[arista]

Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights: Judges' ruling against devout foster couple

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1FKkpbucD


They were just on ITV1 Daybreak


They were asked a Question do they accept Gay
and she said 'No'.

She also said it was against her Bible.


Well that all makes sense
they are no good a modern fostering
there Stupid Strict Bible has stopped them.

She could have said Yes she does accept Gays
then they would still be doing there work.





Life In The City.

[Angus]

Yet again some PC idiot judge strikes to deprive children of a loving home, and to demonise people who hold strong religious beliefs. Since Christian bashing is now a permissible sport in society, the media and the law courts, this ruling does not surprise me at all. I bet the ruling would have been completely reversed if it had been muslim foster parents refusing to take a Jewish or gay child for example.

It's not the ruling itself I have a problem with, but the selective application of it to different ethnic groups. Shades of New Labour social engineering lingers on like the pervasive and divisive cancer it is.

[arista]

"I bet the ruling would have been completely reversed if it had been muslim "

No that same new Question would go for them.

The only way to get past it is to Fib.



Children Now have Rights.


Debated now for the Next Hour on Radio 5 Live.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

"I bet the ruling would have been completely reversed if it had been muslim "

No that same new Question would go for them.

The only way to get past it is to Fib.



Children Now have Rights.

I respect your belief in the Justice System in this country but I will believe that Arista, when the ruling is tested in that scenario. Precedent so far has shown that certain groups in society have more rights than others, so my opinion is based on observable fact, not supposition. However, I am happy to be proved wrong any time, but I won't be holding my breath.

[arista]

Fair Enough
but these new trick questions will get them all.

[Stu]

~divisive CANER!

[joeysteele]

I don't get this at all, the Bible condemns adultery too but that seems totally acceptable now but in the New Testament which is the new covenant and also we are told contains the speeches and words and teachings of Jesus from which Christianity is supposed to be totally based on,his direction,his example, I have read all four gospels which are the only words and events attributed completely to him and in them he doesn't ever make a single reference to homosexuality whatsoever,

It is from the writings of Paul in the New Testament that the homophobic comments come and he seems to me to have been someone who either woke up in a good mood some days or on others in a foul mood and started attacking all sorts of people in his anger.Whether they were Romans, Women or whatever inclination some may have.

Discrimination is wrong full stop and listening to this couple on TV early today, I wasn't sure they were saying all they would wish to on the subject.using words like as to dealing with a child with homosexual leanings that they would talk to the child when it was not feeling adequate because of homosexual feelings. Not feeling adequate??

Jesus, whether people believe in him or not, but Christians are supposed to,he preached love for everyone, forgive everyone everything, never judge or condemn anyone. From what I see and hear of many so called devout and practising Christians,there is little or even none of those actions being done to others by them.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I don't get this at all, the Bible condemns adultery too but that seems totally acceptable now but in the New Testament which is the new covenant and also we are told contains the speeches and words and teachings of Jesus from which Christianity is supposed to be totally based on,his direction,his example, I have read all four gospels which are the only words and events attributed completely to him and in them he doesn't ever make a single reference to homosexuality whatsoever,

It is from the writings of Paul in the New Testament that the homophobic comments come and he seems to me to have been someone who either woke up in a good mood some days or on others in a foul mood and started attacking all sorts of people in his anger.Whether they were Romans, Women or whatever inclination some may have.

Discrimination is wrong full stop and listening to this couple on TV early today, I wasn't sure they were saying all they would wish to on the subject.using words like as to dealing with a child with homosexual leanings that they would talk to the child when it was not feeling adequate because of homosexual feelings. Not feeling adequate??

Jesus, whether people believe in him or not, but Christians are supposed to,he preached love for everyone, forgive everyone everything, never judge or condemn anyone. From what I see and hear of many so called devout and practising Christians,there is little or even none of those actions being done to others by them.

tbh If that's what they would do with a homosexual child then it's best they're not allowed to take children anymore, that could very damaging

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

tbh If that's what they would do with a homosexual child then it's best they're not allowed to take children anymore, that could very damaging

I agree niamhxo, I just felt watching them that they were holding back on some maybe more extreme and prejudiced views they may have.Very odd terminology they used. In my opinion that is.

[arista]

"I don't get this at all, "



But these Are Very Strict Bible people
they ain't normal.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by angus58

Yet again some PC idiot judge strikes to deprive children of a loving home, and to demonise people who hold strong religious beliefs. Since Christian bashing is now a permissible sport in society, the media and the law courts, this ruling does not surprise me at all. I bet the ruling would have been completely reversed if it had been muslim foster parents refusing to take a Jewish or gay child for example.

It's not the ruling itself I have a problem with, but the selective application of it to different ethnic groups. Shades of New Labour social engineering lingers on like the pervasive and divisive cancer it is.

It's more to do with the fact that they are using their religion is a defense for their prejudice rather then the fact they are Christian, the same would have happened for any couple and if it was a Muslim couple then they'd be hung out to dry in the press and demonised more then these two are.

I think it's deserved that they face a ban, it's not right to raise a child and pass your own prejudices onto them. They'd make terrible parents if they reject a child on the grounds of something like sexuality which isn't something that's a choice or a concious decision, it's like rejecting someone on the grounds of skin colour. It's wrong because it's not a factor you have any control over.

Granted it's fair enough if a child has behavioral problems or needs the foster parents aren't equipped to deal with as that's doing an injustice to the child as it wouldn't be the right fit for them and they wouldn't flourish. Rejecting someone on the grounds of sexuality is the foster parent's problem rather then the child's and it's just discrimination and prejudice.

[arista]

"It's more to do with the fact that they are using their religion is a defense for their prejudice rather then the fact they are Christian"



Yes Dezzy
Bang On Right


The Bible Stinks

[Niall]

Well I think that them thinking homosexuality being incorrect is just a wrong view to have if they are meant to be taking care of children who could possibly grow up to be gay themselves. Aren't they meant to support the children after all?

This is like that registrar who wouldn't marry a gay couple because of her religious beliefs. I think if they can't handle it they shouldn't be doing the job.

[BB_Eye]

Not fair. The potential adoptive parents even said they would love their child, even if they didn't agree with homosexuality. Children who have to live in the nightmare of care homes would be over the moon to have a family like this. I think the couple would probably have a good case if they took the adoption agency to court or judicial review.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Not fair. The potential adoptive parents even said they would love their child, even if they didn't agree with homosexuality. Children who have to live in the nightmare of care homes would be over the moon to have a family like this. I think the couple would probably have a good case if they took the adoption agency to court or judicial review.

I agree, if they are indeed deserving of the praise that has been given to them by social workers it doesnt seem fair that that all gets thrown out the window and forgotten because of their views on homosexuality, and there is a big difference between not encouraging it and being prejudiced against it.

The thread title is pretty misleading as well, they didnt "refuse to accept gay", they were refused the chance to foster because of their views, they actually said "they are not homophobic and would ‘accept and love’ any child" which is contradictory to the title.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I agree, if they are indeed deserving of the praise that has been given to them by social workers it doesnt seem fair that that all gets thrown out the window and forgotten because of their views on homosexuality, and there is a big difference between not encouraging it and being prejudiced against it.

The thread title is pretty misleading as well, they didnt "refuse to accept gay", they were refused the chance to foster because of their views, they actually said "they are not homophobic and would ‘accept and love’ any child" which is contradictory to the title.

Much as I actually agree with what you've said here - I think this is a difficult one on balance.

They may not be prejudiced - but I can't help think about the effect on a child, growing up knowing their parents views on homosexuality - and if said child did have homosexual tendencies - would they feel restrained in voicing their sexual preferences / and/ or coming out through fear of desperately not wanting to 'disappoint or hurt' the very people they love - Not that I am saying they would, but I'm thinking from a very deep psychological pov.

I think of friends I know who have the most loving, caring parents, parents who don't understand or necessarily welcome homosexuality, still love their children regardless, but the pressure on the son/daughter and the heartache in 'breaking the news' to the parents when the time came. They suffered years and years of so not wanting to cause their parents any upset because they didn't 'conform to the parents views'.

As I say, I think it is a hard one on balance.

[arista]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Not fair. The potential adoptive parents even said they would love their child, even if they didn't agree with homosexuality. Children who have to live in the nightmare of care homes would be over the moon to have a family like this. I think the couple would probably have a good case if they took the adoption agency to court or judicial review.

Its So Simple
She could have said We love Gays as well.

Then they would carry on.


You have to Get up to Date
this is 2011
not 1950.