Utah judge removes lesbian couple's foster child, saying she'll be better off with heterosexuals

[Vegas Halo Fan]

You wouldn't object to a judge taking a kid away from a Nazi family, would you? You wouldn't say, "Well, as long as he's fed." 

 

That may be the most asinine analogy I have ever seen.

[InsideThePark]

cals, your're preaching to Juan's choir. He's still coming to grips about how society encourages people to be gay.

[juansavage1]

The standard for foster parents should be whether they provide a stable, nurturing, safe home where the kid's well-being is a top priority. Until we get to the point where we have an excess of foster parents who meet this description, we shouldn't be using sexuality as a criteria for determining fitness to be a foster parent.

So, then you disagree with these judges:

There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.

The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

[juansavage1]

That may be the most asinine analogy I have ever seen.

Why?

[Glen]

So, then you disagree with these judges:

There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.

The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

You had to go across the pond to find an example to bolster your point?

Hint: nobody cares about those ponces.

[juansavage1]

You had to go across the pond to find an example to bolster your point?

Hint: nobody cares about those ponces.

Yes, I did. So what? Do you agree that a parent's philosophy should be considered? Are there some beliefs that disqualify one from being given the responsibility to raise children (this is the purpose of the Nazi example and the one above)?

 

If you do think so, then we're just arguing if homosexuality should be a consideration or not. I think a male and female joined in marriage is the best example and the best for the kids partly because it most closely approximates the situation in which children are conceived in the first place. 

[Blarg]

cals, your're preaching to Juan's choir. He's still coming to grips about how society encourages people to be gay.

 

It's the hormones the government puts in foods to pacify the nation and improve the overall fashion sense.

[Glen]

Yes, I did. So what? Do you agree that a parent's philosophy should be considered? Are there some beliefs that disqualify one from being given the responsibility to raise children (this is the purpose of the Nazi example and the one above)?

 

If you do think so, then we're just arguing if homosexuality should be a consideration or not. I think a male and female joined in marriage is the best example and the best for the kids partly because it most closely approximates the situation in which children are conceived in the first place. 

 

Are you saying homosexuality is a philosophy or a belief?  And as always, nice Godwin.  ****'s sake, man.  You can't stay in any thread for more than a few posts without bringing up Nazis or Marxists.  

[Jay]

So anyway...how about a liberal judge taking a baby away from a Christian couple just because they're Christian?

You're the one who equated sexuality with religion...

[Glen]

You're the one who equated sexuality with religion...

 

 

I used it as a point of comparison but I never said sexuality was a belief.  Religion is a belief.  

 

Next?

[mtangelsfan]

I used it as a point of comparison but I never said sexuality was a belief.  Religion is a belief.  

 

Next?

yet you did make the comparison. A foolish one, but you made it.

[Glen]

And Juan was the one that brought in the Nazis.  

 

But yeah, religion.

[mtangelsfan]

Juan is juan.

You are actually sane. and your comparison was foolish since you are the one that said one is a belief, right?

[Glen]

True.  It was a faulty comparison, but it's difficult to find an equivalent to this.  

[nate]

I thought my comparison was pretty spot on.  Same as a Jewish judge taking a child away from Christian parents for not raising the kid kosher.

[Glen]

Perhaps if a gay judge took a kid away from straight parents simply because they were straight.

[mtangelsfan]

funny thing is I think 90% of us believe the judge was wrong at first.

[BaseballMom]

The child was taken away from heterosexual parents (I am assuming), so how does this make sense?

Just sayin

[Kevin]

The child was taken away from heterosexual parents (I am assuming), so how does this make sense?

Just sayin

The judge has an answer for this I'm sure. It requires mental gymnastics but he has an answer.

[Tank]

I wish we had more information about this case.

[juansavage1]

Are you saying homosexuality is a philosophy or a belief?  And as always, nice Godwin.  ****'s sake, man.  You can't stay in any thread for more than a few posts without bringing up Nazis or Marxists.  

The idea that a homosexual caretaker or caretakers are as good for children as an opposite-sex couple is a belief based on a certain view of humanity. I'm just saying that any decision the state makes on these cases doesn't just have to do with food and shelter. What if it's two swinging strippers who love and care for the children? There are many examples I could use. 

[Rico]

I feel like God wasn't happy with this ruling so he had Arizona beat Utah.  End of thread, God has spoken.

[Glen]

The idea that a homosexual caretaker or caretakers are as good for children as an opposite-sex couple is a belief based on a certain view of humanity. I'm just saying that any decision the state makes on these cases doesn't just have to do with food and shelter. What if it's two swinging strippers who love and care for the children? There are many examples I could use.

Keep the strippers from having children!

Well, at least you didn't say two Marxists, although the strippers were probably leaning that way. Most strippers are obviously Marxist.

[wopphil]

The idea that a homosexual caretaker or caretakers are as good for children as an opposite-sex couple is a belief based on a certain view of humanity. I'm just saying that any decision the state makes on these cases doesn't just have to do with food and shelter. What if it's two swinging strippers who love and care for the children? There are many examples I could use.

But that isn't what happened here Juan. These people aren't strippers or sexual deviants. They are no more likely to have orgies in their living room than a heterosexual couple.

A person's sexuality has no bearing on their fitness as a parent, IMO. And if your sexual preference is something you are born with (as I believe), gay parents are no more likely to raise gay children than are hetero parents.

Edited November 15, 2015 by wopphil

[wopphil]

So, then you disagree with these judges:

There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said on Monday.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong.

The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values.

In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

I believe religion should have no place in law. It should never be the basis of an argument for a legal position, and it should almost never be used as a basis for preferential treatment (e.g., religious exemptions for vaccinations).