In a landmark case. The High Court of Britain is to look at the issue:

"Are Christians fit to foster care?"

The background to the events is as follows:

HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION (Freedom of Religion)

Article 9: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

EQUALITY ACT (UK) (sexual orientation) 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_%28Sexual_Orientation%29_Regulations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010
Anti-discrimination law in Great Britain. This was, primarily, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and three major statutory instruments protecting discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and age.

CHRISTIAN FOSTER PARENTS.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=227553

The issue of course is....when there is a conflict of 'rights'...which rights trump others? and why?

It very much IS a case of religious vs secular rights, which makes me think secular and religious people aren't so compatible to share a society;

But then again, there never WAS such a thing as a "right" that does not infringe upon what someone else considers a "right"- it's a matter for society (via a majority vote) to decide which rights are more important then the other, and to what extent.

Quite frankly, the majority of public should decide this too.

But I for one will be damned if my city (majority NOT catholic and NOT religious) be forced to shoulder World Youth Day by a few crooked oligarchs trying to suck up to the Pope because they, personally, actually ARE catholic.

This is an interesting case, but it's incorrect
to characterise it as being about
"Are Christians fit to foster care?".
Clearly, the case is about whether foster parents
should be allowed to subject potentially homosexual
children in their care to their homophobic
beliefs and attitudes.

Many Christians I know would be quite comfortable
with telling a child in their care that
"it's OK to be homosexual". It seems to be only the
fundamentalists who seek to legitimise their
homophobia by reference to their faith.

this is yet another case of secular fundamentalist wanting to live at ease in their degradation and being threatened by anyone trying to live by any standard of decency.It really is not very surprising. You only have to look at those who are bent on destroying the normal family unit. Soon the fundie secularist will want anyone happily married for over 5 years banned from adopting kids. Thankfully the public are waking up to the demented immoral secular values. They continue to cause many even non religous to send their kids to schools with religious values. Sad but also amusing.

Simply put, there may be cases where a foster family, because of extremist religious beliefs, are deemed unsuitable to raise another person's child even for a short time. What if a potential foster family were apt to using 'the rod' to punish a child into submission as regards religion. What if the biological parents who are incapacitated for a time for whatever reason, do not want their child to come under the influence of radical (or even moderate) religious elements (of any creed). That is their right too. Rights will always involve conflicting points of view and judgements about what is 'best'.

What if a child is gay or will be gay as they develop and their awareness of their sexuality dawns? How will a judgemental religious family cope or accept a child when their religion may encourage them to punish or at worst exorcise their 'demons'.

Secularism protects people from being persecuted for their religous beliefs and ensures there is a separation of State and Church, which works in the interests of all religions.

The fact is most Christians are moderate and many are now accepting that homosexuals should not be demonised as some Churches are still apt to do - that they should be accepted into 'God's Kingdom' as equals and with equal respect and standing. The ugliness of prejudice towards gay people by some religious folk (eg. likening them to pedophiles) is abhorrent and is akin to witch burnings. No civilised society should accept this form of prejudice and abuse towards human beings.

Pedophilia is also abhorrent and has been committed largely by heterosexuals. Religious folk would be better off adopting a 'no tolerance' policy on pedophilia seeking harsher penalties rather than wasting time on prejudice against homosexuals. These are acts of evil people not the act of people whose sexual preference may be different from our own.

I suspect this proposal is to prevent the worst abuses of religious extremism not the moderate touch of the majority of Christian families. Like any other requirement, foster organisations have a duty of care to the child first.

Fascinating case, thanks Boaz for bringing it to our attention.

As has been mentioned, there will often be friction when "rights" are asserted or challenged.

Here we have the "rights" asserted that the child be raised/cared for in an environment that is not threatening to him/her. Against them, the "rights" of the foster parents to raise/care for the child in the manner that suits their lifestyle.

In all such situations, it is far more useful to look at it in isolation, instead of assuming that it is some form of test case, and that the decision will set an unwavering precedent.

The child is represented by the council, whose task - first and foremost - is not to consider any "rights" that the foster parents might assert, but to ensure that the environment is appropriate for the child in their (the council's) care.

The council may have on their books a whole bunch of potential foster parents, Christian or otherwise, who are happy to look after a jewish/muslim/homosexual/bisexual without feeling it necessary to convert them to a different way of life. I expect those are the families that the council prefers.

But when faced with an intractable, "our way or the highway" attitude, they might decide that the placement would be inappropriate.

"'But I said I couldn't do that,' Johns continued, 'because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally, I couldn't do that. Spiritually I couldn't do that.'"

It is unfortunate that they are making a "federal case" out of an isolated local incident.

"The implications are huge. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of Christian foster carers and adoptive parents hangs in the balance."

It is, of course, a gross exaggeration.

Most Christians understand the difference between raising their own children in a particular way, and license to impose their beliefs on a child placed in their care.

Those who put the child's interests before their own will continue to foster. Those who consider their rights trump those of the child, won't.

The findings of the court, incidentally, will have no bearing on this at all.

pelican,
How do you define a CHILD as homosexual?

You said quote, "What if a child is gay or will be gay as they develop and their awareness of their sexuality dawns?"

Philo you ask the obvious question. The child will no doubt be conditioned in many 'gay' homes.

I would rather know how it could be accomplished here in Australia rather than if. The “If” to me is obvious. Every attempt should be made to place a foster child with a family that is the most compatible to their wellbeing. An attempt should be made to place Hindu children with a Hindu foster family and so on.

What Australian government would realistically end their relationship with Church given the power and influence they have here? The UK may only be dealing with small individual cases from one Council to another. Each council receives funding per child brought into care there. Australia does not have this system.

Here it is not a matter of one family being Christian, Catholic etc or not. Australia maintains organised Church administrated care of children where the foster families might or might not themselves reflect the organizations particular beliefs. These organisations have a well reported history of child abuse that the Australian Government continues to ignore.

A Child is from 0 – 18 in most Australian states. Victoria 0 – 17.

Lilith,
Please quote actual factual statistics on the persentage of child abuse in Church based fostering organisations. My wife worked for Dalmar for several years and ourself fostered dozens of children. Never heard of a single case in those years. Several of the children now grown up still contact her when having problems.

lets get down to the nub of the problem

how many of the parents..giving up their children
are members of..any church or other religeon

or indeed are married..
or have proper morals...
or were raised knowing morality

how many think there is a god

[im not talking about kids here
but the root of the problem]

the answer..should end the debate fairly quickly

bbc has a debate on sunday...blair and some fundimentalist
this godless athiest adgenda..is good at getting god out of your lives

they love courts...[recall that court case re teaching biblical genusis...in science class]..that wasnt about evolution..but its sold like it was

[of course re has no place in science]
evolution is still built on lies

but by selling it aas science..[by accident]
gods creation..is neatly stolen from god what done it

science cant make life
only god can do that

dust you are
to dust you shall return

only your god given life-spirit lives on...

why give kids santa claws ..and the ester rabbit.
.and tooth fairy...and YET..deney them..the truth,..about god?

let kids have..same faith..[get rid of creed by all means]
but let them have the good of god

before you fill them..with scientific..deceptions..
of secular..athiestic-deciete..

AGIR:

I'm not sure that this is a clash of "rights" as such, or even Secular vs. Christian. The interests of a child should always come before any prejudices of a parent. In this case however, it could simply be a bureaucratic stuff up with emotive feelings coming up and giving the wrong impression. Bureaucrats tend to go by the book (council employees) and unfortunately Mr and Mrs Johns spoke without thinking, and spoke rather strongly. Thereby giving the wrong impression to the social workers. What happens next will be up to the courts, I guess. However,with an excellent record of foster care - it is such a shame that the Johns's have now probably thrown away any further chance of continuing in that line of work with the Council of Derby.

I agree Lexi. I assume that foster children are placed with suitable families that the relevant authorities have deemed as correct for that child.

The child's rights to feel safe and nurtured, especially after obviously being torn from their usual family and environment, must come first.

It would be a pity to see some children who were raised in very violent or negligent homes, being subjected to for example 'lectures' on the evils of prostitution, homosexuality or unmarried mothers, when they may well have been part of their own family life.

I am sure that foster kids, who have never been subjected to any religion or God in their lives, would be very upset to hear the new fundamental Christian foster parents say that their relatives may well burn in hell!

Suzie writes

'It would be a pity to see some children who were raised in very violent or negligent homes, being subjected to for example 'lectures' on the evils of prostitution, homosexuality or unmarried mothers, when they may well have been part of their own family life.'

Agreed however it would be pretty dumb to put these kids in families like the ones they have to part from. It might be an opportunity to break the cycle of porn, abuse and loose living.

Runner, what makes you think that all children fostered out have been exposed to porn or 'loose living'?

How would you define 'loose living'?

Many people access porn in their homes and the resident kids never see it. I doubt these homes are all non-Christian either!

The gore-man said....

"Are Christians fit to foster care?"

Oh great! More who thinks humans can walk on water.

BLUE

I'd be interested to see the breakdown of what religious backgrounds foster kids come from, as opposed to the families they are going to. I doubt non-Christians are over-represented as many seem to be assuming here, by the nature of their posts.

And some people here need to learn the meaning of the word "secular". This idea of "religion vs secularism" is verging on oxymoron status. The opposite of secular is 'Taliban'. Give me secular "fundamentalists" any day!

<<I agree Lexi. I assume that foster children are placed with suitable families that the relevant authorities have deemed as correct for that child>>

You would assume wrong.

Adolescent boys are being placed with trophy homosexual foster "parents" to demonstrate how progressive and inclusive and diverse we all are:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

And while we're having a fruitcake free-for-all, why wouldn't it be discriminatory to stop convicted sex offenders from adopting and fostering children?
After all, it's their "fundamental human right".
To hell with the welfare of the child:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/nov/30/sex-offenders-adoption-children

Homophobia, sexoffenderphobia and other hateful bigotry needs to be expunged from society, for the sake of the children.

Philo

You asked "How do you define a CHILD as homosexual?

I don't know how to tell if a young child is gay - it probably isn't possible and who cares really given most children don't express or explore their sexuality until in their mid-late teens.

Gay family members and work colleagues talk about knowing from quite a young age (teens) that they were different from their peers, being attracted to those of the same gender. I cannot speak from experience other than observing for a couple of gay relatives who were 'suspected' of being gay quite early on. Parents and others usually have an inkling.

Thankfully they were both accepted by family and friends (including religious relatives) without harsh judgement or punishment, and lots of open discussion and support - vital in a world that still demonises homosexuality.

What I am arguing is that every gay person was once a child and at some point become more aware of their sexuality. How will this realisation be handled in an anti-homosexual household?

I am personally not arguing that there be a ban on Christians being foster parents (or any religious parents) only if their religion manifests itself into conditions that make their suitability questionable as detailed previously. Gay parents should also be limited if they are fundamentalists and into conditioning children to being gay (as far as that is even possible).

Children should be allowed to develop as they would naturally without outside interference or judgement. We don't want to go back to the good ol' day when homosexuals were subject to electric shock treatment just for developing differently to the norm (or average).

Pelican, I know I have shared this experience on another thread, but it is worth repeating at this point of time.

My Godson was 'different' from other boys by the age of three.
He loved to dress in his mother's clothing and had a female shoe fascination. He preferred girl's toys and playing with girls for his entire childhood, and was mercilessly bullied by other boys for all his years of schooling.

He was a lovely, gentle boy who excelled at the arts.
I heard from many people who knew him during his childhood and teen years that he was 'probably Gay'.

His father was a strict, church-going, Anglican, self confessed homophobe, and his Mother nearly as devout. They were a good supportive family throughout his childhood.

At the age of 18 he 'came out' to his parents as a gay man.

They were both extremely shocked and distressed.
No one else was surprised.

How would you account for that Proxy?
You never answered in my last post about this true story?

I find this all a bit curious.

There are various shades of christian ... many are nominal, never attending church nor associating with christian groups. Some are even homosexuals ...

Being secular does not mean being free from prejudice ... some are homophobic.

Most important are the the needs of the child ... and what potential foster parents can offer. Each case should be looked at on its merits.

Categorizing people by labels ... christian, secular, whatever, is hardly helpful ... especially when there are children needing loving and supportive homes.

Re some of the first few posts, some of you have nailed it as a possible exaggeration. Indeed, the way the story/report is presented is designed to maximize the distress/panic among Christians.

That aside there are some serious issues at stake.

1/ The statement "the relevant authorities have deemed as correct for that child." raises the issue of 'from what value base' do these 'authorities' work ? Imagine such a case happening in 1962 ? hardly.
It would be assumed that due correction of a child regarding homosexual matters would be mandatory. So....'whats changed'?

I still point to the impact in academia of Marcuse Essay in 1965
Paragraph 1:

//The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

If a child was to be fostered by a Muslim couple, would the council say "If the child has Christian ideas, you have to tell them it's ok". Given that Christian belief is the 'worst crime of mankind' according to strict Islam, this might cause problems.

QUESTION. Should the council worker have asked such a loaded question which begged a distinctive 'Christian' answer?

'Do you know, you would have to tell them that it's OK to be homosexual?'

Because this question is based on the "Equality Act" we must ask if the council worker would have asked an ATHEIST couople "Do you realize that you will have to tell the child it's ok to be Christian?"

Would they go through a huge checklist reflecting all aspects of the Equality Act with every couple?

This is the point... such things as "Equality" acts are an attempt to 'codify' all aspects of human behavior and belief, bringing it under State control. This is "National Socialism".

SUZ.....

You are suggesting that being 'gay' means being effeminate. It might not be that way.

You are also demonstrating that 'male-ness' and 'female-ness' is genetic. That certain behavior follows from our different male/female genetic makeup.

I suggest that in the case of your godson, he may have some medical issue happening. It might be genetic, a mutation, which is suggested by the fact that his behavior was so noticeably different/female from such an early age. I say 'mutation' with the kindest intent. Same as for those born with both gender genitalia.

The issue there is to assist such a person come to grips with this reality (as for a child with any kind of abnormality or such as cerebral palsy) and live as best one can with it.

Keep in mind, that there are advocates for inter-generational and/or incestuous sex popping up with increasing frequency and claiming legitimacy. There's no easy answer for the situation of your godson.

It is obvious from suzeonline example of her godson that the Christian or even homophobic attitudes of the parents in the home did not make a difference to the choices of the child as an adult. Obviously he did not feel restricted or verbal abuse.

Similar situation in our extended family too Suze. In one case it was a girl who was always into dressing as a boy and preferred the company of boys, played boys games but also had female friends. She is a wonderful person who has a great sense of humour to get her through although thankfully in her generation homophobia is rare and she has not had to deal with any real abuse as far as I am aware.

Wise words Danielle.

Regardless of the labels the bottom line is that a child should be placed with a suitable family whose only agenda is to provide love and care to a child in great need.

I suspect as Al said the report is there to agitate Christians into an overreaction. It would be the same if a child was from a Christian family and someone wanted to place them in a fundamentalist Muslim home and vice versa.

In some ways, I think the influence of a (longer term) foster family is just the same as any other family and children will eventually make up their own minds about religion. It really depends on the nature of the child but foster care should be a 'safe' environment free from any form of force or abuse - and that can be had in any type of family including atheist, Christian or pentacostal (insert any label here).

GORE...........at the end of the day, once the child gets to have a mind of its own...it will quickly figure out that the truth will present its self in the secular world.......where non fancies behaves in some-what balanced way............not to say the child wont be normal in the end.....but as to how the world....has come to terms with the popular future. (Secularism)

"I suspect as Al said the report is there to agitate Christians into an overreaction." and of course it is. ( The leaders of religion will not go quietly into the night....they will play any card they can, and maybe even illegal one's)

"It would be the same if a child was from a Christian family and someone wanted to place them in a fundamentalist Muslim home and vice versa."

And again.......religion comes under the spot-light by being out of date once more. Problematic at its easiest understanding.

So it comes down to whom the child sits with ( and not for whats best for the child ),but for what the cults want for there numbers game.

Still exploiting children which ever way you look at it.............SHAME SHAME SHAME.

Pelican....we share the same concerns.

BLUE

The title to this thread is totally misleading.

Rather this is about normal people, including I will say most decent Christians, attempting to mitigate the terrible damage homophobia inflicts on our societies particularly our children.

People charged with fostering out our less fortunate should be deeply concerned about them being exposed to this blight whether from a fundamentalist religious family, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, or from a red neck 'fag hating' environment.

There is the additional benefit that these abhorant views will have less chance of being propagated through fostered children to pollute further generations.

I can only applaud the effort.

Dear Pelly... wise words indeed.

1/ Regardless of the labels the bottom line is that a child should be placed with a suitable family whose only agenda is to provide love and care to a child in great need.

2/ In some ways, I think the influence of a (longer term) foster family is just the same as any other family and children will eventually make up their own minds about religion.

It's only an "issue" because the Derby council made it one by asking a question which I'm sure they knew would evoke the 'appropriate' answer for their rather deliberate purpose, of isolating Christians.

This topic is to highlight the increasing (but gradual-think Fabians) marginalization of all beliefs but secular. In many ways it's a secular 'Theocracy' involving the deificiation of the natural man.

It would be UNTHINKABLE for any council to act in this way in 1960.
It would also be unthinkable that any Christian would ever be exposed to such a blatant attack on their values by a government body.

The shoe would be on the other foot. If a couple wished to foster, I'm sure the council of 1960 would want to know if they had any 'unusual' sexual or social habits which might negatively impact the 'normal'(assumed) child.

"Normality" has been progressivly inverted (and distorted) over time.

This is, of course, what often happens when you try to make a federal case out of an isolated incident.

The meat of the discussion is clear, as Boaz points out here:

>>Regardless of the labels the bottom line is that a child should be placed with a suitable family whose only agenda is to provide love and care to a child in great need.<<

The "family" is not defined in one dimension only. It can be Christian or Muslim, rich or poor, city or country, Labor or Liberal, old or young, athletic or couch-potato, PhDs or leavers-certificate etc. etc.

The council is required to make a judgment on whether this or that family can deliver the requisite love and care that Boaz identifies.

(Actually, that too is something of a generalization - it is an individual within the council who makes the assessment and the recommendation. Sure, they rely on a bunch of rules too, but the final decision is likely to be a personal one. Especially where the decision may be "line-ball".)

So the "clash of 'rights'- Secular vs Christian" is not present here in this case.

A decision was made by a representative of the council that the attitude displayed by the putative adopting family might not be in the best interests of the child.

Not their attitude towards their religion, which is their own responsibility. But the attitude they displayed as it applied to the child, which was the responsibility of the council.

Nothing in the council's action says "Christians need not apply".

Dear Al,

What is considered "normal" is dependent on the society of the day. It is not, and never has been, a static concept .

AGiR, please learn the meaning of the word "secular". Its purpose is to PREVENT marginalization of beliefs. For example, protect the rights of Christians against a Muslim or Atheist majority (Indonesia) or vice versa.

Non-secularism is exemplified by such things as the Spanish Inquisition, Pol Pot, present day Saudi Arabia or China, Nazism, witch hunts, Bosnian war etc. There is nothing good to be said for anti-secularism, it marginalizes people, not the other way around.

In regards this discussion, apart from it being clear the writers of the article having only given us half the story to get a reaction from the sites Christian subscribers, the health and well being of the child clearly supercedes the rights of the couple to
preach their beliefs.

The effects of a homosexual being told by authority (in this case the foster parents) that they are abhorrent is not acceptable. Known consequences are drug abuse, rebellion, violence, depression, suicide etc etc. At the end of the day,the child will be gay regardless and all the damage cause by the attempted indoctrination will be for nought.

Of course, they could accept the indoctrination and supress their natural tendencies. But what does a devout man do who is not interested in women? He becomes a priest. We all know how that can turn out, don't we?

Dear Pericles

//The council is required to make a judgment on whether this or that family can deliver the requisite love and care that Boaz identifies.//

The point I'm making here...is that the very FACT of them making a judgement of the type they did...which reflects a specific bit of law (the Equality Act) demonstrates just how FARRRRRRR things have BEEN changed over time. Remember ? "The inevitability of graddddualism"

Poirot mate.. you are spot on...normality is not a 'static' concept... so.. let's pray that Nambla don't get a chance to re-define 'normality' as roooly roooly satisfying intergenerational homosexual intercouse eh ?

You actually make my point.."Normality" yes it IS dynamic and it's up to we the people to continually define and defend it.

TCM "Secular" values are really Fabian socialist values which end up discriminating against Christians. I can demonstrate this irrefutably.
You would need to listen in close detail to this lecture to get up to speed on how the law has been changed.

http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=41713&file_id=44708

The "Nuclear family" has been destroyed in the UK. That lecture will outline exactly when and how.

AGIR <"It would be UNTHINKABLE for any council to act in this way in 1960."
And therein lies the problem with your archaic thinking, dear old Al :)

You are still stuck in the 'good old days' of the early 1960's, when men were men, women did as they were told, gay people hid themselves away,and all the happy little families trotted off to church every Sunday!

It must have been a truly euphoric time for you hey?

The thing is Al, society has been changing greatly every decade, and we can never stay the same. That is life.

Gay people are out there, they are real, they are NOT mutants (as you disgustingly suggest), and they aren't going away...

suzeonline,
The society you believe is progressive since the 1960's has been tried many times previously over several thousand years. The only society that succeeds is a disciplined one following law, and not one where free expression is normalised. where every man does what he feels is right for him / her.

<<Gay people are out there, they are real, they are NOT mutants...and they aren't going away...>>

Incestuous people are out there, they are real, they are NOT mutants and they aren't going away...

Polyamorous people are out there, they are real, they are NOT mutants and they aren't going away...

Paedophiles are out there, they are real, they are NOT mutants and they aren't going away...

What is your point?
That society should submit to any change by any group that is
"out there, real, NOT mutant and refuses to go away"?

<<society has been changing greatly every decade, and we can never stay the same. That is life.>>

Change is not good by definition.

As usual, you have no argument.

What is your point Proxy?

Incestuous people and paedophiles are criminals, and both these deplorable acts have NOTHING to do with homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not a crime in Australia Proxy.

What IS your point then?

Sorry Proxy, but once again, I already discredited your absurd comparisons at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11169#188821

Oh, but I can see that I didn’t address incest. Well, incest is wrong and incestuous couples have no claim to legitimacy for two reasons...

Firstly, any children incestuous couples bare would have health problems and therefore it is viewed as immoral.

Secondly, close family members have a responsibility to perform various roles in the lives of their fellow members whenever possible. For example, fathers need to be fathers for as long as they are alive, and cannot continue to perform that role if they enter into an intimate relationship with one of their children.

There goes Boaz’s vasectomy solution (designed to make the Bible look like a reliable moral authority) for incestuous couples... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11261#190041

<<Incestuous people and paedophiles are criminals, and both these deplorable acts have NOTHING to do with homosexuality>>
Just a few short years ago one could just as easily have said "homosexuals are criminals".
Would you have been one of the people then saying "homosexuals are criminals" or would you have been one of the people then saying homosexuality should be decriminalised?
Well, now we have you saying "incestuous" people are criminals and their supporters are arguing that they just want to love the person they love.
Does that make you an incestophobic bigot in the same way that you accuse people against homosexual "marriage" of being homophobic bigots?
So what is the difference again?
You can't have it both ways.
What is to stop the decriminalisation > pride > fundamental human right > marriage process being applied to incest?
How can homosexual activists demand the right for anyone to marry anyone when they then turn around and deny the same "fundamental human right" to others?

<<Incest (is a) deplorable act>>
Are homosexual relations between consenting adult relatives (say brothers) a deplorable act?
If so, on what basis in your shaky and inconsistent worldview?

<<incest is wrong and incestuous couples have no claim to legitimacy for two reasons...
Firstly, any children incestuous couples bare would have health problems and therefore it is viewed as immoral.>>

Two homosexual incestuous brothers could not possibly bear children so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have surrogate children then, according to your argument.

<<Secondly, close family members have a responsibility to perform various roles in the lives of their fellow members whenever possible. For example, fathers need to be fathers for as long as they are alive, and cannot continue to perform that role if they enter into an intimate relationship with one of their children.>>

Two homosexual incestuous sisters could not possibly bear each others children and do not have any parental role to perform toward each other so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have artificially created children, according to your reasoning.

Yes Proxy...

<<Two homosexual incestuous brothers could not possibly bear children so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have surrogate children then, according to your argument.>>

Which is why I included my second point.

<<Two homosexual incestuous sisters could not possibly bear each others children and do not have any parental role to perform toward each other so presumably it would be okay for them to homosexually "marry" and have artificially created children, according to your reasoning.>>

But the sisters still have an obligation to be there for each other as sisters. The 'parental role' example was just that - an example. Hence the words: "For example".

Sorry ol’ son. It’s back to the drawing board for you.

Dearrrrr AJP...you DO read my stuff :)

Mate... you said:

"Secondly, close family members have a responsibility to perform various roles in the lives of their fellow members whenever possible."

And I feel like jumping up on your kitchen table with a HUGE sign which says "On WHAT authority?"

This is the whole problem with you progressives....you canonize your own subjective opinions.

SUS... poor ol fuddy duddy me :) Aaah yes..stuck in the late 50s... what a looooozer.

BUT WAIT. you also say:

//The thing is Al, society has been changing greatly every decade, and we can never stay the same.//

and NOW...I'm a gonna pounce on you like a leopard from a tree onto an Impala! Here is your error....the words "been changing"

No no no no NOOooooo... it has not been 'changing'...it has been CHANGED by specific pressure groups me dear... ie.. it was an 'active' process not just a haphazard passive thing. There was and is..an AGENDA..and it's called the 'progressive' agenda.. which began with the Fabians (1890) and Frankfurt school (30s)and particularly Marcuse (haven't you been keeping up ?) in 1965 here:

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

It's been a process of ongoing repression of former ideas and a tolerance of the new. Repression never sits well...now does it?

*That* is life.

So is this.. care to comment?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

No do keep up :) orrrrr...I'll pronounce judgement on you to watch Glenn Beck for a whole WEEK!

Yes AGiR,
They're quite incredible aren't they?

Two sisters are forbidden to be in a lesbian relationship because they need to be sisters to each other,
a proclamation of immutability by one who would otherwise change whatever he damn well pleases.

Nothing like being consistently inconsistent.

Yes, it's so important that we carry forward the unchangeable principle that sisters must be sisters to each other
whereas claiming that a child has a natural birthright to a mother and a father is homophobic hatred.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

Immutable principles coming from moral relativists.

Priceless.

Dear AlGoreisRich,

In Christ's name I lay before you the memory of teenager Billy Lucas who hung himself a couple of months ago because of bullying from his classmates who thought he was gay.

In Christ's name I lay before you the memory of 13 year old Asher Brown who, soon after Billy, shot himself after severe bullying from his classmates. Asher had only recently told his parents he was gay.

In Christ's name I lay before you the memory of another 13 year old, Seth Watson, a gay lad who, after merciless bullying at school, killed himself a few days after Asher.

In Christ's name I lay before you the memory of Eric Mohah, a teen who killed himself after being relentlessly called a 'gay', 'fag', 'homo' by his schoolmates.

In Christ's name I lay before you the memory of Meredith Rezak, from the same school, who killed herself after coming out as gay and being subsequently tormented by her peers. She attended the same school as Eric.

It is surely already extremely hard for gay teenagers having to deal with homophobic attitudes all around them, imagine attempting it without the support of parents, in this case adoptive ones.

The fundamentalist Christian right in the US is dead against anti-bullying legislation proposed by Senator Bob Casey and Congresswoman Linda Sanchez designed in part to stop the type of religiously fuelled, violent homophobia that has claimed these and so many other young lives.

The Safe Schools Improvement Act would force federally funded schools to implement specific policies prohibiting bullying based on; “student’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion”.

Fundamentalist religious groups led by Focus on the Family want sexual orientation and gender identity excluded as it “would lay the foundation for codifying sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes” and “open the door to teaching about homosexuality as early as kindergarten.”.

You sir are a committed instigator, perpetrator and admirer of this profanity. In Christ's name I would ask you to stop.

Proxy,

Your twisted logic in comparing incest and paedophilia with homosexuality is flawed in so many ways.

A century ago, interracial marriage was illegal, also shooting aborigines was not punishable, and recently it was OK to remove children based on race, and women were barred from most employment.

Do you still support these laws? You can't have it both ways.

There is a need to get rid of bias in law based on race, religion and gender. Laws based on preventing harm to individuals, such as theft, murder, paedophilia, and incest are fundamentally different, and are unlikely ever to be reviewed.

One more for your list, Shadow Minister.

>>A century ago, interracial marriage was illegal, also shooting aborigines was not punishable, and recently it was OK to remove children based on race, and women were barred from most employment.<<

A century before that, you could be hanged in London for stealing a loaf of bread. When they decided to create convict settlements instead, Australia was born.

Dear CSteele...

In Christs name...I rebuke and pronounce a "WOE UNTO" those who BULLY!

All of the incidents you mentioned resulted from "bullying". I don't see what that has to do with the issue of a progressive "Let's GET all those Christians" which is emerging as a clearly identifiable pattern in U.K. LAW. (did you listen to the lecture I linked to?)

You seem to be trying to use a red herring and subjective emotion to be persuasive?

Sorry.. when was the last time a Gay Club manager was fined GBP$47,000 just for refusing to employ a heterosexual doorman?

I can show you EXACTLY when a Christian bishop was fined that much for simply stating his convictions and following due process in the refusal of employment to a gay man as a youth worker.

If you have issues with Gays being bullied....ATTACK BULLYING as an issue... please don't try to derail the discussion by emotive anecdotes. (we can both play that game as you see above)

PERICLES... to the rescue :)

Those issues demonstrate the need to clearly identify which is truly Biblical and Christian and what is not. *Thanx*

Proxy... yes the mind truly boggles.

SM "Incest/Paedophilia/Homosexuality" (Let's not forget 'Bestiality')

"Twisted Logic?" you're not serious...are you ? Perhaps you are insane? ('that' is how 'Liberal/progressives' described the NeoCons when they (Neocons) as liberals realized where progressivism was heading and got OUT FASSST)
Calling Proxie's logic 'twisted' is tantamount to such an accusation.

I'm afraid your usually astute political analysis has not translated into the area of morality and specially the need for a moral anchor for human behavior. Those things have been recognized as socially/morally harmful from the days of Noah. They were then..they are now..and will be for eternity.

Your wife sounds lovely Philo; this does not mean she ever worked within a system that did anything other than profit from the children she cared for.

http://newmatilda.com/2009/07/13/child-abuse-australia-different

http://www.forgottenaustralians.org.au/aboutFas.htm

http://www.bensoc.org.au/uploads/documents/living-at-scarba-may2006.pdf

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/kevin-rudd-defends-handling-of-child-abuse/story-fn6rcok7-1225939943110

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/victims-demand-full-inquiry-on-abuse-by-churches-charities/story-e6frg6nf-1225954629242

http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/minilist.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/malcolm-turnbull-apology-to-forgotten-australians/story-e6frgczf-1225798266117

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999-02/child_migrat/report/index.htm

http://www.clan.org.au/news_details.php?newsID=342

http://www.cis.org.au/media-information/opinion-pieces/article/2181-child-protection-underbelly-sells-out-at-risk-kids

http://www.ncoss.org.au/resources/100817-CCC%20Flyer-(updated).pdf
(not sure why this ones needs to be cut and pasted to work)

A “child” is a young person from 0 – 18 in every state but Victoria (I think) where they are 0 – 17. Gay couples foster straight children, straight couples foster gay ones, Christians foster Muslims, any way round you want to put it is the way it happens here.

But individual families are a whole different thing from the giant Religo Companies controlling foster care aren’t they?

<<The Safe Schools Improvement Act>> is an initiative of Obama's Safe Schools czar and radical homosexual activist Kevin Jennings.

Here's what the Washington Times said about him:

"Mr. Jennings brings all the sleaze of Mr. Foley. Sex and the underaged? Check. An older man? Check. Potential misbehavior by a government official? Check.
And the Jennings case brings a lot more: A "safe schools czar" who failed to report a statutory rape? An education leader who encouraged a 15-year-old student to be comfortable with sexual abuse? A federal official who ignored a law requiring him to report even the possibility of a crime?"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/29/sex-scandal-double-standard/

"Jennings told the student to make sure "to use a condom" in his activities"
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=111347

Somehow the links between homosexual activism and paedophilia always float to the surface, like scum in a cesspit.

"Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), presided over the 2000 Boston “Fistgate” scandal in which homosexual adults – at a GLSEN-sponsored youth workshop on “Queer Sex & Sexuality” — guided young teenagers on how to engage in perversions including the horrifying “gay” fetish known as “fisting,” in which a man inserts his arm up the anal cavity of another man.
GLSEN and Jennings never issued an apology for “Fistgate,” but instead criticized Scott Whiteman, the parent who secretly taped it, for violating the students’ privacy."

"In 1995, he gave a speech in which he described how he has used the concept of "safety" in schools to promote homosexual advocacy in public schools in Massachusetts....In the speech, Jennings described how he was concerned about being described as promoting homosexuality, so he chose to campaign on the idea of "safety" instead."
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=109556

Pretending to be concerned about child safety while actually promoting homosexuality.
Who would have thought?

<<Your twisted logic in comparing incest and paedophilia with homosexuality is flawed in so many ways>>

Your twisted logic in comparing objection to same sex "marriage" with "criminalising interracial marriage, shooting aborigines, removing children based on race, and barring women from employment" is flawed in so many ways.

<<Laws based on preventing harm to individuals, such as theft, murder, paedophilia, and incest are fundamentally different>>
Your statement presupposes paedophilic incest.
Where is the harm in consenting adult incest between, say, homosexual brothers?
How is homosexual incest between adult consenting brothers different from homosexual relations between non-relations?
There can be no difference in your relativistic wonderland.
You're making it up on the run and the flaws in your argument are widening.
Once you separate marriage from its time-honoured uniqueness you inevitably open it up to any bizarre interpretation whatsoever.

"don't try to derail the discussion by emotive anecdotes."

That's a bit of a joke, isn't it?

This entire discussion began with the posting of
an ill-informed, emotive anecdote that distorted
the facts of the story, as the OP lately acknowledges.

In the face of reasoned arguments that point this out,
the OP reverts to ridiculous conspiracy theories and
pines for the good old days of the 1960s.
Another commenter "derails the discussion" by using
this discussion as yet another platform for his/her
endless homophobic rants.

I'd say the discussion was "derailed by emotive anecdotes"
from the moment it started.

Boaz,

<<And I feel like jumping up on your kitchen table with a HUGE sign which says "On WHAT authority?">>

The duty and desire to maximise well-being and the consequences of not doing so; a demonstrable and reality-based ‘authority’ that doesn’t require the subjective cherry-picking of which parts we’re going to follow in a book with more contradictions than you can poke a stick at - a lazy, thoughtless and potentially dangerous form of morality.

<<This is the whole problem with you progressives....you canonize your own subjective opinions.>>

So while us “progressives” use a reliable and largely objective form of morality that requires thought and consideration, Christians cherry-pick their holy book in a way that suits them best, based on their own subjective opinions. And hey, if they disagree with other Christians...

“We Christians have a simple solution ... we can just move away and build our own group, and many do.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1810#36651)

Proxy,

Whether or not the value that family members should behave as family members is immutable, is a side issue (introduced by you to attack a non-existent contradiction due to the weakness of your own argument) and irrelevant to my point.

But if you can find enough good reasons for family members to ditch their roles as family members in exchange for intimate relationships so that they out-weight the cons, then fine; all you’d be left with is an ick factor hard-wired into our brains from thousands of years of viewing incest unfavourably.

I’d doubt anyone could though.

So you’re alleged contradiction has turned out to be nothing more than a red herring.

Like I said before, Proxy, it’s back to the drawing board for you.

My points still stand.

<<all you’d be left with is an ick factor hard-wired into our brains
from thousands of years of viewing incest unfavourably>>

What's the difference between that and the ick factor hard-wired into our brains
from thousands of years of recognising homosexuality as being abnormal and unnatural?

How do the pros of SSM (making homosexuals feel good about themselves)
<<out-weight the cons>>
of depriving innocent children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father?

<<My points still stand.>>
Your points, if one could decipher them, don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes they do Proxy.
The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice homosexuality, whether you like it or not.

Your rather silly argument about sisters marrying each other is truly laughable. The law states we cannot marry our immediate family members, and that's that.

We seem to be repeating ourselves with you and the sarcastic AGIR, so I am getting bored of this thread.
See you all on another thread.

<<The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice homosexuality, whether you like it or not.>>

The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice polyamory, whether you like it or not.

According to your logic, therefore, people should be able to marry more than one person.

<<Your rather silly argument about sisters marrying each other is truly laughable.
The law states we cannot marry our immediate family members, and that's that.>>

Your rather silly argument about homosexuals marrying each other is truly laughable.
The law states we cannot marry someone of the same gender, and that's that.

You can see from the above that your "arguments" are not very well thought out.
Have you actually thought about this issue or are you just parroting what you've heard from homosexual activists?

I would advise you to think about the issue, not just parrot.
Think of all the children who will be deliberately, forever denied their natural birthright of a mother and a father if homosexual "marriage" is legalised.

Or is it that you just don't care about the children?

Proxy,

<<What's the difference between that and the ick factor hard-wired into our brains from thousands of years of recognising homosexuality as being abnormal and unnatural?>>

I know of several gay people who view heterosexuality as a bit icky. One particular gay guy I know of is repulsed by the mere thought of female genitalia.

‘Unnatural” means not in accordance with nature and yet we see homosexuality in nature all the time.
If by “abnormal” you mean deviating from the typical then sure, left-handedness is abnormal too. In fact left-handed people used to be subjected to prejudice too and were forced to write with their right hand like most other people; just as I’m sure you’d force homosexual people to be straight if you had your way.

If you mean “abnormal” in a harmful way, then you’d need to demonstrate why. The argument that homosexual sex between men being more likely to spread diseases than heterosexual sex (of heterosexual couples who don’t practice anal sex too, by the way) is weak and inconsistent. Using that logic, lesbians aren’t as abnormal as gay men. It would also mean that heterosexual sex is a little abnormal too since diseases can be transferred through vaginal intercourse as well.

<<How do the pros of SSM (making homosexuals feel good about themselves)
<<out-weight the cons>>
of depriving innocent children of their natural birthright of a mother and a father?>>

Firstly, your question assumes that all gay couples are going to rush to start a family just because they can get married, and that gay adoption (or lesbian couples falling pregnant) can only happen if gay marriage is legalised.

Secondly, you’ve deliberately worded your question in an emotive way to make it appear as though gay couples are selfishly pursuing something for their own gratification, at the expense of innocent children, when there is no evidence to suggest that there are any adverse effects on children brought up by same sex couples, or that they are any worse off.

Continued...

...Continued

Speaking of birthrights though, I would think that the most fundamentally important birthright, above all others, was a safe and loving home. If you’re so concerned about the welfare of children, then why are you wasting time hyper-focussing on one tiny perceived ill that the evidence suggests isn’t even a problem anyway?

I’ll tell you why: It’s because you couldn’t give a froggy’s about the children or their birthrights; you just don’t like gay people that’s all it really amounts to.

<<Your points, if one could decipher them, don't have a leg to stand on.>>

Your arguments have been reduced to mere insults of my arguments. I know logic can be baffling for some, but please do try and keep up.

Anyway, if you can’t decipher my points, then how do you know they don’t have a leg to stand on?

Either way, my points still stand.

Was it decided if Christians are fit to foster children?

I think so. Just get the big money making private companies away from government.

Proxy homosexuals are already parenting here, raising children; government has already decided that bit and for a long time been giving them children.

Christian organizations have no problem with homosexuals as foster parents, they recruit them.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

Sometimes I can't help but think you are perpetrating a long running Colbert number on us but just in case you are not here goes.

What warped and twisted view of Christianity allows you to compare discriminatory employment practices with gay teenage suicide?

How does the subjective emotiveness of a night club owner or a Bishop being fined for disobeying the hiring laws equate to kids blowing their brains out because of homophobic bullying that your attitude helps fuel? Only, I would venture, in a mind terribly tainted by the nastiness of right-wing, religious fundamentalism.

I agree that bullying needs addressing, do you agree that legislation that addresses the issue should, as Focus on the Family want, specifically exclude sexual orientation and gender identity?

If you do then I accuse you of having a hollow, desiccated, hateful law based take on the scriptures. Worse than the Pharisees he condemned.

Also if you do you should refrain from ever evoking the name of Christ as you inflict on his memory and teachings a grave disservice.

The homosexual youth suicide canard is just another tactic in the wide-ranging and relentless propaganda strategy implemented by homosexual activists to leverage sympathy for their agenda.

According to -
US Dept of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Youth suicide risk factors are:

History of previous suicide attempts
Family history of suicide
History of depression or other mental illness
Alcohol or drug abuse
Stressful life event or loss
Easy access to lethal methods
Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others
Incarceration

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/suicide/youthsuicide.htm

Go to homosexual activists for "gay" propaganda.
Go to legitimate sources for the truth.

"Your statement presupposes paedophilic incest.
Where is the harm in consenting adult incest between, say, homosexual brothers?"

Proxy,

Now you are grasping at straws. How many cases of incest between homosexual brothers have you ever heard of? You cannot write laws to cover every single nuance, and for the 1 in a 100 million exception, judges have leeway.

Secondly the specious argument "Think of all the children who will be deliberately, forever denied their natural birthright of a mother and a father if homosexual "marriage" is legalised."

Forgets that thousands of children are brought up in Australia in Lesbian households in de facto relationships. Legalising their marriage is unlikely to generate any more or less children whose "rights" could be infringed.

If you were interested in these "rights" you would be asking to criminalise divorce and single parents.

CSTEELE...see proxy's wise words please.(That's my answer)

AJP...

SUZ.. woooo.... you need some serious guidance here..

SUZ -1 Yes they do Proxy.
The undeniable fact is that it is 'LEGAL' to practice homosexuality, whether you like it or not.

COMMENT: It is only LEGAL because of a long campaign which began with Marcuse Essay, the counter culture, the rising to the top in Academia of filthy ideas (yes...filthy).. the ruthless campaign of "up yours mate".. "we're here...we're queer and we're not going away" along with a host of other unsavory acts and blackmail (the list goes on and on) by the gay rights lobby... and the shaming of politicians etc..that it became legal.

SUZ-2 Your rather silly argument about sisters marrying each other is truly laughable. The law states we cannot marry our immediate family members, and that's that.

(SOUND OF HEAD EXPLODING....*BOOOOM*) Suz... which part of "It's legal" don't you understand to be the result of a process of sleaze based activism and shameful cultural sedition and amoral degeneracy which calls 'evil' good and 'good' evil?

I've watched this 'process' and campaign of undermining of our culture and morality since the 60s. I didn't suddenly wake up one day and think "Ohh.. loook.... things are different today than yesterday, I must panic"

Nope...we stand precariously on the edge of the cliff of perdition... but thanks to the "Sleaze Inc", we've been walking the walk TO that cliff edge for decades.

If something can go from "Illegal" to "Legal" as a result of such activism... are you so naive to think it cannot go the other way because of similar (but with a higher moral foundation) activism?

AJP....

//I know of several gay people who view heterosexuality as a bit icky. One particular gay guy I know of is repulsed by the mere thought of female genitalia.//

But such people don't find the bodily orifice from which we defacate "icky" ? Therein lies the sickness of their minds...

I'm afraid you are on a losing argument there. The natural man is greatly attracted to the female 'pleasure central' ...so the man who is 'not'....must be, by logic...'un'-natural.

The use of 'exceptions' to try to prove a very very flimsy 'rule' (homosexuality in nature) is more laughable than your accusation to proxy.

There is clearly a malfunction or misconfiguration in the mind of a person who finds the natural normal path of human reproduction "repulsive".

That is a simple fact. HOW we treat such people depends on basically one thing....how they seek to influence the REST of the community.

If they are prepared to keep a low and non threatening profile and do what they wish...ok... but if they try to convince the REST of us that it's all "normal" and "must" be CELEBRATED (by use of Education and the law)...then it's war.

http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/ConservativeBlogs/a-bishop%E2%80%99s-gesture-of-kindness-to-gay-man-who-sued-over-discrimination/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb45.htm

we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." (Churchill)

I joke not.

Dear Al,

You wrote,

"CSTEELE...see proxy's wise words please.(That's my answer)"

With respect these were hardly wise words just more homophobic ranting. I asked you specifically whether you supported the stance of Focus on the Family.

I await your reply.

"then it's war"

If it is a "war", then clearly it's people
like ALGOREisRICH, Proxy etc who are the "enemy".

Of tolerance, of peace, of a fair go, of equality,
of reason, of social justice.

Fortunately, it seems that they are losing.

Boaz,

Thanks for reminding me why I don’t usually enter the discussions on this topic.

<<But such people don't find the bodily orifice from which we defacate "icky" ? Therein lies the sickness of their minds...>>

And there are plenty of heterosexuals who don’t find that part of the body icky either - so long as it’s clean obviously.

[See what you’ve reduced me to?]

Having a brother-in-law who is gay, I know a lot of gay people and am very familiar with the scene; and believe it or not, there are some gay men who find the thought of anal sex off-putting and refuse to engage in it.

Besides, where does this leave lesbians and their ‘sickness of the mind’?

<<I'm afraid you are on a losing argument there. The natural man is greatly attracted to the female 'pleasure central' ...so the man who is 'not'....must be, by logic...'un'-natural.>>

This assumes that the “natural man” is exclusively heterosexual, but there is no strong evidence, either way, to suggest that this is the case. The best you’d be able to do would be to argue from a reproductive standpoint, but then you could brand sterile couples ‘unnatural’ too.

And what about people who swing to varying degrees either way? It could be argued that it’s more accurate to say that we’re all bisexual - just the degree to which we swing either way varies - and that homosexuality and heterosexuality are only theoretical positions at either end of the scale.

Things are not always as black and white as they seem.

<<The use of 'exceptions' to try to prove a very very flimsy 'rule' (homosexuality in nature) is more laughable than your accusation to proxy.>>

Why is it flimsy, and why is it laughable? Even if it is flimsy, it’s still infinitely more solid, objective and real-world-based than any religious-based “rule”.

And my accusation to Proxy? You mean the one about not really caring about the children? I fail to see how that’s laughable considering I provided adequate reasoning behind my accusation.

Continued...

...Continued

<<There is clearly a malfunction or misconfiguration in the mind of a person who finds the natural normal path of human reproduction "repulsive".>>

Really? “Clearly” you say? Studies haven’t come to anything “clear” at all, and what is known, actually suggests some evolutionary benefits to homosexuality.

<<HOW we treat such people depends on basically one thing....how they seek to influence the REST of the community.>>

Yes. A good reason why religion is finally receiving the battering that has been coming to it for so long; with its members trying to influence the rest of the community based on a supposed authority for which there is absolutely no evidence.

In regards to homosexuals though, I fail to see how their wishes would adversely effect society. Societies that have allowed gay marriage and adoption aren’t falling apart. Nor does with homosexuality or homosexual marriage seem to have a consistent correlation with a ton of social ills like religion does.

You and Proxy have provided some fallacious reasoning and demonstrably invalid comparisons, but that’s about it.

What are you so afraid of here, Boaz? Is your marriage going to be effected if gay people can do the same thing? Do you need the nuclear family legislated because you don’t know how to live unless someone else writes it down for you?

Boaz, you obviously have this "thing" about anal sex.

The thought of it, even in a heterosexual environment, clearly makes you uncomfortable.

You don't seem to have the same squeamishness about "the female 'pleasure central'".

Which is good.

It is therefore not too much of a stretch for you to take on board the fact that some women are equally attracted to the area. I suspect that you wouldn't be at all surprised they may find desirable and exciting exactly the same features that you do.

That, too, is homosexuality. We call that form of female/female attraction lesbianism, and it, too, has been around for thousands of years.

Clearly, those folk who wrote your Bible didn't know much about it, so it didn't get too many mentions. Paul, that crusty, unworldly old bachelor, makes the only reference when lecturing the Romans, but the rest is... silence.

So do tell, Boaz: where do ladies fit into your "it disgusts me" judgment on human activity? What is it about what they do in the privacy of their own lives that makes you squirm, given that you have an entirely different view of the "parts" involved?

AGiR,
It's disturbing to think that our society has come to this.
That people have so deconstructed their own minds
that up is down, black is white and sad is gay.
I still find it incredible even though it's in constant display.
I used to think they were merely playing the devil's advocate
but now I realise they're for real.
What you see is what you get.
Who would have thought the rot could go so deep?
Keep up the good work.

Quite a lively thread ! Good.

CSTEELE... you are getting just a tad 'pharisaical' yourself there old son, but here is your question:

"do you agree that legislation that addresses the issue should, as Focus on the Family want, specifically exclude sexual orientation and gender identity?"

I'd need to look more closely at their actual position, but to my mind, it is appropriate to include gender orientation as a 'factual' aspect of sex ed. I do NOT believe for even a microsecond that other than the 'fact' of people expressing sexual desires in a homo/bi manner any supportive or normative comment/value judgement should be made in such classes.

The far more important issue is NOT 'how I can get the best sex'...but how I can be a worthwhile member of the community with the promoted context being heterosexual.

I have very LITTLE sympathy for any person calling themselves 'bi' sexual, because it's reallllly simple...if you can find satisfaction as a man with a female, then why stuff it up and start anally messing around with men, just so you can have a 'complete' sexual experience.

If I was going to recommend condemming something by way of value judgement, "Bi" sexual behavior would be a strong candidate.

PERICLES... when it comes to women with women...I don't find it so icky personally, strange ? dunno.. but the principle applies, quite apart from whether "I" feel icky about this or that. I do however find lesbian behavior morally wrong, and I just echo those words of Paul which apparently you know know very well...*good*.

Let's not get 'anally' sidetracked here.. the ISSUE is about a clash of rights and which set of them comes up trumps.

I maintain that the homosexual lobby will NEVER be satisfied with 'equality'.... they are far too vengeful for that.

PROXY... we keep it up because when we do nothing...evil triumphs.

Dear AJ... you made a good attempt to argue your case.. for that you must be commended.

You also say:

Religion (deserves) a battering

and

Societies that have allowed gay marriage and adoption aren’t falling apart.

Well.. in your first bit you are simply confirming my assertion in the last previous post. "vengeful"

In your second? well..I have to disagree, but I don't expect Mt Dandenong to suddenly pour out hot lava and tar on the Peel Street Hotel in Collingwood. Point being, you cannot observe the impact on a society over such a short period of time.

Secondly, you also need to take into consideration the cumulative impact of many small changes. More to come on that as I open a new thread if approved.

"PROXY... we keep it up because when we do nothing...evil triumphs."

Interestingly the gay lobby and other human rights groups argue the same thing in reference to intolerance and persecution.

The USA has San Francisco and Australia has Melbourne.........What the problem?..........Oh that's right........ALGOREisRICH lives there:)

BLUE

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

With respect you are answering questions I have not put. It is a simple question I can only make simpler by asking purely on the face of it do you support the removal of sexual orientation and gender identity from the anti-bullying legislation or not?. Yes or no.

I would be confident that 95% of my countrymen would say no, not as sure about the US but I would like to know your answer.

Hi CSTEELE....perhaps I didn't quite grasp your question.

I find there is no need to 'gender orientation' to be included in anti bullying legislation, because bullying is BULLYing... no matter what the cause.

So...I DON'T agree that such a specific should be included in anti bullying law.

I DO however make the point that bullying is not difficult to define, and that calling someone a pansy or fag or whatever is no worse than calling them a religious nut, so... will we ALSO have 'religious orientation' included in your 'brave new world' ?
For that matter.. you could codify EVery type of orientation etc...but that would defeat the purpose of the law because "some-1" will claim they were not included.

PELLY

Interestingly the gay lobby and other human rights groups argue the same thing in reference to intolerance and persecution.

COMMENT "intolerance"..... now.. did I not already educate you on what the Left means by this (doncha hate the arrogance ? :)

I showed clearly from Marcuse essay of 1965 what is meant.

//The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed//

That's from paragraph 1. It just goes downhill from there.

So.."Tolerance" and "Human Rights" are code for the furthering of a socio political agenda or undermining the West and freedom, and the legalizing of decadence. Not my words.. but his. (when understood correctly)

BLUE :) keep you eye on the Swanston St entrance to RMIT...

*you ain't seen nuthin yet* :)

Iam sure you'll give them a piece of your mind. Good luck:)

BLUE

I thought we had already sorted that one out, Boaz.

>>Let's not get 'anally' sidetracked here.. the ISSUE is about a clash of rights and which set of them comes up trumps.<<

We all seemed to agree, some time ago, that the "rights" are those of the child, not of the prospective foster-parents. If they choose to put their own requirements at the top of the list, as they did, then they have only themselves to blame, not "the system".

But you also forgot the context of your own anal fixation - let me remind you:

<<But such people don't find the bodily orifice from which we defacate [sic] "icky" ? Therein lies the sickness of their minds...>>

You connected "the sickness of their minds" with "the bodily orifice from which we defacate".

Yet you are unable to make the same connection for women...

>>...when it comes to women with women...I don't find it so icky personally, strange ? dunno.. but the principle applies, quite apart from whether "I" feel icky about this or that.<<

If you do not find lesbianism exhibits a "sickness of their minds", what exactly is it that you object to?

What "principle" are you applying?

Surely not that single verse, purportedly written by that crusty old curmudgeon killjoy, Paul?

One, single, solitary verse. Slim pickin's I'd say. Especially as nobody reports that Jesus had commented on homosexuality.

Clearly, he didn't think it worth even the most cursory mention.

Dear AGIR,

Focus on the Family was only too happy to have religion retained in the legislation they just wanted anything that would codify homosexuality out.

I am sorry to say I am struggling personally view you as a Christian. I feel Paulian is the best I can muster. Perhaps this is just me but from the tenor of many of the responses to your posts I am not alone.

Might not a reassessment of image you are projecting to the forum and the wider community be in order?

Pericles...you say:

The rights of the child are important. But when the state starts defining them in terms of homosexuality, it's a problem.
I cannot imagine any Christian foster parents being fixated on a "must say" lecture about the evils of homosexual behavior. It's really not even an issue because the presumption is that the children will be young and not even aware of that kind of thing.

It simply would not be on the radar of foster parents if not for the 'anally fixated' Political correctness and Fabian gradualism of infected local councils.

Lesbianism is a similiar sickness or condition..no question about that. It's less icky to me because it does not (as far as naive me knows) involve the distastefulness of anal penetration.

CSTEELE...you seem to be a tad over judgemental on the issue of my faith and how I express myself here. But I will (and often do) take to heart the way I present here. Inevitably, disagreement on issues often results in one side calling the other names.

Do I call you names or say you are a 'bad Christian' ? I question your position on issues..for sure.

Calling me "Paulian" however speaks volumes about your idea of what a Christian is. I'm conservative evangelical protestant and fundamentalist. (In the Nicene Creed way) I can't see how anyone can separate Paul from the Lord...but that's between you and He.

But Boaz, that is exactly the intention that they made clear to the council.

>>I cannot imagine any Christian foster parents being fixated on a "must say" lecture about the evils of homosexual behavior.<<

"'The council said, 'Do you know, you would have to tell them that it's OK to be homosexual?'' 'But I said I couldn't do that,' Johns continued, 'because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally, I couldn't do that. Spiritually I couldn't do that.'"

Seems very straightforward to me. The council asked, are you prepared to put the child's welfare ahead of your Christian beliefs. The reply was, no, I can't.

>>It's really not even an issue because the presumption is that the children will be young and not even aware of that kind of thing.<<

That is your presumption. The council was simply making sure it would not become a problem, should the children become "aware".

>>It simply would not be on the radar of foster parents if not for the 'anally fixated' Political correctness and Fabian gradualism of infected local councils.<<

Oh dear. The "everything is a Fabian plot to undermine society" rant. An irrelevant sidetrack, as usual..

>>Lesbianism is a similiar sickness or condition..no question about that. It's less icky to me because it does not (as far as naive me knows) involve the distastefulness of anal penetration.<<

I'm still puzzled why you consider your "icky" scale as being of importance, or even relevance. One of the "ickyest" tasks I recall performing was to change a child's nappy, but that is not a particulary good reason to ban children.

How about following your dog and picking up after it? That's pretty icky. A very solid (sometimes not-so-solid) reason to ban dogs as pets, I'd say.

Wouldn't you agree?

Back in Aussie:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/grandmother-says-she-was-passed-over-as-foster-parent-for-her-grandchildren-in-favour-of-gay-couple/story-e6freoof-1225959550890

“The grandmother, who can not be named for legal reasons, said the decision to place children with homosexuals ran counter to her strong Christian values.”

Interesting example, Jewely.

It isn't clear from your post whether you approve or disapprove of the grandmother's position.

"The grandmother admitted there had been drinking and gambling problems in the family. She said the children were suddenly seized one morning while their mother was at bingo."

The children were taken away from this deeply Christian environment, and fostered out (allegedly) with a tranny.

Hmmm. Tough decision for the State.

I notice that they didn't utlimately have the courage of their decision, and gave the boy to granny and the daughter back to mum, the drinking/gambling/bingo player.

Sometimes you just have to feel immense sympathy for "the authorities".

Hey Pericles, I don’t think I had an opinion and was just throwing the article in the mix because it seemed to be opposite of what had happened in the UK article.

I do want Church away from state. Not the church going families but the big organizations that have spent a long time bleeding the government dry by overcharging for their services and now are accusing the govt of penny pinching by not handing them all the children on their demand.

Of course not all are Church based orgs but all have benefitted by Church lobbying.

The media has changed recently – no reports containing any negative mention of ngo’s and old articles coming back about past wrongs of government. Whole thing is fascinating and damn disturbing.

I have sympathy for individual government staff but none for an entire department that is not protecting children in any visible way by allowing itself to be bullied by Church.

Kids with a tranny.. tricky really. I’d place the child of a tranny with another one maybe. But no, in this case I don’t think a lot of consideration was given to the type of home that would suit the children. And they must have run out of homes or the children would probably have not returned to two separate homes because of a complaint about the home they were in. That was weird.

Now would I give the child of a racist to another racist? Umm…

Thanks for that article Jewelly.. Had I not read it...I would not have believed that such irresponsible acts could be done by a council!

BIZARRE.. truly bizarre.

Imagine how those poor kids would be so utterly messed up by the 'role models' they were placed with.

Pericles.. social justice ? ? ?

The 'Christian' element of that story is irrelevant. The parents were boozers and players.. the Granny was not (it would appear) so it would be a far more natural and responsible decision to place the children with there blood kin than a weirdo transvestite and his/her gay partner! (The mind absolutely boggles)

That one isn't even about Christian/secular it's about common sense.

I can't help but think of your 'Social Improvements' comment in the other thread on Fabians. Do you seriously suggest that taking 'no discrimination' to the point of farming out vulnerable impressionable children to gay/transvestite couples is anything other than bizarre, irresponsible and culpable?

AGiR:”Thanks for that article Jewelly.. Had I not read it...I would not have believed that such irresponsible acts could be done by a council!”

No worries, but in Oz it isn’t councils doing it, that is the UK system. Here it is more likely to be an ngo moving placements around and most of them are church based so it is very possible a Church denied a Christian nana her grandchildren as a kinship placement and placed them with a transvestite couple.

Now that is truly bizarre but they don’t care as long as the funding keeps rolling in.

That doesn't say much for the grandmother does it. Kids are in foster care because they hate their parents, maybe the grandmother was part of the problem.

I'm thinking about what a wonderful job the "Christian"
grandmother did in raising her own children.

Tailsman, 579,

Given the children were returned to a parent and the grandmother the relevant agencies have decided they are just fine as carers and it must have been some kind of accident that the children have been put through an official removal and placed in care to begin with.

Wonder how the other 30,000 odd children in care are getting on. You’ll never know, just keep paying those taxes. Depending on which service the granny does kinship care through she could well have a supplemented income of up to 800.00 a fortnight for that one child plus normal family assistance entitlement.

The tranny’s have probably already been restocked with little ones. Hopefully ones from out of town this time.

You certainly pick and choose your examples, Boaz. Just as you pick and choose your scripture quotations.

>>That one isn't even about Christian/secular it's about common sense.<<

Why is this one suddenly about "common sense", but the clash of rights with which you opened this thread is "Christian/secular"?

Please explain the difference in the principles involved.

And if you are going to make random character assessments on the individuals involved, please try to be a little consistent there as well - your opinion on their conduct is, after all, based only upon the prejudices that allow you to blindly stereotype people you know nothing about.

AGIR

Runner,

OUG

In your view would a fundamentalist Muslim couple be suitable candidates for foster parenting?

None of you have addressed this issue which was raised by a number of posters in one form or another.

Lentaubman, I have no problem with fundamentalist Muslims fostering children. They’d be excellent candidates for Muslim children needing a placement.

Placing children ideally should be case by case, find the most suitable family for each child. This hardly ever happens but hey we can all dream.

lentaubman

My view is that a true fundamentalist Muslims are not fit to be a foster parent because the parents would be trying to follow the teachings of Mohammed and inflict this on the child. Compare Mohammeds teachings with the teachings of Christ and you will get the drift. The same would be the case with many secular fundamentalist who pursue the immoral lifestyle of many of their high priest and then encourage their kids in it.

A person can't be a Christian unless they believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith (ie Christ's death and resurrection, the need of a Saviour etc). This belief is not forced on anyone but is received by revelation and by reason. Many kids grow up very happy in Christian fundamentalist homes without ever converting themselves. Free will and choice is not taken from them. The boys (in most cases) and girls (never)are not circumcized which among girls is a barbaric practice.

Many moderate Muslims (who don't follow Mohammed's) teachings would make good loving moral foster parents. Probably more so than most secularist.

Runner

Thanks for your answer. But you do see the difficulty here? A secular state cannot favour one religion over another. The moment it does so it ceases to be secular.

The more I think about this the more it seems to me we have a real can of worms here.

How far do we inquire into the personal beliefs of foster or adoptive parents?

Inevitably foster parents and adoptive parents will impart some of their beliefs to those entrusted to their care. In our household it would not fostered or adopted kids long to figure out that we:

*Do not practise any religion

*Take global warming seriously but think the Greens are a bunch of watermelon wollies

*Oppose the funding by government of religious schools

*Agree with John Howard on “border security”

*Tend to sympathise with the Israeli side in the Arab-Israeli conflict

I guess for many people that would make us unsuitable foster / adoptive parents.

On the other hand, as Jewely asks, what about couples that are outright racist in their beliefs? And how would you define “racist”? You may or may not consider Islamophobia to be a great evil but is it any more racist than Christianophobia?

I can pose these questions but I have no answers.

This, however, I do know. Take Christian couples out of the equation and the whole foster care system would collapse

Here is a case involving gay adoptions. It is a rough mirror image of the original case on this thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329547/Tribunal-fight-Christian-doctor-axed-panel-gay-adoption-row.html

Tribunal fight for Christian doctor axed by panel in gay adoption row

"Dr Matthews, a Christian since she was a teenager, said she had concluded after years of research that gay households were not as good for vulnerable children as a father and mother.

"Rather than voting against the gay applicants, however, she told the head of Northamptonshire’s adoption team that she would abstain.

"In April last year, however, she was summoned to a meeting with the head of children’s services. A month later, she was removed as a full member of the panel. In August, the NHS Primary Care Trust, which had allowed her to continue as the medical adviser without voting rights, replaced her in this role. In March this year she resigned.

"Dr Matthews said the council had acted unreasonably as only a tiny number of cases involved gay couples, and it would have been easy to allow her to abstain or find a substitute for her on the panel on those occasions."

Here is how the Guardian reported the case of Eunice and Owen Johns

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329547/Tribunal-fight-Christian-doctor-axed-panel-gay-adoption-row.html

lentaubman

you write
'Thanks for your answer. But you do see the difficulty here? A secular state cannot favour one religion over another. The moment it does so it ceases to be secular.'

That is exactly what is wrong with a secular state. How can a state holding totally contradictory standards make a decision on these issues. That is why we end up with so many abused kids. When our society was based largely on Christian values things were far from perfect but much better than now.

We now have the State deciding that it is fine to go with parents who would encourage kids to mimick perverse acts such as ga ga and then oppose parents who might smack their kids for rebellion. Secularism with its moral relativism just leads to contradiction and hypocrisy.

You are right that it is a can of worms made more so by political correctness winning out over commonsense. The sad part is that fundamentalist secularist would rather a child placed in a drug filled immoral home than a loving Christian family that would teach the child biblical values. We saw recently a young aboriginal girl being packed raped because the pc brigade insisted that she be placed with people of her own skin colour. I wish this was an isolated incident.

“This, however, I do know. Take Christian couples out of the equation and the whole foster care system would collapse.”

Inshalla, it is nothing but a mess of alternative abuses visited on children that exit the system worse off than their peers.

lol runner

You do have a strange idea about what goes on in most secular households. We're not quite the dens of iniquity you seem to imagine :-)

Jewely

Most kids requiring foster care are in a bad place to start. They might well get worse as time goes by no matter what we do. Do you have any evidence that Christian couples are worse foster carers than secular ones?

I'm not talking about individual cases. I mean do you have any scientifically valid studies

we have rights?
these would extend beyond belief..[or forced belief]...ie a freedom to believe,...or not...to be seculare or jocular as we chose

im asked to admit to extreemists..[fun-die-mentalists]..have rights
and think their rights are subserviant..to..the rights of the child

children is a relitive term...[there is one father]..who created and sustains..*every life..their living..[there is none who is not a child of the father...not one who is unworthy of recieving his gifts and inheitances..[not one who shall not be accorded the same respect accorded their father]

god is love...any..who teach children*..ANY different...dosnt know they play with fire..if kids can believe in fairytales..or in an ester rabbit..or in old saint nick..then letr each also know the good of life and love..comes from their father

there is much done upon children..god should recant his love for..but he dosnt...god allows..*EVEN the most vile their living..[surelly in this is a sign..for a thinking person..[be they parent or child]

god knows whats in our hearts
god knows the path that led us to be the way we are
god trusts us to live this reality...knowing he has eternity to heal even his most damaged children..he trusts us to reason it all out..if not now..then in eternity...

there are those who would eliminate all good..[all that of god]..seculare is just another word for god free]..and that is the lie

there is untold misery...in living without god
many cant see it till in the end..[of material life]..they realise the god given truth...in the end each will return to god...some quicker...some longer..but each in their own time...in their own way

people do evil..because to these igniorants..vile feels good
in time they will realise it is but a weak shadow..of the true good..due to us all..god that can only come via the all good

its the one unifying force
that holds us together..in eternity
[that we all god the only good wrong]..thus being all sinners
can..yet all become at-one..with the all loving..all living..all good

who alone was the only good
all along

[let thee without sin
not cast the first stone]

“Do you have any evidence that Christian couples are worse foster carers than secular ones?”

Nope – can’t even find any studies on it. But I don’t mind Christian foster parents either.

“Most kids requiring foster care are in a bad place to start. They might well get worse as time goes by no matter what we do.”

Good onya digga.

lentaubman

'You do have a strange idea about what goes on in most secular households. We're not quite the dens of iniquity you seem to imagine :-)'

My experience with secular households is that many are very good and loving while many are very poor. Generalizing is not always helpful. It is usually the secular fundamentalist where things are not so good. It was you who brought up the issue of fundamentalist albeit Islamic and Christian. The people are not the problem it is the flawed philosophical faith of secularism that produces the rotten fruit.

Runner you crazy cross dangler what on earth do you mean many secular households are very poor and produce rotten fruit?

Take it back.

Dear AGIR,

You wrote;

“CSTEELE...you seem to be a tad over judgemental on the issue of my faith and how I express myself here.”

Too bloody right! It is because I see an enormous gap between what both you and runner profess to be your faith and what instead you express in these forums. Passing judgement on that gap has led me to the conclusion I have.

You said; “Calling me "Paulian" however speaks volumes about your idea of what a Christian is.”

I should hope so. I have my idea of what a Christian is and both runner and yourself do not measure up, not even close.

You said “I'm conservative evangelical protestant and fundamentalist. (In the Nicene Creed way) I can't see how anyone can separate Paul from the Lord...but that's between you and He.”

AGIR they were two different people. There is a lot to admire in both but their viewpoints were different, sometimes dramatically. To combine the two or even hold Paul's teachings above those of Jesus as you have a tendency to do is not what the bible is about. It is about the teachings of Jesus with an insight on how a worshipper applied what he derived from the word to his world at that time. We live in a different, more enlightened age and that application must be altered by necessity to be relevant.

Dear Pericles.....I suppose I shouldn't wonder that you find it difficult to comprehend the 'common sense' aspect of a vulnerable child in the care of totally screwed up people (Homosexual+Transvestite), considering your views on domestic pets but.....

Have you ever considered the words "Role Model"? I suggest that if you wish to totally confuse and damage a young impressionable mind, the easiest way would be to place them in the HELL of such a 'couple' for 'care'.

CSTEELE...fascinating, but... revelatory. (Your discourse there)

"I should hope so. I have my idea of what a Christian is and both runner and yourself do not measure up, not even close."

IF.....you have an unbiblical idea of 'what' a Christian is... then it will be no surprise that you excercise spurious judgement on those who hold a different view.

It seems you just regard Jesus and Paul as 'people' like me and you and Pericles.....

Er..."no".

Marks Gospel opens with these words.

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ...Son of God"

Paul went from persecuting the Christians to proclaiming Christ due to an encounter with that risen Christ and had some rather lengthy 'interviews' shall we say with the Lord..in which he received more direct revelation about the faith.

It can never be 'one or the other'.

You are welcome to your own view, but don't be surprised if don't take it as being very relevant to my faith position, as, I see it (your position) as quite spurious Biblically.

So, given that we appear to operate from different starting points, the most you should be saying re me is "I disagree". But I'll not complain if you call my position 'spurious'.

I completely understand the way you see it, Boaz, most certainly I do.

>>I suppose I shouldn't wonder that you find it difficult to comprehend the 'common sense' aspect of a vulnerable child in the care of totally screwed up people (Homosexual+Transvestite), considering your views on domestic pets but...<<

The simple fact that you can only see as far as "Homosexual = screwed up" and "Transvestite = screwed up" says it all. Because you can only perceive these people as sub-human, it is a natural consequence that you consider them, collectively and individually, as unsuitable candidates to foster.

Fortunately for many disadvantaged kids, some see them as people, first and foremost. If they show any signs of unsuitability as individuals, of course, then they are off the list.

Which brings us full circle, back to your opening post.

The authorities involved have no ingrained anti-Christian bias. In the same way that they have no ingrained anti-anything bias.

If, when questioned, it becomes clear that the candidates are unsuitable - as happened with the subjects of this discussion, where Mr Johns refused to budge from his chosen position - then the decision has to be, sorry, no.

>>I suggest that if you wish to totally confuse and damage a young impressionable mind, the easiest way would be to place them in the HELL of such a 'couple' for 'care'.<<

This "HELL" is in your mind, Boaz. You have invented it, because it fits with your innumerable prejudices against anyone who is "different".

It's ok, I understand how important it is for you to maintain these illusions about the realities of life. Just don't expect me to buy into them.

I am also fascinated by your position on the authority of Paul to speak on behalf of God, Boaz. With your indulgence, I'd like to explore that a little further.

>>It seems you just regard Jesus and Paul as 'people' like me and you and Pericles... Er..."no".<<

Ok. Let's start with Jesus.

If he was not put among us as a person, just like me and you, then what's the big deal about being crucified for our sins? One commentary that I read describes it as "the unique occasion in which God became a human being". Well, it may surprise you to know that I, too, claim to be a human being. Which would seem to indicate that he was indeed someone "like me and you", would it not?

I thought - obviously wrongly - that God's sending of "his only begotten son" was significant precisely because Jesus was.. just this guy, you know?

But it is your attitude towards Paul that is even more interesting.

Well, in a way.

You say that Paul was also not a person like me and you.

Any possibility that you could expand on that?

If he wasn't an ordinary guy, what was he? And how did he get the authority to deliver all those misanthropic lectures that seem to guide your life?

As far as I can tell, he makes the claim to the inside track himself.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal 1:11-12

So it would appear to me that you not only are required to believe in Jesus, but in the claims that Paul made for himself.

It all seems to me too neatly... circular.

Dear Pericles, an exaustive exposition of Christology is well and truly beyond the scope of this debate... and might prove confusing for you :)

"Like us in every respect, except without sin" should sum it up for you.

Now.. regarding The Gay/Tranny couple. I do not regard them as 'sub human'.. I regard them as "screwed up" humans.. at the mental level.
This may or may not be due to choice, or... a medical condition. In either case, it is an unsuitable social environment for a vulnerable impressionable child, who needs more than anything appropriate role models and social reinforcement of normality "Mum=Female Dad=Male"

Now..the very fact that you argue this and head down the track of "it's all in my mind"...I beg to differ...I suggest on the contrary that the acceptance of such ideas on your part is testimony to the success of the Marcusian Socialist education program which Marcuse refers to in Para 1 of his infamous essay "Repressive Tolerance"

Remember it ?

//THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

I hold 'you' up as a prime example of how much impact Marcuse has had.
You have attained to the 'Marcusian Tolerance' which accepts those things/practices/policies/attitudes/opinions.....which were outlawed or oppressed.

Marcuse failed to address the REASONS for such oppression and illegality, and simply assumed, based on his Marxist world view, that such things are quite ok. It appears you have swallowed his view, hook line and sinker? Let's just hope that you have not "progressed" to the point Barney Rosset did with his fascination of kinky porn.

SLIGHT DEVIATION. but within topic.

"Jew OUT/Christian IN"....Intolerant discrimination ? Texas Legislature.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/09/christian-conservative-replace-jewish-speaker-texan-pols-say/

Dear AGIR,

You said; “You are welcome to your own view, but don't be surprised if don't take it as being very relevant to my faith position, as, I see it (your position) as quite spurious Biblically.”

“So, given that we appear to operate from different starting points, the most you should be saying re me is "I disagree". But I'll not complain if you call my position 'spurious'.”

Frankly I don't give a rats what you call me but I will repeat you are Christ denying in your attitudes that I think it would be far more accurate for the rest of us to call you and runner 'Paulians'. I am not going to resile from that stance one bit.

The most I can say for myself is that I am a follower of many of the teachings of Jesus especially his social justice messages. You are a worshipper and a destructive one at that particularly to many of those messages that I hold dear.

Cont...

Cont...

I have learnt through conversations here in the past, most notably with davidf, that I am far more a cultural Christian than any notion of a practising one, but one with affection and regard for the notion of it. Even so I am finding myself increasingly defensive about Jesus and Christianity especially where yourself and runner are concerned. I see you as attempting to bend and narrow the definition of what it means to be a Christian to your own cultish parameters. For instance a person who sees the truth in evolution can not be part of that flock.

Yours is an imported fundamentalism that really has little place in our country. It taints our not only our Christian history but what it means to be Australian. You have a biblical fetish that comes from a country that has given the world Scientology, Mormonism, and the Jehovah's witnesses. While these groups have taken this fetish to the next step by creating their own scriptures yours seem almost as uncomfortable with large parts of the Bible and have primarily narrowed the focus to Paul's teachings and his view of the world with a few large dollops from the Hebrew Bible.

So I am calling you out on your title to this thread. In light of the position you have taken it affronts me. It should read 'Secular vs Paulian'.

I am putting you on notice that I will challenge you where I can whenever I feel you are sullying the name and reputation of Jesus and those who have worked hard to practice what he taught.

csteele

you have made a Jesus in your own image. Hopefully you will wake up before its to late.

btw I am honoured to be called a 'Paulian' as you put it. His commitment to Christ is far greater than I could attain to. As an ex Pharisee of Pharisee's and one who encountered Jesus Christ personally I have no doubt he was miles ahead of your version of 'Christianity' which to date has certainly not resembled the Jesus spoken of in Scriptures.

Dear runner,

Paulian it is then. Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

As to me making Jesus in my image I'm afraid you stand accused of making him in Paul's image which he clearly is not. One doesn't get the feeling they could ever have been friends. There was just too much of the Pharasee left in Paul although he did try very hard to set it aside. I do have a lot of admiration for him but little fondness.

I offer some details experience as a child placed in the care of Fundamentalist Christians a long time ago, when my mother died.

I have read many of the posts, but not all, because after 50 years it still hurts to hear attempts to justify the fundamentalist Christian insensitivity, that underpins their need to indoctrinate children in their care. My own experience of this amounted to evil child abuse.

Many people posting to this thread betray their lack of knowledge of the matter. Those of us that have lived the experience, object to it being made an abstract case study! The human cost in my case, was to feel a lack of self-worth well into my twenties because of being continuously hammered for my inability, to accept the 'leap of faith' nonsense. My personal regeneration came when I reached the understanding that I was a good human being without it.

To call it 'shoving it down my throat' is putting it mildly. My stubbornness of wanting to understand why resulted in physical beatings, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, refusal to let me have mail . labelled a recalcitrant, when I was subject to abuse by a pedophile member of staff, a blind eye was turned. All because I would not 'accept Jesus as my personal saviour'.

I think that there is a right that no-one here has addressed, and that is the right of the child not to have their mind messed with. Any decision to believe in things for which there is no evidence should be left for the individual to make as an adult.

I would be interested to know if there are any others posting to this thread, who have personal experience of what it is all about. To all the dilettantes, and those possessed of nauseating religious certainty, I can only express my contempt.

Epsilon

Those things still happen in foster care Epsilon, and much worse. It remains unmonitored and the church care administration is able to conceal wrongs. The system is set up so that if they do expose one of their own as abusive they lose funding.

“I think that there is a right that no-one here has addressed, and that is the right of the child not to have their mind messed with. Any decision to believe in things for which there is no evidence should be left for the individual to make as an adult.”

In a normal (no extreme view in my opinion) household it is still a strange line to walk. What the child knows of the world so far and how it presented to them in a different way. It all messes with their mind.

A bath everyday where they use to shower once a day… these little things are all upsetting to a little one. They suffer many things I would probably call “culture shock”.

I’m not sure about on this site but I know many people who have suffered as children removed from their parents.

I know of one home where if a small child tantrums they must apologise to Jesus when they are finished. Personally it creeps me out. I have no idea what that does to a small mind.

What I object to is that pre-formed opinion that the parents must have done something wrong to have their child removed.

I am sorry to hear what you went through and I am even sorrier that it continues to happen. Children have no voice here.

Jewely, I thank you for being one person that has taken the time and effort to familiarise yourself with some facts about the situation.

The point that I made about children having a right to not having "their minds messed with", did not just apply to chidren taken from their homes and put into foster care. Regardless of whether the religious indoctrination of infant minds is done by parents or carers, the reason is the same in both cases. This form of abuse is for the gratification of the parents or the carers alone. If this sounds a bit like pedophilia, it should, the damage is just as extreme, and equally long lasting. I think it is no coincidence that the two evils are fellow travellers.

Epsilon

Dear Epsilon.

You seem to be alluding to 2 different experiences.

1/ You speak of 'member of staff'....could you please expand a bit there ? Help us to contextualize your comments.

2/ You speak of "My stubbornness of wanting to understand why resulted in physical beatings, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, refusal to let me have mail . labelled a recalcitrant, when I was subject to abuse by a pedophile member of staff, a blind eye was turned. All because I would not 'accept Jesus as my personal saviour'.

This sounds like some very unusual and atypical situation. It's very very unfair to generalize on the grounds of your own experience.
In doing so you slander many fine families who foster children.

I SEE those children on a weekly basis at Church (with families who care for them) and you cannot even begin to imagine how much those children LOVE their carers... we get children to 'stubbornly refuse' to return to their own family members because they are so desparate to STAY with their foster carers.

You then add:

I think that there is a right that no-one here has addressed, and that is the right of the child not to have their mind messed with.

COMMENT Minds can be 'messed with' in 2 ways. By imposing a DENIAL of God...or...BY imposing an AFFIRMATION of God.

The key word in both of those scenarios is IMPOSING. A Christ-honouring family will never try to force a child to believe, because belief canNOT be 'forced'. "Belief" is an abstract idea..it's internal, though there will be external evidence in behavior and attitude. Those externals can be faked...so forcing is of no value.

If you wish to remain in unbelief....that's entirely your own choice.
Matt 10:14

ALiR:”This sounds like some very unusual and atypical situation. It's very very unfair to generalize on the grounds of your own experience. In doing so you slander many fine families who foster children.”

They need slandering. It is a system you do not hear about or hear how the children are doing because everything about it is wrapped up tightly in privacy laws. I don’t believe Epsilon’s situation was or is unusual or atypical, it and worse has been happening for generations here.

Children & Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998:
“ Section 105 of the Act prohibits the publication of the names and identifying details of a child who is a witness, the subject of care proceedings or is reasonably likely to be mentioned in Children’s Court proceedings “
“(2) A person who publishes or broadcasts the name of a child or young person in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: 200 penalty units or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years, or both, in the case of an individual or 2,000 penalty units in the case of a corporation. “

Any person who suspects a child in care is being abused cannot complain to anyone but the department under which the child is in the care of. We have around 30 thousand children in a system that polices itself. No one can speak out until a child dies and the law no longer applies.

Nice that you have met a few that appear to be doing well, I also have but many aren’t

Epsilon:”This form of abuse is for the gratification of the parents or the carers alone. If this sounds a bit like pedophilia, it should, the damage is just as extreme, and equally long lasting. I think it is no coincidence that the two evils are fellow travellers.”

Yes but I can see the difference between abusive people forcing their beliefs on you and well meaning people who want you to share their beliefs.

And yep I can see both are abusive in different ways. I feel abused when they come knocking on my door and thrust pamphlets at me although I understand that their intentions come from another place.

I would separate the abuse from the church in your case… the people you knew were abusive people that just happened to be also Christians.

Could have been abusive homosexuals demanding a child support their rights and I would again consider the abuse seperate from the message they were trying to make the child believe.

Dear Epsilon,

I apologise for AGIR. To have quoted from one of the most disturbing chapters in the New Testament is a measure of his world view. Hardly sensitive to your post.

The 'choice' that is on offer is to either accept those like AGIR or else “it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for” yourself.

Further in the chapter is the warning;

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”

Add that to;
“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. “

Scary stuff indeed. But remember the writer of Matthew is composing his Gospel in a time of great conflict, not only with the Roman occupation but also between the traditional Jews and the new sect on the block, the Christians. He wanted to deliver a potent message of the prophetic nature of Christ and to have him relating what eventually came to pass was an attempt to show the superiority of Jesus as a Saviour. It is also the only Gospel that discusses the Church.

The Gospel of Matthew contains around 612 verses of the 662 verses of the Gospel of Mark but the above verses are additions by the writer of Matthew.

Having been subjected to the actions and thinking of fundamentalist in-laws I have a small understanding of the forces railed against you and you have my sympathy.

Dear AGIR,

Your Freudian slip is showing; “we get children to 'stubbornly refuse' to return to their own family members”.

Smacks of the Brethren to me

csteele

'One doesn't get the feeling they could ever have been friends. There was just too much of the Pharasee left in Paul although he did try very hard to set it aside. I do have a lot of admiration for him but little fondness.'

Could not disagree with you more but as you point out it does show how we view the Lord Jesus Christ differently.

Epsilon

It seems your horrible experience is more akin to communism than Christianity. No one can ever be forced to believe in the fundamentals of Scripture. Your experiences show exactly how unchristian the folks who abused you were assuming your account is accurate. Funny enough I have moved in Christian circles across different churches for over 25 years. The abuse outside Christian homes is on a far greater scale than those that happen within bible believing Christian homes. Why do you think so many non believers are sending their kids to Christian schools? Please don't give me the lack of funding deceitful dogma.

Runner:”The abuse outside Christian homes is on a far greater scale than those that happen within bible believing Christian homes.”

So Christians hit their children more often when outdoors?

Runner:”Why do you think so many non believers are sending their kids to Christian schools? Please don't give me the lack of funding deceitful dogma.”

They can pay their teachers more so get better ones?

I’m surprised the Christians let in the little rotten fruits of non-believers. Don’t they taint all the lovely holy children? But I guess their money gets washed before handling.

To AGiR, and to Runner,
You are both classic examples of the attitude that Christians are always to be defended if accused of any impropriety by unbelievers, regardless of the truth. To wit, your casting of aspersions on whether my account of what happened is accurate. What took place in that institution of which I related my experiences, was not an isolated case. It was everyday reality for the whole 68 of us that were there. It was done by people who were lauded by folk like yourselves as shining examples of the Christian ideal.I have met only three of my fellow inmates in the years since, but I could still write down for you the names of the whole 68 fellow sufferers, our shared experience of the horrors we all went through has placed them all unforgettably in my mind. Epsilon

Dear runner,

You wrote;

"Could not disagree with you more but as you point out it does show how we view the Lord Jesus Christ differently."

Yup. you see him as a clone of Paul and as a Paulian that is your right.

CSTEELE...actually that was a typo "we get childred TO stubbornly refuse"...

SHOULD read "who". which puts a very different light on it.

The point being, that when they experience the love of those caring families, the contrast with what they came from is so stark as to be such that the thought of returning to their post crisis real family is a horrible thought for them.

Jewelly...'those' families (as mentioned above) do not need to be slandered in the slightest, rather they need to be encouraged as they give of themselves.

CSTEELE... you demonstrated your heretical and unbiblical position clearly there. Obviously you just pick and choose which portions of the New Testament which suit your own program. There were others who did that..and they are listed among the many many heretical groups history is littered with.

When Jesus came, his message was clear:

REPENT.... (from sin)
BELIEVE...(in the Gospel)

His message was NOT to comfort sinners in their sin. After the Gospel is offered, with the attending signs which he gave..giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, strength to the paralyzed, life to the dead.... his injunction to 'shake off the dust of your feet' is not harsh at all for those who remain 'dug in' in their sin.

Dear AGIR,

By just re-quoting the line ''shake the dust off your feet” and call it “not harsh” without regard to its following verse is totally disingenuous.

To quote;
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

You call that not harsh?

You said;
“Obviously you just pick and choose which portions of the New Testament which suit your own program. There were others who did that..and they are listed among the many many heretical groups history is littered with.”

The example above reveals the true culprit of self serving selections.

Further as I don't belong to a church I can not be accused of heresy. You my friend certainly can and I do so now. By cherry picking as you have just done you have consciously neutered the true message the writer sought to convey in those verses.

Further I ask whether it should also be regarded as blasphemy i.e. An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

Please take a little more care in the future.

Epison

'It was done by people who were lauded by folk like yourselves as shining examples of the Christian ideal.;

Just shows how distorted your thinking is.

Jewely

'They can pay their teachers more so get better ones?
'

Go on deceiving yourself mate. No wonder you can't face the truth with answers like this one.

Notwithstanding the apologetics from ALGORE
and runner, it seems that Epsilon's experience
of the tender mercies of Christian child care
are far from unigue:

"Salvation Army says sorry for abuse
07 December 2010

"...an apology by the Salvation Army for the abuse of children in its care up to the 1990s was welcome news for many of the survivors who gathered in Canberra on Tuesday."

"Brian Cherrie, 57, who was repeatedly raped inside the notorious Box Hill Boys' Home, wants the churches and charities responsible for the abuse to sell assets to pay for compensation.

"The children's home where I grew up is still owned by the Salvation Army ... and is worth tens of millions of dollars," he told reporters.

"These churches and charities made a lot of money on the back of our misery and they need to cough up and pay redress to all forgotten Australians."

But survivors like Alfred Stirling, 70, say no amount of money will ever make up for the abuse suffered inside.

"I'd get the crap beaten out of me, and then raped ... it was hell," he said of his time in Bayswater Boys' Homes from 1954-57."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1435261/Salvation-Army-says-sorry-for-abuse

I think it's runner and ALGORE who are
"deceiving themselves" about how some
Christians treat children who have been
placed in their care.

Thanks for this, Boaz.

>>Dear Pericles, an exaustive exposition of Christology is well and truly beyond the scope of this debate... and might prove confusing for you :)<<

I always get a warm glow of satisfaction whenever you retreat to your fallback position of arrogant condescension. The implication of your sentence being that only you are privileged to understand the import of your favourite scripture. And the rest of us plebs and peons simply cannot comprehend.

This is the stance you take when you are completely unable to find a credible response to an observation that illustrates your expedient, and occasionally deceitful, handling of the material in question.

In this instance, you add to the smokescreen a little bit of "Boaz' current hobby-horse".

>>I suggest on the contrary that the acceptance of such ideas on your part is testimony to the success of the Marcusian Socialist education program<<

I'm afraid that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with Fabians, Marcusians, Marxists, or any other of your imaginary bogeymen, Boaz.

As we have already established, this is not a "clash of rights" at all. It has nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with upholding the rights of the child to experience the minimum of additional trauma, when they are farmed out to foster-parents.

>>...regarding The Gay/Tranny couple. I do not regard them as 'sub human'.. I regard them as "screwed up" humans.. at the mental level.<<

If you choose to believe that, by definition, gays and transvestites are devoid of the qualities necessary to look after children, then that is entirely your personal belief coming into play. Competent authorities, on the other hand, look more deeply and carefully into the situation, and make decisions that take into account the individuals concerned, are empty of prejudice, and are in the best interest of the child.

Sometimes they get it wrong. But rarely because they have put their own personal agenda ahead of the child's, as you are determined to do.

- They can pay their teachers more so get better ones?

= No wonder you can't face the truth with answers like this one.

Answers don’t end in questions marks Runner.

Todays News, Australian Foster Care. Cash for Kids.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/foster-carer-linked-to-sex-abuse-slipped-past-the-barriers-20101212-18u1w.html
“Life Without Barriers outsources recruitment to independent contractors who are paid to find and assess prospective carers. It pays contractors a weekly fee for each child placed with their carers.
The Supporters of Carers, as the contractors are known, or SOCs, do not need relevant welfare qualifications. The system presents a financial disincentive to report problems because a SOC's income is dependent on the number of children who are placed - and remain - with carers.”

Runner, are you upping the ante on AGiR's bid to have my experience, and that of dozens of others that I personally know of, rendered irrelevant because he thinks that I may be inaccurate in my recollections. Is it my unbelief that causes you to claim further that my 'thinking is distorted'? Resorting to personal denigration is a de facto admission that your objection to my contribution to the debate has little behind it, other than a lack of respect for people who do not believe as you do.

I have Christian friends and family that I care about greatly, and it is reciprocated. We can discuss issues such as this amongst ourselves without either party feeling threatened by the views of the other. The nature of your response to me as an unbeliever is that I must be wrong, simply because I question the motivations and practices of people cloaked in the mantle of Christianity.

There is a greater possibility of distortion of one's thinking in being willing to blindly accept what you are told, without any supporting evidence; than there is in placing reliance on what one experiences, as a basis for forming an opinion

Dear Pericles a

//fallback position of arrogant condescension//

Not at all Pericles. The subject of Christology is not a small one. Volumes have been written on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Now honestly.. could I even begin to include even a summary of that in 350 words ? Cut a bloke a little slack without the name calling please.
It is simply stating the obvious to suggest that such an uninclusive summary if any, would be confusing because it could not cover all the ground.

Please take a moment to read the following:

Isiah 53 (whole chapter) but to obtain the full context for that chapter you need to read Isaiah 39 to 53.

Phillipians 2:1-11

and Hebrews chapter 1

They will give you a fairly accurate picture of 'who' Jesus was.

Paul? I should have said "his EXperience" was not like most of us, but as to being just like you and me.. with the normal human limitations.. yes, he was.

JEWELLY that privatization of fostering is MEGA scary!

Regarding abuse at places as mentioned.... by all means BLAME the relevant administrative bodies (if they covered up) and BLAME the perpetrators.. blame them to hell if it makes you happy...you might find that the Lord Jesus TOTALLY agrees with you.
Mark 9:42

But one thing no-one should do.. Blame the Lord himself.

AGiR:”JEWELLY that privatization of fostering is MEGA scary!
Regarding abuse at places as mentioned.... by all means BLAME the relevant administrative bodies (if they covered up) and BLAME the perpetrators.. blame them to hell if it makes you happy...you might find that the Lord Jesus TOTALLY agrees with you.
Mark 9:42”

I hope he would. The company “Life Without Barriers” mentioned was set up by business people and it is them (who I think have 35% of the foster market) and church run orgs pushing for more privatizing of fostercare.

I blame everyone, the adults that abuse children, the government for allowing it to continue along with the churches who promote a system that profits from failing the children.

This isn’t new; it has been run this way for many generations in Australia but recently has been rapidly expanding. People don’t know about it because of the privacy laws and policies protecting all the adults while supposedly intended to protect children.

For a story to leak out is rare and usually the media can’t use a name or a face of an abused child so the stories lack interest.

No way, Boaz.

>>Please take a moment to read the following:<<

If you are unable to put together a straightforward answer in 350 words, then it is likely to be all waffle and obfuscation.

I simply pointed out that as far as my religious education was concerned, the whole deal about Jesus was that he was supposed to be human. If he had just been "magic man" doing magic things, then what was so special about the crucifixion that you folks go on about?

Which is why I described your dodging and weaving as arrogant "you just wouldn't understand" condescension.

"Christology" can only possibly be of interest to Christians, who have allowed themselves to believe everything - sorry, just the good bits - in the Bible. So my observation was, obviously, from the viewpoint of an interested bystander. Therefore there's no point responding to that by using as an answer the very thing I was questioning.

It's like one of my kids asking "what are those things in the sky, daddy", and getting the reply "here's a book on astrophysics, son. Let me know when you've finished it - there's plenty more where that came from"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics

Get the picture?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nsw/child-agencys-background-checks-under-cloud-20101213-18vi0.html

"Internal documents seen by the Herald reveal that in October, 14 per cent of the 573 foster carers in the Sydney area did not have the legally mandated Working With Children Check, which includes a check of relevant criminal records. As well, 63 per cent did not have the more extensive Criminal Record Check, as required by LWB policy. The agency went into overdrive to try to correct the situation.

LWB outsources much recruitment of foster carers in NSW to about 30 contractors with no special qualifications. The contractors are paid $350 to assess potential carers. For providing 24-hour support, they are paid a continuing fee of between $150 and $200 a week per child placed with carers.

The system provides a financial incentive for contractors to support their carers. But it also provides an incentive to minimise problems.
''There's a financial incentive to keep the child with the carer even if the carer is not up to the plate,'' a former manager said."

Then this bit which I think the previous part explained...

“ An LWB spokeswoman said more than 97 per cent of LWB's children had only one or two placements in a year, compared with a 47.5 per cent rate for the whole sector.”

Jewely, Thank you once again for producing hard facts relative to this issue, it is a welcome contrast to ideology.

Another point that I would like to make is that the freedom of religion that so many babble about, should also encompass freedom from religion for those of us that do not respect it as a basis for decision making in either of individual or societal contexts. Children, whose minds are incapable of assessing the right or wrong of the many and varied religious beliefs on offer, should not be inculcated with such ideologies until able to form a reasoned opinion by themselves.

To get back to the start; I do not consider Christians suitable for the role of foster carers, unless they can refrain from indoctrinating the children given into their care.

Epsilon:”To get back to the start; I do not consider Christians suitable for the role of foster carers, unless they can refrain from indoctrinating the children given into their care.”

That would mean looking at different kinds of care, permanent care is very much an open adoption so I imagine any family with children under those terms are very much raising a child as their own. They are not allowed to by the way not that it is monitored in any way.

Other services provided such as short term carers are under no delusions (or shouldn’t be) about the child not being their own and the child is hopefully in regularly contact with their own family.

Now a short term carer of the non-religo variety can cruise through even with children from very Christian households. Neither confirm nor deny is rather easy with children. They can believe in god and be allowed their belief. No harm no foul.

Hopefully a Christian home would leave the non-believing child from a non-believing family alone.

If they don’t understand the concepts DoCS staff will explain it to them. A child not interested in certain gods or certain types of vegetables is not to be bothered in any way by the adults making those choices for them. Foster parents often forget that they don’t actually run the show and these children are supposed to have choices.

Epsilon have you filed a compensation claim? I would if I were you, far too many children have exited care without it being done for them.