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?