Nowhere does Christianity say that a Christian cannot discuss homosexuality with their child. The Bible does not say that a true believer has to to tell other people that homosexuality is wrong. All it states is that a Christian must believe themselves that it is wrong (which itself I take issue with but people are entitled to their beliefs). Furthermore Christianity does not state that a true Christian never sins. In fact, is not the very foundation of the faith that Christ died for human sins? As far as I was always taught the faith simply demands that when Christians sin they repent and seek forgiveness from God. It also says that God will forgive any mortal sin because we are his most beloved creation. Thus Christianity does not even require Christians to condemn homosexuality, contrary to what many claim. Christianity is actually about live and let live.
That is what is being missed here. Of course that’s an article from the Daily Mail, a newspaper so insanely extremist that even the KKK would blush at the rubbish they come out with. This couple are homophobic, contrary to what many of the comments there say, and to call this PC gone crazy or “insanity” is the sort of thing only a complete bigot would say. In response to their editorialised version (yes, shockingly that was their “unbiased” version) which you can find here (second story down), no, in a sane country anyone who holds extremist views would not be allowed to foster children. If this couple’s religious beliefs were that murder was morally acceptable they wouldn’t be allowed to foster children, would they? Anyone who cannot condone (not promote) homosexuality is extremist by today’s standards. If you don’t like that, tough.
Once you read a (only slightly) less biased take on it you realise that all the new law requires is that foster parents not foist their own homophobia onto their children. One of the biggest criticisms of this has been that birth parents are not required to follow the law, but if I had my way they would too. People should need to be licensed to have children because far too many parents out there are unfit and raise their children to be stupid bigots like their parents. The worry is that the Telegraph’s misunderstanding is causing the story to be mis-reported internationally. The law says nothing about “supporting” homosexuality, it’s more about acceptance of it.
The word “promote” seems to have caused a great deal of confusion. Nothing in the new law states that foster parents have to say homosexuality is fantastic or great, that it is somehow “better” than heterosexuality. Read this for a better understanding of what it actually requires. In particular note the way “promote” is actually used in the following sentence (and read the rest of the article to note their bias against the law):
Somerset Council officials cited the recently passed Sexual Orientation Regulations when they decided that people who open their homes to children in need, must also discuss same-sex relationships and promote homosexuality as normal and “equal”
If he claims he was told by social workers that he needs to promote it as “good” then either he’s lying or the social workers were misinformed. Having read a few different articles with many quotes from him, and even heard him speak on a talk show this morning my suspicion is Mr Mathers is lying to hide the fact that what is really at stake here is not his inability to promote homosexuality (which I would understand, under his religion) but his inability to condone it. He has much admits it when he says:
“I can’t condone homosexuality but we don’t confront people about it.”
All that is required is that they promote equality, that homosexuals are no less “worthy” as human beings than heterosexuals. People will say “But Christianity says they aren’t” which is true, but it also says that it is not for humans to judge, but for God to do so. A true Christian does not believe homosexuals to be less than heterosexuals, they believe that God considers them to be. That is a crucial difference.All these parents had to do was say that in society homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal. The key words in this article from the couple’s own local newspaper are:
they had been told by officials that they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.
Discuss, not promote, and obviously if a child enters puberty at 11 that would be the prime time to discuss sexuality with them. It’s when we begin sexual education in schools after all. Nobody said they had to say that either was “right” or “wrong”, and if their own religious beliefs came into it nothing in the law prevents a foster parent saying “My own beliefs are this…but those are just my beliefs, different people have their own beliefs and you have to find your own”. All parents should be encouraged to approach religion in this way with their children. It’s quite frankly disgraceful that parents force their own faith onto their children. All this law asked was to teach kids about homosexuality.
Ultimately I put it to you would we have been so outraged if foster children were taken away from otherwise fantastic foster parents simply because those foster parents were racist? Or even closer to home, what if the foster parents were fundamentalist Muslims who supported the actions of terrorists? I can guarantee you the Daily Mail would be outraged at fundamentalist Muslims being foster parents but these two are fundamentalist Christians. Too many people are quick to notice fundamentalism in Islam and very slow to realise the same fundamentalism growing in Christianity.
After that massive wave of text I’ll leave you with a YouTube video on religion. I don’t agree with everything it says, because I’m not actually a fundamental atheist, as the author of the video clearly is, but I still think it’s well worth watching:
Edit: One of my readers sent me a picture that fits with this post wonderfully well. Not sure if they wish to be named so I’ll leave it anonymous until they tell me otherwise: