Re: Anti-Gay Couple Denied Right To Be Foster Parents

[MrEnlighteneddespot]

Being black is an identity which cannot be hidden. Homosexuality is defined by a behavior so stop confusing the two. You don't walk down the street and recognize a homosexuality by looking at them, but you can recognize what race somebody is by doing likewise. Are you going to tell every Righteous Bible-believing Christian that they should have their children taken away because they are gay? If not, then you are a lying hypocrite whom I have zero respect for.

[theAspirit29]

I bet that if this table was tipped towards atheist and agnostics not being able to adopt based on a hated or hostility to religion you would sing a different tune buddy!!! I am gay and a christian myself and I would nerve support anyone not allowing an atheist to adopt based on that. People want to sit and demonize christian and point the bigot finger at them well take your other finger and point at yourself. Please look at both sides of this before you start the finger pointing. Love U all!!

[JamesEzSecretChannel]

@theAspirit29

Addressing both of your comments.

This is NOT discrimination against any religion, it is protecting homosexual children From discrimination.

Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not. The adults choice, does not take precedent of the child's biological features. And that is what is happening here, nothing else.

[joshuaeasnyder]

wow love this video!

[SuperTheatergeek101]

i loved this video and i'm very proud of the U.K. for doing this now if the U.S.A. would do this it would be awsome! i'm gay and my family is very anti gay it really hurts so if this helps prevent more gay kids/teens/young adults going threw the same thing that im going threw now with my family then i'm all for it people should except people for who they are and not base it off of their sexuality.

[JamesEzSecretChannel]

@SuperTheatergeek101

that's awful that you have to live that way, thank you for sharing, if it's something you can do safely you should consider sharing your struggle on YouTube, the community here can be very supportive

[malakasofdeath]

FOR YOU WHO DO NOT WANT TO READ THEESE 6-10 LINES COMMENTS:!!

Hi ! How are u?

[JamesEzSecretChannel]

@malakasofdeath I'm good you?

And what's up with the caps portion? I don't quite get it....

[malakasofdeath]

@JamesEzSecretChannel i did it so ppl can notice it..

[Redhotnirvanalover]

seeing this did alot for me because i am straight as a line but have no problem with homosexuality or am even for homosexuality, and growing up in the part of england where i do most of the people i know are completely homophobic, just due to fear and their upbringing. Seeing things like this help me to get through my day thinking, thank god theres one person ive seen today thats just saying something without racism, prejudice or just being a dick. Just wanna thankyou for being that person :)

[xXStrWbrrYsToneXx]

One question, if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, if it is 'natural' like a heterosexual couple, why can't a homosexual couple have a child together with no help from any outside sources. They can't. Why? because it's unnatural, it goes against nature. I am not a homophobe, I have no problems being around gay people (unless they're annoying but that goes for anyone), it's cliche, but some of my best friends really are gay (lol). That doesn't make it right or good.

[authorless]

@xXStrWbrrYsToneXx There are heterosexual couples where one of the people is infertile, is their relationship unnatural? Methinks there is at least one flaw in your argument. Is baby making the only metric on which a relationship is to be judged valid? Fact: bonobo, which are one of our closest relatives, are extremely bisexual. Naturally. Homosexuality has been observed in the animal kingdom in some 1,500 species (including humans). Naturally. So how does this go against nature?

[xXStrWbrrYsToneXx]

@authorless Actually, if a heterosexual couple can't conceive, there IS something unnatural going on; with at least one of them. Now, this doesn't mean I am judging the people. I have sympathy for them. But I am going to be honest and try to approach every situation with an open mind. I didn't say I have a problem with gay *people*, I have too many problems in my own character to judge anyone else. But the action and the spirit behind it is unnatural. I stand by my statement.

[authorless]

@xXStrWbrrYsToneXx So infertility happens naturally, yet it is somehow unnatural? Homosexuality occurs and is quite prevalent in nature, yet somehow it is unnatural? The desire for companionship and enjoyment of sexual intercourse (the action and the spirit) are absolutely natural. Your argument is built on a foundational falsehood, homosexuality is verifiable natural.

[xXStrWbrrYsToneXx]

@authorless Infertility does not happen naturally. It occurs when there is a perversion in someone's reproductive system. Fine, if there is nothing wrong with it, then let's take a society of all homosexual men and stick them on a planet. What would happen? Their race would become extinct bc they wouldn't be able to pro create. Why? Bc human beings were made to go together as male and female. That is the way we were made. U want fun & pleasure, fine. That doesn't make it natural.

[authorless]

@xXStrWbrrYsToneXx So maybe we need to take a step back and find out how you define "natural." Because I find it is defined in this usage as "not made or caused by humankind." Homosexuality occurs in nature without human intervention, ergo, it is natural. Your argument is built on a false premise (sex is strictly for procreation) and assumes a conclusion (an inability to procreate makes it unnatural).

"[...]Human beings were made[...]" - citation needed.

[mayhemnecrobutcher]

@xXStrWbrrYsToneXx I think you are confused between fertile and natural.. for 100% of a population to have children would be naturally unlikely.

[xXStrWbrrYsToneXx]

@authorless And 'monkeys do it too' isn't exactly anyone's best argument. We are supposed to be moving FORWARD up the evolutionary ladder. Sometimes I think humans forget that. I didn't mean to start an argument. I was just stating my opinion which I thought was original and unbiased. God bless you all in whichever path you choose to take in life. No judgment here. Anyone with a pure heart and good intention is fine by me! (That doesn't mean I will agree with their actions, though.)

[authorless]

@xXStrWbrrYsToneXx It is quite a good argument when you attempt to claim something as being unnatural (i.e. here is an example of it's occurrence in nature). Aslo, there is no ultimate goal in evolution.

Your opinion was neither original nor unbiased, and has been espoused by many before you. Think about it more.

"Anyone with a pure heart and good intention is fine by me! (That doesn't mean I will agree with their actions, though.) " You either do not see the irony in that or you are a Poe.

[authorless]

@xXStrWbrrYsToneXx "I am not a homophobe, I have no problems being around gay people (unless they're annoying but that goes for anyone), it's cliche, but some of my best friends really are gay (lol). That doesn't make it right or good."

Or is "I have no problem as long as they don't kiss or talk about interior design and be all gay?" Would these "best friends" continue to be "best friends"? Your personal problems with it doesn't make it wrong or bad.

[xXStrWbrrYsToneXx]

@authorless Um, no.......actually, I like interior design.....and kissing. lol Gay men kissing actually kinda turns me on. Women who kiss used to turn me on even more cause I was bi-sexual, leaning heavily towards women over men. But at almost 30, men just seem sexier to me now. Women are okay, but they don't turn me on anymore. I don't judge people, but the action ISN'T NATURAL. How does that make it a 'personal problem'? Seems pretty impersonal to me. Nice try, though. :)

[xXStrWbrrYsToneXx]

I can't believe people are this deluded....talking about the guy in teh video. "Gay child"??? Are you serious? I have NEVER met a "gay child" in my life and I am a teacher. And the statement @ 1:30 is so useless. He states that the couples beliefs are incorrect and then, as proof, he states his own beliefs; not factual evidence. lol

[MagicoftheForest]

Awsome post



[Eaglegirl12]

-buuuuutttt, the government is effectively grouping a fear of homosexuality on the same level as other couples who can't foster children, such as criminals etc. The government is giving preferential treatment to one side of an issue and that' something I don't believe in. At the same time, I don't want another homophobic generation around, so it's a very complex topic.

[Eaglegirl12]

At first I though you had said England had denied a gay couple the right to foster kids, which didn't add up. Then I got that an anti-gay couple got denied this right. Coming from England I could sum up two reasons, one like you said they might get a gay child and then would abuse it, and two because the english government is very much keeping homophobia limited, so not giving them a child stops that child from becoming homophobic itself. I'm fully gay rights supportive.

[JamesEzSecretChannel]

@BoycottIsraelAlways ya lost me with 3 and 4... kinda the same problem I had with the last comment, you really have trouble with sentence structure, is English your first language?

[TheArmydude050290]

@JamesEzSecretChannel Don't mind the dumbass, he's just another tool trying to justify his hatred through religion. Funny, I thought Christians (me, you know, being one) were supposed to promote a love and understanding for one's fellow man. Maybe the rest of that didn't get the memo? lol

[JamesEzSecretChannel]

@BoycottIsraelAlways

such a long incoherent comment, I'm still not even sure what your problem is

[KentonForshee]

Not to forget to mention that the UK has protections for gays. It would be hypocritical to claim to protect gays and then hand a child to anti-gay people to raise so they can...what...teach that child to believe something that the UK doesn't approve of? I don't think so. They made the right choice.

[KentonForshee]

My thoughts precisely James. The Young Turks are wrong in this instance.

[NicholasKreuz]

Judging from this video and your replies in the comment box, I'm really impressed by your views and logic, I'm going to subscribe ^^

This news story intrigues me and gives me a lot of respect for England.

For those who don't quite get why this was such a good move... imagine this scenario.

Someone states outright that they hate half of the other ethnic groups on the planet..., and that they want to blindly adopt a child from a wide mix of ethnic origins... it is too risky for the child.

[gaylolful]

@NicholasKreuz Agreed! :P

[PolytheisticDeities]

I agree with on on this 100 billion% I mean, when people discriminate against gays they always use the excuse that its their religious belief and if we say no to that then those people are "discriminating" against their religious belief... such bull shit, honestly religion needs to end it causes so many problems in this world

[charisma343]

half of me agrees that England is fuckin awesome for doin this, cos its wat those types of people put us thru everyday, & now theyre gettin a taste of their own medicine. but the other part of me disagrees, cos this mite be exactly why those types of people hate us, or if they dont, then this mite give them more reason 2 hate us, & the last thing any1 needs rite now is more hate. i think they should be allowed to foster kids, but they have 2 realise that that is how we feel everyday cos of them.

[TheJamesPope]

@charisma343

bigots don't hate homosexuals because they fight for what's right, because battle fear mongering, and because they won't allow the risk of a homosexual child being berated for who they are in their own home by state assigned parents,

bigots hate homosexuals, because they're homosexual

sure this might give them another reason, but that is no reason to back down

[charisma343]

@TheJamesPope im just sayin that even though theyre against homosexuality, it doesnt mean they should be denied the right 2 foster kids. but this does (or should) give them a taste of the prejudice that we receive from people like them, & hopefully will open their eyes a bit. im not saying they have 2 like homosexuality, im just saying they should acknowledge & accept, & in turn teach their foster child that there r people who are gay, lesbian, etc. & who believe its a good thing (which it is).

[TheJamesPope]

@charisma343

I'm just saying that denying them the rights to foster kids, on these grounds, IS NOT prejudice, IT IS standing up for the rights of homosexuals everywhere

prejudice is to pre-judge, to judge discriminatory against a person or peoples because of preconceptions that you have of them

there is not pre-judgment occurring here, they let it be known that they were hate filled, and the state let it be known that it didn't think that is a safe environment for children, and I agree.

[charisma343]

@TheJamesPope well i guess im just not the type of person that can do that to another person, no matter wat they believe. lol

[theAspirit29]

@charisma343 I guess I should be happy that an agnostic couple where rejected from adoption,but Im not! I am gay and christian myself and I would not want somebody to be rejected based on their religion or anything else . I am getting real tired of my fellow gay's and far left groups that point the bigot finger just as must as the conservatives! Both sides are equally at fault! Love U and God bless.

[Tawna54321]

I believe denying the right for suitable parents to adopt based on their beliefs is also discriminatory. The day we are denied the freedom to believe as we desire is a dark day for all of us.

[SebastienCade]

@Tawna54321

They weren't denied the freedom to believe as they want, they were simply rejected as foster parents because of the beliefs they hold. Foster parents do not keep the kids, they provide a place for them to live until the children can be adopted. They plainly stated that they would never tell a foster child that being homosexual is OK, and this could have a negative effect on the kid. Homosexuals have a higher rate of depression as it is, why put them in that type of situation?

[Tawna54321]

@SebastienCade

It could have a negative impact if the child was gay. However, denying the right for parents to care for a child simply because of holding a contrary viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong is equally wrong; if the potential parents were extremist/hateful in some way towards people/gays themselves then that is a different case. I still want the freedom to believe homosexuality is wrong if that is what I choose to believe as I also want the freedom to believe it is right.

[TheJamesPope]

@Tawna54321

The response to this video is amazing to me;

They are not being stopped from "believing homosexuality is wrong". That IS NOT what's going on.

They still think it, those bigoted f***s are still sitting in the f***ing UK hating gays. They hated them before, and the hate them now.

The ONLY DIFFERENCE is that now that are having to pay a price for the bigoted perspective, something that comes with holding a myriad perspectives, and hasn't applied for homophobia until now.

[jflint87]

Thus the reason I unsubscribed from TYT a long time ago. They occasionally have a decent video, but more often than not I think they're just ignorant Americans attempting to sound like intelligent, free-thinking, pseudo-liberals.

[TheAlpineal]

It should come down to who can provide a safe, caring, loving home for the children, period. There are plenty of straight parental units who absolutely SUCK at their responsibilities and should not have been permitted to breed at all, but no one stops them from doing over and over!

[WhyNotTruth]

@TheAlpineal Yeah, a safe, caring, LOVING home. Should racist KKK members be allowed to be foster parents because they provide a safe and caring home? I'm sure they won't tell their foster kids that white people are superior...

[jerrypz]

The whole thing's made me think rather than have a kick-start reaction. Is it illegal to teach your kid the teachings of your religion. I'm pretty much an atheist but if everyone else can LEGALLY say their views - free speech - without socal services getting involved, why can't foster parents.

I did a video asking these questions because I'm questioning what in my country constitutes abuse and how biological parents, and even faith schools, get away with airing their anti-gay views..

[FatherTime89]

Nice video only thing is comparing this to a racist couple wanting black kids isn't a perfect comparison. You can tell someone is black by looking at them so if such a couple existed you could filter out the blacks. You can't really do that with gays.

[Mazdem]

@TheJamesPope I think you made a good argument and rebuttal in both the video and responder comments. I believe most people analyzing this situation are also confusing adoption with foster care. Foster children are wards of the state they are not adopted by the family. This means that Foster care is a temporary stop gap till permanent placement can be found. A foster family can get many children a year and they only get to choose the approximate age, gender. and ability to care disability.

[Deepstarr7020]

You make a good point, but at the end of the day the children remain orphans period. This is a dire circumstance and denying seeming good people with old fashioned beliefs isn't anything to pass on, especially when there are a lot of cases where foster parents are abusive. It's easy to say it's "Awesome" from the comfort of our homes while the kids we're protecting live in a group home (probably abused).

[Nagneto]

Yes

[PandaArmyXX]

I suggest you think through shit before you make videos, this is poorly thought through.

What's next? What about families that are against homosexuals that happen to not need to adopt? Should we deny those people the right to have kids? Better yet, why not sterilize them?

I don't agree with judging people based off of their sexual preferences, but I also agree that people should be able to believe whatever they want.

You clearly are not okay with personal freedoms, mirite?

[TheJamesPope]

@PandaArmyXX That's ridiculous, you're using the slippery slope fallacy.

One, adoption and having children, are not the same, at all, as being eligible for being a foster parent.

Two, no I'm fine with personal freedoms, like a child's personal freedom not to be discriminated against by their parents because of their sexual orientation.

What if these people had said they weren't okay with black children? Are they still okay to be foster parents then?

[PandaArmyXX]

@TheJamesPope

Logically what is the difference?

Adoption takes into consideration whether the parent is capable of parenting a child.

In both situations a child is involved, why to you is it worse that if a fundie were to adopt over having their own children?

If they weren't okay with black people, it is no different. People are not forced to believe certain things in order for them to properly raise a child, it is their right to believe whatever they want, that's freedom bro, deal with it.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Did you read my other comments? The difference is that it is NOT THEIR CHILD! It is an adopted child that has been remanded to the state. Once in the state’s hands, the state has a higher threshold in which to select potential parents. Conversely, anybody in society can have a child without govt. scrutiny.

HOLY SHIT FACEPALM!

[gaylolful]

@TheJamesPope I am going to subscribe thanks for adding me :P

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Well, I suggest that you think before you comment. A person(s) adopting a child that has been remanded to the state has a higher threshold of scrutiny to meet. What you suggest, Govt. involving itself into personal life, is an absurd/retarded correlation.

Those people can believe whatever they want, including, but not limited to imaginary friends. However, they CANNOT force those bigoted/discriminatory beliefs upon a child from an adoption agency.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX “You clearly are not okay with personal freedoms, mirite?” This is a moronic strawman. In reality, which apparently escapes you, it is you that is against personal freedoms. This child should be able to believe in whatever he wants, as you so eloquently put it. He shouldn’t be forced into a belief system of bigotry/discrimination & that is precisely what this is about. It isn't about their religion; it is about their vitriol bigotry/discrimination.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

They are allowed to raise their child however their want, the child doesn't have to accept that lifestyle. Many children from fundamental families do just that. It has no bearing over how well they will take care of a child, period.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Should fundies have children and be allowed to abuse them with their “belief”? FUCK NO. Does this mean that government should get involved in every parent’s life? FUCK NO. In our society, there is an abuse line that, if crossed, govt. will step in and remove a child. Where that line is, depends on the state in which you live.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX If you are hateful and abusive to your child, you risk that child being taken. Your “belief” is irrelevant. There have been many case where children have been removed from abusive religionist imposing their ignorant “belief.” Holy shit, just Google Religion and Child Abuse and READ!

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Physical abuse =/= being a brainless fundie.

I believe in freedom. Educating kids on your beliefs, regardless of how prejudice they are shouldn't be illegal.

The difference between people like you and people like me are that even though we don't agree, I'd be the only one willing to fight for your ability to disagree, you'd be too busy trying to get the PC police and beg them to fuck up freedom.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Not all abuse is physical. It’s kind of what this WHOLE issue is about. Catch up.

Who doesn’t believe in freedom? You’re not special so don’t waste your time patting yourself on the back. Nobody said educating kids in your belief should be illegal. STRAWMAN

My comments stand. You’ve offered nothing new or relevant. Your continued strawman responses are just pathetic. Maybe you should join the cast of the Wizard of Oz because that is where your argument lies--in the land of Oz.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

I disagree, I will say that you have offered nothing that matters or makes sense, at all.

All you have done is placed more control over peoples lives in the hands of the government, who has shows time and time again to work for their own benefit rather than the peoples.

You fucking fail, period.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Not only that, but this whole thing is completely counter-active to the gay rights movement.

The gay rights movement is about freedom, freedom to choose who you love, who you fuck, who you have relationships with, etc...

This ruling is not about freedom, it's about punishing people for having "offensive" views.

Prove raising a child in a fundie home is abusive to the child, where are your studies bro?

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX The child is already in the govts. hands. What fucking part of this do you NOT GET?

This ruling is about a couple not meeting the criterion to adopt, not punishment. This is because they have stated and demonstrated that they WILL espouse a hateful and discriminatory belief to a child, if given. When the state is involved, most Family Law boils down to “What is in the best interest of the child.” They clearly are NOT. Fuck their religion.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Counter active to the gay rights movement. That has got to be the most retarded thing I have ever heard. REALLY!

Abuse, whether in a fundie house or a regular house, would be dependent on the state in which you live. FUCK, I AM REPEATING MYSELF. Reread my comments.

Save the anti Govt. Freedom talk. I assure you that I highly doubt YOU can offer any insight in this arena. I base this upon all your comments. I am all for a minimalistic govt., if one AT ALL.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Show me evidence or you're full of shit.

It is counter active to the gay rights movement to force shit and go against peoples freedom, which is generally met with hostile backlash.

Being a fundie who doesn't agree with homosexuality doesn't make one a bad person or parent, it makes them ill informed, it makes them part of a belief system I feel to be false. But it doesn't make them incapable of being a parent.

Prove it's abuse bro or keep raging unintelligently.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Evidence of WHAT you fucking retard? You continue to spew out garbage. You have learned a line of: Show me proof and little else. You have to involve yourself in family law in order to see that type of proof. Idiot.

You continue with the strawman which, I am not repeating myself, reread what I said about abuse and try to understand this time. This is absolutely Pro Gay, any suggestion otherwise just shows how retarded you are.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

How is this "absolutely Pro Gay"? They are not allowing a couple who has shown 15 times before they were able to raise a child, to adopt another child because of moral views on sexuality that come from their religious beliefs. If anything this is about punishing people for holding different views of sexuality than the society they belong to.

Hmm... Homosexuals in some states can't adopt because their moral sexual views are different than the society they belong to.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

FYI, the more you go on, the more it is obvious to me you never even watched the video he was responding to.

Did you hear about the family? Their views they hold is no different than most Christians (they are hardly even that fundamental)

They have also raised 15 other foster kids, with no reported problems of abuse or signs of abuse.

Did you listen to their press release?

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Being a fundie does make them a bad parent, IMO. For the most part, law does not involve itself in this regard unless it is an extreme case.

The more you comment, it is clear you know nothing about this case nor UK or USA Family Law. As far as TYTs, no, I did not watch their video. I don’t rely on TYT for my information. Have YOU read anything other than the couples’ statement or TYT? Clearly not. I don't care how many children they have been allowed to warp, so far.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Back to proof. I will make this easy for you. My proof is that a Judge, ruled against these people for their vitrial discriminatory views and will not allow them to foster any more children.

“It was ruled that there was no discrimination against them as Christians but that their views on sexual morality may be “inimical” - or harmful - to children. In that situation, they ruled: “The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence.”

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

If you keep wanting to state logical fallacies in every comment in some pathetic attempt to parade your pseudo-intellect you should learn to call them out accurately. Not only that, but you should avoid using them yourself. :cough: argumentum ad potentiam :cough:

A "judge ruled on it" is about of as strong of an argument as your *IMO* "being a fundie does make you a bad parent".

I think if you listened to the parents speak themselves, you'd see they aren't even "fundies".

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

The "proof" I was referring to would be the evidence one would have to present to make the case that raising a child in that environment is considered abuse or "inimical" - or harmful - to children, because unsupported assertions are just that.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX You have not shown anything I have said is a logical fallacy. Is that the best you have? Throwing out a big word you learned in debate class is just pathetic. Way to side step. Go back to class.

Listening to weak minded xtians yammer on about their persecution would probably make their case worse as anybody that marks the xtian box should be ineligible. But again, that is IMO!

Repeating: Not punishing.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX My IMO was to differentiate between my personal opinion and law. A “judge ruled on it” is now set as precedence, as a matter of law. If you knew anything about law, you would know this as well as that Family Law/Adoption law evidence is usually not made public. You stating it is “unsupported assertions” just shows your :cough:ignorance:cough: on these matters. I speak on law with authority because it was my profession.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX The world is moving away from bigoted religious beliefs that espouse homophobia. The UK & others are far more advanced than USA re: being a secularized society & thus why UK is first with this type of ruling.

"Thankfully, Mr & Mrs Johns's out-dated views aren't just out of step with the majority of people in modern Britain, but those of many Christians too. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX Just saw Pro-gay Question.

“Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the lesbian, gay & bisexual charity, said: 'We're delighted that the High Court's landmark decision has favoured 21st-century decency above 19th-century prejudice.”

“But Lord Justice Munby & Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.”

FNG DUH

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Cool story bro.

Glad to hear you can speak for all homosexuals.

The logical fallacy I was pointing to was how your argument summary of "judge ruled on it" is a plea to the authoritative figure, the judge.

There are fucked up laws all over every country that judges have passed, does that make them logical automatically?

I know about law, I understand that this set a precedence, which is why I think this is wrong.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Also, "Throwing out a big word you learned in debate class is just pathetic." If you're going to try to insult me, try not to use the insult I used directly before your comment, it makes you appear unoriginal and dull.

Finally, you may feel that the UK is more "advanced than the USA" and in some cases I could agree with you. At the same time, I also know that there are much more restrictions of personal freedoms throughout Europe. The PC police roll hard there.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX “speak for all homosexuals.” Strawman never said this.

“fucked up laws all over” agreed, why I’m 4 minimalist gov.

“does that make them logical?” Now you’re getting into morality which is subjective.

“insults” I use cough all the time which is why I’m beginning to think you might be someone I know trolling me. Did I hit a button w/debate class, maybe?

“restrictions of personal freedoms throughout Europe” yes, I know, didn’t say they're better in all areas, that's 4sure.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Sadly, at the end of the day, this courts ruling has done more harm than good.

At the end of the day, a couple who was fully capable of raising 15 other orphans, are unable to make better the lives of anymore children as they have done in the past.

Eh fuck it, let those bastard children rot in an orphanage instead.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Also, didn't really hit a button with the "debate class thing" it was just incredibly similar to the insult I gave you directly before, hence why I said it makes you seem unoriginal and dull. Sorry you couldn't pick up elementary school sentence structure. I will make sure I keep my vocabulary to the most base level for you, sorry if "pseudo-intellectual" was too big of a word, I should have said "u axe smart wen u knot smart", my bad.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX “Sadly, at the end of the day,” Oh wow, you have started back at the beginning. Way to go in a complete circle with your argument. You’re a win. >>insert retard voice here while saying that<<

Now who is playing pseudo-intellect? Again, throwing out big words in which you clearly don’t understand just shows your ignorance. I would have thought that, after being schooled here, you would have gotten this by now. Go back to class TROLL.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

"schooled here"

Give me a fucking break.

You schooled me so hard bro, on the b-ball court.

I'll never show my face in South Central again!

[devchelle2]

@PandaArmyXX Indoctrinating children into a bigoted hateful belief system with the false promises of ever lasting love and eternal life and then threaten them with eternal damnation and torture is abusive and harmful. It is harmful to the child AND ultimately to society at large.

You fail.

[PandaArmyXX]

@devchelle2

You go girl, you've convinced me, I got my pliers and coat hangers, let's start sterilizing religious people.

[devchelle2]

@PandaArmyXX SCORE

[PandaArmyXX]

@devchelle2

Shit man, you're brilliant this is going to open up so many more jobs.

We will have to start a division that investigates the religious beliefs of people and how extreme their beliefs are. Then we can sterilize the lot of them. The ones that are so extreme that they present a threat to "society as a whole" through their beliefs we can do more than sterilize them, we can cut their tongues out so they can't voice their opinion, which is an obvious assault to even speak outloud.

[ReligiousJezta]

@devchelle2 SCORE//LMAO

[alvein7]

@ReligiousJezta I'm wondering if you could elaborate further or tease apart the bigotry from their religion. My instinct is to see one's religious belief or practice as inseparable from their religious identity.

[alvein7]

@ReligiousJezta To give a (maybe crappy) parallel, there's a writer who speaks English with a Spanish accent, it's often grammatically incorrect, but she associates it with her identity. To her, making fun of her language is making fun of her ethnic/cultural identity. I think the author is Cherrie Moraga. The point is, I can see how discriminating against their (admittedly discriminating/bigoted) religious belief can be seen as discriminating against their religion/religious identity.

[ReligiousJezta]

@alvein7 “I can see how discriminating against...can be seen as discriminating against their...religious identity.”

I'm not sure what you are asking. However, that last sentence seems as if you're saying that xtians are being discriminated against. This claim is sickening. The cry of, poor me, I am xtian and I cannot discriminate against fags or other people I hate nor can I relay this discrimination/hatred to the kids I am ASKING to adopt.

Please tell me that is NOT what you are saying.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

You're about as religiously atheists as most Christians are religiously Christian.

Congratulations, you're no different than a fundie.

You give atheists a bad name.

Go to china and promote what you actually want to promote, throwing away of personal freedoms and getting rid of people that make your upset.

Fucking tool.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX

“You're about as religiously atheists as most Christians are religiously Christian.”

LOL. This is your pseudo-intellect showing again.

Let me respond in a manner in which your TROLL pseudo-intellect can handle: Nuh uh, you’re the Tool, you tool. >>sticks tongue out<<

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

You are unable to respond to anything I say without RANDOMLY capitalizing words, using piss poor insults (that are regurgitations of ones I used shortly before) or just completely ignoring what I said all together.

The judges ruling really helped a lot, you got a child stuck in an orphanage for probably the rest of their life and a family that cannot adopt who has offered a social service for society with 15 other orphans.

Graduate high school, then we can chat, troll.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX “you got a child stuck in an orphanage for probably the rest of their life” Baby Jesus cries when you pull shit out of your ass. How about words you are familiar with, like, show some evidence or STFU! I was wondering how long it would be before you tried this road.

“You know shit about how kids are treated in orphanages.” Strawman.

“Graduate high school”  Well, I thought it was best to keep it at a rudimentary kindergarten level. You know, so you could follow.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Also, in regards to pulling out information about adoption in the UK out of my ass, how about you read this you ignorant moron.

"He told The Guardian: "Only 70 babies were adopted last year compared with 4,000 in 1976.

"We need that figure to get back into the thousands so we need to quadruple it over the next few years - and quadruple it again.

(mirror(dot)co(dot)uk/news/lat­est/2011/01/22/prejudices-dama­ge-adoption-rates-115875-22867­567/)

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

It's not a strawman, you imply that being in an orphanage is good, that the government "cares" for the child, you also implied that being in an orphanage would be a better environment than living in a home with two loving parents who happen to Christians. Anyone who has ever been to an orphanage or have seen how some of these kids are treated, know that *many* of these kids would much rather be living in a home instead of the orphanage. How am I misrepresenting your opinion?

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX Should we allow child abuse because if we don't then the child will probably be raised poorly anyway? We need to fix orphanages instead of trying to be more tolerant of bigoted foster parents.

[ReligiousJezta]

@PandaArmyXX You continue to offer nothing new or relevant and continue to evade while ranting about proper insults. You are the epitome of the word FAIL. The best you have now come up with is some pathetic claim that poor orphan kids are going to be homeless because of this one decision. Weak at best.

I am done with you troll. You failed this kindergarten lesson.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

Right on, troll. I'm tired of going back and forth with you, all you know how to say is strawman and randomly capitalizing words.

Reactionary twat.

I'm glad I live in the United States where shit like this would never fly. Kind of like how the supreme court just ruled in favor of WBC's freedom of speech, but you probably think they should be publicly raped and executed for their beliefs.

Deal with it, the United States will always be more free than the UK.

[alvein7]

@ReligiousJezta Actually, what I asked was whether or not you could more clearly distinguish between their belief from their religion. The part that you quoted from me and all that you left out was part of my skepticism as to whether or not you could divorce to two. Whether it's a prohibition due to someone's religious belief or non-belief, I'm not sure it's the correct decision.

[ReligiousJezta]

@alvein7 Belief is usually a statement that one thinks a certain way. Whether or not a person actually believes or is simply stating they believe is a more complex issue. I myself try to remove the word belief from my vocabulary. Once you say you believe in something, then you start to self identify with it & then you start to defend it no matter how wrong you are. “Belief” inhibits critical thinking skills.

I have written this before so I wonder if this is what you are trying to ask of me?

[ReligiousJezta]

@alvein7 Read my other comments to others on this issue.  The world is evolving away from these types of vitrial “beliefs”. I would vehemently disagree that this was the wrong decision. If a child is in the government’s hands, that child should go to a family wherein the child has the best chance to grow up healthy and happy. Being put in the hands of people that claim a belief that is hateful & discriminatory, does not accomplish this basic human necessity.

[PandaArmyXX]

@ReligiousJezta

You know shit about how kids are treated in orphanages. "Government care" my fucking ass.

[ReligiousJezta]

@alvein7 Here is a comment I left w/JezuzFREEK when he cried xtian persecution RE: Housing:

“Whine, whine whine, I cannot discriminate against people that are not christian. I am being persecuted. You know, these laws need to be changed and since 80% of this country is christian, thereby making it a christian country, we should change the law so I can deny you housing and so I won’t be persecuted.

OM FNG GOD that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.”

[FatherTime89]

@PandaArmyXX Oh please. We deny lots of people from being able to adopt kids or become foster parents and we don't sterilize them. People have a right to have kids of their own but they do not have a right to get kids from the state solely because they want some.

[PandaArmyXX]

@FatherTime89

This couple in question has successfully raised 15 other orphans.

This would have been their 16th child that they have taken from an orphanage and raise the child quality of life.

They have turned around 15 peoples lives (for the better) in the time they have spent on this earth. What have you done with your life?

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX I suggest you think through shit before you post comments, this is poorly thought through. How is it different than a racist family not being able to adopt. Are you against that?

Furthermore, NO ONE is saying that bigoted people cannot have children or their children should be taken away.

You say that people should be able to believe whatever they want...well what if it is something that harms an innocent child? With the same logic, its ok to allow terrorists to be foster parents.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

Their religious beliefs are in no way abusive to a child. If you believe that is the case (as the judge ruled) you have to not only support how it is abusive with proper evidence but you also have to take into consideration the implication of that claim. The implication being that raising a child in that environment is abusive whether the child be an orphan or not. Which leads one to ask, why do you not care about biological children being "abused" by these ideologies?

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX Is ok to teach a child that something is wrong with you if you are gay? Just answer that simple question. Yes or no.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

Cool avoid my question altogether, that works too.

I do not believe it is ok, so to simply answer you question with one word. No. But to explain, I will say just because I don't find it okay, that doesn't mean that it is abuse. Also, you are throwing around a possible yet theoretical situation of the child in fact being gay.

Now answer my question. If you feel that it is abuse, why do you not defend biological children from this abuse as well?

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX any reasonable person understands that teaching a child homophobia is child abuse. Yes, biological parents abuse their children as well. However, it is simply not plausible to protect the millions of children that are being exposed to this abuse. Obviously, it is much more plausible to not allow a foster parent who is a bigot to adopt a child.

Furthermore there is proper evidence, google "crisis book" Perhaps you would dismiss such evidence but it is quite clear.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

Thank you, I'll look into it.

It's not plausible, but do you feel that it is right? Don't you feel strongly about protecting all children from this abuse? I mean if we are going to persecute people for thought crimes might as well go all the way with it, right?

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX Yes all children should be protected from abuse, but that is simply not plausible with the world as it is now. It is not a "thought crime" issue because these people openly state that they believe homosexuality is wrong. Its the same if someone openly states that they think black people are inferior. Should we let them be foster parents? Pretty much everyone would say no, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Why is there a difference?

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

It isn't illegal for people to believe that. It makes ones ignorant, it makes them uneducated, but it doesn't make them abusive. In regards to homosexuality, to them it's a moral issue. If they think it's "wrong" that's fine. It's not as though they attack homosexuals. What's next screening potential parents morals to ensure they are aligned with whatever the status quo is? Also, you are still playing with the theoretical example of the child being homosexual.

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX Cool avoid my question altogether, that works too.

Teaching a child to be a bigot is an abuse of that child. Perhaps we disagree.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

Obviously we do. Not every child raised in that environment would end up either racist or homophobic. If they do that is not a concern of mine because people can choose to believe whatever they want. The way you stop this in the first place is through education, not taking away rights from people. All that taking away rights from people does is open that door to be used against your own rights, along with create malice in the minds of bigots furthering, them from accepting others.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

So to answer your question, yes I say we should let them or rather not restrict anyone from adopting a child based solely off of their beliefs unless those beliefs cause threats of physical harm or "emotional abuse" as described by its definition "acts or omissions that cause or could cause serious conduct, cognitive, affective, or other mental disorders." Examples: torture, close confinement or the constant use of verbally abusive language to harshly criticize and denigrate kids

[WhyNotTruth]

@PandaArmyXX Ok so it's ok for a KKK member to adopt kids. That's all I needed to know. You are a moron and this conversation is over. Have fun talking to yourself if you feel the need to respond.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

Ok so it's ok for the rights of people to be taken away based off of their beliefs, whether they political, social, moral or theological, unless a person adheres to what is considered the dominate view at the time their rights should be squashed until they are all forced to think like everyone else. That's all I needed to know. You are a moron and this conversation is over. Have fun talking to yourself if you feel the need to respond.

[PandaArmyXX]

@WhyNotTruth

Ok so it's ok for the rights of people to be taken away based off of their beliefs, whether they political, social, moral or theological, unless a person adheres to what is considered the dominate view at the time their rights should be squashed until they are all forced to think like everyone else. That's all I needed to know. You are a moron and this conversation is over. Have fun talking to yourself if you feel the need to respond.

[PandaArmyXX]

Also, I would like to add a person who "thinks black people are inferior" is not the same as a KKK member. If you had any amount of education you would understand that members of the KKK are gang members which links them to crime and violence, which would negate them from the adoption process in the first place. Perhaps this will shed some light on why my previous comment was overly absurd (i.e. to match your own bullshit) or perhaps not, you seem to not be able to think for yourself.

[givingmantoo]

agree ... the problem is the bigotry, even though the bigotry is the result of their religion.

[lehman]

Cenk is pronounced Jenk btw.

[TheJamesPope]

@lehman

I don't doubt that you are correct, but just seeing as how I might have some one who can clear this up:

is it J-enk or like with a little bit of an "s" like S-J-enk or S-ch-enk?

thank you for the correction as well

[lehman]

@TheJamesPope They say his name often on the TYT shows. Especially when he is introduced on various MSNBC shows.

[WhyNotTruth]

@TheJamesPope it's Jenk and he really lost a lot of my respect with his views on this case. Bigotry cannot be sheltered under the rouse of "Religious Beliefs". Talk about a slippery slope. Why is this bigotry accepted? Because it is a mainstream view? So was slavery when it was abolished.

[USAFlife]

Exactly. Well said.

[Texanguy47]

You said it and i agree 101%!

[nicksum29]

I agree. Why are people getting all worked up about it? It was a secular decision. In Europe, religious reasons for exclusionism are not permitted - especially when it comes to children. I cannot understand how people could be opposed to the harming of a child who might be gay, bisexual, transgender, or lesbian, which is almost 15 percent of the population.

[YoungMommy14]

I agree... Biggots shouldn't be foster parents... bottom line... They actually shouldn't be parents in general, but we can't really control that, can we?

[Silkspine]

Yes I think this was awesome news as well! Finally society is starting to realize that freedom of expression ends where it infringes upon human rights of others.

[ldsjohn]

if it is correct to not allow them to raise a foster child, then it should be correct to ban them from having their own children.. is that really the society we want?

[MrBorisbadanoff]

@ldsjohn YES!

[RomeoCo]

While I recognize the potential problem with allowing these people to adopt. (They're Jamaican witch is a country that has an entire sub genre of music dedicated to talking about killing gay people) I still support there right to adopt. Mostly because I still think a child is still better off in a loving but homophobic home then in an orphanage. Its the same logic I use against people who want gays to adopt.

I how ever, want to see where this couple stands on gay adoption.

[oelergodt]

yea..I don't agree at all...

Anti-gay people are douche bags, but you can't demand of people to have all the widely accepted political correct opinions just to adopt a child. That way you'll have too few adopters. They can probably provide a good life for the child although it might have some rough late teen years if the child turns out to be gay.

I don't know much about the case but unless they've said anything about being violet against the child if it's gay, I do not agree with the decision

[ReligiousJezta]

Right on James. I read a little about this case. It isn't about their religion, like you said, it is about their vitriol discrimination.

[flyingshitter]

Definitely agree. Giving a child to those people WOULD MEAN PSYCHOLOGICAL CHILD ABUSE, if the child was gay. The responsibility of surrendering a very young human being to foster care is a great one, and the court made a very mature and admirable decision, in this case.

[MajinMustang]

I can see how Cenk and Ana didn't agree with the court ruling. Here in the states, you have the right to be as much of a bigoted asshole because of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. Look at the recent WBC court appeal, which the WBC won, for example.

Is it right that people can abuse their rights? No.

But also, I don't know if the law in England are similar to ours or not. I imagine not, but that's my own guilty ignorance.

[hermanessences]

I agree with wholeheartedly. ^^ Very glad the English court or whatever landed on this decision.

[GlasgowPhilosipher]

THANK YOU! I'm sick of hearing this, it's not about their religious belief, it's about protecting the rights of the child!

I saw them interviewed on telly and like any other prejudiced person they couldn't rationalise their position or even put it across coherently.

On the one hand they openly say they are not okay with gays and would not raise the child to think otherwise, but when asked what if the child turned out to be gay they said they'd have to love them anyway.

[GlasgowPhilosipher]

... Quite aside from the obvious hypocrisy I resent the false pretence they had about 'loving' this child apparently whether they liked it or not :/

Also, the dude interviewing them was trying to be polite, but I could tell he was getting increasingly pissed off WIN XD

[mrx0066600]

good point.

[ReignbowSmite]

Also, I think the child's right to unconditional love trump the rights of the prospective parents harmful ideology.

[ReignbowSmite]

beggers can"t be choosers. Imagine as a child growing up being told that you were specially chosen, only to become specially disowned, I dont think biggots should be allowed to adopt. I am not against any religious people adopting, but parents need to realize that having children is like rolling dice. Children deserve unconditional love, and that's the promise that adoption agencies make to the biological parent.

[LegendaryAsshole]

Very much agreed, Religion is no excuse for discrimination, it doesn't suddenly make it alright.

Some religions want to toss virgins into volcanoes, are we going to let them do that? fuck no.