Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Should they be allowed to adopt?
43 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/4nasdy5
Can't remember who first pointed this out in my previous post, because it was removed, or at least I could not find it when I went back to it.
Anyway this should make some take sides, their loyalties are about to become stretched, I think.
My own personal view I think it is disgusting that they are not allowed to adopt, for this ridiculous reason.
Can't remember who first pointed this out in my previous post, because it was removed, or at least I could not find it when I went back to it.
Anyway this should make some take sides, their loyalties are about to become stretched, I think.
My own personal view I think it is disgusting that they are not allowed to adopt, for this ridiculous reason.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Pathetic
So anyone wanting to adopt is not allowed to have strong views on a subject now?
What if the man supports a certain football team? Would he not be allowed to adopt in case he imparts his views on the child and the child starts supporting that team?
At the end of the day though this couple are way too old to adopt anyway aren't they?
So anyone wanting to adopt is not allowed to have strong views on a subject now?
What if the man supports a certain football team? Would he not be allowed to adopt in case he imparts his views on the child and the child starts supporting that team?
At the end of the day though this couple are way too old to adopt anyway aren't they?
joeluke - the couple are foster parents, they are not adopting, so the upper age limit is higher.
Your example is a flawed one, as i am sure you know.
There is a world of doffernece betweeh holding an opinion on a sports team, and holding fundamental views opposed to an aspect of humanity that is inbuilt, not chosen.
We still live in a world that fears and dislikes homosexuality. The idea that a vulnerable child could be growing up with people who view an aspect of his sense of self as fundamentally wrong for faith reasons is not desireable, and should be avoided at all costs.
In the same way that saying you would like to own a gun should automatically bar you from actually owning one, people who feel the need to display their religious bigotry so openly, should be prevented from fostering.
Your example is a flawed one, as i am sure you know.
There is a world of doffernece betweeh holding an opinion on a sports team, and holding fundamental views opposed to an aspect of humanity that is inbuilt, not chosen.
We still live in a world that fears and dislikes homosexuality. The idea that a vulnerable child could be growing up with people who view an aspect of his sense of self as fundamentally wrong for faith reasons is not desireable, and should be avoided at all costs.
In the same way that saying you would like to own a gun should automatically bar you from actually owning one, people who feel the need to display their religious bigotry so openly, should be prevented from fostering.
oh right, so supporting a football is a baseless ideology is nit ?
clever stuff what you learns on here aintn't it.
andy, the op is as misleading as the article itself. it was the council who jointly took the case to a tribunal for a ruling due to the legal complexities. they had no particualr reservations about this couple (although they haven't adopted/fosetered since 1993) but were concerned that this position could be unlawful, and they were right. the couple, sadly, have been swept and pushed along by a peer pressure group who have no particular interest in this couple, or the children, only about spouting their bile and gaining as much publicitiy as possible from, it seems, unwtting participants.
http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/
clever stuff what you learns on here aintn't it.
andy, the op is as misleading as the article itself. it was the council who jointly took the case to a tribunal for a ruling due to the legal complexities. they had no particualr reservations about this couple (although they haven't adopted/fosetered since 1993) but were concerned that this position could be unlawful, and they were right. the couple, sadly, have been swept and pushed along by a peer pressure group who have no particular interest in this couple, or the children, only about spouting their bile and gaining as much publicitiy as possible from, it seems, unwtting participants.
http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/
