wrote: What if it was an Atheist couple teaching their adopted children than religious people are deluded idiots?

Being a religious idiot is a choice. Being gay isn't so it's not exactly the best comparison.

(March 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 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.

That is because it's a case of negligence, this is a case of personal opinion. Refusing to tell a child that it is acceptable to be gay is NOT negligence.

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

If they said they would not provide medical treatment to the children it would be a COMPLETELY different issue.

(March 3, 2011 at 6:19 am)theVOID Wrote:

(March 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 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.

That is because it's a case of negligence, this is a case of personal opinion. Refusing to tell a child that it is acceptable to be gay is NOT negligence.

I'd say it's a pretty good sign that the people who are looking to adopt hold views that would be seen by the majority of society as unacceptable and I think that when them sort of signs present themselves the adoption board and courts have to act to prevent a child begin exposed to them views.

In the same way if a couple who were applying for adoption showed a contempt or severe dislike of any other group for no other reason than bullshit, unfounded prejudice then we shouldn't be allowing them the chance to spread the hatred we as a society have come so far to minimise to children.

(March 3, 2011 at 6:15 am)Skipper Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 6:07 am)theVOID Wrote: What if it was an Atheist couple teaching their adopted children than religious people are deluded idiots?

Being a religious idiot is a choice. Being gay isn't so it's not exactly the best comparison.

Being religious isn't a choice, it's a compulsion, if you believe religious claims are true you compel yourself to be religious, but I get your point.

Are you saying that because homosexuality is something that is not a choice it is something that should be protected, or is it a mix of that and other factors. Something being not a choice alone would allow for many absurd protections.

(March 3, 2011 at 6:28 am)theVOID Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 6:15 am)Skipper Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 6:07 am)theVOID Wrote: What if it was an Atheist couple teaching their adopted children than religious people are deluded idiots?

Being a religious idiot is a choice. Being gay isn't so it's not exactly the best comparison.

Being religious isn't a choice, it's a compulsion, if you believe religious claims are true you compel yourself to be religious, but I get your point.

Are you saying that because homosexuality is something that is not a choice it is something that should be protected, or is it a mix of that and other factors. Something being not a choice alone would allow for many absurd protections.

I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as homosexuality should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping gay people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out homophobia (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.

I don't know if someone addressed it but I did read at least the first page of posts. Who is saying the couple is homophobic, the reporter? The cort ruled that because of their views on homosexuality based on their religious belief they couldn't adopt. That doesn't necessitate them being homophobic. I'm not homophobic, but I don't agree with a homosexual lifestyle and wouldn't promote it to my children, when it's a choice or compulsion. I think if that's the only reason they were disqualified, it might be more of a travesty for the child than a misconstrued win for society. They might be very positive influences on their local society. The fact they were willing to stand up for what they believe in, peacibly and honestly is a character trait I wish more children were instilled with. Just because you don't agree with a lifestyle doesn't mean you can't fully love a child (whether they live in that lifestyle or not) and make them feel loved and understood. Honestly, I'd love to see someone admit that this is just an atempt to push Christianity (or religious views) out of the UK. And before anyone says that there shouldn't be any religious beliefs in the process, you can't factor the human belief structure out of humanity. This process definately involves evaluating belief and intent.

@Skipper - I think I disagree with at least some part of every post I've read from you on the topic, so far.

(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.

Yes, both racists and Nazis should be able to foster children, as long as they are looking after the children. By "this is something we shouldn't be teaching kids" you actually mean "this is something I don't think we should be teaching kids". I'm sure that the Christian couple think that all kids should be taught their way, and not your way. So why does your way take precedent? I'm not sure where you are from, but in the country this article is about, the courts are part of the government.

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.

It becomes anti-Christian when Christian beliefs are oppressed over what is considered "more moral" by the government. Again, I find the double standard absurd. Parents aren't denied rights to their own children if they happen to teach them about their beliefs, but when the child is adopted, the rules change. Why?

I could make a case that I don't want any children put into the care of leftists, since they are preaching an economic and social system that has failed repeatedly and is dangerous. I don't though, because it is none of my business, nor is it any business of the state what parents (even adoptive ones) teach their children. Would a leftist look after the child and make sure they are healthy and happy? Yes, probably. Would a homophobic Christian look after the child and make sure they are healthy and happy? Yes, probably. There is no reason, other than your own biased views, that any child should be denied to homophobic parents. Your view is, as theVOID said earlier, authoritarian.

(March 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:and the government doesn't get to deny people privileges because of their religious beliefs

They aren't being denied their beliefs. They can believe whatever the fuck they want.

Re-read that quote. I never said they were being denied their beliefs. I said they were being denied privileges because of their beliefs.

Quote:They are being denied access to children under state supervision because they are bigoted fuckers. I don't know how it works over there but in the States foster care families get a stipend for each kid....for some it becomes a going concern! There is in effect a contract between the foster and the state agency paying the bill.

You still haven't given a valid reason why "bigoted fuckers" wouldn't make good parents. If you had a valid reason, I'd ask why that same reason isn't used by the government to take their own kids away. The fact remains that parents are allowed to teach their children about their own beliefs, and as long as the children are cared for, there is no reason for the government to take them away. Why does this suddenly change for foster kids?

(March 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:

What Adrian may have well Wrote: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. The government should no more deny a racist religious person the chance of adopting a child as it should an non-racist atheist person.

Emphasis mine. And don't try to say I'm comparing apples & oranges. Homosexuals are a protected class in the USA, so that argument won't fly.

Forget the "may well have said", I'll say it out loud for you. Yes, governments shouldn't deny racists the chance to adopt or foster a kid, nor should they deny polygamists, homosexuals, anarchists, or any other bunch of people whose beliefs or actions do nothing to hurt a kid's health or happiness.

Quote:BTW, the welfare of the child trumps the potential foster parents / adopter's rights, every time, in every situation, without question. You don't like it? Well, I guess that just sucks for you.

I agree completely that the welfare of the child should trump everything. Just give me a valid reason why the child's welfare will be damaged by the fact that their adoptive parents are homophobic (or as the article stated, just wouldn't be able to say homosexuality was acceptable). Give me a valid reason why the same would be true if the parents were racists, or polygamists.

Quote:That's cute. They can still believe whatever they'd like to believe. Doesn't mean they get to adopt. Adoption is a privilege, not a right

Yup, and it's a right that is being denied because of their beliefs, even though such beliefs have nothing to do with the child, and aren't going to hurt the child's health or happiness.

Quote: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.

No, but then those beliefs are going to hurt the child's health, so the comparison is completely invalid. I wouldn't allow a cannibal to adopt for the same reason. There are a few people on these forums who would probably deny right-wingers from adopting since we are going to teach kids about capitalism and "brainwash" them, but most of us are fine with that (even some lefties). Why? Because at the end of the day, teaching kids about capitalism isn't going to adversely affect the child's health or happiness. I maintain that teaching kids that homosexuals aren't acceptable won't affect their health or happiness either.

(March 1, 2011 at 3:37 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: 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.

This isn't seen as a problem by the government when it is their own biological children involved. Why is it seen as a problem when the children are adopted? Some Christians would probably say the same thing about atheists. I've seen some atheists who are knowingly forcing their beliefs on their children. We all do it; children usually adopt the same beliefs as their parents, especially when growing up. I'm not going to lie and say that I won't teach my children about my beliefs; of course I will. With the leftist media as it is, I want to make sure my kids grow up understanding why I believe that people should be equal, and have certain rights. Whether they believe it after they leave home is entirely up to them. My parents taught me about their beliefs, and I rejected them from an early age. What I will promise is that I won't force my beliefs on my children; if they reject them, they reject them. It's up to them.

Quote:

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.

Please point out the paragraph where it says parents cannot teach their child about their own beliefs. If it exists (and I doubt it does), then there's a lot of campaigning to be done!

Quote:

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.

So why aren't these religious beliefs being protected? Why are a Christian couple being denied rights to foster a child. If their religious beliefs were protected as you say they are in the Equality Act, why have they been denied a child based on their religious beliefs?

Quote:

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.

Ah, so despite you telling me that people's beliefs are protected under the law, you now admit that actually, they aren't.

(March 3, 2011 at 6:35 am)Skipper Wrote: I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as homosexuality should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping gay people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out homophobia (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.

So tell me (because I'm interested now), do you stand up for paedophiles rights? After all, paedophiles has historically been abused in society, and paedophilia isn't considered a "choice" by medical professionals studying the field. So, would you support a bill that protected paedophiles from abuse under a discrimination act, given that paedophilia is as much of a choice as homosexuality?

Epic, I would give you a dozen Kudos if I could

Adoption is not a right, Adrian. No matter how badly you want to be right & no matter how many times you repeat that it is, nothing is going to change that fact.

And if you honestly think that raising a child as a racist or Nazi is in the best interest of the child, then it's obvious that you are very, very inexperienced in matters of child rearing & welfare & your opinion on this matter is of little worth.

If you think the state should be giving money to a racist or a Nazi to actually foster a child, well that's just hilarious.

(March 3, 2011 at 6:35 am)Skipper Wrote: I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as homosexuality should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping gay people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out homophobia (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.

I guess I hold the view that something that isn't a choice that also has historically been abused in a society, such as atheism should be protected more so by a society and government. I'm not saying we should be bubble-wrapping atheists people from abuse but if we get the opportunity to stop someone's bullshit, and bigoted views being spread to a new generation then we should. That way we may actually be able to wipe out atheism (and any other form of intolerance), instead of pandering to ideals of protecting everyone's opinions, despite them opinions being a complete negative to the wider population.


See what I did there?

---

(March 3, 2011 at 6:25 am)Skipper Wrote: I'd say it's a pretty good sign that the people who are looking to adopt hold views that would be seen by the majority of society as unacceptable....

I do believe a majority of society views atheism as unacceptable.