It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian couple lose their High Court battle to foster children because they are against homosexual

page: 34
29
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by manna2
 


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Jessica Simpson's father was a pastor who approved all of her skimpy outfits.





This is really getting off topic. I still think the courts did what was in the best interest of the child.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by hawaii50th
 





You sound like a very angry person.


No, I'm not an angry person I'm a fed up person. Fed up with lies, and injustice, crookedness, greed, people that refuse to be responsible for their own actions, miss treatment of others, lack of real love in the world, hate, racism, wars, etc.




You still beleive gay people have a choice when it comes to their sexuality. You say you can learn. Please read the info on this link.


I never said I believe they have a choice, I just didn't have an answer for my friends mom, I don't know what is in another persons mind.




It's about gay people here in the Uk during the 50's. They were given electrshock therapy to 'correct' their sexuality.


That is sick what ignorant people do to others, either because they don't understand them or just because their different.



I miss my friend very much, I wish he were still alive, he was the best friend I ever did have. He passed away in 94.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Smoke13
Well, this is my first time posting on ATS and I might as well jump in with both feet.

I would like to think the ruling in this foster case wasn't based entirely on the couples religious beliefs. There had to be something else there that the High Court didn't like about this couple.

I'll confess that I have a strong Christian background. I don't agree with the act of homosexuality, but I certainly don't hate homosexuals either. I'm not a big fan of the Christian religion being referred to as a religion of hatred by some members on the board. Quite contrary, the true Christian religion is a religion based on love and forgiveness. Too often, the Christians who are over the top get the lion's share of publicity, and we end up getting painted with that same brush. For the record, I have a niece and a nephew and both of them are gay. I love them both very much.

I do find it curious that psychiatrists believe they can rehabilitate a pedophile and release him back into society at the risk of defenseless children, but also speak to the belief that homosexuality is an inherited trait and cannot be changed. Of course, one is illegal and one isn't, but really they are both desires aren't they? Sure, some will argue that one is a desire based on power and control and one the other is a desire based on love and companionship. I believe that as an advanced species we can all decide whether or not we choose to act on our desires. We all have free will. Could somebody politely explain to me why we can rehabilitate one sexual desire but not another?

Back to the argument at hand. If I'm incorrect in my original assessment that there has to be more to this story than denial to foster a child based on a couples religious beliefs, could somebody also explain to me why this isn't some form of prejudice? What would happen if the high court said, "Sorry, we don't allow Muslims to be foster parents based on their beliefs."


That was a lovely post, especially for your first ! You were very polite whilst clearly stating your thoughts.
I agree with you that this story is a hate story.
Equality works both ways.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Well, I am not gay nor have I raised children. I was more or less speaking about views I would deem logical. You seem to have knowledge on the subject so I will defer to your position for the moment. It makes sense. Perhaps I was speaking from ignorance.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


This is a long thread and I did not have the time to view all the responses. Forgive me if I made what you consider to be an out of context remark. Personally, I hate it when that happens to me.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   

edit on 2-3-2011 by My_Reality because: ERROR!!!! DOUBLE POST!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 


No worries, these threads tend to grow rapidly. I should've just quoted the post rather than reply to it. I keep trying to find the performance/video of Elton John being referred to but numerous Google searches have yielded nothing.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


Okay, then what about bestiality? Why can't it be an orientation? Some people even marry dogs! Isn't it discriminatory to not take those people's sexuality seriously? If you define sexual orientation as being only between men and woman, of course homosexuality will seem logical... You're defining it as an orientation, then using that definition as a reason it's an orientation.
edit on 2-3-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Once again...

Sexual Orientation = Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender.

Where, if any, do you see any interpretation in the above to include animals?

I'd personally label bestiality as a kink (A person with unusual sexual tastes).


Really, if these are the arguments that Christians come up with in regards to homosexuality, does it surprise anyone that people got denied?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 



Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by 547000
 


Once again...

Sexual Orientation = Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender.

Where, if any, do you see any interpretation in the above to include animals?

I'd personally label bestiality as a kink (A person with unusual sexual tastes).


First, I am not trying to start a pointless argument. Second, I don't find bestiality....stimulating. I would merely like to point out that the "neither gender" of your definition could fit into a description of bestiality.

If I am taking this out of context again let me know.


(How bestiality managed to get debated into a thread about christian foster parents might lead to an amusing discussion however).



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by Dendro
 



Originally posted by Dendro
reply to post by 547000
 


Once again...

Sexual Orientation = Sexual orientation describes a pattern of emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender.

Where, if any, do you see any interpretation in the above to include animals?

I'd personally label bestiality as a kink (A person with unusual sexual tastes).


First, I am not trying to start a pointless argument. Second, I don't find bestiality....stimulating. I would merely like to point out that the "neither gender" of your definition could fit into a description of bestiality.

If I am taking this out of context again let me know.


(How bestiality managed to get debated into a thread about christian foster parents might lead to an amusing discussion however).


Actually, the "neither gender" was a recent inclusion because of people who identify as asexuals but I could see how someone could easily twist that into meaning something completely different. (Edited to add: Thanks for pointing it out.
)

Yeah I don't get how we got to bestiality either. For some reason it's people's favourite argument for denying same-sex marriages and even homosexuality.
edit on 2-3-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


You define it as such, then you justify it as such by referring to the definition.

I think homosexuality is a fetish, just like all the other fetishes out there. You don't choose to be homo the same way you don't choose to be turned on by certain ideas or themes.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Please then, by all means, prove to me that bestiality should be included as a sexual orientation. You are always asking the questions, time for you to provide some valid answers.

Here is physiological proof of homosexuality being biological. Here is another on it being related to the mother's womb.

The former might actually explain why now the UK in particular is taking a zero tolerance stance on discrimination and I applaud them for it.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Everybody is just going to agree to disagree, this thread is getting out of hand, now your talking about beastiality, next it'll be necromancy or what. Maybe it's time to call it a day on this thread.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaii50th
 


I am not the one who brought it up. One of your brethren did.


(Edited to add: Sorry, you are right about agree to disagree at this point and I snapped back. I am overzealous)

edit on 2-3-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


Because it makes as much sense as saying homosexuality is an orientation and is therefore a totally different class from other things that turn people on sexually and can't be seen in that type of categorical relationship. Fact is, it could be just as psychological as a fetish. Pedophilia is considered a mental illness, but it is a sexual fetish. You won't see anyone arguing that because some people like it, it's natural and should be considered an orientation of come sorts, plus animals do it so that takes the cake. Should it be defined as an orientation after decades of propaganda? Just because animals commit actions that are homosexual, doesn't mean that they are homosexual. If they were, they wouldn't reproduce, and I don't think animals are STRICTLY homosexual. They just like getting their freak on. They do all kinds of things, including eating their own vomit and humping anything that moves.

Are you born with fetishes, or do you acquire them based on environmental factors? How do you know homosexuality is not acquirable in the same way you don't choose what turns you on sexually? Should there be fetish genes too?

Maybe fetish is not quite the right word, but I think it's permissible to consider the idea that it could be related to the fetish-type category. If you did a brain scan and found a statistical correlation to having certain preferences, would we say that fetish-type things are indisputably determined and not because of the way the experiences wire the brain?
edit on 2-3-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Most people would argue against bestiality/pedophilia/rape as orientations (or even appropriateness) because they are sexual acts that are done without the consent of all parties involved.

Let's not forget that the church taught left-handed people were unnatural and to be demonic. Classically, when things haven't been understood they have been demonized.


As for the topic actually at hand, if I were to adopt I would hope that the agency would do its research and deny my application because of my anti-religious views. Until I become tolerant of other people's faith, I shouldn't be allowed to raise a child.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dendro
 


What if you're not tolerant of sharia law and have an anti-sharia law view? Should they deny you for not being tolerant about that? Or if you had unorthodox political views? Which I'm pretty sure a majority of people in these boards have.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


If it goes against the wellbeing of the child, yes. A secular couple could apply to adopt who are against homosexuality and I would agree whole - heartedly for them to be denied. The only obligation is to protect the child from any more psychological damage than what has already been inflicted through parental abandonment.



edit on 2-3-2011 by Dendro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Vicky32
 





If you followedf the link and read the article you would have noticed that these particular Christians are black.

If you'd followed the thread and read our the conversation in entirety you would have observed that I had not not commented on the colour of their skin and to my mind no should anyone else as it is irrelevant to the discussion.





Your attempt to claim greater victim status for the voluntary act of gay sex, by equating it with race, has failed spectacularly.


A victim is a victim there is no status, the fact remains should the couple have a bias against skin colour this matter would never hav reached the high court. As it happens christians insist that their type of bigotry should be treated with respect because they got it from an invisible man in the sky.








(I know that as whenever I reply to a post by you, I am in for a bullying, but so be it. That seems to be how you get your jollies. )


If you want to call debating a subject with honesty and reason bullying then that's up to you, if you want to know where I get my jollies it's from cases like this where high court judges are making decisions based upon reason. Although I'll be the first to admit they have a long way to go in order to act without the the specter of religious privilege breathing down their neck.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join