The Anti-Gay Parents Should Be Able to Adopt Children

Wow. That’s got to be the most fundamentally point-missing thing I’ve ever read here. The idea that they ‘just happened’ to let this slip is a nonsense – Social Services vet prospective parents to the Nth degree; they would have asked about this out-right. Other people with these beliefs aren’t going to get through either – the Johns are not simply unlucky. Secondly, it’s not about their beliefs being ‘unpopular’; it’s completely about the welfare of the children – as you pointed out, if one of the children turns out to be gay, they’re screwed, and that’s the problem.

If you’re a kook who’s going to do a good job caring for a child you’re OK, if you’re threatening not to care for them properly under certain circumstances, then you’re not. That seems fair enough.

The actual ruling makes it clear that they are not being discriminated against due to ther religion, but due to them being homophobic personally, which even Eunice Jones admitted in her hearing was not entirely due to her faith.

They said that if they were fostering a child who was gay they would try to ‘turn them around’, and they implied they would not prevent a foster-child from bullying other gay children about their sexuality.

Their right to believe being gay is sunful is curtailed by the right of a child (from a troubled background anyway), placed in a foster home to be supported and loved no matter what.

Also, they were not trying to adopt, but to foster children on a more short-term basis, which makes things slightly different legally I think.

Hemant

other reasons why they were refused:

they would try to “gently turn” any gay child

they would continue to attend church twice on Sunday together, thus forcing any child to go with them

So it wasn’t just their Xainity, it was how they would bring it to bear on any child placed with them

Disallowing people who are against homosexuality as a lifestyle to adopt children is just as bad as disallowing those who are open to it to do so if you ask me. I’m an atheist all the way, and I hold religion in a household akin to child abuse in some cases… but discrimination in the opposite direction isn’t what I’m looking for. It shouldn’t be what anyone’s looking for. If we allow society’s mainstream and popular views to govern everybody, we’re in for a lot of trouble down the road when those views change – as they always do.

Disagree.

As far as adoption is concerned the social worker should be able to dismiss any application based on the conversation in the interview – as long as it is not done on the basis of an illegal discrimination. That’s why they have an interview – it’s not like buying a car where you just check all the boxes on the form and you pick up your new child at the desk.

This is not religious discrimination: they were rejected because they social worker felt that the held strong homophobic views – based on what they said. True, those views were a consequence of the Johns’ religion, but they were not rejected because of the religion itself. If they were atheists – yet still held homophobic views they would have been rejected.

If they held racist or sexist view they should equally have been dismissed – irrespective of the source.

And how long will it be before a judge stops atheists from adopting children because we’re not providing our kids with the opportunity to worship freely because of our heathenistic godlessness?

Is the Atheist is saying that they’re gonna raise their children to believe that theists are inferior, evil people and that they refuse to ever tell their child that theists are decent people? Than they fully deserve a ban from government adoptions, just like these bigots deserve to be banned.

Would anyone be defending these bigots if they wanted to raise a child under the religion of Christian Identity and it’s beliefs? Would you be defending them if they said “All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of racemixing was a good thing.”?

I’m going to have to agree with the rest of the commenters here. Hemant, you’re missing the point. Particularly with what we know about the effects of homophobia on LGBT kids growing up and the impact that has on everything from depression to school dropout rates to suicide. Particularly when we know that queer kids (or those thought to be!) are so much more likely to have been rejected by their families in the first place. It would be incredibly irresponsible to take kids who are more likely than the general population to be some flavour of LGBT and to place them in a home where being queer is seen as a moral evil.
It’s not about the prospective foster-parents. It’s about the right of their prospective children to safety.

These people have no leg to stand on. They want to raise an adopted child, but are unwilling to bow to the requirements of the state in doing so. The state can and should therefore not accept their application. The requirements are mild and pretty much guarantee that homophobes, racists, and other types of nasty discriminatory behaviour doesn’t get passed on or inflicted upon children in the states care. Simples.

There have been a string of funny court cases like this in the UK in the last few years, with christians loosing all of them. Mainly because they were demanding extra rights not available to other citizens and then litigating when they were fired or shut down.

Good, serves them right. Join the rest of the country in the 21st century or stick with your medieval crap, but don’t expect the rest of the country to bend over to support your nonsense.

I agree with carlie, it’s analogous to being racist, because people don’t choose their sexual orientation. This wasn’t about religion, it was about being anti-gay. Ever heard of Episcopalians? They allow gay bishops so obviously not all Christians are anti-gay…they ignore the homophobic bits of the bible. Christians are all pickers and choosers of what they believe…they have to be or else they’d have to stone each other to death for wearing mixed fabric clothing.

In the 1970’s, Judge Camarata didn’t want to deny a child the right to be indoctrinated and lied to? VERY STRANGE. But that was not very long after the insane McCarthy era, where our gov’t thought the opposite of China telling their people what to believe and what not to believe, was the US doing the same thing. But of course that’s not the opposite, the opposite is a secular gov’t who keeps their noses out of religion altogether and doesn’t tell the people what to believe or what not to believe.

Fostering children is not the same as adopting them. Fostering is a temporary relationship (from very short term to a few years), adopting is permanent. Some children who go through foster care wind up adopted, some wind up back with their parents or other relatives, and some remain as wards of the state and go from foster home to foster home. Foster parents get paid to care for the children.

While I personally disagree with their views, I think they have a right to express them and the idea that homosexuality is wrong (as long as it’s not also advocating violence towards homosexuals etc) is not so out of line that it should disqualify them. It should have an impact over which children are placed with them though.

Just to clear something up. The Jones’ were not seeking to adopt. They have fostered children on a short term “respite care” basis some 15 times before, and they wanted to continue this with children between the ages of 3 and 10. I blogged on this story myself (twice) and reached the conclusion that the ban defied sense. There are plenty of homophobic people who don’t require the nonsense of religion to support their views and I am sure some of them adopt, foster or have their own kids.
I heard the couple interviewed on radio and they seem perfectly reasonable people. It just seems that in the unlikely event that the subject of homosexuality came up with a 10 year old they would not be compromising their belief by honestly telling the child that their religion considered it wrong, but that not everyone does, at which point they should refer the child to someone who can answer the question sympathetically.

Young children having crushes is perfectly normal. It’s not sexualized like later during puberty.

There is a great site about this:
http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/

Don’t get hung up too much on the pictures. They are often funny or cute, but they very deliberately play with the usual stereotypes.
Read the stories and you’ll see many common themes. The sense of feeling different for some reason from a very young age. Playing with toys and having interests that are usually associated with the other gender. Some sort of fascination and non-sexual attraction to people of the same gender. Innocent crushes.

Not everyone is like that obviously, but it’s pretty common.

As for the case. If it’s just short-time fostering, placing someone with them could be an option. If problems arise, the child could always be taken away with relatively few problems. But adoption? No frakking way.

Things taught to children at the age of ~eight will stick with them throughout their lives. If they are taught that homosexuality is a choice, and a naughty, sinful choice at that, it will have a lasting impact. The fact that the couple seem like nice people make the teachings all the more likely to stick, and cause damage.

Bravo on a strong decision.

What was this case about? It was about the suitability of the Johns as foster parents to young children. It was about the welfare of the children and how they would be raised. Local government and the social care that they offer for children is a delicate matter utmost care should be taken to ensure that foster parents are not going to subject their charges to physical or emotional harm.

Clearly social services policy, the high court and the Equality Act 2010 consider it to be harmful for a child to be discriminated against (treated differently) on the grounds of their sexuality. The Johns have said that they would discriminate and therefore prevent themselves from acting in the role of foster carer for children. I think that this is entirely right and appropriate despite their being 67000 children in the UK in need of foster parents.

One thing of note about the Equality Act that I think is worth mentioning. The same rule that bars the Johns from fostering children also bars an atheist family from fostering children. If the atheist family said that they would not allow a child to remain in a faith then they would be limiting that child’s freedom and discriminating against them. Again I think that this is entirely right and appropriate as it is the child’s welfare that is in question and their opinions and views should be important.

“We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.”

This is what disturbs me. Most “small” children would not be inquiring about this anyway, so why was it even brought up for discussion? I have 3 kids… 3, 6 and 8… none of them have EVER brought up anything related to being homosexual. They have seen men and women, met lesbians and gay men… never once have they questioned it. I am wondering why these potential foster parents would be concerned with an inquisitive five year old.

I agree that the ruling by the judge should not have been as it was, but I disagree that this should have even been brought up. If these parents would have said something along the lines of “Our faith teaches that the act of homosexuality is wrong, however, I will leave it to the child to decide his/her own faith, only making them aware of what ours teaches”. I think that would have been an acceptable answer. I believe this judge was concerned about the parents discriminating against the child or other children in the future, should they grow up and be gay. This judge was thinking towards the future of the child, not attacking the faith of the parents.

The judge’s job is to ensure whatever action is taken is in the best interest of the child, and teaching a child to discriminate early on is in no one’s best interest.

I think that the views/opinions/beliefs of the prospective parents SHOULD be a factor in determining if they are a good fit for adopting.

What if their belief was that black children and girls are inherently vastly inferior to white boys?? Should the government agency endorse having those parents be GIVEN kids who are black or female (or even should they raise white boys, teaching them of their false superiority)?

While the beliefs of the prospective parents would not be the ONLY factor considered, there is no reason why it should not be ONE of the factors.

The gov’t does not assign your birth children to you, but gov’t DOES actively assign children for adoption, and thus has a duty to do due diligence in screening for a variety of factors in the prospective parents. Those factors can be open for public and agency debate, which is how policies get made a revised.

I’m with Peter Mahoney. If the views are likely to lead to abuse, they absolutely should factor in to the decision. In this case, a maturing child in this household who discovers that s/he is gay will be subject to abuse – this is what the Johnses “opened their mouth” about.

If an atheist accidentally “opened their mouth” about believing that all religious people are immoral and deserving of sadistic punishment, I would feel just as uncomfortable letting them foster/adopt lest the child in their care one day decide to convert.

And that’s the difference. It’s not just about holding an unpopular opinion. It’s about believing that a certain group of people is deserving of whatever’s coming to them. People with such views, no matter where they fall on religions, political, ideological lines should not be handed the care of vulnerable people.

Letting homophobic people adopt a potentially gay child is like letting racist people adopt without regard to the race of the child. There is about a 10% chance that a child placed with this couple would suffer psychological abuse (there’s a reason GLBT teens not accepted by their families have a suicide rate much higher than that of other teens). That’s way too high a chance, especially considering that foster children are often in delicate emotional situations to start with.

If there was an atheist couple who believed and planned on communicating to their prospective foster children that everyone who is baptized is “dirty” and “infected with religion”, they shouldn’t be allowed to foster either. The first priority is that children placed in foster or forever homes are not in physical or psychological danger, for whatever reason.

H: Your reporting is inaccurate. The right wing press (and the Christian Legal Centre, whose press release most of them apparently copied) have completely mischaracteristed the judges’ decision here. The text of the judgement is very readable (though long) and spells out what happened. This blog post from Gavin Drake, a Christian journalist, also has it right as far as I can see, and is shorter.

The couple and Derby council agreed to take their dispute to the court before the council had actually made any decision either way, so the court was being asked to decide on an abstract principle rather than it being the case, that, say, the couple had asked to foster and been refused. Both sides sought some kind of declaration from the court. The judges gave the barrister from the CLC a bit of a kicking for “various arguments, many of them couched in extravagant rhetoric, which, to speak plainly, are for the greater part, in our judgment, simply wrong as to the factual premises on which they are based and at best tendentious in their analysis of the issues”, which is kind of fun. But they declined to make any kind of order.

In the process of deciding to do nothing, the court looked at other judgements recently where Christians have attempted to have their prejudices protected by law (my phrase, not the court’s), and concluded that those judgements were binding on them and correct. The question is not one of religion per se, but whether prejudice should be given special consideration because it derives from religion: the court concluded it should not.

The question is about foster parents providing respite care, which is about giving the regular carers a break, not about full time foster care or out right adoption.

Hemant, I think your position on this is very badly thought out.

The bible instructs parents to do a lot of things that our culture would today consider to be child abuse – beating the child with a stick, for example, or putting them to death if they are disrespectful to their parents. We know that a lot of christians claim to believe in the bible. We also know that the vast majority of them do not do these abusive things, so we can be reasonably comfortable allowing a christian to adopt a child without expecting they will put Junior to death the first time he mouths off at them.

This couple, however, has expressed their direct intent to behave in one of these abusive manners – to teach their hypothetical child that homosexuality is evil. If a christian couple expressed direct intent to obey the bible’s instructions to beat and slaughter their child, would you allow them to adopt?

Then why should this couple have the special privilege of adopting after having expressed intent to be abusive to their child?

a couple of points:
1. people do NOT choose their religion. They may choose their church, but beliefs are not a choice.
2. I don’t think Mr Daly was necessarily lying. I imagine he views the belief that homosexuality is wrong to be a necessary part of christianity. If you do not believe that homosexuality is wrong, then according to Mr Daly, by definition, you are not a christian. Given that definition of ‘christianity,’ a ruling that says a person who believes homosexuality is wrong cannot adopt is a ruling that says a christian cannot adopt, even if it contains protestations to the contrary. So I think That Mr Daly and the judge may simply be using the word ‘christian’ in different senses.

However one wishes to define the word christianity, Mr Daly is correct in pointing out that this ruling does discriminate against people based on a belief that they hold. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I would favor a policy against allowing adoption by people who believe that corporal punishment is a necessary part of good parenting. But it is something that we need to acknowledge and consider.

BTW I highly recommend reading the decision. It is a great example of skewering.

Stephan P,

I think you misread the judgment, the couple asked for judicial relief, asking the Judge to overrule social services. The Judge refused to order social services to do so. (i.e no order)

I also disagree with the gist of the conversation. In Manitoba, where I live we have a terrible shortage of qualified foster parents.

The majority of children requiring foster care come from the Indian reservations where 3rd world conditions persist. At the same time, the majority of safe foster homes are not on those reserves. However until very recently finding a “culturally appropriate” home took precedence over physical security. The few “culturally appropriate” foster homes are overwhelmed past the breaking point.

As a result we have had a shocking number of deaths and abuse in foster care. The worst example Phoenix Sinclair will break your heart.

In sum, where there is a shortage, safe, disciplined foster parents ought to be used regardless of religious beliefs.

I find myself completely distracted by this: “the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships.”

Is that true?! Can anyone point me to some information about that?

In my neck of the woods, there exists a foundation that will pay some of the adoption court fees for Christians so that more children can be brought up with good Christian values. Word of mouth so don’t know much about the organization or what the screening process is like. Anytime I hear about good Christian values, the hair on the back of my neck stands up.

Foster parents are allowed to be bigoted so long as they make that known to the social workers. Not because this is a wanted situation, there are fewer homes than children. Those in charge of placement are supposed to help make sure bad placements do not happen and foster parents are supposed to speak up if a placement is going to be a problem. Of course, with young or traumatized homosexual children, a bad placement might be made before sexuality information is known.

As a foster parent, I would say that there is a lot good about the foster system and I’d highly recommend it for those able. But like any system, it can also be pretty effed up.

@Frank — No. People DO choose their religion.

I think this comes down to ‘real beliefs’ versus ‘stated beliefs’. A lot of the time professions of faith are just shibboleths. People say the bible is literal because they want to identify with a group. Not because they’ve necessarily read or agree with it.

So, the vast majority of time, people can say anything about their religious beliefs, and it doesn’t tell us all that much about their actions.

Some times, their stated beliefs do reflect their actual beliefs. And here we could have problem.

These parents assert that they have a problem with gay children. And it doesn’t seem to be dismissable as yet another thing that people say but don’t practice. So, that makes them unfit. Why should it matter if the belief has a religious origin?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/9414147.stm

There are two thingies going on here, 1) do they have the legal right, and 2)is it correct to raise the child homophobic. Deff. #2 is wrong, but #1? It’s very big brother-ish and as you pointed out, it’s not fair when it happens to Team A.

… I don’t get this one, Hemant. I agree with the court, prejudiced people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children.

Whether they are Christian or not doesn’t make a bit of difference, but when they flat out admit to being discriminatory bigots, then their religion doesn’t really enter into it.

I’m curious why this statement is given any weight:

“for one, you choose your religion, but not your sexual orientation”

So? What if you could choose your sexual orientation? Wouldn’t it still be okay to be gay? There are some psychological disorders that turn people, for lack of a better work, evil and without empathy. They certainly don’t have a choice in the matter – does their lack of choice make them any less dangerous?

I find the “it’s not a choice it’s biology” evidence of a hidden prejudice. “Being gay isn’t okay, but as long as they didn’t choose that lifestyle – I guess I’ll accept it” is the subtle undertone. I’m sure that’s not what people consciously think, but that seems to be a reasonable inference.

Choice, no choice, what’s the difference? What if the universe was different and a scientific discovery tomorrow determined that events when you were very young determined your sexual orientation, such that all young people now had a choice. Would it be okay to discourage that choice, now that it’s not biology?

Hemant, I understand that this could seem like bigotry against Christians. But as others have pointed out, it’s really all about the welfare of the child. Adults don’t have a “right” to adopt, it’s children that have a right to a supportive upbringing.

“LGBT children whose families refuse to accept their sexualities—and they represent a large chunk of the kids in foster care—are eight times likelier to attempt suicide than kids whose families accept them.” Don’t you think that placing a potentially gay child in a household that may make him or her more likely to commit suicide makes that household a bad fit? That quote is from Dan Savage’s take on the court decision, and he makes an excellent point – that if one of every 10 children grew up to black, we wouldn’t be okay with placing children with white supremacist foster/adoptive parents. It would be seen as allowing a risk of psychological/emotional abuse to those children that would grow up to become that which their family hates. Why is this different?

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/02/28/if-a-certain-relatively-set-percentage-of-infants-grew-up-to-be-black

(And for what it’s worth, I’m a Christian saying that this isn’t a case of being discriminated against for your religious beliefs – because there are plenty of Christians that don’t believe homosexuality is a sin, and do believe that gay kids should grow up knowing they are loved and will find love.)

Actually, if atheist foster parents would stop a foster child that is already religious from worshipping, I’d see that as a reason for disqualifying them as foster parents too.

In the Time article you link to, however, the mere fact of them being atheists, and that they were not going to give their adopted infant a religious upbringing was enough to condemn them. The judge there was trying to turn the right to worship into the duty to worship, which is wrong on many, many levels.

The two cases therefore aren’t analogous at all, and not just because being gay is not a choice and religion might be. Which is besides the point anyway – even if being gay were a choice, it would still be wrong for foster parents to reject children that happen to be gay.

Hemant (and while we’re at it, MaryD)

Most of what I wanted to say has already been said to death here, so I’ll spare you.

But clearly, neither of you has any idea what it’s like to grow up gay. I had those influences in my life–the Christian, and the homophobic–and I can tell you which did the most damage to my emotional and psychological health.

My parents still go to church, but they’re good people, and you know full well that Christianity is not why the Johns (in this apparently fictional scenario) were denied foster children. If the homophobic elements of my extended family had been the ones in charge of my welfare, I don’t know if I would have survived my adolescence.

Hemant, you are usually so reasonable and sensitive to the problems facing the LGBT community, but you really dropped the ball on this one. Homophobia in a child’s upbringing constitutes abuse, and putting a child in the care of a homophobe is playing Russian roulette with that child’s life.

There is a huge difference between foster parenting and adopting. When someone adopts a child they have all the same rights to raise the child as they do other biological children. Foster parents are temporarily taking care of children who are the wards of the state (and are reimbursed with taxpayer money). Since the state is ultimately responsible for foster children than it is perfectly reasonable for them to have some ground rules that foster parents must follow.

I read some about this story and my understanding was that the state law says that foster parents simply have to teach their children not to discriminate against homosexuals. The foster parents didn’t have to say that homosexuality was moral and a good lifestyle, they only had to tell their children that discrimination against homosexuals was wrong. These Christians wouldn’t even do that.

Since foster children are wards of the state then the state should be able to not allow foster parents to teach children to discriminate against people. If these were atheist parents who refused to teach their children not to illegally discriminate against religious people, as the law requires, than I wouldn’t have a problem with them also losing their rights to temporarily care for foster children.

Again, everyone needs to understand that this case was NOT about adoption, it was about if these homophobic people were fit to temporarily take care of wards of the state. Huge difference.

Gay people assert their right to speak out in defence a particular form of sexuality.

I equally assert my free speech right to express an opposite view to theirs.

But of course the issue here isnt about free speech rights but
…the rights of the child.

Robert W,

Your example was in no way equivalent to this situation. This isn’t like a gay foster parent telling a child that homosexuality was OK.

It would be like homosexual foster parents saying that if their foster child was straight they would try to turn him gay, teach him that it was ok to bully and discriminate against straight kids, and wouldn’t allow the child to go to any church, even if they wanted too.

I would say they would be unacceptable as foster parents. In the same way, Christian foster parents who will force their foster children to go to church, teach them that it is OK to discriminate and bully gay kids, and that try to change their sexuality are not qualified to temporarily take care of wards of the state and receive taxpayer money in compensation.

HA, guess I was a little late to that party! Sorry for piling on.

Robert W. Says:

Reverse it- What if the homosexual couple was prevented from fostering because they would tell a child that the homosexual lifestyle was ok and the case worker thought that it wasn’t? Would you have the same belief that the ruling was correct?

In the hypothetical case that you provide the case worker would be the one breaking the law.

In the UK the law provide that homosexuality is “ok” and that discriminating against that is a breech of the law. To be frank I’d be surprised if the US doesn’t protect it’s citizens in the same way.

Lion IRC

I equally assert my free speech right to express an opposite view to theirs.

One of the great things about the USA is that your right to do so is protected. That says nothing about your suitability to act as a foster parent.

But of course the issue here isnt about free speech rights but…the rights of the child.

Exactly right. The rights of the child are decided by the state. Not the church.

Robert W,

You don’t have the facts. They specifically said that if they had a gay child they would try to turn him straight, and also that they would require them to go to church whether they wanted to or not. So yes, the parents said they would love any child, but part of that “love” would be to try to switch their sexuality and force them to become religious.

The specific law in the UK that the parents said they wouldn’t abide by is a law that says foster parents must teach their children not to discriminate against homosexuals. These parents refused to teach their foster children not to discriminate against homosexuals. These foster parents said they wouldn’t abide by the laws governing foster parents, so the state basically said “fine, if you won’t abide by the law then we will not temporarily allow you to watch wards of the state and pay you taxpayer money for it.”

How is that not rational? Would you support foster parents who said they wouldn’t follow a law saying that they should teach their foster children not to discriminate against minorities? Do you think all bigots have the right to receive taxpayer money for foster care despite ignoring the law? Why make an exception for homophobics?

Robert W –

Read more of the sources listed in the comments. This couple has stated that they would
– not acknowledge that homosexuality is good or decent
– not stop foster child A from harassing foster child B if the harassment was anti-gay
– not allow state-approved adoptive parents to visit a potential child if the parents were gay
– force their foster children to attend church twice weekly, regardless of the beliefs or feelings of the child

Your analogy is false. Stop pretending that bigotry is as valid an opinion as acceptance.

So if a homosexual couple wanted to tell a child that homosexuality was a good thing and the case worker thought otherwise and told then they couldn’t be foster parents, would you still support the ruling?

As I have pointed out, and as hoverfrog has pointed out, this is in no way the same thing. But forgetting that for the moment – in your hypothetical situation, I would side with the parents, because the case worker is being discriminatory and is BREAKING THE LAW.
Just like in the original case I sided with the court, because the parents were being discriminatory and were BREAKING THE LAW.

That’s the point you need to understand. I (and the posters here who agree with me) are coming down on the side of the law. You can claim that “civil rights” is just the other side of the coin as “bigotry” all day long, but you’re wrong, and the law disagrees with you.
Just because there are two opposite views doesn’t mean the answer lies somewhere between them. It is possible for one to be right and the other to be wrong. The fallacy of moderation is what leads to things like the Three-Fifths Compromise.

But I would like to know why the Jones’ views are being singled out when many other Christian parents (who can easily adopt children) would likely teach their children that non-Christians are going to hell, or would ostracize the children if they left their faith, or would teach them that evolution is false and Creationism is correct. Is all that really any different than the Jones’ views that being gay is immoral?

I agree. I’m having trouble seeing any difference here. As much as it disgusts me that parents might teach their children anti-gay views, how exactly is this different from parents who teach their children to believe in hell? Ignoring the specific situation in the UK for a moment, hell-believers make up a huge percentage of the American population. Statistically speaking, a hell-believing family who fosters or adopts has a much greater chance of raising a child who will grow up to identify as non-Christian than they do of raising a child who will grow up to identify as LGBT. I have read many stories here on Friendly Atheist (and elsewhere) of people who were traumatized and emotionally scarred because their parents taught them to believe in hell when they were small children. Many of those people still struggle with guilt and fear today. Is there a difference between being taught that gay people go to hell and being taught than anyone who isn’t “saved” goes to hell? From my perspective, it seems like it would be equally poisonous to young minds.

[edit] removed because I can’t find the source.

Anna,

In the first place, Hemant was incorrect. This couple was not trying to adopt, but to foster, and to foster extremely high-risk children, meaning children who have already been abused, battered and in some cases outright tortured.

As multiple other commenters have pointed out, they would be paid to foster these children. They are essentially being hired as babysitters by the state, and the state has full moral and legal responsibility for these kids’ welfare. Just like you would if you were hiring someone to look after your own child, they have the right and duty to ensure that the caretakers are qualified. Discrimination against a legally protected group of people disqualifies this couple from fostering, just like an admitted plan of screaming at children would disqualify a babysitter.

Any other person looking to foster children who tells Social Services point-blank that they will refuse to allow the child to learn natural history or science, will teach him/her to discriminate against all religions other than their own, and will emotionally abuse the child if he or she does not immediately adopt their religion would be denied. Why? Because the CHILD’S RIGHTS MATTER. No one, in the UK or the US, has a legal right to foster children. However, children in both countries are legally protected from abuse and neglect, and legally entitled to an education.

I’m bi, and grew up in a family whose “love” made them brainwash me into believing that homosexuality was evil and repulsive, that sexuality, sensuality, and eroticism were shameful and dirty, and that it was “unclean” to look at another person in desire. (Unless the other person was of the same gender. Then it was an abomination, and too damn bad we can’t execute them any more.) The amount of damage that kind of constant rhetoric inflicts on a young child’s psyche is appalling. Emotional blackmail of this kind can leave permanent scars.

Robert W., I’d love to hear you respond to what others have explained to you. I don’t think I need to add anything further.

Beck,

I understand that, and I wasn’t talking about the UK situation in my comment. My question was more general. Is there a difference between parents teaching hell belief for gay people and parents teaching hell belief for non-Christians? Should Christians who believe in hell (and communicate that to their children) be forbidden from adopting or fostering? To me, it seems to be the exact same kind of situation, although I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

Any other person looking to foster children who tells Social Services point-blank that they will refuse to allow the child to learn natural history or science, will teach him/her to discriminate against all religions other than their own, and will emotionally abuse the child if he or she does not immediately adopt their religion would be denied. Why? Because the CHILD’S RIGHTS MATTER. No one, in the UK or the US, has a legal right to foster children. However, children in both countries are legally protected from abuse and neglect, and legally entitled to an education.

Again, I have no comment on the UK situation. The story seems to be have been widely misreported and manipulated by people in the media who are anti-gay. In addition, the laws are different in the UK than they are in the United States. However, are you suggesting that creationists not be allowed to foster children? In the Bible Belt, I have a hard time imagining how that would work out. The vast majority of potential foster parents in those states are evangelical Christians who believe in creationism and take their foster children with them to church. I would imagine there are also many foster parents who homeschool their children with conservative Christian curriculum or send them to private church schools that teach creationist nonsense.

I’m bi, and grew up in a family whose “love” made them brainwash me into believing that homosexuality was evil and repulsive, that sexuality, sensuality, and eroticism were shameful and dirty, and that it was “unclean” to look at another person in desire. (Unless the other person was of the same gender. Then it was an abomination, and too damn bad we can’t execute them any more.) The amount of damage that kind of constant rhetoric inflicts on a young child’s psyche is appalling. Emotional blackmail of this kind can leave permanent scars.

I’m not disputing that. I agree that it is tragic. But is it more painful than being taught that you are headed for hell if you don’t accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior? It seems to me that the emotional blackmail in both cases would be equally poisonous. As I said earlier, I have read many stories by atheists who are permanently scarred because their parents taught them to believe in and fear hell. Yet we don’t stop evangelical or fundamentalist Christians in general from fostering or adopting children and passing along those religious views to them.

Miko,

In the case in point the plaintiffs (the couple) were seeking a judicial order that the state not even consider their views on how to act on the grounds that their views were religiously derived. The state deferred making a decision until the court ruled which in this case is that the state can consider how the couple intends to act if homosexuality is brought up. The state may still decide they are ok for short term relief fostering (which is all they were applying for) at the lower age range (e.g., a 5 year old whose single mother is in an accident until such time a relative is found or the mother recovers enough to make her own arrangements) though apparently they have plenty of people approved for short term fostering already.

I strongly suggest reading the the decision as it lays out the facts and the arguments.

*sigh*, mixed up my nouns, like usual. It should be:

“There’s increased risk of depression, drug use, and suicide associated with parental rejection of one’s sexuality.”

Claudia wrote:

Letting homophobic people adopt a potentially gay child is like letting racist people adopt without regard to the race of the child. There is about a 10% chance that a child placed with this couple would suffer psychological abuse (there’s a reason GLBT teens not accepted by their families have a suicide rate much higher than that of other teens). That’s way too high a chance, especially considering that foster children are often in delicate emotional situations to start with.

If there was an atheist couple who believed and planned on communicating to their prospective foster children that everyone who is baptized is “dirty” and “infected with religion”, they shouldn’t be allowed to foster either. The first priority is that children placed in foster or forever homes are not in physical or psychological danger, for whatever reason.

This.

The state in Britain pounces on homophobia rigorously, but doesn’t have a problem with a lot of other equally bad beliefs and actions. Recently a man was made to resign from a drugs advice committee for homophobic views, even though he had a myriad of crazy views that should have disqualified him, some of which were related to drugs. Homosexuals are a protected class of people in the law. This decision is in line with the government’s stance.

These people’s beliefs should be taken into account. The government cannot and should not be value neutral, being a foster parent is not a right. Being homophobic or racist should disqualify people from being foster parents. Fostering shouldn’t be a platform for promoting irrational beliefs. Religion might be the source, but it’s irrelevant to how this issue should be treated. If a secular person cannot do it, then religion shouldn’t be exempt from the same treatment, “freedom of religion” is bullshit. It’s either covered in the other rights, or it’s not a right.

You said: “It sounds like the Jones’ biggest crime was opening their mouth when they shouldn’t have.”

No – their crime was being homophobes. The reason they were found out was that they opened their mouths.

That’s like saying my biggest crime was driving down the freeway (where the police sobriety testers were stationed) rather than my actual drinking and driving in the first place.

The fact that other people get away with the crime doesn’t change the crime to being that which gets you caught……

WMDKitty,

Let’s see, I CHOSE not to be a Christian. I’ve CHOSEN a position of apathetic agnosticism. Likewise, a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever, has CHOSEN to believe in their respective faith or philosophy.

I’m with Frank on this one. I don’t see how it’s possible for someone to choose what to believe. People can become convinced one way or the other, but that’s not a conscious choice. I didn’t choose to be an atheist, and I doubt that 99% of theists chose to believe in their deity or deities. The vast majority of them were indoctrinated as babies and toddlers. You can choose to keep an open mind and investigate all points of view, but you can’t choose whether or not you’re convinced by the evidence. I could align myself with a Christian church, attend services, and follow all the rules, but I couldn’t actually force myself to believe in their supernatural claims if I didn’t see evidence for them.

@Anna

I think we are both on the same page as far as understanding the legality of the situation and the difference between parental rights and the duties of a foster parent. But I think we differ on a key point, highlighted here:

But I routinely hear stories of foster parents raising children to follow the religion of the foster family, and that would certainly include teaching them about the concepts of salvation, damnation, and hell.

Yes, true. But the problem is not with the foster system here – it is with religion. I think that when a child’s psychological wellbeing comes into conflict with his foster parents’ right to freedom of religion, the child should always be put first.
In fact, allowing Christians to make threats of hellfire and torture, but kicking out secular parents who make similar non-religious threats, is in my mind a privileging of religion by a government body and a violation of the Separation of C&S.

I don’t see how it’s possible for someone to choose what to believe. People can become convinced one way or the other, but that’s not a conscious choice. I didn’t choose to be an atheist, and I doubt that 99% of theists chose to believe in their deity or deities. The vast majority of them were indoctrinated as babies and toddlers. You can choose to keep an open mind and investigate all points of view, but you can’t choose whether or not you’re convinced by the evidence.

You make a good point. “Choose” was probably the wrong word to use. Maybe it’s better to say that one can change their beliefs at almost any time – they are not an inborn trait. Religious beliefs are just ideas, ideas that can change, disappear, or grow over time, often rapidly.
Contrast this with sexual orientation, sex (physical), gender (mental), race, age – all traits that are inherent and cannot be changed save through extensive surgeries.

@Alex

adoption has been legal in england and wales since 2005 and for scotland 2009

EEK! quick edit, to adopt singley since 2002 but jointly since 2005 for england