Thread: Qualifications for parents

I check out this "blog" from time to time, and assuming this article is factually correct, it is a bit alarming, if extended to its logical extreme.
Just curious how others look at this, not necessarily the single issue mentioned in the article, but what should be the freedoms of parents to teach their children a certain unique way?

The Future | 2010

I recognize the source can hardly be considered objective in opinion, but I've mostly believed them to be factual in their presentation.

Should foster parents be allowed to teach their children not to trust black people? Or maybe that women were created by Gawd to serve man?

Originally Posted by goaT

Should foster parents be allowed to teach their children not to trust black people? Or maybe that women were created by Gawd to serve man?

As a Roman Catholic myself, I recognize the difference between the religious and political realms. I think the judge may have had GoaT's point above in mind. While I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, I do know there is a line.

What I disagree with is the statement in the article made by the government representative something to the effect that ... “The council said: ‘Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?’ ... I believe that would fly in the face of religious freedom (akin to requiring a Roman Catholic instutution to offer abortion coverage in their health insurance policy ... see case against Belmont Abbey College in the U.S.).

I wouldn't have nearly as much problem having the parents avoid any "lessons on homosexuality", but having them explicitly teach that homosexuality is OK against their religious beliefs does seem to be wrong, and would preclude them from adopting based on their religious beliefs. But, to GoaT's point, I wouldn't want anarchists or Nazi's allowed to adopt ... so where's the line ... I don't know, but I think this issue lives close to the line, and therefore it's controversy.

I do recognize that the state does have a role in determining where the line is drawn, but not sure that this has a nice clean answer.

I think the facts of the case would have to bear on a decision ... e.g., has the child already identifed themselves as homosexual? How would the parents handle such a revelation? etc.

The one point made by a person who commented in response to the article is VERY important here, I think ... that our cultures are evolving to a point where "civil tolerance trumps personal morality every time". This is SO central to the erosion of our societies. I cannot go to a football game without the "F" bomb exploding all over the place, and if you courteously request that language be moderated on behalf of your minor children and wife, you are acosted as intolerant. So we have to be tolerant of any choice a person makes unless it is expressly unlawful. We have lost all sense of what is right and wrong other than what our government decides is lawful and unlawful.

If you want to know where common courtesy and civil behavior went, this explains it. Society once shunned adults who used foul language in public, and now we seem to ignore it when our children do it. We don't want to stigmatize unmarried children who give birth, so now it's OK (maybe ill-advised) ... so no wonder our children are having children ... everyone's doing it, and there is no stigma attached to it. I am not condoning a Spanish Inquisition mentality, but I think society at large has lost it's ability to influence the individual in any moral fashion other than "if it feels good, do it". There is no consideration of the common good, when in conflict with personal choice ... no matter how assinine or harmful the personal choice. Neighbors used to look out for, and correct their neighbor's children. Children used to at least "show" respect to teachers and adults. Anyway ... I don't know what the answer is, other than good people making tough decisions based on ethical values.

Sorry about the extended rant.

Originally Posted by goaT

Should foster parents be allowed to teach their children not to trust black people? Or maybe that women were created by Gawd to serve man?

I love that this has been conveniently ignored in this thread. There's a good point there.

And as someone who has had a lot of involvement with people who work in the psychological community and is likely headed for that line of work, I can tell you that you're unaware of the actual info if you don't believe that parents can harm their gay children by disapproving of them for being gay or by pressuring them into other sexual identities. All the research on issues like this together has pointed to a few things:

-Trying to change people's sexuality DOES NOT WORK. That's it. And I've looked into and discussed this quite a bit. If you know anything about science and look at the "studies" (if you can even call them that) of the prominent people and organizations that argue the opposite of this, you'd roll your eyes at the shamelessly pathetic methods.
-Another finding. If anything, pushing people towards other sexual identities or condemning theirs only pushes them towards suicidal tendencies.

And no, just telling children that your religion doesn't approve of homosexuality is not a benign thing. Especially when you raise children with a heavy dose of that religion...

It would be like having a child you don't know the race of and just deciding that it would be ok for the child to house with a neo-Nazi.

[QUOTE=heirkb;689846]
I can tell you that you're either uninformed or stubborn to the point of stupidity if you don't believe ...
QUOTE]

Good points for the position you are debating from but the above quote will probably cause your cause more damage than anything you can conjure up for your defense.

I honestly hope that way of thinking never becomes and issue. This would give the government the right to declare parents unfit just because they wish to teach their kids what their faith believes. There was a separation of Church and State for a reason, don't send us back to the dark ages over ignorance.

I am not against Gay's or Lesbian's, but I do believe parents have the right to raise their kids in their way as long as it is not physically or mentally harmful. Being told their religion does not accept gays or lesbians will not harm anyone, IMO

I wonder if there is more to the story that is not being published.. as in they are trying to foster an older child who has stated he/she is gay and they are trying to "reform" that child.

Most Foster organizations I have dealt with have been faith based ones here in the US so may be one reason this story has not really made any waves here currently.

I don't know how things are in the US. I do know that over here, Child Services is involved in the adoption process, and there are evaluations to determine if you are fit to take care of a kid.

These kids already carry trauma with them. I think it is important that they land in an environment where they can learn to trust and love again, and are cared for.

Now, unless I am mistaken, foster kids are not legally adopted, so they are not 'your' kids. You just care for them. And in that case an ongoing evaluation of th efoster parents is warranted to prevent the kid from ending up worse than they were, without anyone giving a damn.

Originally Posted by TSasser

I am not against Gay's or Lesbian's, but I do believe parents have the right to raise their kids in their way as long as it is not physically or mentally harmful. Being told their religion does not accept gays or lesbians will not harm anyone, IMO

You think a gay or lesbian child being told their religion doesn't accept them wouldn't mentally harm them?

Until someone requires people to take parenting courses and get a permit to have kids there will be unending stories and examples of children being abused both physically an mentally. Since this will never happen the issue will never change. Be it in the name of religion or some other reason really doesn't matter.

I remember early in my career having to investigate a family wanting to adopt a child from Mexico and it was amazing how the prospective father kept equating having the child the same as having a small animal around the house.