Judge declares Christians unfit to be parents

Yes, but no one else is liable if the Duggars want to try to stop their own kids from being gay. Unfortunate, but true.

Actually placing kids with potentially abusive people is a whole other story.

 

I'm surprised by the number of comments agreeing with this. 0_0 Honestly, who said they're extremists? I definitely don't agree with the way many Christians treat homosexuals. (Westboro Baptist Church anyone?) But that doesn't mean that all Christians are close-minded and strict.

Real Christianity says homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean treating a homosexual person like crap. Jesus loves everyone. You guys are acting as if the parents are going to throw the kid out or beat him if he's gay. While strict Christian parents are definitely not uncommon, that's not a reason to assume these people are.

The "strong views" bit sounds like exaggerating. They said it was "against God's laws and morals". They didn't say that homosexuals were unfit to live or anything like that. It's extremely messed up that a couple can't be foster parents just because they're Christians.

Oh, and just to let you know, I'm not looking for a debate. I just had to say my piece against another Big Brother type move.

Agreed.

 

But how many parents do you know who let their children do something that is morally wrong?

Let's say the child was to grow up and discover he/she is gay. Would you not say a belief that this discovery is wrong and any associated behavior with it is wrong could compromise the welfare of that child?

Being gay is not a crime in the UK and is legal. Now let's take another example which is legal and not a crime - let's say parents think it's 'morally wrong' to play sport. Would you say that could compromise the child's welfare if the child wished to join a basketball team?

In many ways I think the first situation is worse. The psychological damage is indelible when the child is tormented by his sexuality and the feeling he is doing wrong.

 

Yes, they view it as morally wrong but that doesn't mean they're going to approach it in an extremist way.

But you see, there's nothing in Christianity against playing sports.

I have my own views on this, and I don't want to spark a debate with non-Christians. As a Christian, I felt I should make a post. But I'm also tired right now and REALLY don't want a long drawn out argument/debate on the Internet.

What I will say is that if the child ended up being gay, the parents should be willing to help and not insult. This should be true for any Christian parent. Christianity is about peace and love, not hate.

 

hmmm. This seems troublesome to me. What if The Christian family was dub'd in with a Muslim family and the child was anglo. Would they be let raise an anglo child when all white ppl are condemed in their religion??

I DO Not think Government should make dicissions based on Religious preference. I think government has divided our country enough.

Since Nobody can prove that their GOD exists then what's the point of government rule. I personally do not believe in Religion but that does not mean I do not believe in Creation.

It sounds to me like our constitution is being assulted once again and more of our rights are being overturned in court. Our Country was based on Freedom, Freedom of Religion was what brought ppl here in the first place and one of the reason ppl fled their own countries.

Furthermore, I am really tired of hearing about gay rights.. IT'S CALLED HUMAN RIGHTS ppl. Why would gays have privilages others dont.

Christains arent the only religious cult that does not approve of homosexuality. I believe it is an indivdual choice and has nothing to do with religion.

That's why I do not consort with religous organizations. These Religous Leaders are all out for their own profit. Power and Greed rule them just as it does the government.

sh

 

But the decision isn't based on religious preference. The opinion held by the parents in this case just happened to be religious. It would be no different if, say, the parents declared that they would only feed their child one meal a day. The government is required to prevent people like that from adopting children. And it's perfectly justifiable to discourage that kind of behavior. Do you want to live in a country where every kind of injustice against children is tolerated?

 

No it wasn't, from it's very conception the USA had rules. laws and a heirachy... why would anything based on freedom need such things? The US was based on a place with alternative laws to other countries ... but it had and continues to have less freedoms than many many parts of the planet

no, freedom from aledged religious persecution from catholics is what drove the first protestants from England to what is now the USA, the protestants were not breaking any laws practicing their religion, many stayed, fought against the persecution and the anglican (protestant) church became the most powerful in the United Kingdom ... homosexuals have suffered persecution from christian churches for millenia, now thank goodness that persecution and prejudice are being fought against by the actual people who make and uphold the laws which the majority agree with

i can't see how an concientious human being can argue against innocent children being protected from prejudice and persecution, whatever it's source... homophobia, whatever it's root, is an idiocy that belongs back in our embarrasing history........ i aplaud the judges decision and hope it will be echoed wherever people care for the healthy upbringing of their children more then they care for their own selfish dreams for the afterlife :sunny:

 

How about because Gays like every other group that isn't heterosexual white males weren't given their human rights by the latter group.

Also this thread title is misleading, they weren't found unfit to be foster parents because of being Christian, they found unfit for being unrepentant homophobes who are backing up their stance with Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who have no problem with gays. On top of it, they can have all of their own children they want, they were only banned from being foster parents, that's not the state getting into people's businesses, that's the state regulating it's own business since foster homes are usually subsidized with state money and foster kids are wards of the state, i.e. the state has legal guardianship and protection over them

 

it didnt' seem to worry george washington when he went down on Louis XVI

 

ok...

 

I do not condone abuse in any form esp when it comes to children.

sh

 

Just saying, they were declared unfit for being raging homophobes, not Christians.

 

did you actually read the news article?

 

I find it hard to believe that so many agree with this post . Because at its heart ( no matter which side of this issue you are on ) is discrimination , singling out of a particular group , in this case a religion for persecution . It's insane and wrong .

Because by this logic that you are applauding and abdicating for WOULD HAVE BEEN THE EXACT SAME 50 YEARS AGO , BUT REVERSED ! In other words the state deeming two homosexual parents " unfit" to raise a Christian child ! Is that wrong HELL YES ! Is it still wrong today even though reversed HELL YES !

I understand that this question brings a lot of passion from both sides . However we can not let that evolve into attacks on any personal freedoms and civil liberties against anyone or any group . It's exactly what you're fighting against . Discrimination is WRONG , hate is WRONG in whatever form they come in . You can't pick and choose that , just because you're on the other side of the table .

This is nothing more then the state attacking religion !

People should have the right to believe in , and say what they want , without fear or persecution . Yes those westboro people are total pieces of shit , however that doesn't mean all Christians are .

And I bet this ruling would not have been the same if the "parents " in question had been Muslim instead of Christian . Because it's not p.c. to attack Muslims . However suddenly it's open season on Christians .

No, discrimination is discrimination . Wrong is wrong .

 

See this is why thread titles are important. No one is attacking religion here, they weren't ruled unfit for being Christians, they were ruled unfit for teaching unabashed homophobic beliefs to the kids they were looking after. THESE AREN'T THEIR KIDS. They're foster kids, they're wards of the state, the state is responsible for their protection until otherwise adopted, and foster parents receive government money to look after foster kids. If you want to teach your kids hateful things, then adopt a kid who's fully 100% yours and go hog wild with it. You do not have a right to teach foster children hateful beliefs, they're not your children. This is no way discrimination, it's the state's job to protect against discrimination and that's exactly what they're doing, by making sure the children in their care don't grow up to be freakin neo nazis or anything because of who they left them with.

 

Good.

Haha read this....

"We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics."

See what they did there? they tried to make christians look under attack, somehow downtrodden. But no, there's no plot against a "mainstream" religion, the judge is christian too, I'd be willing to wager.... They just see the harm that extreme fire and brimstone "parents" could do, to a kid that COULD BE GAY!

It's obviously not EVEN just "normal" christian homphobic zealotry in passing, they appear to have seriously hit on it, when interviewing the social worker.

Foster kids often go BACK TO THEIR PARENTS, they could be fostered for a number of reasons, from their parents being in prison for a sack of pot to I don't know what. As other people have said, these are NOT their children, they are being PAID to take good care of other peoples kids, they better not be indoctrinating them with hateful faith-down-your-throat bullshit.

 

They certainly seam like normal people and I am sure they would be good parents. That being said, I am glad the judge just denied them because it sends a "the people are not putting up with this religious bullshit anymore". Some people are gay, religion needs to get past that.

 

I don't really understand your point. You're saying that these folks wouldn't make good parents because of their discrimination? Well good, that's what the Judge thought too. However, then you say that the judgement was based on religious beliefs? I think that's what has everyone so upset - when in fact they just don't understand. It's true that most Christians believe that being Gay is abhorrently wrong but this couple, apparently, takes it to the extreme. Yes, it is based on their faith; but it's the couple's interpretation and extremist views on the matter that is the issue.

The article itself is a mediator, we cannot know all that was taken into consideration for the ruling - and the reporter himself could have been mistaken (happens all the time).

 

what exactly is wrong with the tread title? nobody is attacking religion... these would-be foster parents asked for their prejudice to be ignored by a high court judge because it is part of their religious doctrine ..... they asked their faith to be taken into consideration... the judge did so.. and found it left them morally unfit to be parents in the eyes of the law.

therefore ... Judge declares Christians unfit to be parents ...... what would you rather it be? "Judge declares Christians are fit to be parents as long as they ignore the bit about homosexual sex being a sin"?

 

Christians do not hate , and children are not
homo-sexual .