Gay couple finally approved as "General Foster Carers"

robindch

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.

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.

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?

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:

Count Duckula

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

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.

krudler

least the kid will have killer fashion sense

Genghiz Cohen

krudler wrote: »

least the kid will have fab fashion sense

fixed

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.

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?

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.

amacachi

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.

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.

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.

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.

JimiTime

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

JimiTime

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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".

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.

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.

GLaDOS

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

Research suggests that having a mother and father isn't important.

Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents. The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well.

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

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

'Act of Love'? You mean sexual intercourse?

Anyway, skin colour is passive, having sexual intercourse is an action, whatever flowery explanations you want to use. Incomparable.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

'Act of Love'? You mean sexual intercourse?

Anyway, skin colour is passive, having sexual intercourse is an action, whatever flowery explanations you want to use. Incomparable.

I'm not just referring to sexual intercourse, I am trying to include allsigns and acts of affection. You're kinda missing the point, we don't get to choose our skin colour. Likewise we don't get to choose who we fall in love with, it just happens. Decreeing that a gay couple can never engage in acts of affection for one another is on par with saying that people of different of separate "races" can't do so either.

JimiTime

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Research suggests that having a mother and father isn't important.

What does, 'do well' mean? My Nephews father was killed when he was two weeks old. He's 19 now and doing well.

Anyway, people are free to disagree that having a mother and father are important. I disagree with such a view though.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, people are free to disagree that having a mother and father are important. I disagree with such a view though.

On what basis?

JimiTime

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not just referring to sexual intercourse, I am trying to include allsigns and acts of affection. You're kinda missing the point, we don't get to choose our skin colour. Likewise we don't get to choose who we fall in love with, it just happens. Decreeing that a gay couple can never engage in acts of affection for one another is on par with saying that people of different of separate "races" can't do so either.

Well, i've given my opinion on what I think of such reasoning.

housetypeb

JimiTime wrote: »

What does, 'do well' mean? My Nephews father was killed when he was two weeks old. He's 19 now and doing well.

Anyway, people are free to disagree that having a mother and father are important. I disagree with such a view though.

Adam and Eve didn't have a mother,just a father.

The Mad Hatter

JimiTime wrote: »

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

Out of interest, what would you make of it if it were a celibate gay couple?

JimiTime

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Out of interest, what would you make of it if it were a celibate gay couple?

As we are not talking about the issue of the couple and their sex lives, but rather what the best environment for the child is, its irrelevant if they are celibate or not.

Doctor DooM

JimiTime wrote: »

'Act of Love'? You mean sexual intercourse?

Anyway, skin colour is passive, having sexual intercourse is an action, whatever flowery explanations you want to use. Incomparable.

The desires which drive homosexuality are passive however.


Unless you think gay people choose to be gay.

And yes, I think most right thinking people would think that using religion as a reason to have predudiced feelings towards people who engage in homosexual acts are, in fact, as bad as people who find a reason to dislike people of other ethnicities.

Seeing as this is the point you were trying to argue.

CiaranMT

Being born white/black/brown/green is comparable to being born straight/gay/bi/asexual.

By extension, comparisons between possible discrimination on the basis of colour as a means of exposing the discrimination against gay people are valid.

Misrepresenting the comparison for your own ends does nothing for your argument.

virmilitaris

Isnt it absolutely amazing how religious peoples personal views always seem to coincide with their own interpretation of their religion. A miracle if ever I seen one.

You gotta love the bs christians come out with on these issues. Oh we're not homophobic we just think homosexual behaviour is wrong. As long as homosexuals don't do anything homosexual then we're fine with them. Priceless.

Out of curiousity where's the christian campaign against hetrosexual couples who enjoy biblically inappropriate forms of sex?

By the way can any christian inform us why the old bible law on this is still enforced but hundreds of others are not?

For example rules from the same book as the homophobic rule?

JimiTime

Doctor DooM wrote: »

The desires which drive homosexuality are passive however.

If they were passive, they wouldn't be called desires. The colour of ones skin has no implications on behaviour at all. Its an absolute red herring to describe them as such. Its like saying that disapproving of fornication is comparable to racism. Its just a pejorative weapon.

And yes, I think most right thinking people would think that using religion as a reason to have predudiced feelings towards people who engage in homosexual acts are, in fact, as bad as people who find a reason to dislike people of other ethnicities.

Yeah, this view is not unexpected. I'm certainly not courting popular opinion, but I think any honest person will see the difference between a) believing that an action is sinful, and hating the person doing the action AND b) believing that an action is sinful, and hating a person because of their skin tone.

I understand why some have a desire to equate the two though, so I don't think this view will cease, but rather, will grow.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

I would indeed be one of those people. Aside from people declaring that having one of each is the "ideal" I have yet to see someone actually adumbrate any reasons why. It is one of those all too common positions people hold but defend solely by repeating it over and over in the hope it sticks.

The fact is we know the things children need for stable and successful upbringing. They are things like love, understanding, security, education, nutrition... to name a few. To date no one has listed any one of the things on such a list that one parental configuration (single parent, straight parents, gay parents) are capable of providing that are somehow precluded from another.

Dave!

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Out of interest, what would you make of it if it were a celibate gay couple?

Was wondering that too

Maybe the gheys are allowed to do 'everything but' (no pun intended) in Christian morality

JimiTime

virmilitaris wrote: »

Isnt it absolutely amazing how religious peoples personal views always seem to coincide with their own interpretation of their religion. A miracle if ever I seen one.

Well I can only speak for myself as a Christian, and not about any religion that you may be referring to.

You gotta love the bs christians come out with on these issues. Oh we're not homophobic we just think homosexual behaviour is wrong. As long as homosexuals don't do anything homosexual then we're fine with them. Priceless.

Well i would see it as at best unfortunate, at worst, moronic, dishonest and stupid to equate someones view that men having sex with each other is sinful, and them hating people. You may think the view is silly etc, but its certainly not hate filled. There are people who have sex outside of wedlock, watch all kinds of porn, these things are viewed as sinful things too, yet accusations of Christians hating such people I've yet to see. So people can see how retarded such reasoning is, but when it comes to men having sex with other men, it seems if you have any opinion contrary to, 'Its fine grand and dandy' its equated to hating homosexuals

By the way can any christian inform us why the old bible law on this is still enforced but hundreds of others are not?

I'm sure some would try give you a lesson in theology, but I certainly wouldn't waste my time with you on such a foolish endeavour.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Well i would see it as at best unfortunate, at worst, moronic, dishonest and stupid to equate someones view that men having sex with each other is sinful, and them hating people. You may think the view is silly etc, but its certainly not hate filled. There are people who have sex outside of wedlock, watch all kinds of porn, these things are viewed as sinful things too, yet accusations of Christians hating such people I've yet to see. So people can see how retarded such reasoning is, but when it comes to men having sex with other men, it seems if you have any opinion contrary to, 'Its fine grand and dandy' its equated to hating homosexuals

.

Christians campaigning against it and being so vocal about it, I have also yet to see

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

Christians campaigning against it and being so vocal about it, I have also yet to see

Really? There are lots of 'moral crusades' various Christian groups go on, some are nut jobs, some aren't. Usually though, the media will latch onto the sensational story (Think: insignificant nobody Pastor from Florida burns a Quran). I don't actually remember any anti-homosexuality campaigns here in Ireland (Not saying there hasn't been any), but I remember the picket of Stringfellows strip club. Sometimes people only see what they want to see.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? There are lots of 'moral crusades' various Christian groups go on, some are nut jobs, some aren't. Usually though, the media will latch onto the sensational story (Think: insignificant nobody Pastor from Florida burns a Quran). I don't actually remember any anti-homosexuality campaigns here in Ireland (Not saying there hasn't been any), but I remember the picket of Stringfellows strip club. Sometimes people only see what they want to see.

Where are the campaigns to remove these people as suitable foster carers/adoption candidates?

JimiTime

28064212 wrote: »

Where are the campaigns to remove these people as suitable foster carers/adoption candidates?

What people?