(March 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: Drop the legality part, it's obfuscation, get back to the principles involved.

So are principles subjective or objective?

---

(March 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: I said gay rights, as in the right to marry. That's still illegal in most of the states last time I checked.

I'm actually not aware of any case law related to that in the states that do allow gay marriage, so I can't really answer that objectively.

It doesn't matter, you simply need to be consistent.

You are against letting people foster/adopt if they are homophobes or racists?

What is the principle behind this?

(March 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: I was talking about feminists having a bigotry towards men, you ARE born a man, so feminists should qualify.

Well I do agree that sexism is either exactly equally as bad as or almost as bad as racism, so yes, that qualifies.

Quote:I don't see how it's any worse, it would be like someone being bigoted towards Muslims thinking "oh toughen up, you weren't born believing in islam, so i'm more justified in being bigoted towards you than I am someone who was born black"

No religious person should have to hide away their beliefs just because others are being bigoted. But, if their life was threatened, they could do that to save their lives. They could pretend to convert to another religion of some sort. They obviously shouldn't have to, but it's a possibility in a life-threatening emergency. That's not the case with race. If a black man is under attack from life-threatening bigotry there's absolutely nothing he can do to save himself in a similar way. Because race is a fixed thing there is an added threat when it is attacked by particularly obstinately dangerous and violent bigotry.

Quote:It's not necessarily genetic? Says who?

Last I heard the evidence on the matter is not entirely complete. Homosexuality may be mostly nature but also a bit of nurture. I can't remember the source. Maybe you have a more enlightened one anyway?

(March 3, 2011 at 5:35 pm)theVOID Wrote: It doesn't matter, you simply need to be consistent.

You are against letting people foster/adopt if they are homophobes or racists?

What is the principle behind this?

Objective

Against. The government has no business endorsing racism or bigotry by giving said racists & bigots a platform, be it a TV show, a web page or the mind of a small child.

This doesn't violate any of the freedoms enumerated in the US Bill of Rights or Constitution.

1.) They are still allowed to spread their beliefs via Freedom of Speech, but on their own dime & to their own children.

2.) They are still allowed to spread their beliefs via Freedom of Expression, but on their own dime & to their own children.

3.) Freedom of Religion doesn't come into play at all because they can still worship however & where ever they want. Being religious does not automatically give you access to the privilege of adoption.

Subjective

Also against.

1.) Racism & bigotry are evil & have no place in modern society.

2.) Brainwashing children to think that either of the above are a good thing is evil & has no place in modern society.

3.) The mental & physical welfare of the child trumps any other concern.


Another interesting tidbit from the court document.

Quote:[63]Although our summary of the facts and the submissions in this case focus on the issue of sexual orientation and the way it was handled, it is important to note that, as we have seen, the documents indicate that the defendant was also concerned with other matters. Thus Mr Weston referred to such matters as who would care for a child who was likely to be there at weekends when the claimants were at the two church services they attended on Sundays, the indication that they would not take a Muslim child in their care to a mosque, and their availability in a wider sense because of the pressures of their work and other commitments.

Apparently this couple had a few strikes against them.

---

(March 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: I was talking about feminists having a bigotry towards men, you ARE born a man, so feminists should qualify.

Well I do agree that sexism is either exactly equally as bad as or almost as bad as racism, so yes, that qualifies.

That's a wide brush you guys are painting with. I know & have dated several feminists that weren't anything close to man haters.

(March 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm)theVOID Wrote: On what grounds? That the child may develop an irrational hate of another group?

And if that is your reason should we also disallow Feminists from adopting? How about Christians who have an irrational hate of atheists? Atheists who have an irrational hate of the religious? Blacks who still harbour racial prejudice that would teach their children the white people are out to get them? What about vegans who will raise their children to think people who eat meat are evil?

You are ignoring the fact that one day the kid in question may turn out to be homosexual. Children looking for foster parents have the right to not be indoctrinated to the idea that the feelings they can't help are an abomination unto god.

(March 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:

(March 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm)theVOID Wrote: It's not necessarily genetic? Says who?

Last I heard the evidence on the matter is not entirely complete. Homosexuality may be mostly nature but also a bit of nurture. I can't remember the source. Maybe you have a more enlightened one anyway?

I have 2 friends who are identical twin sisters, one is gay the other straight. I've done a lot of research on the issue and the bulk of the evidence suggests that homosexuality is environmental. Since gays are less likely to procreate, natural selection should have eliminated the trait long ago if it were genetic.

(March 3, 2011 at 12:24 pm)Jaysyn Wrote:

---

Quote:

(March 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm)tackattack Wrote: Society as a whole may frown on their opinion, but they are entitled to it and it should in no way inhibit their freedom to adopt.

Quit making things up. There is no such thing as "freedom to adopt." It's a privilege not a right. The state is supposed to be very particular where they place their wards for foster care.

(March 3, 2011 at 3:52 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: [quote='Tiberius' pid='121151' dateline='1299180701']
Hilarious to you; fair and equal to me. I don't have to like what people believe in order to support their right to express it, and their right (yes, their right) not to be discriminated over it.

So you'd be fine & dandy with a company that didn't hire blacks, women or homosexuals? No? Then tell me how is this different? The state is ultimately responsible for this child & seemingly can no longer endorse the views that the couple in question have by letting them foster children. It's actually pretty cut & dry when you think of it that way.

(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I think that in a free country, people are allowed to have their own opinions, and that those opinions should not mean they are denied privileges by the government. What use is freedom of speech and expression if the government can just deny privileges based on what you say and support? Face it, by denying this couple the privilege of adoption, you are completely discarding these freedoms.

You are conveniently ignoring right of the foster child to not have his mind filled with bigotry against a protected class, which I & apparently the UK, would consider bad form if not mental abuse. You are also ignoring the rights of the state to decide where to place foster children. Why on earth do you think the racist's or homophobe's privilege supersedes these?

A natural parents rights may supersede them, but a foster parent's do not, no matter how you frame your argument.

---

(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: In a highly religious society, the government may decide that you aren't allowed to foster children, because you may teach them your atheistic beliefs. I assume that you'd be fine with that right? I mean, the government's always right yeah?

But we are talking about the UK & USA, not Saudi Arabia. Everyone here already knows that theocracies are lost causes.

(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: It is only pollution and evil in your opinion.

It's unethical & borderline to outright mental abuse.

(March 3, 2011 at 3:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No, I'm suggesting that some parents do think it is something they should be teaching their kids. The government don't stop parents from teaching their own children about their beliefs, so why do they try and stop when the child is fostered or adopted?

Because the natural parent's right supersede that of the state. If the child is a ward of the state this is no longer true.

---

The problem with your arguement is that upon adoption...

Quote:the child of the person or persons so adopting him.... shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges, and subject to all the obligations, of a child of such person or persons born in lawful wedlock. An adopted person is the child of an adopting parent, and as such, the adopting parent shall be entitled to testify in all cases civil and criminal, as if the adopted child was born of the adopting parent in lawful wedlock.

ref so the child isn't a ward of the state after adoption.

Quote:D. The investigation requested by the circuit court shall include, in addition to other inquiries that the circuit court may require the child-placing agency or local director to make, inquiries as to (i) whether the petitioner is financially able, except as provided in Chapter 13 (§ 63.2-1300 et seq.) of this title, morally suitable, in satisfactory physical and mental health and a proper person to care for and to train the child; .....

Are the only qualifiers with regard to the adoptive parents in my local law. Because they disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle and don't promote it does that make them morally unsuitable? Does their opinion preclude them from satifactorally imparting a physically and mental healthy enviornment for the child? You still can't substantiaate anything more than they have an opinion on homosexuality. The other notes from the court case on other topics are obfuscation at best and fodder for a straw man at the worst.

(March 3, 2011 at 4:02 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:

---

(March 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Faith no more - and what supports them being bigots. I see no exhibition of intolerance or animosity.

I never referred to them as bigots. See the post I was responding to for context.

---

Fair enough

(March 3, 2011 at 5:04 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

(March 3, 2011 at 7:24 am)Tiberius Wrote: 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!

The Local Authorities, foster carers and agencies must all abide by the Equality Act 2010 to ensure services, recruitment and general business do not discriminate on the grounds of any protected characteristic.

By investigating the couples overwhelmingly apparent bigotry and blatant disregard for equality and diversity policies and guidelines set down, the social worker in question was merely doing their job in this respect.

Quote: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?

Because sexual orientation and marriage or civil partnership are protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, whether you're Christian, Muslim and so on.

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

So long as it does not discriminate on the grounds of any protected characteristic of Equality Act 2010.

-Age
-Disability
-Gender
-Gender Reassignment
-Marriage or Civil Partnership
-Pregnancy and maternity
-Race & Ethnicity
-Religion & Belief (or the lack thereof)
-Sexual orientation
-Religious beliefs

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx

---

And you get their "overwhelmingly apparent bigotry and blatant disregard for equality" from the article? Can one not agree with, or even support, something but support a child in every other way really be acting on their prejudice? Could it be perhaps that they have an opinion and still allow the child to choose for themselves when they have the ability to make that choice?

@corndog- ref would be helpful, I think it's both enviornmental in selection and genetic in orientation and preference, but I fear we're delving too far off the topic if we continue down that road.. perhaps another thread.. not that it doesn't already exist.

(February 28, 2011 at 11:25 am)Skipper Wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-der...e-12598896

Yaaaay!

Now just apply the same rules to biological parents and we're in business haha

I have to disagree Skipper. I know you probably mean well and are happy to get some "pay back" but this is about the kids. Homosexuality should not be a condition for adopting children..wether being for, or against, or actually BEING homosexual... this is about children finding homes.

(March 4, 2011 at 8:00 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(February 28, 2011 at 11:25 am)Skipper Wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-der...e-12598896

Yaaaay!

Now just apply the same rules to biological parents and we're in business haha

I have to disagree Skipper. I know you probably mean well and are happy to get some "pay back" but this is about the kids. Homosexuality should not be a condition for adopting children..wether being for, or against, or actually BEING homosexual... this is about children finding homes.

Read the rest of the thread and you'll get all my points. But to summarise I don't think it's right to allow a couple with such bigoted views the chance to spread them views to a child. Especially seeing as any child put in their care may be or may turn out to be gay, should we allow that child to grow thinking it's abnormal for it's sexual orientation that does nothing to hurt anyone? Or do we tell a gay child he can't go to these foster carer's because they want a "normal" straight child? Either way we have a kid being told he's unnatural. We should be fighting these views, not just accepting them.

which you still can't substantiate that they'll do. Do you see the difference between them having an idea and not promoting or supporting it and them having an idea and teaching bigotry? And are you willing to fight these views at the expense of the children's welfare? Isn't that defeating the original intent of the adoption process?