This gives me a pit in my stomach. Fifty years from now will parents have to pass a litmus test? Will my children be faced with the choice between the truth and their children? I can’t believe I’m even wondering about this possibility. Somebody pinch me.
I’m sometimes reminded of something a Polish man said about living under a communist government. He lived for a long time in fear of the day when, after hearing what his child was being taught in school, he would be morally obliged to say “It’s all lies, son.”
We’re not a hair’s breadth away from a time when parents will need to fear what their children might say in school that will get them (and their parents) branded “antisocial”.
The pair argued that they had “not expressed homophobic views, unless Christian beliefs are, by definition, homophobic.”
In fact, in today’s fiercely secularist environment, Christian beliefs are considered homophobic and worse. In several U.S. Cities, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to shut down because they would not place children with same sex couples.
Children are conceived by a mother and a father, something that the secularist religion does not wish to acknowledge. And yes, they do need a father and a mother. But fantasy has replaced reality, and the thought police will enforce correct belief.
Well if it ever seriously got to the point, I have a strong hope we’d be outta Dodge. I hope we’d have had the sense to see it coming. Death by degrees. I still would be genuinely surprised if it got to the point we couldn’t leave the country.
On the other hand, I’ve pondered that my end might be euthanasia. Alzheimer’s runs in the family, and it is a terrible and difficult thing. :rolleyes:
That’s just crazy. Why this was even brought up to the man and wife seems like it would be grounds for a legal challenge. They were baited into disqualifying themselves in the eyes of whoever was making the decision.
It’s all so crazy and hard to believe. I suppose it is true, but it just defies believe. Everything is just all crazy and upside down.
Yes, this is very concerning. It looks like parents can’t adopt now unless their views line up with the secular state’s.
The “slippery slope argument” is supposed to be a logical fallacy, but it never fails to turn out true.
On another hand, the state could have noticed that the foster parents only wanted to adopt to prevent a homosexual couple to adopt; this is a very reactive approach, so I can see why the state might find that a bit concerning.
Yes, this may be the fly in the ointment. The foster parents did not ask to adopt the children until they found out that two men were prospective parents. The state might view this as subversion, i.e., the foster parents were in effect lurking until the opportunity arose to block a specific adoption process. The state might then be at risk of a lawsuit for discrimination against the gay couple.
I am not saying the foster parents were wrong. Their hearts were in the right place, with the children, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the foster parents and for the children, but the state may be legally bound to protect also the rights of the adoptive parents, without regard to straight or gay.
This. I think the foster parents’ hearts are in the right place – they want their foster children to have a mother and a father. But they didn’t step forward trying to adopt until after prospective adoptive parents were identified.
Let’s frame this another way, taking sexual orientation out of the mix. Suppose foster parents told the state, No, we don’t want to adopt, we definitely aren’t the right forever family for this child, go look for an adoptive family. The state finds an adoptive family who can handle the child’s needs, and after matching the prospective family, then the foster family says “oh wait! we don’t like that prospective adoptive family, so we’ll adopt after all.” Is it any wonder that the child’s case worker might have concerns?
The idea of an ideological litmus test is very troubling, however, and we should all be concerned about that.
Acknowledging the truth of human nature–that children need a mom and a dad, is not an ideological litmus test. It is just a recognition of reality over fantasy, like preferring human parents to robots or andromedans.
I will say that one reason many foster families do not adopt is because they would then lose the funds from the state to support the foster children.
It is possible they hadn’t adopted at this point because they were providing the care and environment the child needed and were getting funds to help. If their decision to adopt was purely to keep the child in a home with a mother and father, their willingness to forego the funding and adopt the child outright could be viewed as a (financial) sacrifice. However, if they were doing it purely to spite the other couple, I agree, that is problematic.
My wife’s best friend had foster “siblings” growing up. Her family still has foster children. They were never wealthy enough to support adopting all the children that came and went (and continue to come and go) through the household. There is one particular girl that is still very close to the family and they treat her light a sister and daughter, but they never adopted her.
I’m no expert, but frankly I’m surprised by how much information has come out about the case. On the one hand, why would the couple tell the adoption agency that their reasoning involved stopping a gay couple from adopting, and why would the adoption agency reveal that their reasoning involved disapproval of that couples’ reasoning?