paulv Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Anti-homosexuality Christian couple opposed foster care High Court battle | Mail Online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobby Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Yes, if the child they adopted and was actually gay in later life it could harm the child big time living with this couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metoo Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 oh well then, lets just leave the poor kid in a childrens home shall we just to be on the safe side should he turn out to be gay. How pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobby Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 oh well then, lets just leave the poor kid in a childrens home shall we just to be on the safe side should he turn out to be gay. How pathetic. No, give him to a couple who are not homophobic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpersgirl Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 They have been banned from caring for children over the age of 5 I believe. So they are still able to care for children just not pass on their outdated morals which could be just as damaging to a child as the situation from which they may be being given respite! Personally I think that this is a good outcome as to lose a couple with their obvious experience in fostering would also have been a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalkyhill Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Anti-homosexuality Christian couple opposed foster care High Court battle | Mail Online Trolling again Paulv? Leave them in care until they can get foster carers who have no opinions what so ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Trolling again Paulv? Leave them in care until they can get foster carers who have no opinions what so ever. No one forces you to post...just walk on by if you can't handle freedom of speech. Alternatively, instead of being cynical, you could engage with the post. How would you find someone without opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalkyhill Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 No one forces you to post...just walk on by if you can't handle freedom of speech.Alternatively, instead of being cynical, you could engage with the post. How would you find someone without opinions? I can handle freedom of speech and opinion, when it is afforded to everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oz Boots Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Good. They are governed by the state, they have hateful views that are in direct opositions to the law. Therefore, they should not be allowed to look after children as they could damage them. Simple as. Religion is a choice, being gay is not. Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulv Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 I can handle freedom of speech and opinion, when it is afforded to everyone *yawns* So you don't have a view then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobby Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Good. They are governed by the state, they have hateful views that are in direct opositions to the law. Therefore, they should not be allowed to look after children as they could damage them. Simple as. Religion is a choice, being gay is not. Ian. Spot on, people should be able to adopt Children much more easily than they do today, if you are fat black white or ride a big motorbike you should be allowed to adopt if suitable........but if you are homophobic, racist, or have views about other people that are just not right in today's multicultral soceity you should be refused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Oz Boots Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Spot on, people should be able to adopt Children much more easily than they do today, if you are fat black white or ride a big motorbike you should be allowed to adopt if suitable........but if you are homophobic, racist, or have views about other people that are just not right in today's multicultral soceity you should be refused. Good call bobby! Good call! 1 week and 2 days to go. Not nervous at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30038 Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 They have been banned from caring for children over the age of 5 I believe. In Qld they wouldn't even be considered. The premier condition for fostering is that one should be totally non-judgemental of religion, sexual preference, culture etc. There may well be (in this case) more going on than is allowed to be divulged openly, ie the judge may have confidential information re the couple and their manner of care. The information may show that the couple were found to be not suitable previously after some years caring and that it was difficult to remove them from the carers list. Once they removed themselves, (which begs the question why), the department chose not to let them back in. I have seen similar many times............where carers have been "borderline" after once being accepted as "likely prime carers" and the struggles the department had to remove them once their real nature was discovered. In all the cases that I know of, the carers were devoutly religious and had strict rules and expectations in regard to the children who they "ruled with an iron fist". To be honest, the ones I encountered, made me want to puke, when i sat in meetings with them, but sadly, many of them are "perfect manipulators" who join the care sytem, not because they care in a "loving way" but because they want to 'spread the gospel" and catching kids at an early age is the perfect vehicle for them. It's all about them and their religion, than it is about showing love and care. I am not dramatising here............it exists, it's organised, and the sooner this type of carer is weeded out of the system, the better. Whether it's applicable in this case, will probably never be known, but it's strange that they stopped caring, (did they jump or were they pushed?) and then tried again to be licenced, but were refused???????? The media will pick up on the obvious but I'm prepared to bet that there's more to it than what they portray. To add: This type of "carer" never talked openly about their beliefs when a departmental officer was present. religion was "discreetly" discussed during tea breaks with other carers, my assumptiom being that they were looking for "hidden" others with similar beliefs or were trying to recruit to their fundamentalist cause. kev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest happycrappy Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Spot on, people should be able to adopt Children much more easily than they do today, if you are fat black white or ride a big motorbike you should be allowed to adopt if suitable........but if you are homophobic, racist, or have views about other people that are just not right in today's multicultral soceity you should be refused. Wow that would be a sight if you were all of the above, I think you might see a similar sight in Fortitude Valley on a Friday night in Brisbane:biglaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.