Thread: Qualifications for parents

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.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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

Still fine by me. Families that are adopting must show that they aren't bigoted. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't want racists to be adopting either.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

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.

Matthew 5:17-20 perhaps?

Originally Posted by markevens

Still fine by me. Families that are adopting must show that they aren't bigoted. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't want racists to be adopting either.


Matthew 5:17-20 perhaps?

Regarding the law

Romans 3:20 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Romans 7:1-6 - PassageLookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Luke 16:16 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Hebrews 8 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Galatians 4:1-7 - PassageLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Regarding the comment of being bigoted..
What about people who will only buy American (or Japanese, or German) cars? Or people who only shave with a straight razor? Or people who refuse to wear shorts in the summer? Where do you draw the line?

Also, unless that article has mis-quoted, the judge specifically said they would "have to teach the children that homosexuality was ok", which implies an activity on their part in the teaching.

The judge did not say they had to accept the child's choice/action. He didn't ask if they would be able to love the child just the same no matter what. He asked if they would be able to actively teach the child that it was ok.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Regarding the law

Romans 3:20 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Romans 7:1-6 - Passage*Lookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Luke 16:16 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Hebrews 8 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Galatians 4:1-7 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Great! Since you now declared the Old Testament obsolete, you can stop hating on homosexuals, because that is where the passages regarding homosexuality come from.

Regarding the comment of being bigoted..
What about people who will only buy American (or Japanese, or German) cars? Or people who only shave with a straight razor? Or people who refuse to wear shorts in the summer? Where do you draw the line?

I think there is a clear line between making judgments about the quality of inanimate objects and labeling people you don't even know.

Also, unless that article has mis-quoted, the judge specifically said they would "have to teach the children that homosexuality was ok", which implies an activity on their part in the teaching.

The judge did not say they had to accept the child's choice/action. He didn't ask if they would be able to love the child just the same no matter what. He asked if they would be able to actively teach the child that it was ok.

I still have don't see the problem with this. So they dont' want to send foster kids into families that will teach hate. If their narrow minded religion orders them to condemn homosexuals, and they follow along, that is fine. That doesn't mean they society needs to bend to their views.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

And what do you suppose has caused this?

Nobody seems to be happy with peace and quiet. This has come out of TV and the consumer culture that developed from it.