Foster Kid Taken From Parents Who Refuse To Teach Homosexuality

[Matt]

so...you would place a child in a home that fostered racism?
since it's just a "belief system"?

1) Being gay is not a race. It is an orientation.

2) They were not "Fostering racism". They were choosing not to promote homosexuality. You of all people Sparkle, are smart enough to see the difference.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Sure as hell better than some sort of government mandated "tolerance".

Don't be an idiot Matt.
pretty much any Law is "government mandated tolerance"

 

[The Evolutionist]

They weren't teaching him racism. They simply said it was not a good idea to teach an ELEVEN YEAR OLD CHILD. A child who has not even hit puberty yet about homosexuality.

Again, I think they overstated how much the laws required. I think it said that they had to talk about it when or if the kid asked about it, not that they had to talk to him about it right away.

Btw, I got "the talk" when I was 3 years old, so I don't think there's a problem letting an 11 year old know what's up.

 

[Matt]

The more I read through this thread, the more I can't believe how ridiculous this thread is. On one hand, you have Moviefan who is just a total nut job. On the other hand, you have so called "liberals" who are cheering the fact that a child has been put in an orphanage because the foster parents refuse to promote homosexuality to an ELEVEN YEAR OLD!

 

[xwolverine2]

1) Being gay is not a race. It is an orientation.

2) They were not "Fostering racism". They were choosing not to promote homosexuality. You of all people Sparkle, are smart enough to see the difference.

its actually the same circumstance really.....

hating something because they are different.. and not by choice either

 

[Mr. Socko]

Who gives a **** about equality? Do you think that child, sleeping in an orphanage right now, at the age of 11 really gives a damn about how two men do it? My parents never sat me down and told me all about gay people, does that mean I turned out to be a biggoted *******? No. They weren't brainwashing the children to hate gays. They simply did not believe it appropraite to teach an eleven year old about them and they raised the 30 kids according to their religious beliefs. And why the hell shouldn't they? My parents raised me Catholic. Should I have been thrown in an orphanage for that?

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

From what I've gathered, they could have simply told the boy that homosexuality is fine. But instead they would rather he be taken away than to discuss same-sex relationships. What would you have chosen?

 

[Moviefan2k4]

You rooted for John Lithgow's character in Footloose, didn't you?

Actually, while I like that film, I felt Reverend Moore's actions had the wrong motivation. His intentions of wanting to prevent sexual sin in the local youth culture were very admirable, but they were sourced in fear, not love...that was his biggest problem. He raged against his own daughter when she revealed she wasn't a virgin. A loving father would've discussed the situation openly and honestly, making his stance clear, but also being able to accept his daughter's belief was different. He wouldn't have to encourage further rebellious behavior, but founding his faith on love would have changed the entire dynamic extensively.

 

[Superman4ever]

what the hell?
this is a rare and rather weird turn for a guy that's normally so level headed and logical.

I made that comment purposely and it has a reason. You easily saw that it was out of character for me. I've defended a person's right to chose before on these boards. Personally, I understand that being gay involves more than just sex. But, there is a fervor to flame anyone with any type of religious convictions on these boards as a blind zealot, and it's just wrong. The people on these boards that defend a persons right to choose their sexuality also forget that there is a group of people out there that also has a right to not accept a certain lifestyle.

This couple shouldn't be branded as homophobic or unfit parents because they refuse to teach a lifestyle that is against their religious beliefs. It'd be like taking a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist couple and making them sign a waver that says "Jesus is G-D".

Jesus, maybe these on-call nights are getting to me, but I was experimenting!

 

[The Evolutionist]

And who draws the line? The government? Do you not see what a slippery slope that is? And its not as if these people were saying "Hey kiddo, go stone the first gay you see." They were simply teaching their religious beliefs to him. Do I think homosexuality is a sin? No. But damned if people don't have the right to. Sure as hell better than some sort of government mandated "tolerance".

I'm not going to even approach the "slippery slope" argument because it's a logical fallacy, so it's not worth my time. And even the Bible says you should accept all sinners, because all sins are equal.

True tolerance does not require endorsement or encouragement; it merely describes someone tolerating the current issue's existence...that's it.

And these laws do not endorse or encourage it, they simply say that the foster parents must educate the kid about it when they ask.

 

[Superman4ever]

lol you just dug ur own grave

Oh shut up I remember when you used to beg me for boob gifs...

 

[Superhobo]

Actually, while I like that film, I felt Reverend Moore's actions had the wrong motivation. His intentions of wanting to prevent sexual sin in the local youth culture were very admirable, but they were sourced in fear, not love...that was his biggest problem. He raged against his own daughter when she revealed she wasn't a virgin. A loving father would've discussed the situation openly and honestly, making his stance clear, but also being able to accept his daughter's belief was different. He wouldn't have to encourage further rebellious behavior, but founding his faith on love would have changed the entire dynamic extensively.

Live by example, moviefan.

Also, you COMPLETELY seemed to have missed the point of why he feared it like he did, and in doing so, you missed the whole point of the character. Good day to you sir.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

That contract stipulated them being legally bound to tell that child, "Being gay is just as OK as being straight", when according to the Bible, it's not. God sees homosexuality as a sin, and if they'd signed that paper, the law would have prevnted them from teaching said child the truth as defined by God.

 

[xwolverine2]

Oh shut up I remember when you used to beg me for boob gifs...

when was this?

that's impossible...............lol

 

[Addendum]

Actually, while I like that film, I felt Reverend Moore's actions had the wrong motivation. His intentions of wanting to prevent sexual sin in the local youth culture were very admirable, but they were sourced in fear, not love...that was his biggest problem. He raged against his own daughter when she revealed she wasn't a virgin. A loving father would've discussed the situation openly and honestly, making his stance clear, but also being able to accept his daughter's belief was different. He wouldn't have to encourage further rebellious behavior, but founding his faith on love would have changed the entire dynamic extensively.

So why can't the same be done with homosexuality? Your religion thinks homosexuality is a sin. That's not a reason for discrimination and persecution of homosexuals.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Live by example, moviefan.

I do my best to do just that, but I stand my ground when it comes to the difference between the true definition of tolerance, and society's current view of "to accept it is to like and encourage it", which I don't agree with.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

So why can't the same be done with homosexuality? Your religion thinks homosexuality is a sin. That's not a reason for discrimination and persecution of homosexuals.

I'm not infavor of homosexuals being persecuted at all. But I don't think God's original intent for marriage should be redefined to suit that choice. To do so would ultimately cheapen the marital union as a whole, and would wind up being the first step to a 100% "pro-gay" culture, which I have no desire to further.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

1) Being gay is not a race. It is an orientation.

2) They were not "Fostering racism". They were choosing not to promote homosexuality. You of all people Sparkle, are smart enough to see the difference.

1.- I know

2.- also I know, It was a Hypothetical situation I was posing to you.
because I wanted to know why you, would've probably not allowed the child to stay in the "racist" home, you're all outraged that they took the child from this home.
so again, my question was not directly exemplifying the situation, but merely posing a hypothetical situation in order to put all events in another context, one that would more clearly illustrate the adequacy of the actions taken.
you should've been smart enough to see the difference.

 

[The Evolutionist]

Edit

 

[Memphis Slim]

I'm not at all pleased with this new required legislation, but I'm very proud of this elderly couple for putting God first, even in a world that's slowly killing itself through rejection of Him. It's nice to see someone standing for the faith, regardless of the cost. Pretty sad they lost their foster kid, though; that's just wrong, in every definition of the word.

The left is becoming more and more aggressive......more radical.

 

[Superhobo]

I do my best to do just that, but I stand my ground when it comes to the difference between the true definition of tolerance, and society's current view of "to accept it is to like and encourage it", which I don't agree with.

Dude, no you don't. You think the homosexual movement is " just another attempt by Satan through foolish people, to force a "post-Christian" worldview on the public, and in turn encourage more outright Godless behavior."

You're about as "Christian" as Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson, you ****ing hypocrite.

 

[Addendum]

Marriage isn't the sole realm of any religion. And since gay marriage wasn't even mentioned in the original article, I'll stick to the topic on hand.

I don't think treating homosexuals the same way as one wants to be treated, which is in line with the golden rule, will lead to the mythical "pro-gay" culture. I think it would lead to a less ignorant culture

 

[Moviefan2k4]

The left is becoming more and more aggressive......more radical.

Yep, and unless the Christian world does the same to counter it, things will only get worse. The body of Christ has been patiently passive for far too long; now's the time to dump that habit, and tell the truth, regardless of what people think.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I'm not infavor of homosexuals being persecuted at all. But I don't think God's original intent for marriage should be redefined to suit that choice. To do so would ultimately cheapen the marital union as a whole, and would wind up being the first step to a 100% "pro-gay" culture, which I have no desire to further.

how exactly would two guys/ girls getting married "cheapen" you marriage?
please explain that one for the class.

 

[Holly]

they look like an old lesbian couple anyway, harm is done

 

[Superhobo]

I'm not infavor of homosexuals being persecuted at all. But I don't think God's original intent for marriage should be redefined to suit that choice. To do so would ultimately cheapen the marital union as a whole, and would wind up being the first step to a 100% "pro-gay" culture, which I have no desire to further.

No. Wait. What?