Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gay couple finally approved as "General Foster Carers"

Options
  • 01-04-2011 1:26pm
    #1
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Here's a touching article on the experiences of two guys who applied to become foster parents (since the law doesn't allow gay couples to adopt):

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2011/0330/1224293350640.html

    Good on 'em for pursuing it as far as they did and here's to hoping that they'll be allowed adopt as soon as possible.


«134567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Count Duckula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Count Duckula


    I remember having a debate in class once over gay adoption, and one of the people on the side saying that they shouldn't be allowed to said, when pressed, that her reasons were, "well, the kid'll just turn out wrong, innit?"

    I think that sums up the intellectual capabilities of the ignorant bigots who think that way.


  • Options
    #3
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    We could care only for seven- to 12 year-olds, and a child could only live with us for a maximum of 28 days, meaning we couldn’t foster a child long-term.

    This comes across as being an unusual restriction by the way it's written.
    Is that so?


  • Options
    #4
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Count Duckula wrote: »
    I remember having a debate in class once over gay adoption, and one of the people on the side saying that they shouldn't be allowed to said, when pressed, that her reasons were, "well, the kid'll just turn out wrong, innit?"

    I think that sums up the intellectual capabilities of the ignorant bigots who think that way.

    AN DEY ALL B PEDOZ!!!
    HURRRRR DURRRRR

    Fukken hate that ****!
    Boils my blood!
    :mad::mad::mad::mad:


  • Options
    #5
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Count Duckula wrote: »
    I remember having a debate in class once over gay adoption, and one of the people on the side saying that they shouldn't be allowed to said, when pressed, that her reasons were, "well, the kid'll just turn out wrong, innit?"

    I think that sums up the intellectual capabilities of the ignorant bigots who think that way.

    Everyone knows gay parents will bring up gay children


  • Options
    #6
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    This comes across as being an unusual restriction by the way it's written.
    Is that so?
    More than 28 days of exposure to the ghey may result in homosexual behaviour from the child. I imagine they are just playing it safe until more testing can be done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    least the kid will have killer fashion sense


  • Options
    #8
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    krudler wrote: »
    least the kid will have fab fashion sense

    fixed


  • Options
    #9
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,358 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    This comes across as being an unusual restriction by the way it's written.
    Is that so?

    It does sound quite restrictive, but still a step in the right direction.


  • Options
    #10
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    What a fantastic piece, that's probably the best article I've read on a news site for quite some time.

    I'd love to hear from our christian counterparts on this. Please, do tell us why these two men should not be allowed to do what they do?


  • Options
    #11
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Everyone knows gay parents will bring up gay children

    And then those gay children will grow up to be gay adults, and those gay adults will convert more people to gayness and then gay marriage will be legalised and then society will collapse and humanity will go extinct because nobody's reproducing anymore.

    Oh noes!

    But on a serious note, well done to the couple and this is (hopefully) a big step forward in society's attitude toward homosexuality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    lolfag.jpg


  • Options
    #13
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    What a fantastic piece, that's probably the best article I've read on a news site for quite some time.

    I'd love to hear from our christian counterparts on this. Please, do tell us why these two men should not be allowed to do what they do?

    If there is no nuclear alternative, then I can't object. The focus should always remain on the child, and whats best for them, and should not be about 'gay rights' or any such things. If this gay couple got considered on the basis of a threat of legal action for discrimination, then I wholly object. If it was on the basis that there was no nuclear alternative, then I personally can't object. Though if the numbers of nuclear families is at a point that children must be put into less ideal environments, then we, as Christians, should do more than talk and actually put ourselves forward to foster. In the UK however, it has recently been adjudged that Christians are not appropriate foster parents, so thats a shame.


  • Options
    #14
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If there is no nuclear alternative, then I can't object. The focus should always remain on the child, and whats best for them, and should not be about 'gay rights' or any such things. If this gay couple got considered on the basis of a threat of legal action for discrimination, then I wholly object. If it was on the basis that there was no nuclear alternative, then I personally can't object. Though if the numbers of nuclear families is at a point that children must be put into less ideal environments, then we, as Christians, should do more than talk and actually put ourselves forward to foster. In the UK however, it has recently been adjudged that Christians are not appropriate foster parents, so thats a shame.

    Why should nuclear come first?

    Also stop misrepresenting, it was one particular couple who stated the'd be teaching the kid stuff they shouldn't really who of course then claimed it was because they were Christian.


  • Options
    #15
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    it has recently been adjudged that Christians are not appropriate foster parents
    As Dr Doom says, the judgement said no such thing.

    The judgement -- granted at the request of the foster parents themselves -- stated that a local authority can legitimately decline to place foster kids with people who intend to spread homophobic views.


  • Options
    #16
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    As Dr Doom says, the judgement said no such thing.

    The judgement -- granted at the request of the foster parents themselves -- stated that a local authority can legitimately decline to place foster kids with people who intend to spread homophobic views.

    Meh, moronic pejoratives aside, the judgement is against Christian morality, and thus any practicing Christian. Whatever the motive, (In this case ones personal views on homosexuality) the result is the same, i.e. A Christian is not deemed an appropriate foster parent. Of course, I'm sure many agree with this ruling, and probably see the homosexuals in your story as more appropriate, but thats not an argument I'm picking. My input here was in relation to Magic Markers question of Christian posters opinion.


  • Options
    #17
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Meh, moronic pejoratives aside, the judgement is against Christian morality, and thus any practicing Christian. Whatever the motive, (In this case ones personal views on homosexuality) the result is the same, i.e. A Christian is .
    No, it's a judgement against their particular, homophobic brand of Christian morality. Fortunately most sane rational Christians don't hold the same bigoted ideas as they did.
    Homophobes and bigots were not deemed as appropriate foster parents, not Christians.


  • Options
    #18
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,526 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Meh, moronic pejoratives aside, the judgement is against Christian morality, and thus any practicing Christian. Whatever the motive, (In this case ones personal views on homosexuality) the result is the same, i.e. A Christian is not deemed an appropriate foster parent. Of course, I'm sure many agree with this ruling, and probably see the homosexuals in your story as more appropriate, but thats not an argument I'm picking. My input here was in relation to Magic Markers question of Christian posters opinion.
    If the ruling had been against racists, would that have been "against KKK morality"?

    The ruling was against exactly one group of people: those who wish to spread homophobic views. That group is not synonymous with Christians. There are many Christians who do not spread homophobic views. There are many non-Christians who do spread homophobic views.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #19
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If there is no nuclear alternative, then I can't object. The focus should always remain on the child, and whats best for them, and should not be about 'gay rights' or any such things. If this gay couple got considered on the basis of a threat of legal action for discrimination, then I wholly object. If it was on the basis that there was no nuclear alternative, then I personally can't object. Though if the numbers of nuclear families is at a point that children must be put into less ideal environments, then we, as Christians, should do more than talk and actually put ourselves forward to foster. In the UK however, it has recently been adjudged that Christians are not appropriate foster parents, so thats a shame.

    Sour grapes much?


  • Options
    #20
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Meh, moronic pejoratives aside, the judgement is against Christian morality, and thus any practicing Christian. Whatever the motive, (In this case ones personal views on homosexuality) the result is the same, i.e. A Christian is not deemed an appropriate foster parent. Of course, I'm sure many agree with this ruling, and probably see the homosexuals in your story as more appropriate, but thats not an argument I'm picking. My input here was in relation to Magic Markers question of Christian posters opinion.

    not every christian is a homophobe though. If they were athiests and also homophobes, would that mean athiests arent fit foster parents?


  • Options
    #21
    hatz7
    Registered Users Posts: 303 ✭✭hatz7


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If there is no nuclear alternative, then I can't object. The focus should always remain on the child, and whats best for them, and should not be about 'gay rights' or any such things. If this gay couple got considered on the basis of a threat of legal action for discrimination, then I wholly object. If it was on the basis that there was no nuclear alternative, then I personally can't object. Though if the numbers of nuclear families is at a point that children must be put into less ideal environments, then we, as Christians, should do more than talk and actually put ourselves forward to foster. In the UK however, it has recently been adjudged that Christians are not appropriate foster parents, so thats a shame.

    Ya I think that gay rights as an issue has overtaken the foster/adoption debate to the extent that children are now 'something' that they should 'have'. Pity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Meh, moronic pejoratives aside, the judgement is against Christian morality, and thus any practicing Christian. Whatever the motive, (In this case ones personal views on homosexuality) the result is the same, i.e. A Christian is not deemed an appropriate foster parent. Of course, I'm sure many agree with this ruling, and probably see the homosexuals in your story as more appropriate, but thats not an argument I'm picking. My input here was in relation to Magic Markers question of Christian posters opinion.

    There are plenty of practising christians who have no problem with it so don't make it into some kind of anti christian issue.


  • Options
    #23
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    A Christian is not deemed an appropriate foster parent.
    This is only true if you believe that "christian" and "homophobe" are synonymous -- are they?


  • Options
    #24
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,950 ✭✭✭Gregor Samsa


    JimiTime wrote: »
    If there is no nuclear alternative, then I can't object.

    When I first read that line, I thought "WTF? Blowing the kids up is a bit harsh! At least s/he sees being adopted by homosexuals as a better alternative to that!"

    You're right, of course, in saying that the interests of the child should come first. With that established, each prospective set of parents should be judged solely on their ability to cater to those interests.


  • Options
    #25
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    This is only true if you believe that "christian" and "homophobe" are synonymous -- are they?

    I of course don't believe that the two are synonymous. But believe it or not, there are some morons who DO equate the two. Some would be stupid enough to suggest that racism is comparable to how you may hold to the biblical view that for a man to have sex with another man is morally wrong. Ludicrous isn't it?!

    Isms and phobias seem to be par for the course in trying to declare a pejorative war against anyone who doesn't happen to share your views these days. Then again, its not surprising that ignorant cowards will use weasel terms I'm sure you'll agree.


  • Options
    #26
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Some would be stupid enough to suggest that racism is comparable to how you may hold to the biblical view that for a man to have sex with another man is morally wrong. Ludicrous isn't it?!.

    No it isn't. We don't choose our skin colour and we don't choose to be heterosexual,homosexual or bisexual. So the two are actually comparable in my view.


  • Options
    #27
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Sour grapes much?

    Not at all, I just think as a demographic (as diverse as they are), theres probably a high proportion of Christians (practicing, not cultural) that would be charitable and selfless on the basis of their faith. Saying that because they believe that men having sex with each other is sinful, they are not appropriate foster parents is a real shame, which IMO, is not anything to do with the best interests of children and more to do with the issue of 'gay rights'.


  • Options
    #28
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Malty_T wrote: »
    No it isn't. We don't choose our skin colour and we don't choose to be heterosexual,homosexual or bisexual. So the two are actually comparable in my view.

    To have black skin, that is passive. To have sexual intercourse, that is a behavior. Incomparable.


  • Options
    #29
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Wait wait. "Nuclear family?
    Is this a coy way of saying "straight people"? If you think a gay couple make bad parents because they are gay then the least you can do is be honest about it.

    Then again, the religious are usually very good at PR, and saying something like "People not in a nuclear family are not ideal parents" is different to saying "gay people are bad parents".


  • Options
    #30
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zillah wrote: »
    Wait wait. "Nuclear family?
    Is this a coy way of saying "straight people"? If you think a gay couple make bad parents because they are gay then the least you can do is be honest about it.

    Then again, the religious are usually very good at PR, and saying something like "People not in a nuclear family are not ideal parents" is different to saying "gay people are bad parents".

    It would be dishonest to say what YOU suggest, as it would NOT represent my position. I can't say something so meaningless and subjective as 'gay people are bad parents'. I mean, how to we quantify a 'good' and 'bad' parent? As i said, its subjective and pretty meaningless. I can however say what I think the ideal for a child is, and THAT is what should be sought. Of course, people may disagree that having a mother figure AND father figure is the ideal, but thats certainly not what I believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    JimiTime wrote: »
    To have black skin, that is passive. To have sexual intercourse, that is a behavior. Incomparable.

    Actually they are comparable. Love, and acts of love and affection are more than meagre behaviours in my view.


Advertisement