Thursday, March 3, 2011

It's For The Children

I saw this at Fark... (Mind you, the story is from England. But you'd better believe it'll come up here eventually.)

A Pentecostal Christian couple will not be allowed to take in foster children -- despite the fact that they have opened their home to foster kids in the past. The reason?

Because of their faith, they are not willing to tell little kids that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.

Owen Johns, the would-be foster father, said:

"All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents...

We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

Where's the problem?

This probably seems a little odd, coming from me. I make no bones about the fact that I support equal treatment for homosexuals. I'm glad DADT has been repealed. I'd like to see DOMA die as well. I couldn't care less if gays get married (although I'm staunchly opposed to same-sex benefits without marriage - how is that equal?).

I also tend to heartily reject the idea of religious rule. (I'd fight to defend your faith, and in return I'd like you to keep your beliefs away from my Constitution thanks very much.) In the past, I've irritated some of my socially-conservative friends with my apa-theist ramblings.

But this story... This is nonsense. And blatant discrimination.

Mr. and Mrs. Johns are not willing to tell a small child that homosexuality is OK. I'm fine with that. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no need for Mr. and Mrs. Johns to have a discussion about any kind of sexuality with small children.

I have a five-year-old and a six-year-old. I can promise you that -- despite my personal feelings on the matter -- we've never discussed homosexuality and whether it's culturally acceptable or not. Why? Because I don't freaking discuss sex with children who are barely tall enough to reach a light switch!

And why should I? They're at an age where we focus on basic educational and life skills, not sex ed. Let us master shoe tying before we move on to lipstick lesbians and Billy's two dads.

I go out of my way to monitor what goes into their developing minds. I am the Master of the Remote Control. Television is limited to educational programming (of my choice), and harmless -- if mindless -- kids' shows for fun. There is no internet access without immediate, direct adult supervision, and it is only accessible (to children) from the main area of the house. MTV is strictly prohibited, as is 99% of prime time. We've even come to a point where sports are watched without children present, because of the erectile dysfunction commercials.

My kids are never exposed to explicit heterosexual activity. Why would I make an exception for homosexual activity? So, would the PC Police find me guilty as well? You betcha!

I'm just happy to know that the foster system in the UK isn't as overwhelmed as the one here in the states. Clearly, they have more than enough good, stable homes for these kids, right? I mean, they're turning away a mature, married couple with a track record of helping unfortunate kids. Oh... wait. As of August 2010, the system was "close to collapse", with not enough foster parents to go around. Very nice.

My favorite part of the story (and the part I think will be a fight in America soon) is the idea espoused by the Justices involved. They've decided that -- in the UK, at least -- laws protecting people from discrimination based on sexuality "should take precedence" over laws protecting people from discrimination based on religious belief.

Ahhhh... Discriminating discrimination!

It's for the children.

No comments: