Comments on UK Rejects Foster Parents with Anti-Gay Views

I think this is brilliant. I'm a social worker in the UK, and I feel quite confident saying that if this couple were turned down it *was* because they are raving bigots, not just run-of-the-mill people who don't understand homosexuality; lots of those do still get through. A lot of the raving bigots get through the adoption process, even (though most social workers are reluctant to place a child with them).

What it comes down to is that telling a gay or questioning child that being gay is Wrong and You Will Go To Hell is emotionally abusive. And you can give biological parents leeway on that, because it's their child and they can learn, like a lot of parents do. But why put a child who is already extremely vulnerable in that situation if you can help it?

These foster carers have demonstrated that they would rather keep their homophobia and not help kids that desperately need it. They've made this decision, and they've put their flawed beliefs above child welfare. Good riddens.

what if they were mormons, and thought that black folks didn't have a soul? even if they weren't raving about it, i'm pretty sure we'd all agree that they should have no business raising children.

Who fucking cares, Dan?!

If they were just your run-of-the-mill, standard-issue-religious, we-disapprove-of-black-people types, where would we all be on this?

This is sacrificing the good at the altar of the perfect. They have a successful record of helping 20 foster kids, and that record isn't sufficient to qualify them to continue that good work? And with no evidence (at least none mentioned) that these people are actively discriminating against gays in their daily lives? This is some thought-police bullshit right here, especially considering the immense need for capable foster parents.

Government has a right to punish you if, in the course of acting on your beliefs, you infringe on the rights of others, but government should NEVER have the right to dictate your beliefs to you. That's what this is, and it is the antithesis of democratic society.

Seems like if they were not raving bigots, they would just play along with the regulations, for the greater good of the kids they are helping. Especially if, as they claim, sexuality is not going to be an issue for kids under 10. But if you were a raving bigot who had every intention of indoctrinating kids under 10 that gays were evil, then you would have a problem with this. And a raving anti-gay bigot would rather leave a kid in an orphanage rather than offer them a non-bigoted home life.

If the issue here were racism rather than homophobia, it would be a no brainer.

Also out of the 20 kids they bequeathed to society, how many are newly-minted anti-gay bigots? How many are self-loathing gays?

I will come down in favor of NOT allowing those parents being foster parents. I am sick of homophobia and we all know it starts in the home.

Sorry, they maybe great parents beyound that but we have to take a stand.

I blame the parents.

@5 - I see your point and agree with it - fact is, there's not enough information given about how their beliefs affected their practices in this article.

It's also entirely possible that the scenario "What would you do if a 10 year-old child came home and said they had been picked on because they were homosexual?" has never come up with this couple before, and it is entirely possible that it never would have.

I'm still not comfortable with the government of a supposedly "free" society dictating to its citizens which personal beliefs are acceptable - that shit just reeks of "1984."

@6

Exactly.

Yikes, this is a tough one. Clearly, foster parents who accept homosexuality as normal are better than those who don't. But, given the need for qualified foster parents, I would be comfortable with placing the kids with them if they could agree to neither condemn nor condone it.

Provided that they aren't the stark raving mad anti-gay types. And, provided that if they suspect their foster child might be gay, there be resources that could be provided to the child. And, provided that they keep their word. So, an awful lot of caveats...

On another note, it seems like this is just the type of fodder that the Christian right need -- see, you guys are requiring us to accept homosexuality and sing its praises! Infringement on our religious beliefs!

Boo fucking hoo. I'm sick of people insisting on their right to believe whatever the hell they want but don't think anyone has a right to respond to those beliefs. They may or may not be good parents, but the obvious thing here is that they chose their beliefs over fostering children. If this choice were really due to actual principles, shouldn't they NOT care and feel good in knowing they've done the right thing?

So, its ok to invalidate someone based on how they were born, as long as you don't do it stark raving madly?

I have trouble believing that these parents won't also have trouble telling their kids that sex isn't "dirty", that women should strive for more than being a homemaker and wife, and that people of different religions are ok.

Bigotries usually don't grow in a vacuum, the come in twos and threes.

From reading the article, not allowing these people to be weekend foster parents (I didn't even realize such a thing existed) seems unnecessary; the question seems worded specifically to herd them into answering "incorrectly." Do these sound like the words of a hateful bigot bent on molding herds of little future bigots?

"They 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 because my Christian beliefs won't let me. Morally I couldn't do that, spiritually I couldn't do that.

"I said I was there to explain that I would not compromise my faith.

"I said I would have to tell the child that as I am a Christian I don't believe in homosexuality but I can give as much love and security as I possibly can."

Mr Johns, 63, a metal polisher, said: "I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight.

'But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten."

They sound like fairly reasonable people who happen to be Christian. The law was made with good intent, but this seems to be taking it too far.

@8 Hernandez

I'm still not comfortable with the government of a supposedly "free" society dictating to its citizens which personal beliefs are acceptable - that shit just reeks of "1984."

You're talking about the government kicking in parents' doors and telling them to stop teaching what they want to their own kids. What this is about is parents who up and died, got jailed, or otherwise gave up their kids, without any family there to take them. Nobody else stepped up to adopt the kids, so now it falls to the government to make the decision as to the best thing to do with them. That is not shit, it doesn't reek, it is not a curtailment of freedom, and it is nothing like George Orwell's nightmare state.

The cowardly thing would be for the state to passively dump off the kids to anybody they could get without taking responsibility for what kind foster parents they are. For the state to address specifics such as homophobia and debate that as public policy is a hallmark of a healthy civil society.

Sorry for 2xpost, but WTF Dan? WTF? No comment on "that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle"? That its not a lifestyle? And the difference between telling someone its OK to be gay, and telling a child, a child mind you, that its wrong to be who you were born to be?

Why have any adoption standards at all...? Let's give anyone a baby!

...Because having parents (ANY parents) always trumps foster care, right?

This is a very good idea - foster kids have enough things to deal with, and this will decrease the suicide rate as well as the crime rate for them.

What about the opposite? Would you be "not sure how you feel about it" if they rejected foster parents who had pro-gay views? I'll put $20 on the guess that you'd be outraged. Perhaps neither is defensible.

Or are they just your run-of-the-mill, standard-issue-religious, we-disapprove-of-homosexuality types?

How well will that work for a kid who is or will discover s/he is gay?

It sounds like you're basically trying to toe a line of "having homophobic parents was good enough for me/others, it's be good enough for today's gay kids".

What is really brilliant about this is that there is at least one place in the world where it's the Christian bigots who are unfit to care for children.

I am going to go out on a limb on how we should look at this issue: replace homosexuality with "being black".

Seriously, we need to take control of the issues related to some of our lives and call it exactly what it is. Homophobia is the same as Racism. Some attacks someone for being gay; replace being gay with being black. Maybe then, just then people will start to get outraged.

No more homophobia at any level should be somehow "tolerable or acceptable". We end it now!! So the parents in the story are just as bad as RACISTS pure and simple.

I think it's important to remember that foster children are generally put into the family by the government and, just as importantly, usually funded to some degree by the government.

I don't see it as any sort of conflict to set a standard for these "temporary" parents - and if it means a couple of people who don't fit the standards don't get to temporarily watch these _20_ kids, then so be it.

Yes, the argument about not having enough _adoptive_ parents out there stands, yet look at the fact that there is a huge gay population (in the US at least) that isn't allowed to adopt, and in some states we can't even be foster parents.

So, sorry, but the someone's stepping on my Christian beliefs and persecuting me is just a load of sorry crap.

It's ironic people are bitching here about this one step the UK has taken to IMPROVE the standards of our foster care system, while our own country regularly just dumps kids off to people who only take care of them so they can cash their check. Let's try to bring our standards up a little before we criticize another country's system.

Know what's really bad for kids? NOT HAVING PARENTS.

I think there's a flaw in switching "if the child were gay" to "if the child were black," because race is obvious from the offset, whereas there still isn't sufficient proof that 10 year olds are GAY GAY GAY. Yes, they eventually grow into their homosexuality, just like other children eventually grow into their heterosexuality, but there's a lot of "growth" in between. There's the whole issue of homosexuality as identity, an issue that is totally separate from when a black teenager talks about their racial "identity."
Additionally, the foster mother and father both make a point of saying they will love their children no matter what, and give them all the support they can. That sounds a lot like tolerance. In fact, that's exactly what tolerance should be.... Loving someone DESPITE disagreeing. These two seem to recognize that they can disagree with homosexuality in their own spiritual spectrum but love their child nonetheless. I say kudos to them!!! They will teach their children that you don't have to AGREE 100% with someone to love or accept them. If the foster parents love their children and accept them, I say they are the best examples of foster parents....... Those who don't let their own personal religious beliefs cloud their love of their child, their ultimate gift from God.

@24 - they already have that problem. No sense adding living in a gay-hating environment of religious nutjobs on top of not having parents.

hey dan, when you say "But a significant number of foster kids are gay." are you talking about just the statistical random x% that is present in the population as a whole, or are you implying that "significantly" more than random, foster kids are gay? and, is there any data one way or the other?

Andrew, @6. Stuff it. Seriously. Stuff it.

You can have an opinion on this the second you sign up to be a foster parent or at least do something to understand the issues surrounding foster kids and families.

My wife is a therapist who primarily works with foster kids. Yes, as Dan notes, many foster kids are gay. I am not sure that there are more gay kids than the general population though. I do know that there are far more bi kids than the general population. This is primarily a function of early sexual abuse causing the bi switch to be flipped, especially in girls.

The problem is that people like Andrew, all full of liberal self righteousness, are not the kind of people who become foster parents. If you want to step up to the plate Andrew, go right ahead. More liberal foster parents would be great. You're not going to do it though, and we both know it.

The vast majority of foster parents in the US are conservative and religious. I don't know what the situation is in the UK, but I would imagine it to be similar. Additionally, there is a critical shortage of foster parents at all times. (Are you listening Andrew? You're needed. Go sign up.)

It is unfortunate that so many foster parents have these kinds of views and that the foster kids have to put up with it. The alternative at the moment is denying kids foster care and shuffling them in and out of institutions. That is far worse for kids than being placed with a homophobic foster parent as long as that parent is otherwise loving and nurturing.

The only solution is for more liberals to go sign up. So. Andrew, Mr. Poe, Will in Seattle - go sign up right now. Avengers Assemble!

.......

[crickets]

A shortage of cops doesn't mean we should allow psychopaths to become cops. A shortage of troops doesn't mean we should allow any criminal to enlist in the military. Whether or not I volunteer for those jobs has no bearing on the truth of these statements. To say otherwise is the epitome of an ad hominem attack: Only foster parent volunteers are capable of making true statements about foster parent qualifications. Only police officers are allowed to criticize police conduct.

Unless you want to say that as long as we have a shortage of foster parents then we should not draw the line anywhere and instead accept all parents? It's perfectly valid to debate where the line should be drawn, and everybody is allowed -- even obligated -- to participate in that debate rather than dump responsibility for the decision on somebody else.

@28: Mr. Poe has no business being a foster parent. Let's be reasonable.

Foster parents get government money to take care of foster kids. If you're going to be a foster parent your personal religious beliefs are unimportant...you have to follow the rules, including not telling kids that certain types of people are bad/going to hell/immoral/social miscreants if the government doesn't want you to.

Cheers to the government of the UK

Elenchos, if you go back and read what I wrote, I allowed that he could have an opinion once he took the time to understand what the hell he was talking about. Clearly he does not. I am tempted to say the same about you since you equate telling people that homosexuality is wrong (not a stance I agree with) with being a psychopath. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that is an opinion that a large plurality if not majority of Americans hold. It is not in line with being a psychopath or criminal.

You are correct that a debate about where the line should be drawn in terms of qualifications for foster parents is appropriate. However, a debate that takes place with someone totally uninformed on the issues involved is worthless. I am prepared to discuss the issue with anyone who has an idea what they are talking about. But spouting off without understanding the realities of foster kids, the issues involving foster parent recruitment, and the alternative fates that will befall children who lose their foster parents or never get one because of restrictions like these, hardly constitutes a debate. It is just as edifying as listening to a creationist discuss scientific theories.

By the way, as I wrote this, my bisexual, atheist, liberal Democrat wife who works with foster parents and kids came home. I asked her her position on the issue without revealing mine. She also said these parents should be allowed to foster.

No, Jim, I did nothing like equating opposing homosexuality with being a psychopath or a criminal. I equated the ability to be aware of what is a disqualifier for being a cop with the ability to be aware what is a disqualified for being a foster parent. Anyone can be aware of these truths without winning your stamp of approval. Referencing your wife's opinion to bolster your claim is an argument to authority, a close relation to ad hominem. You can certainly try to tell everybody who disagrees with you to shut up and defer to your superior judgment, but I don't think they will listen if you continue to rely on fallacies.

Dan, what on earth do you mean by "Not sure where I come down on this…" A shortage is no excuse for lowering standards.
We don't hire high school dropouts to teach school just because there is a shortage of qualified teachers! Instead, we encourage more people to get the education required to teach, we start up new programs, we raise salaries, etc.

Elenchos, I am sure you are doing very well in your sophomore logic class.

I am sorry that you think that the opinions of those in the field amount to nothing more than rhetorical flourishes. I will be sure to keep your position in mind next time I decide who to listen to on matters such as military planning, environmental degradation and tax planning.

I hate to point this out, but the ancient greeks and romans did not live in as specialized a time as our own. They had the ability to be generalists. We must deal with specialists.

Has it escaped your notice that you are yourself engaged in ad hominem attacks? I have given many reasons why these people should be allowed to foster. You have not addressed those reasons nor have you acknowledged the hole in your ad hominem theory. You limit yourself to discussions of my debating style.

To address something you said earlier, no one who understands the effects on kids wants them to end up in an institution. These people who foster kids care about them. They are taking concrete steps to keep them out of orphanages and revolving doors of the inpatient psychiatric systems and juvenile justice system.

The fact that we may not agree with their religious and social values does not trump the real good that they do for these children. To suggest that a kid is better off in the system rather than living with a homophobe displays a profound lack of understanding of child welfare.

In any case, there are many controls in place to ensure that a serious misfit between child and foster parent is not permanent. Gay kids with intolerant foster parents have the ability to go to another foster parent, and in the vast majority of cases, that is exactly what will happen if a serious problem arises. They have case workers and therapists and a slew of people looking out for them. It's gay kids in their biological homes that commit suicide because of a lack of parental empathy, not those in foster homes.

If you can't provide a loving home to kids who may turn out to be gay, you are unfit to be a foster parent. Homophobia is WHY so many kids are in foster care!

You are also unfit to be a parent, but I'm a little less comfortable with mandatory sterilization of homophobes.

I've been lurking for a long time, but I'll finally get drawn out to side with Jim.

Elenchos, there are two prongs to why your critique of Jim's supposedly fallacious argument is lacking.

1. Jim is not making an *absolute* argument from authority; like "God says x, therefore x is correct". His statement "I work with foster carers, I know" *looks* like an argument from authority, but really it is just a shorthand for saying "I have a good deal of personal and anecdotal evidence to the effect that having bigoted foster carers is better than none at all". That is, he has a series of empirical observations which he *could* share, but assumed that people would rather just have the gist.

2. In strictly logical terms, it is true that the ad hominem tactic of saying "you do not have the moral right to discuss x" is fallacious. But we are not strictly logical creatures, and this is not a strictly logical argument. Rather, it is based upon common (and irrational) human values and experiences. People acquire the moral right to make particular arguments... whether to go to war, whether draft-dodgers are cowards, whether abortion is morally equivalent to murder, etc.

@13 The little queen I used to mentor was obviously gay when he was 6 years old. His loving, Christian foster parents freaked out when he found the princess costumes in their basement and he put them on and played princess. They trashed the princess outfits, replaced them with cowboy costumes, and then took him to a barber and buzzed all his hair off. They also took him to the church where they learned all this garbage. Fortunately, he was adopted by a loving lesbian mom when he was 7. If he'd stayed in that home til adolescence, he would be even more severely damaged. These attitudes will always matter, even with kids who are under 10.

Since there is a shortage of foster parents, why not make it like jury duty? Mandetory service at least once for everyone who qualifies.

if you don't want a foster parent to be "mildly" anti-gay, maybe you can understand why christians -- comprising the vast majority of this country -- don't want a foster parent to be gay. (and they do have a large majority right now, a fact that shouldn't be ignored.)

i do think tolerance is what is key here. i know some people want an america where everyone agrees and everyone is right, but that's never going to happen.

what we need is an america where everyone has the right to an opinion as long as it isn't illegal. for instance, if you can think it's against your religion to be gay but do not in any way discriminate against such a person (the way christians treat fornicators, drunks, liars, those who are disobedient to their parents, etc...), then you are demonstrating tolerance. without dissenting opinions, there is not tolerance.

considering all that, i believe these situations need to be handled on case-by-case basis. if this family truly does provide a loving and secure atmosphere for the children, then they should be allowed to continue. if they can't - if a gay child of theirs is discriminated against - then they should no longer be allowed to parent that child.