|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anti-Gay Foster Parents Court Case
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
A Christian couple were recently banned from fostering by a local authority when they were asked their views on homosexuality and advised that they would not teach a child that homosexuality was acceptable. The High Court has now upheld the ban. Is this a proportionate response? Unlike the B&B cases there is no tangible victim in this case and the couple advised that they had nothing against homosexuals. Presumably then they would not teach children to discriminate against homosexuals. The court upheld the ban on the basis that sexual orientation rights overrode religious discrimination rights but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation? Is the High Court effectively saying that a child in care has a right to be taught that homosexuality is morally fine which overrides a couple's right to foster if they disagree? The Court took the view that it is damaging to the welfare of children to allow them to be cared for by people with these views. This decision can only be correct if this couple's views are truly damaging to the welfare of children. What do you think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
[ 11. May 2011, 21:07: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
A Christian couple were recently banned from fostering by a local authority when they were asked their views on homosexuality and advised that they would not teach a child that homosexuality was acceptable. The High Court has now upheld the ban. Is this a proportionate response? Unlike the B&B cases there is no tangible victim in this case and the couple advised that they had nothing against homosexuals. Presumably then they would not teach children to discriminate against homosexuals. The court upheld the ban on the basis that sexual orientation rights overrode religious discrimination rights but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation? Is the High Court effectively saying that a child in care has a right to be taught that homosexuality is morally fine which overrides a couple's right to foster if they disagree? The Court took the view that it is damaging to the welfare of children to allow them to be cared for by people with these views. This decision can only be correct if this couple's views are truly damaging to the welfare of children. What do you think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896
Bzzt. Thank you for playing.
The couple weren't banned. The council deferred their decision. The couple then took them to court.
The High Court didn't uphold the ban. They said that the couples' views on homosexuality could be taken into account by the Council when coming to a decision.
The court didn't say sexual orientation rights trump religious discrimination rights. They said we are all equal under the law.
The court didn't take the view that it would be damaging for children to be cared for by the couple. They said the council may conclude that.
The full judgement is here. Despite being a legal document, it is, in parts, a fantastic read. M'Lords lay into Christian Concern's lawyer in the most excoriating language possible. 'Travesty' and 'tendentious' make an appearance. Lord Carey doesn't come off too well either...
Sorry and all, but the usual suspect are attempting to whip up a frenzy. One lawyer has already opined that Christian Concern's press release is not just an outright lie, but actually may be in contempt of court.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I don't know how I got dragged into this, but here's my take on it interacting with Leo on the Winchester thread. It probably belongs here, really.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, the article says: "If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."
Do you disagree with this. Remember that teachers, carers, social workers, are in a position of POWER over others. Do you want this power to be misused?
No, I don't disagree and no, I don't want this power to be misused. What I disagree with is the notion that making this kind of ruling based on those kinds of grounds is going to contribute more than marginally to improving the things you and I both care about.
Being a good foster parent is about a lot more than (and indeed perhaps has nothing at all to do with) ticking doctrinal, political or politically correct boxes. It strikes me as a crazy precedent.
quote:
Well I am afraid that they ARE harmful, as many an LGBT person who grew up as a child would tell you.
Even if that is so, I'm really not convinced that ruling on eligibility as foster parents on this sort of criteria alone is going to make much difference to how much harm is done to foster children.
In my opinion there are good foster families and bad ones. Their beliefs and faith play a part, but that part should be assessed on a case-by-case basis by people close to the family, not used as a pawn in some policital power play.
[Which I then edited to add:
quote:
It is 'child abuse' to strip children/make them ashamed if their own identity.
Yes it is, but guess what, that works both ways and yes I have plenty of cases to hand of kids of christian parents being placed in long term care with foster families, cases in which the beliefs of their natural parents and/or foster parents counted for nothing ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
But I know many people who were taught that homosexuality was wrong as children who do not victimize homosexuals. In contrast the people who do actively victimize homosexuals tend to do so on the grounds that homosexuals are in a minority and are therefore vulnerable and don't tend to think much about morality at all.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
One lawyer has already opined that Christian Concern's press release is not just an outright lie, but actually may be in contempt of court.
Sorry, that should read Christian Legal Centre.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
Surely all stereo typing and prejudice was wrong?
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
In a nutshell? The child they're fostering who turns out to be gay.
I'm not sure how far along these people got in the fostering process, but you'd be amazed at the things you can't just do with a foster child that you could do with a child that was your own. Religion is a big one. If you are avid churchgoers, that's fine. But don't expect to be able to take the foster children along with you unless (and it isn't common at all) the child a) wants to go, and b) is the same denomination as you. And it doesn't matter how much you hate the Western Reform Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism, and what a devious bunch of apostate heretic snake handlers you think they are. If the child has grown up in the faith and a decision is made (not by the foster parents, I hasten to add) then guess where you'll be taking them whenever their sabbath and holy days are?
The thing about fostering is that the kids are all different, and their needs are all different. Some kids are in the foster system because their parents can't deal with their issues. Some are in the system becuase the parents have issues, not the kids. Some of the children only come for respite every other weekend to give the parents a break. Some will be in the foster system a short time, some will stay in until they're adopted, and some will stay in until they turn 18. One of the few consistent things is that many of the core values you may take for granted is that you cannot push your own religious values on them. You don't tell kids homosexuality is wrong. You don't tell kids that atheists are going to hell. You don't tell them Allah is not god.
We've all seen the damage religion can do. Hopefully, we've all seen the good it can do. You can pray for these kids behind a closed door all you want, and you should, but you don't get to dictate faith and the terms of that faith to the foster kids. They've been through enough.
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
But I know many people who were taught that homosexuality was wrong as children who do not victimize homosexuals. In contrast the people who do actively victimize homosexuals tend to do so on the grounds that homosexuals are in a minority and are therefore vulnerable and don't tend to think much about morality at all.
I don't propose to take the conversation any further now that there's evidence the case didn't say what you thought it said. Sorry.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The couple weren't banned. The council deferred their decision. The couple then took them to court.
This is not true either. Both parties sought a judicial review. This is why the council deferred, in order to obtain a ruling on whether they could take the couple's religiously-motivated views on homosexuality based into account when making a decision.
quote:
The High Court didn't uphold the ban. They said that the couples' views on homosexuality could be taken into account by the Council when coming to a decision.
The judgement basically upheld the declaration which Derby were seeking. It will be interesting to see whether the Johns will continue with their application to foster and what the response of Derby will be.
quote:
The court didn't say sexual orientation rights trump religious discrimination rights. They said we are all equal under the law.
Well of course, they would say we were all equal under the law, even when maintaining that sexual orientation rights trump religious rights.
quote:
Sorry and all, but the usual suspect are attempting to whip up a frenzy.
Yes I note that the humanists and Stonewall are at it again.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
No one has stopped their religious rights. They remain free to believe what they believe. They can even preach it on the streetcorner. They can even raise their children in the manner they so choose, and inform their children of their religious beliefs.
They are not free to be paid by the state to look after children who are not related to them in any way who may well be gay, may well have been abused sexually, may well have family members who are gay or any other of a number entirely plausible permutations and tell those children that homosexuality is wrong.
And yes, they're paid. Foster carers are paid. Arguably not enough for what they have to deal with, but when you enter the marketplace, you don't get every job you want and if you want a job that coincides entirely with your religious beliefs, then you should know that while you have a right to practice your religion, others have the right to practice theirs just as well and your right does not trump theirs. And when you start accepting money, then if your religious beliefs prohibit you from doing the job requirements, then your path is clear. I don't recall any legislation that says you have the right to paid work.
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The couple weren't banned. The council deferred their decision. The couple then took them to court.
This is not true either. Both parties sought a judicial review. This is why the council deferred, in order to obtain a ruling on whether they could take the couple's religiously-motivated views on homosexuality based into account when making a decision.
I shall rephrase that. The council had not made a decision. The claimants' solicitor proposed that the matter over which no decision had been made be taken to judicial review, to which the council agreed. The decision was then deferred. That no decision had been made was remarked on in para 21, and referred to throughout as putting m'lords' deliberations on the wrong side of surreal.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
How can you believe homosexuality is unacceptable and yet have nothing against homosexuals? Which word is being twisted out of its normal meaning?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by five:
No one has stopped their religious rights. They remain free to believe what they believe. They can even preach it on the streetcorner.
Though they may be arrested if they do so.
quote:
Foster carers are paid.
Not all of them and in probably the vast majority of cases it is an amount which does little more than cover expenses. In the case of the Johns offering respite fostering they would have received no more than pocket money.
In an earlier post you stated:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
You don't tell kids homosexuality is wrong.
The Johns didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was wrong. But they didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was right. There is a clear distinction between these two positions.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
quote:
Originally posted by five:
In a nutshell? The child they're fostering who turns out to be gay.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
That is, possibly almost any child. Some collegians are still "questioning." The state should not have to spend its money on foster parents whose approach is so rigidly heterosexist as to begrudge full personhood to a ward who doesn't fit their procrustean bed. Why shouldn't that be a failure to meet the job description?
I am rather bothered, however, insofar as there is "fostering" and then there is "fostering with a view to adoption." Sometimes one leads to the other. The right to adopt is important to gay singles and couples. Compassion and fairness counsel against denying the same right to homophobes, as much as we may detest some of their views. How shall keep this playing field level?
[ 28. February 2011, 22:04: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
but whose rights were being infringed in relation to sexual orientation?
Every gay person the fostered child ever met for the rest of their life, probably.
But I know many people who were taught that homosexuality was wrong as children who do not victimize homosexuals. In contrast the people who do actively victimize homosexuals tend to do so on the grounds that homosexuals are in a minority and are therefore vulnerable and don't tend to think much about morality at all.
Suppose the child IS gay?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
The council's logic is remarkably similar to the sort of reasoning that keeps many muslim women in Burqas.
One says that look, men are lustful and are unable to keep themselves in check, so let's cover the women in mobile tents. The other says that Christians are completely unable to keep their views and actions in perspective or do what is most loving for a child; if they find a gayer, they simply have to give it hell until it sees the light.
As a bloke and a Christian, I find both views equally detestable. If anyone thinks that I can't stop my animal urge to abuse a child in my care because I believe the child is a sinner just like me, well they should cover their women because I have even less control over my libido than I do over my urge to shout at kids!
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
One says that look, men are lustful and are unable to keep themselves in check, so let's cover the women in mobile tents. The other says that Christians are completely unable to keep their views and actions in perspective or do what is most loving for a child; if they find a gayer, they simply have to give it hell until it sees the light.
Except that the council don't think that, and the court agreed that they don't.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The Johns didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was wrong. But they didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was right. There is a clear distinction between these two positions.
I'm sorry, but if a child in their care ever says anything about homosexuality or asks about homosexuality, do you seriously think this distinction is going to hold?
It's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' situations.
And it's exactly the kind of fear that dominates the lives of young gay people. If Mum and Dad never talk about it, and don't want to talk about it, it must be because it's not okay. If it was okay they'd be willing to talk about it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
People used to think it was unnatural and harmful for girls to seek university education. No doubt there are people from some conservative religions who still do think that way. What kind of damage do you think it would do to a bright girl to find she was getting no encouragement to study or apply for university and the message from her foster parents was 'We just can't tell you a 'lifestyle' like that is alright'? Perhaps she might not notice to begin with that every time she picked up a book to study she was steered instead to go help in the kitchen... Nothing explicit would need to be said, she'd soon get the message that there was something wrong with her or that book learning was not for the likes of her.
Imagine giving that message to people about one of the most important sources of intimate joy anyone can experience - their attraction to people they love and might want to share their lives with. Too many people have found out to their cost as children what that's like and what damage it does.
It's like letting people use on a child (with the best intentions) home remedies which have been found to be medically harmful, but they get offended when told to stop, because it was handed down in their family/culture and you're disrespecting their traditions.
The purpose of fostering should be to make a safe home for the child, not to allow the fosterers to practice XYZ religion, tradition or culture.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Isn't the logical conclusion of several responses to this thread that natural children should be removed from parents who teach them that homosexuality is wrong?
I can't see the difference. Unless we are saying that children taken into care are more likely to be gay? Or what about parents who become Christians after fostering and take on those views? Are we going to remove the children at that point?
If this belief really is that damaging to children I can't see why we wouldn't want to bring in legislation enabling us to prosecute any parents who abuse their children with these beliefs.
This is not just rhetoric, I honestly cannot see why this isn't the logical conclusion if we are going to be consistent.
Can someone explain to me why it isn't?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The Johns didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was wrong. But they didn't want to tell children that homosexuality was right. There is a clear distinction between these two positions.
I'm sorry, but if a child in their care ever says anything about homosexuality or asks about homosexuality, do you seriously think this distinction is going to hold?
It's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' situations.
And it's exactly the kind of fear that dominates the lives of young gay people. If Mum and Dad never talk about it, and don't want to talk about it, it must be because it's not okay. If it was okay they'd be willing to talk about it.
I thought you weren't going to take the conversation any further?
I would say more about your posts, but then this would have to go to Hell.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the logical conclusion of several responses to this thread that natural children should be removed from parents who teach them that homosexuality is wrong?
No. The cases are different.
Where natural children are concerned, the default status is that they remain with their parents. Somebody has to pass on values to those children: it seems preferable that it be their parents given that those parents have them. The rest of society has no call or reason to be involved unless the parents are engaging in gross harm to their children.
In the case of fostering, the rest of society is already involved in deciding who to place the child with. At that point, the society placing the child with a foster parent has to do the best by the child by its own lights, not by the lights of any potential foster parent. That means that foster parents should be prepared to support children placed with them in any emotional situation the children need emotional support for.
A pure consequentialist might not see any distinction in principle between the two cases. But we shouldn't be pure consequentialists.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
In the U.S., foster parents are quasi-employees, paid by the government for services rendered. Natural parents are not. That's one important difference. We are all presumed to have the right to be parents, but being a foster parent is not a right.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The other says that Christians are completely unable to keep their views and actions in perspective or do what is most loving for a child; if they find a gayer, they simply have to give it hell until it sees the light.
Analogy: a child from a Christian background. There's a difference between placing them with a humanist couple who promise to assist the child in the practice of Christianity, and placing them with a humanist couple who merely promise not to subject the child to daily readings from Christopher Hitchens.
It would be one thing if the Christian couple involved had promised that, whatever their private views, they would be unconditionally affirming of the child's sexual orientation regardless of whether it was gay or straight, and then the courts hadn't believed them. But if the couple said that the most they would do is refrain from being condemnatory, the court is entitled to take that into account.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
We are all presumed to have the right to be parents, but being a foster parent is not a right.
Good point.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
But in that example if your (hypothetical) kids end up malnourished you can be prosecuted for abusing your children. In other words, I can see the difference between public and private but it is only of limited degree.
My question is motivated by a very real situation. At the weekend I was talking to some friends who are struggling with infertility. They are finding it very hard. They are now beginning to consider fostering or adoption. They are both Christians and, while I don't know their views on homosexuality, I'm just wondering how they would feel if it came down to a question like this.
Wouldn't they feel that (if they hold conservative views on homosexuality), at a very emotionally charged point of their life, they were being asked to choose between their faith or having children?
(I'm not throwing this out as emotional blackmail, just trying to explore what the implications of this might end up being.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
But in that example if your (hypothetical) kids end up malnourished you can be prosecuted for abusing your children. In other words, I can see the difference between public and private but it is only of limited degree.
My question is motivated by a very real situation. At the weekend I was talking to some friends who are struggling with infertility. They are finding it very hard. They are now beginning to consider fostering or adoption. They are both Christians and, while I don't know their views on homosexuality, I'm just wondering how they would feel if it came down to a question like this.
Wouldn't they feel that (if they hold conservative views on homosexuality), at a very emotionally charged point of their life, they were being asked to choose between their faith or having children?
(I'm not throwing this out as emotional blackmail, just trying to explore what the implications of this might end up being.)
Well, to pick up from Dafyd's previous thoughts, aren't 'fostering' and 'adoption' two rather different situations? Adoption is designed to place the child in the same situation as if they were born into that family. Fostering is not.
Similarly, I don't know if fostering qualifies as 'having children' in the usual sense.
I suppose issues about religious beliefs could come up in an adoption process as well as approval as foster parents. I don't really know enough about the process.
I would be concerned if a child who was known or thought to be homosexual was adopted by parents who were known to disapprove of homosexuality. However, this seems a terribly theoretical situation unless the child is at or past puberty. Young children simply don't think in those sexual terms. Adults impose these sorts of issues on kids when the kids themselves have no idea what the fuss is about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Fosterers are there to provide a public safety net for kids who in many cases have already suffered abuse or are otherwise vulnerable so it's not unreasonable to want them to take the highest precautions possible not to add to harm that is often already done.
If you're going to provide a space for healing you shouldn't be doing further harm.
My cooking may not be of public hygiene certificate standards, but it's Ok for me and my other half, but to someone immunocompromised, an encounter with my creatively re-cooked leftovers might not be a laughing matter. There's a reason why health and safety do not allow me to set up 'Lucretia Borgia's Country Kitchen' for all comers, and least of all in a hospital where people who could be seriously harmed by food poisoning might encounter my wares.
L.
But in that example if your (hypothetical) kids end up malnourished you can be prosecuted for abusing your children. In other words, I can see the difference between public and private but it is only of limited degree.
The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question is motivated by a very real situation. At the weekend I was talking to some friends who are struggling with infertility. They are finding it very hard. They are now beginning to consider fostering or adoption. They are both Christians and, while I don't know their views on homosexuality, I'm just wondering how they would feel if it came down to a question like this.
Wouldn't they feel that (if they hold conservative views on homosexuality), at a very emotionally charged point of their life, they were being asked to choose between their faith or having children?
(I'm not throwing this out as emotional blackmail, just trying to explore what the implications of this might end up being.)
Here's another very real situation for you - I know from speaking to gay friends who were brought up in anti-gay situations that being faced with an anti-gay family can do life-long damage and even be life-threatening- it can make a young person trapped in such a situation suicidal.
As more and more gay people have come out, more and more people are aware of the damage done to gay children by otherwise lovely well-meaning people who just don't get it that their conservative Christian/Muslim beliefs can be lethal. When a society has become aware that these beliefs can do such terrible damage, people will increasingly begin to have troubles of conscience about handing over a child (who could turn out to be gay) to people with anti-gay beliefs.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the logical conclusion of several responses to this thread that natural children should be removed from parents who teach them that homosexuality is wrong?
No. Because in that situation the state isn't in the position of having the assess their fitness as parents UNLESS the parents do something which draws that into question.
There's a distinction made for children that the state is responsible for being placed into the care of others. The state has to exercise due diligence with respect to the parents' fitness. Assessing the possible bigotry the child will be taught/faced with is one aspect of that diligence.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
I get the difference, but by introducing the factor of risk you also seem to agree with me that the only difference is that of degree?
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Here's another very real situation for you - I know from speaking to gay friends who were brought up in anti-gay situations that being faced with an anti-gay family can do life-long damage and even be life-threatening- it can make a young person trapped in such a situation suicidal.
As more and more gay people have come out, more and more people are aware of the damage done to gay children by otherwise lovely well-meaning people who just don't get it that their conservative Christian/Muslim beliefs can be lethal. When a society has become aware that these beliefs can do such terrible damage, people will increasingly begin to have troubles of conscience about handing over a child (who could turn out to be gay) to people with anti-gay beliefs.
I also get that and therefore am still confused about the distinction you make above. If you really think that it causes that much damage then I can't possibly see why you wouldn't want to take the legislation further to existing families.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
No. Because in that situation the state isn't in the position of having the assess their fitness as parents UNLESS the parents do something which draws that into question.
Can you take that a bit further to explain what that might look like? I'm struggling to think of something (in this particular issue) that a parent might do that isn't already covered.
You seem to be talking about emotional and mental damage to children / teenagers which is quite hard to quantify. I'm puzzled as to how, when you applied this to existing families, you wouldn't end up with simply saying that the belief (that homosexuality is a sin) was in and of itself harmful.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
In the U.S., foster parents are quasi-employees, paid by the government for services rendered. Natural parents are not. That's one important difference. We are all presumed to have the right to be parents, but being a foster parent is not a right.
AFAIK fostering is a form of employment in the UK. An employer is not suposed to descriminate on any grounds (be it age, sexuality, gender race, disability OR religion). This is what seems to be happening in this case. We presume to have the right to be treated equally.
If a particular couple behave in a way that harms their charges then intervene. If they fail the practical training and assessment then do something about it. But stop them because of a particular belief? I don't agree with many groups of people (and FWIW this would probably include the group the woman in question belonged to if her interview on BBC news is anything to go by) in our multicultural society, but I do my best to work with them.
If we were to put the boot on the other foot, could it be argued that such a PC/ secular environment might harm a 'spiritual' child if ones primary concern was religious formation rather than gay rights? I don't think it is possible for a family to create a value neutral environment.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The example I used, was not malnourishment but non-stringent hygiene - and the difference between the two examples matters ie. what I'm saying is that a risk that's legal and reasonable for me personally may not be reasonable for the public at large, where there may be people for whom my small risk might be for them a much greater risk and certainly not reasonable for a vulnerable group to whom it would be a huge risk.
One last comment for a couple of days - RL.
Take the example of corporal punishment. I can see (hypothetically) how parents who advocate smacking might be refused fostering but the government would not interfere with existing families who advocate smacking. I can see how that might be analogous. Intervention in an existing family only coming about when bruises (or other signs) show up as examples of actual abuse.
However, and hence my question to iGeek, I still can't see how this idea of risk would apply here to fostering children.
What would count as evidence that the state needed to intervene in existing families? If this issue really is this serious then I can't see how you could turn a blind eye to what is the vast majority of children.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
]One last comment for a couple of days - RL.
If I were a betting man I would put money on this thread being humanely dispatched before the end of the first furlong.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
If you read the court ruling (linked by Doc Tor) then you'll see that Mr Johns, when asked what he would do if they fostered a child who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they might be gay, said that he would "gently turn them round".
And Mrs Johns said "I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual".
That doesn't suggest that they would be 'supportive', but that they would impose their views on the child. Gently of course...
[ 01. March 2011, 05:54: Message edited by: Haydee ]
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Is there an unstated argument here, that all Christians should be exempt from any form of vetting? I have no idea about this particular couple - they may be the most wonderful, caring individuals in the world who would enhance any child's life - but I do know that we (ie Christians) have our fair share of nuters amongst us. Fostering and adoption are immensly important, and often incredibly tough, responsibilities. To me it seems sensible to check people out in all sorts of ways before allowing them this duty.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
If you read the court ruling (linked by Doc Tor) then you'll see that Mr Johns, when asked what he would do if they fostered a child who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they might be gay, said that he would "gently turn them round".
And Mrs Johns said "I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual".
That doesn't suggest that they would be 'supportive', but that they would impose their views on the child. Gently of course...
The bizarre thing is that my understanding in the case of the Johns is that they were seeking to foster younger children for respite care. Their views on homosexuality are highly unlikely ever to come up. But surely this is a matter of negotiation between the Johns and the Council rather than seeking a declaratory judgement in concert with the Johns, on the principle. Many of these cases in the courts illustrate a failure of imagination on the part of statutory agencies and public bodies to undertake friendly and supportive negotiation with employees on such matters.
What is most disturbing about this judgement and others is the extent to which people who were previously pillars of the community are now persona non grata because of their refusal to accede to state-approved views. This has happened in a very short space of time based on unproven theories of human sexuality and no kind of consensus. This threatens to create great alienation and division in society at large.
I could think of any number of behaviours and views which are harmful to children - very liberal views of sexuality, drugs and discipline can considerably damage children. The balance is usually whether children are best served by remaining in care, or being fostered by caring families.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
The couple were interviewed on the 'Today' programme this mornng on BBC Radio 4 but I got the strong impression that they would not say to any child that it was okay to be homosexual. A question was asked quite a few times, but the woman deflected it, gave the answers they wanted to give etc. It's all very well to say they would not love a child any the less and wanted a level playing field for their religious ideas too, but I would say that they would, somehow or other, let such a child think that s/he was wrong.
(I've only read OP so far.)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The couple were interviewed on the 'Today' programme this mornng on BBC Radio 4 but I got the strong impression that they would not say to any child that it was okay to be homosexual. A question was asked quite a few times, but the woman deflected it, gave the answers they wanted to give etc. It's all very well to say they would not love a child any the less and wanted a level playing field for their religious ideas too, but I would say that they would, somehow or other, let such a child think that s/he was wrong.
(I've only read OP so far.)
Not very different from the political guests then.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
But surely this is a matter of negotiation between the Johns and the Council rather than seeking a declaratory judgement in concert with the Johns, on the principle. Many of these cases in the courts illustrate a failure of imagination on the part of statutory agencies and public bodies to undertake friendly and supportive negotiation with employees on such matters.
I'd agree with the first sentence, remembering that it was the Johns' legal representative who first asked for a judicial review.
Many of these cases illustrate an aggressively confrontational attitude by a certain flavour of Christian organisations, determined to create legal exemptions from existing laws. They have pretty much failed across the board to do so, while succeeding in bringing the faith into (further) disrepute.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How can you believe homosexuality is unacceptable and yet have nothing against homosexuals? Which word is being twisted out of its normal meaning?
I think that for many people it's the word 'unacceptable' that isn't quite appropriate. 'Wrong' would be more accurate, and you can believe that what someone is doing is wrong, and still accept that person and have nothing against them.
I have some friends (a couple) who are conservative evangelicals who believe homosexuality is wrong. We have a mutual friend who is bi, and who has had to church-hop quite a lot as a consequence. Despite her rejection by many other Christians, these friends took this mutual friend into their home when she was homeless, frequently have her (female) partner round for dinner and accept her as she is without trying to change her themselves. I'm sure they pray for her to change, but in their actions they're fully accepting, and they certainly have nothing against her.
I guess we do all do similar a lot - despite not agreeing with a friend or loved one's choices, we still accept that person and acknowledge that it is their own choice to make.
Personally, I don't think this ruling is a 'dark day' for Christians - hopefully it will be part of getting the Church to grow up a bit. And the difference with the above in this specific case is that we're talking about children here, who aren't yet at a point where they have their own choices to make. That said, I could envisage a couple who believe homosexuality is wrong raising a child and accepting them fully even if they turned out to be gay. However in this case, the fact that the parents said they would "gently persuade them out of it" is the sticking point for me.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I could think of any number of behaviours and views which are harmful to children - very liberal views of sexuality, drugs and discipline can considerably damage children.
Yes, and I can imagine any number of those getting you ruled out as a foster parent.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd agree with the first sentence, remembering that it was the Johns' legal representative who first asked for a judicial review.
Many of these cases illustrate an aggressively confrontational attitude by a certain flavour of Christian organisations, determined to create legal exemptions from existing laws. They have pretty much failed across the board to do so, while succeeding in bringing the faith into (further) disrepute.
Oh come off it. The need to ask for a judicial review only came about because of the attitude of Derby towards the John's application.
On the other hand, I think it's been quite useful to have these judgements. They are serving to bring human rights law into disrepute. In the face of a number of ridiculous and unpopular judgements (not only in this matter) there will be a review of human rights law. Judicial activism, unedifying competitions between minorities and the constant overruling of parliamentary democracy will be halted. Common sense will prevail once again. At least that is my hope.
Alternatively we may continue to drift further into authoritarianism, and legal creep into areas of life where the state and the law simply don't belong.
There will be a review at some point and human rights law will be adjusted
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Spawn - I presume you've actually read the court decision, rather than just the media version of it.
Derby's decision-making process may well have been the claimants' motivation for going to court, but the court was not asked to rule on Derby's actions. It was asked to rule on a general point of legal principle.
quote:
107 We have stated our misgivings about the exercise of the jurisdiction to consider whether to grant any (and if so what) declaratory relief. The defendant has taken no decision and there is likely to be a broad range of factual contexts for reaching a particular decision, the legality of which will be highly fact-sensitive. Moreover, the parties have: (a) been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address, (b) each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple 'yes' or 'no', and (c) furnished the court with no evidence.
108 On behalf of the claimants it is said that the material the Commission filed in evidence is highly controversial, but no rebutting evidence has been filed. Mr Diamond has sought to rely on material which is unsupported by any evidential evaluation. We are not in a position to assess, let alone evaluate, any of the material relied on. This, together with the difficulties we identify in [107], has meant that such conclusions as we have been able to reach in [90]-[105] must be seen as qualified in the light of the nature of the material before us and the way the case was presented.
109 For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I am about to wade in here with both feet. This is a bad decision, because it does ( both in the press and in terms of what the decision means, even if not in the words of the judgement ) put "human rights" over personal religious views.
The point is that they were applying for respite foster care - short term, one or two nights usually. This is not long term foster care, not looking after children for all of their childhood, it is unlikely to be more than a week. So they will have some impact on the childs life, but, in reality, not a great deal. As long as they are not seeking to explicitly teach the children in their care something unacceptable, this should not be an issue.
Now if they were Fred Phelps family, and would take any opportunity to indoctrinate anti-gay hatred into anyone who comes within shouting distance, then they would be inappropriate. But this is not the case - they were not anti-gay, it is just that they could not support or encourage that in the children they were looking after. For a couple of nights.
Lets be clear, these are children who need respite foster care. That often means that they are being taken from their parents urgently, or been thrown out of wherever they are staying. They are not children who have an otherwise stable upbringing - even those who are taken into long-term foster care can have a more stable upbringing. Against that, a couple of night with a loving couple who will give them a home in need, but just won't offer support to homosexuality. If they are exploring this, then this couple will not encourage them, but will love and care for them anyway.
If this is the way the children want to go then a) they need to know that some people will not support this - and can love and care for them anyway, and; b) this period is unlikely to have a huge amount of impact on their choices, over and against the years with others, like their natural parent, or long term foster parents.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am about to wade in here with both feet. This is a bad decision
What do you think the decision is?
If you think the decision is that the Jones' can't be foster parents because of their traditional Christian views on homosexuality, that's precisely the decision the court didn't come to.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Now if they were Fred Phelps family, and would take any opportunity to indoctrinate anti-gay hatred into anyone who comes within shouting distance, then they would be inappropriate. But this is not the case - they were not anti-gay, it is just that they could not support or encourage that in the children they were looking after. For a couple of nights.
As I've observed in the related thread that has sprung up, isn't support and encouragement precisely what children need?
A promise to not be negative is all very well, but I just don't think it goes far enough in this context. Withholding criticism does not equate with love, support and encouragement.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Level f support being offered by these prospective carers:
quote:
I discussed with Eunice, four possible scenarios, and asked how she might support the young person:
1 Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.
[...]
Eunice's response to the first situation was that she would support any child. She did not offer any explanation as to how she would go about this. On a previous occasion when the question had been put to Owen, he responded by saying that he would "gently turn them round".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
