Thread: Qualifications for parents

You have to be licenced to operate a vehicle, you have to be licenced to operate a 'Ham' radio, your dog has to be licenced, yet you don't need a licence to create life...I fail to understand why all those unimportant things require a licence and even a course of study, but to have and raise children only requires the limited mental capacity to be able to have sex. I for one would love to see compulsory parenting courses...I might have even found my initial steps into being a daddy that much easier if I had some formal lessons into what to do with regards to caring for a child. Mind you my first born seems well balanced at the moment...


Mick

Originally Posted by MickR

Personnally I think that if the parents reasons for teaching against homosexuality is based on religious belief, then they shouldn't be allowed to teach that at all. I feel that religion is a personal choice and that jamming religion down the throats of impressionable youngsters is child abuse.

Honestly, this confuses the heck out of me. By extension of your statement, we should outlaw parochial schools, Sunday school programs, children's church, and in fact the Roman Catholic church itself. If/when you are married Roman Catholic you have to promise to "the best of your ability" to raise your children in the church.

In many Christian denominations, children are baptized/dedicated as infants, and basically all have child specific programs (Sunday school, youth group, children's church, etc)

Also, based on your comments I'm assuming you're "non-religious", but say the parents choose to go to church on Sunday morning... what do you propose they do with their child/children? hire a sitter? Certainly taking them to church with them must be "shoving it down their throat".

Originally Posted by MickR

I would say that sensible attitudes to parenting play a part here.

Sleep for a child comes under protecting the child, in this case health (Junk food is covered here as well and the child would go hungry as we don't have any in the house ). It's not forcing any ideals on a child, it is just good sense that a well rested, properly fed child has the health and energy to go out and change the world everyday.

If you were a Christian, or a 100% devotee to any religion, you would have to consider that according to your belief, a lack of spirituality in your children would be far worse in the long term than the physical needs you're talking about.

If you believe whole-heartedly in Heaven and Hell, wouldn't you do everything you could to ensure your children end up in the former, and avoid the latter?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Parents should always keep in mind that their personal beliefs aren't always best for the child.

Keep in mind... most religions profess to be the ONLY way. If you believe Jesus Christ is the only way, then that belief is just as important for a child (moreso in fact) than feeding, housing, and clothing them.

Originally Posted by MickR

You have to be licenced to operate a vehicle, you have to be licenced to operate a 'Ham' radio, your dog has to be licenced, yet you don't need a licence to create life...I fail to understand why all those unimportant things require a licence and even a course of study, but to have and raise children only requires the limited mental capacity to be able to have sex. I for one would love to see compulsory parenting courses...I might have even found my initial steps into being a daddy that much easier if I had some formal lessons into what to do with regards to caring for a child. Mind you my first born seems well balanced at the moment...
Mick

While I don't disagree with your assertation, in an age where I read 1 in 10 children are "sexually active" before their 13th birthday, how do you propose teaching these classes? That number is from US News about 9-10 years ago.

That blog uses horrible argument. Slippery slope fallacies all the way. Here again we get religious fear-mongering used to influence people politically.

Lets look at their conclusion:

So, here is the future: if the state can declare the Johns unfit to be foster parents, and thus deny them foster children, because they may teach these children the Christian understanding of human sexuality, then the state, armed with Judge Walker’s premises, can declare any married couple unfit to be parents, and thus remove their natural children from their home, because these parents, in fact, teach their children the same lesson the Johns were forbidden from teaching.

Slippery slope anyone? Child Protective Services do not remove children from homes lightly. My gf's mom has recently gotten severyly depressed, and her young sisters are in an amazingly oppressive atmosphere. They are 12 and 16, but they are not allowed out of the mom's sight. They sleep in the same room, despite living in a 4 bedroom house, she doesn't let them go to school, she doesn't let them out of her sight at all. Child protective services were called, and investigated, but since there was no physical abuse going on, CPS couldn't do anything.

If CPS isn't doing anything in this situation, they certainly aren't going to take someone's children away because of their beliefs on homosexuality.

Secondly, they weren't denied because they are christian like the article tries to emphasize, but because they declared that they are intolerant toward homosexuality (and there are plenty of Christians that are fine with homosexuality). I think the adoption agency has the right to impose this restriction, just as they would not want a foster home to be one that teaches white power, or that man are superior to women and women belong in the kitchen.

Originally Posted by markevens

That blog uses horrible argument. Slippery slope fallacies all the way. Here again we get religious fear-mongering used to influence people politically.

Lets look at their conclusion:
Slippery slope anyone? Child Protective Services do not remove children from homes lightly. My gf's mom has recently gotten severyly depressed, and her young sisters are in an amazingly oppressive atmosphere. They are 12 and 16, but they are not allowed out of the mom's sight. They sleep in the same room, despite living in a 4 bedroom house, she doesn't let them go to school, she doesn't let them out of her sight at all. Child protective services were called, and investigated, but since there was no physical abuse going on, CPS couldn't do anything.

If CPS isn't doing anything in this situation, they certainly aren't going to take someone's children away because of their beliefs on homosexuality.

It's not about what they do, it's about the precedent it sets. As the article mentioned that family had already fostered 20 children, but now were denied.

Did you not see the event, I believe last year, where CPS arrested parents for having pictures of their young children taking a bath?

Secondly, they weren't denied because they are christian like the article tries to emphasize, but because they declared that they are intolerant toward homosexuality (and there are plenty of Christians that are fine with homosexuality).

The Bible (on which Christianity is based) and the Catholic church says that homosexuality is wrong, and the basis for the John's intolerance is purportedly their Christian beliefs. Since their beliefs are inline with main-line Christian teachings I don't see how you can say they weren't denied because they were Christian.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

The Bible (on which Christianity is based) and the Catholic church says that homosexuality is wrong, and the basis for the John's intolerance is purportedly their Christian beliefs. Since their beliefs are inline with main-line Christian teachings I don't see how you can say they weren't denied because they were Christian.

Because a christian that was fine with homosexuality would not have been rejected.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Because a christian that was fine with homosexuality would not have been rejected.

How can they be a Christian if they "are fine with" something the Bible says is a sin?

Originally Posted by bbshriver

How can they be a Christian if they "are fine with" something the Bible says is a sin?

Are you saying only fundamentalists are true christians?

Originally Posted by bbshriver

It's not about what they do, it's about the precedent it sets. As the article mentioned that family had already fostered 20 children, but now were denied.

They are an adoption agency, they can set whatever standards they want. I'm sure there are plenty of catholic adoption agencies that would not have a problem with their views.

Did you not see the event, I believe last year, where CPS arrested parents for having pictures of their young children taking a bath?

Yes. That wasn't CPS though, but some dumb ass police tipped off by an even dumber walmart employee. And by the way, no charges were filed against the parents and they still have their kids.

The Bible (on which Christianity is based) and the Catholic church says that homosexuality is wrong, and the basis for the John's intolerance is purportedly their Christian beliefs. Since their beliefs are inline with main-line Christian teachings I don't see how you can say they weren't denied because they were Christian.

The bible also advocates selling your daughters into slavery, promotes polygamy, says that shellfish is an abomination, and shaving is wrong, forbids wearing clothes of mixed fiber, and that anyone who works on Sunday should be put to death. I doubt many christians follow these rules, even though they are just as much God's word as anything on homosexuality.

Originally Posted by markevens

They are an adoption agency, they can set whatever standards they want. I'm sure there are plenty of catholic adoption agencies that would not have a problem with their views.

No, it was a judge, not an adoption agency.

The bible also advocates selling your daughters into slavery, promotes polygamy, says that shellfish is an abomination, and shaving is wrong, forbids wearing clothes of mixed fiber, and that anyone who works on Sunday should be put to death. I doubt many christians follow these rules, even though they are just as much God's word as anything on homosexuality.

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Though I do know specifically on the shellfish issue, there are several passages in the New Testament regarding the new covenant, which eliminates this "rule". What I'm actually curious about is if anything else is discussed regarding homosexuality in the "new covenant"

And polygamy, while practiced by Biblical figures was never actually condoned.

Has anyone entertained the thought that the nihilism that pervades our society today unlike 50 years ago can be contributing to many of the problems that currently exist? I see kids today walking around malls, leaving schools, etc. and MOST of them look like no one is home between their ears. This was not the case 50 years ago. I think something very fundamental is going on below the surface. Any thoughts?