Court upholds foster ban on couple who oppose homosexuality

I'm not particularly sure what to make of this. Are there potential parents being barred from adopting because they tell their children certain races are superior to one another, or that it is wrong to practice other religions?

What is the line between teaching bigotry and religious freedom, where do we draw it, and by what standard? How do we know they weren't just teaching the practice of homosexuality as wrong like some liberal Christians do?

 

Honestly, I think "freedom of religion" is a total cop out. You don't get to play by your own rules in life. Anyone can claim anything they want to claim and then pin it on their own personal God. Look at Mormons, racism is literally written into their scriptures and as recently as the 1980's African Americans were banned from their churches. Zontar already pointed out the racism thing. Mormons could easily claim that black children are inferior to white children and then claim God ordered the world that way. I would certainly hope that they would be banned from adopting or fostering a black child.

Government is secular, and I don't think any consideration should be given for a person's religious views at all, quite frankly. Whoever said adopting and fostering children was a public service is absolutely correct. The government isn't giving you a child so you can indoctrinate it with your religious beliefs, they're giving it to you so it can have a loving home, they're giving it to you for the betterment of society as a whole. If you can't provide love to ALL types of children, then you shouldn't be given any at all, plain and simple. There are privately operated religious adoption agencies out there for religious couples to choose from.

I'm not saying that people can't have their personal faith and stuff, but they shouldn't expect anyone, least of all the government, to respect them for it.

 

I have to agree with Zontar on this one. On the one hand, I think homosexuality should be accepted by anyone and that kids shouldn't be raised to believe that it's wrong. On the other... this is barring a couple from being parents.

I do feel that to raise a child you must allow them to have their own beliefs. If this couple were to change their prospective, it would be fine. And I agree with Kidd in that religions, especially Orthodox Christian beliefs, have a tendency to take it a bit far in their beliefs. So I don't think people should be allowed to bash gays in front of their adopted child. Children shouldn't be influenced like that. They shouldn't grow up in a home where same-sex love is hated. But I also feel that everyone has a right to adopt.

 

I'm guessing the line is when it does harm or potentially does harm to the child. To use race as an example, it could be argued that it's OK to send a white child to a home where they will be taught to discriminate against black people (because it could be argued that the child is not directly harmed by it) but not OK to send a black child to the same house (because then the discrimination would be against them and it would do harm). Since you can't tell if a child will grow up gay you can't send any child to a house where a gay person would be discriminated against (since there are more than enough statistics and sob stories to back up the harm that can do).
I haven't looked into it, but there's also a question of what you can teach other people's kids. If you're fostering then they're not yours biologically and you haven't adopted them, so your guardianship of them is regarded as temporary. I doubt there's a law about it, but if you found out that your child that was taken from you was being sent to a house where they would be taught a religion or ideology that you found offensive (even though it technically does no harm to the child) wouldn't you want to fight it if you could?

 

Cue the fundamentalists whining about how they're being "oppressed" because their intolerance is no longer tolerated. The delusions of privilege religion instills in people is simply dumbfounding.

 

simple explanation, they r looking out for the best interest of the kids. They can't release the kid to parents when any of those kids could be gay and then have parents that would tell them how wrong it is. That would be damaging to the kids.

 

Foster parents are suposed to provide a stable home enviorment for children who sometimes have never had it.

It is reasonable that any home that has people teaching a virulently vulger and hatefilled ideology is not a sutable or stable place for children.

 

Stupid fucks. Hooray for a ballsy judge.

 

There is a HUGE problem when one argues that this decision was supported by taking into consideration the best interest of the child.

We're saying that there is a chance the child will turn out to be LGBT identified and hence, a chance it will not be a welcoming home.

Then we can also argue that we should not give a child to a pair of same-sex parents because there is a chance that the child will turn out to be a radical right wing conservative and hence, a chance that he/she will be in distress.


If enough logic and analysis is put into this, perhaps one has to admit that this is just another case of an ideology displacing another. The rather new ideology that society should fully accept a diverse sexual orientation is displacing other ideologies.

Is this new ideology restricting freedom of those who do not share it, like the couple? SURE! But that's what ideologies do.

We have restricted the freedom of murderers, thiefs, etc. LGBT individuals were once restricted as well. And now those who are against it are being restricted.

When we congregate to determine how humans best ought to live and what humans best ought to do, we seggregate those who do not share our position.

 

Show me the child that is born radical right wing conservative.

 

Is that relevant? So are you suggesting that if the child becomes a radical right wing conservative, he should be changed since he is not born with it?

Or are you suggesting that if the quality is not innate, it's less important?

How much of our 'identity' should we attribute to genetics? Can a non-genetic attribute be as important to someone's identity as a 'genetic' attribute to someone else?

 

It is been shown that hate and discrimination are learned/taught not something you are born with.

 

People are born gay. It may not be scientifically proven, but come on, you know it, i know it, we all know it. No child is born with political opinions. Therefore i think your original comparison is pointless.

Every child has the potential to eventually ideologically disagree with their parents. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand. A political persuasion in prospective foster parents is not a valid reason to bar them from fostering children. Ideologies are subject to potential change, pending contemplation, time, study, etc etc... Homosexuality is not an ideology.

 

Guys just ignore Bryan, he has always been one for radical statements, there's no point in paying him mind.

 

i'm interested in what he has to say, to see what possible rebuttal he can put forth

 

Ouch Revan, you hurt my feelings.

Note that I am NOT arguing whether or not being gay is nurture or nature neither am I arguing whether or not political beliefs are nurture vs nature.

What I am suggesting is that nature vs nurture is not relevant in the argument.

The child has a chance of being distressed if he happens to be gay in the couple's family just as the child has a chance of being distressed if he happens to be a radical right-wing in a same-sex couple's family.

@Pseudojim: This is why I posted the question on identity. Your arguments seem to convey that just because a quality is innate, it is more important than other qualities. Why should it be? (Revisit identity question posted above).

And the ideology is not about being gay, the ideology is that sexual orientation should be fully accepted, and this is the ideology that is restricting the couple in the news.

 

Re: the question of innateness, yes, it is more important. If one disagrees with another's political persuasion, one is easily able to criticise the thought processes which lead to the persuasion in the first place... debate is possible. Such disagreements naturally occur, since people think differently. The criticism is against one's choice, not the fibre of their being.

If on the other hand, one disagrees with another's innate nature, no such criticism is possible. It becomes bigotry. That's where the difference lies.

[edit]

THIS is truly irrelevant.

so what?

in the former case, he is being discriminated against for the nature of his very being. How is that fair?

in the latter, he is being discriminated against for his political stance. Fair play. You can rationalise such disagreements.