Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.

[Jaysyn]

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

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.

And the problem with your argument is that they don't get to adopt in the first place so these guidelines you brought up don't really mean anything. They are after the fact. Also, in this particular instance we are talking about foster care in which the child is still a ward of the state.

[tackattack]

And through the initial interviews and visitation they couldn't just say.. well this probably isn't right for you? They did it 15 other times if I remember correctly. Seems like they fufilled their responsibilities before

Responsibilities

Foster Parents:

provide daily care and nurturing of children in foster care;
advocate for children in their schools and communities.
inform the children's caseworkers about adjustments to the home, school, and community, as well as any problems that may arise, including any serious illnesses, accidents, or serious occurrences involving the foster children or their own families.
make efforts as team members with children's caseworkers towards reunifying children with their birth families.
provide a positive role model to birth families, and
help children learn life skills.


Adoptive Parents:

provide permanent homes and a lifelong commitment to children into adulthood.
provide for the short-term and long-term needs of children.
provide for children's emotional, mental, physical, social, educational, and cultural needs, according to each child's developmental age and growth.
may become certified as a foster family and accept children who are not legally free for adoption, but whose permanency plan is adoption.

The article I thought was for adoption or a permanenncy of foster care.. which is adoption in everything but legality. And no one has still substantiated they were not positive role models, morally deficient or unable to support every aspect of the child in question. If the child is homosexual, it's a mute point and you just deprived a child of a healthier life. If he turns out to have sexual orientation issues or is homosexual, you still can't provide evidence that the families views would be forced upon the child in that one particular regard, much less that a lack in that one area outweighs the other areas the child is supported in.

[Skipper]

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?

Any child would need support when coming to terms with being gay. Who does a fostered child turn to for that support? The fact they are being fostered suggests there is no wider family. So it would be the couple who are fostering them. To try and get the support then to be told it's unnatural is nothing short of child abuse if you ask me. Obviously this is theoretical, but of real concern if we allow people with such views access to children who would rely on them for support.

Should we allow a racist couple to adopt, then send them a black child?

A Nazi couple to adopt then send them a Jewish child?

I'm not comparing this couple to Nazi's or Racists, but its the same in theory.

[theVOID]

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.

Not the case, firstly you can have the same genes as an identical twin but have different genetic expression, this is likely caused by different conditions/exposures in the womb, it is rare but not unheard of for twins to be exposed to different hormonal levels, if you are to have a set of genes that have the potential for homosexuality this hormonal difference can cause a difference in the expression of these genes, resulting in one being homosexual and the other heterosexual - This same gene will also be passed down through the straight and gay children laying in wait until such time as there is another similar hormonal imbalance causing different expression of the genes.

There are also plenty of closet homosexuals in heterosexual marriages, Ted Haggard being a well known example, that is another way for the genes to be passed down.

Natural selection wouldn't have much say in preventing this gene from being passed down as there is no inherent selection pressure, especially when it is a matter of a gene with multiple expression paths rather than a single gene being passed down - This is almost certainly the case, for example there is no correlation between gay parents and the chances of having a gay child.

It could well be the case that we all have the set of genes that are capable of producing homosexuality and they are the same genes related to normal sexuality but expressed differently.

There is also very little evidence for nurture playing a role in a child becoming homosexual, some studies suggest it is the case but even more suggest there is no correlation, a child living in a homosexually family is no more likely to be gay than one living in a fundamentalist community.

[tackattack]

And I agree that bigots, racists and nazi's if they can't keep their views from being a detriment to the child that they would be unsuitable parents. You can't prove that this is the case here or even that their views are practicing bigots, as opposed to opinionated good citizens.

[Tiberius]

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.

I personally wouldn't be fine & dandy with a company that used such hiring practices, and I would boycott them as much as possible. However, I support the right of business owners to hire whomever they like, and according to whatever hiring practices they desire. Look at it this way; white supremacists don't want to hire non-whites, and I highly doubt non-whites want to work for known white supremacists, so what exactly is the problem with letting the system sort itself out? As society moves forward, racism is slowly being eradicated; not through anything the government has done, but as a result of ordinary people changing their own minds. The government doesn't need to stamp out racism; it happens on its own.

Exactly how does the state endorse the views of the parent when giving them a foster child to look after? As far as I am aware, anarchists are allowed to adopt and foster children, so by your argument, any government that grants an anarchist a foster child is immediately going to pack up and leave. The government doesn't endorse the parents' views; they endorse the parents' ability to look after the child. Simply being a racist or a homophobe doesn't automatically put them in any position that should affect that endorsement. Why? Because racists and homophobes have raised healthy, happy, and successful kids before, and there isn't any reason why the same doesn't have to be true for adoptions.

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.

I do not believe that right exists; it is certainly not in any law I know of. We have freedom of speech and expression, which means that people can say what they like, and express themselves how they like. You don't get a freedom from people's beliefs, but you do get a freedom to not care about what they say, or to not listen. If there is such a right, why isn't the state taking children away from fundamentalist families? Why aren't children of racists being cared for by the state? They aren't, because the "right" you claim children have does not exist!!!

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?

I am not ignoring the rights of the state; I am well aware that it is up to them where to place foster children. What I have been arguing all along is that I believe the state is being unfair in its conditions for granting foster children. My argument has nothing to do, and never has had anything to do with the state's rights...

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

So once again we have a nice double standard, where children of racists are not "protected" from their parents beliefs, but foster kids are? You still have yet to explain why this is.

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

Ok, but please answer my hypothetical. If you lived in a country that decided one day to ban atheists from fostering children, would you be absolutely fine with it? Your argument states that you should be, since it is the government deciding where to place foster kids, and that decision is ultimately up to the government. Once you understand my point here, you may understand why I am so against the government denying people the privilege of adoption / fostering based on nothing but their beliefs.

It is only pollution and evil in your opinion.

It's unethical & borderline to outright mental abuse.

Once again, in your opinion. Why does your opinion trump theirs? What actual argument have you got here, other than "I don't like it, therefore it must be stamped out"?

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.

So once again, we have a double standard. Either foster kids should be treated like normal kids, or they shouldn't. Which is it? If you want to treat them like normal kids (which I'm in favour of), then you must either let them be adopted by people who have different beliefs to your own, or you must remove biological children from parents who have different beliefs to your own. The latter I hold is authoritarian and unfair; the former I very much think is the better solution.

Are you still talking about racist beliefs here? Do you think that racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught? Why should racist beliefs be passed down to anyone when they don't have to be and when such beliefs are bigotry of the worst kind?

Yes, of course racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught. I thought we'd passed this sort of censorship of ideas back in the enlightenment, but apparently a lot of people here think we should continue it. What's next? Do you want to burn all copies of Mein Kampf just because it was written by a racist and fascist dictator? Why should racist beliefs be passed down? Because at the end of the day, I believe in freedom; freedom of people to believe what they want, say what they want, and do what they want (within reason). If you want to censor ideas, go ahead, but by doing it, you are becoming an enemy of freedom, and as theVOID argued, it is a slippery slope.

What racists really need is rehabilitation.

Yes, most of them probably do, but the fact remains that if they want to believe what they believe, you have no right in taking that from them. To do otherwise would open up the floodgates to all types of people who you think need "rehabilitation".

Not allowing them the privilege of adopting is a great start. The state can't be seen as encouraging that kind of thing you know.

Once again, how is the state encouraging or endorsing their beliefs by simply giving them a child to look after; the act of which has nothing to do with their beliefs. If it were a person who believed that all children should be sacrificed to Satan, I'd agree with you, but then that belief isn't really in the best interests of the child is it?

No they don't. Since Adrian decided we can't use the plain subjective evil of racism & bigotry as a qualifier, I am just going by the legality of it. None of your examples are of bigotry against a protected class.

Firstly, I didn't "decide" that you can't use subjectives; I just pointed out the problems with using them. Secondly, if you go by the legality of it, we need to address the issue of the principles behind the law, all of which you'll find are subjective. What this boils down to is that your position is ultimately untenable, since it relies on the mantra of "we're right, they're wrong". As I've said before, a simple disagreement isn't a valid reason, and until you can come up with one, I'm not going to be convinced that refusing to give foster children to bigots is fair.

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.

...and yet part of the Equality Act 2010 (which you conveniently listed below) states that the same services cannot discriminate on the grounds of "religion & belief", which is exactly what this City Council did.

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.

...and also breaking the same act they used to condemn the couple. This is why the Equality Act of 2010 is a piece of bullshit; it contains contradictions that ultimately result in an unfair hierarchy of equality.

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

There you are, I've bolded the section that I find to be in complete contrast to everything said here.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, of course racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught. I thought we'd passed this sort of censorship of ideas back in the enlightenment, but apparently a lot of people here think we should continue it. What's next? Do you want to burn all copies of Mein Kampf just because it was written by a racist and fascist dictator? Why should racist beliefs be passed down? Because at the end of the day, I believe in freedom; freedom of people to believe what they want, say what they want, and do what they want (within reason).

Yes, within reason. And bigotry is unreasonable.

I believe in freedom too, but there is a limit. We're talking about whether bigoted beliefs should be passed down to children by bigoted foster parents when that can be prevented. We're not talking about censoring books.

If you want to censor ideas, go ahead, but by doing it, you are becoming an enemy of freedom, and as theVOID argued, it is a slippery slope.

To go down the slippery slope you have to slip. Why isn't minimization an option? Who says we have to go to the extreme and slip down the slope?

Yes, most of them probably do[need rehabilitation], but the fact remains that if they want to believe what they believe, you have no right in taking that from them. To do otherwise would open up the floodgates to all types of people who you think need "rehabilitation".

They can believe what they want. I'm not talking thought police here. I'm saying that why should bigots be equal on the list for an opportunity to become foster parents when they may pass down bigoted beliefs on to a child?

[theVOID]

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.

The government has no business in beliefs, period.

If it was the case that government had an obligation to prevent bigotry or racism through it's official channels then you would see no .co.uk or .us domains being issued to known racists or homophobes and they would be removed when discovered.

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

I don't care about the established law, I asked for the principles.

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.

And why should their own children be an exception? What is it about a child coming into a family after birth that makes them need these double standards?

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.

Never said it did give them automatic access to a privilege, and that wasn't my point about religious beliefs either - My point was that if you are going to 'protect' children from being placed with families who display anti-homosexual beliefs then why not those who display anit-religious beliefs?

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

So why aren't you against religious or sexual bigotry too? You've said that this shouldn't apply to people with anit-religious/atheist attitudes, would you say that a family who's only bigotry is an extreme dislike of Islam should prevent them too from adopting?

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

Oh, and a family refusing to promote pro-gay attitudes makes them "brainwashers"? Are you personally for preventing any religious beliefs form being taught on the account of it being "brainwashing"? By what standards do you determine that these things are brainwashing and is there a difference between "brainwashing" and a family passing on beliefs that they sincerely believe are correct and good for the child? Is a family who sincerely beliefs in creationism and wants to teach that position to there children "brainwashing" them?

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

I agree that it's the most important concern, I disagree that these attitudes have a significant impact on the child's welbeing. Being raised homophobic and having a perfectly normal physical and mental state are by no means mutually exclusive.

A few generations ago most people were homophobic and/or racist, their children turned out better than that generation, so the case of a child being raised in a homophobic family causing them mental harm is unjustified.

Another interesting tidbit from the court document.

[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.

Aside from them lacking the free time to properly care for the child that's bullshit, for the following reason:

It seems to imply that these people would not be able to take the Muslim child to church services with then, following from that line of reasoning:

It would require that an Atheist family who adopts/fosters a child who has been raised in a religious home to continue to take that child to church. An atheist who refuses to take a child to church would be refused the privilege of adopting.

Subsequently, A Religious family who adopts a new born baby would be unable to take that child to church services since that child is an atheist at that point in time.

Apparently this couple had a few strikes against them.

A few strikes?

They wouldn't take the child to a mosque when they were at church - Neither would I.

And they may not have the free time needed to provide sufficient care, that isn't a strike against them it's simply a concern over their availability.

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

Sure, and that is the same as people who would not promote pro-gay attitudes to their children not being anything close to gay haters.

As for the feminists who do hate men, they should be refused adoption by your standards, no?

[Rwandrall]

Having bigoted parents, if that bigotry is the only big flaw these parents have, is still far better for the child than being an orphan.

I agree with the position of the slippery slope. I mean if this is grounds to stop an adoption because it causes a detriment to the child, wouldn't your bigotry then possibly be grounds to refuse you a job as a teacher ? Or even good enough reason to call child services for abuse ?

[Jaysyn]

The government has no business in beliefs, period.

If it was the case that government had an obligation to prevent bigotry or racism through it's official channels then you would see no .co.uk or .us domains being issued to known racists or homophobes and they would be removed when discovered.

1.) They do when the beliefs can have an adverse effect on a ward of the state. Also, ICANN is a private company for that very reason.

And why should their own children be an exception? What is it about a child coming into a family after birth that makes them need these double standards?

2.) A natural child isn't a ward of the state. Two different things legally.

I don't care about the established law, I asked for the principles

3.) I've given you both objective & subjective principles. Please quit trying to move the goalposts on me.

Never said it did give them automatic access to a privilege, and that wasn't my point about religious beliefs either - My point was that if you are going to 'protect' children from being placed with families who display anti-homosexual beliefs then why not those who display anit-religious beliefs?

4.) I'm not sure what you are getting at, I've never said anything about anti-religious beliefs. We are talking about protected classes here. You are putting words in my mouth that have little to do with the matter at hand.

So why aren't you against religious or sexual bigotry too? You've said that this shouldn't apply to people with anit-religious/atheist attitudes, would you say that a family who's only bigotry is an extreme dislike of Islam should prevent them too from adopting?

5.) I am against bigotry period, not sure why you would think otherwise. I've never said anything should or shouldn't apply to people with anti-religious / atheist attitudes. I mentioned they were both protected classes in the workplace. Please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.

Oh, and a family refusing to promote pro-gay attitudes makes them "brainwashers"? Are you personally for preventing any religious beliefs form being taught on the account of it being "brainwashing"? By what standards do you determine that these things are brainwashing and is there a difference between "brainwashing" and a family passing on beliefs that they sincerely believe are correct and good for the child? Is a family who sincerely beliefs in creationism and wants to teach that position to there children "brainwashing" them?

6.) Protected classes. Not sure why you can't understand that. If for some reason you don't think that children are very, very malleable when they are young then you are sorely mistaken.

I agree that it's the most important concern, I disagree that these attitudes have a significant impact on the child's welbeing. Being raised homophobic and having a perfectly normal physical and mental state are by no means mutually exclusive.

7.) You are saying it's ok to promote racist & homophobic values to a child, I will never agree with you on that point. I will further never agree that the state shouldn't do what is legally in their power to do to prevent that from happening when it is in their ward's best interest. The well being of the ward trumps any privilege that you seem to think the couple in question has.

A few generations ago most people were homophobic and/or racist, their children turned out better than that generation, so the case of a child being raised in a homophobic family causing them mental harm is unjustified.

7a.) Appeal to history.

It would require that an Atheist family who adopts/fosters a child who has been raised in a religious home to continue to take that child to church. An atheist who refuses to take a child to church would be refused the privilege of adopting.

8.) Yes, that is correct other than we are not talking about adoption, but foster care.

They wouldn't take the child to a mosque when they were at church - Neither would I.

9.) Then you wouldn't be allowed to foster a child either. Don't feel bad, neither would I. Not having free time to care for a child & not making certain things available to a foster child are pretty big issues. I don't expect you to see that since you are way too hung up on the other side of this issue (The "rights" of the foster couple).

As for the feminists who do hate men, they should be refused adoption by your standards, no?

10.) I don't think I'd place a child with them either, if I was the adoption agent or the judge.