Thread: Historian David Starkey defends anti-gay foster couple

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1 Historian David Starkey defends anti-gay foster couple 
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    4 March 2011


    Starkey 5mins Gay historian David Starkey has leapt to the defence of the Christian couple whose application to become foster parents was refused because of their anti-gay beliefs.

    Speaking on BBC’s Question Time, Starkey said: “I am gay, and I am an Atheist, but I have profound doubts about this case.”

    He said that his mother was a Christian, who had opposed his homosexuality, but that her “hatred and opposition made me what I am. Being nice and sweet about gays isn’t wholly a good thing.”

    Starkey also said that he thought Christian hoteliers should have the right to turn away gay couples, and that he was concerned that these recent cases suggested an intolerant and oppressive “new tyranny.”

    A High Court ruling last week prevented Derbyshire foster carers Eunice and Owen Johns from continuing to foster, on the grounds that their faith prevented them from condoning homosexuality.

    http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory/...er-couple.aspx
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    The Pink Paper did a poor job of summarizing the issue.

    These people were not denied simply because they hold a negative or bigoted view of homosexuality.

    Owen and Eunice Johns, who are Pentecostal Christians, fostered children in the 1990s without trouble. But things changed after the passage of a sexual orientation non-discrimination provision in Great Britian's Equality Act 2006: When the Johns applied in 2007, a social worker barred them because they wanted the right to teach kids that a gay lifestyle is immoral. So, they filed a legal challenge based on religious discrimination.

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/...oster-marriage

    The case was the latest to be brought by conservative evangelicals, led by the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters' right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations. All the cases have so far been lost.

    In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple's lawyer's claims as "a travesty of reality".

    "No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, ... the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...lose-care-case

    Huge difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    I love how you ignore the point of the article and instead fasten onto something other than the point the article was making. Spin much?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    I love how you ignore the point of the article and instead fasten onto something other than the point the article was making. Spin much?
    I think the DCF action and the ruling are the most important parts of the issue. Why should I care what some libertarian (whom I have never heard of) thinks jibes with his disjoint political philosophy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I think the DCF action and the ruling are the most important parts of the issue. Why should I care what some libertarian (whom I have never heard of) thinks jibes with his disjoint political philosophy?
    spin spin spin spin spin. . . . .
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    spin spin spin spin spin. . . . .
    It was a question. What part of this do you think I ignored?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Destroyer of Worlds Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Locked in a Dungeon, being tortured and LOVING IT!
    Posts
    4,830
    Most major religions view it as a sin.

    Maybe they should have been teaching the kids Islam, then they could have told the kids that gays need to be beheaded instead. The liberal courts of Europe would have been pleased hearing that and patted them selves on their back for being tolerant toward those of a different faith.
    Rest In Peace America
    July 4, 1776 - January 20, 2009
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    It was a question. What part of this do you think I ignored?
    that a gay athetist supports their choice
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    that a gay athetist supports their choice
    I thought I had covered that. He's obviously jumping through hoops to square his opinion with his philosophy.

    I don't honestly think that most gay people actually have a problem with a bed and breakfast being able to discriminate. I think they can imagine themselves in the position of wishing certain people wouldn't stay at their own bed and breakfast (if they had one) or even sharing a bed and breakfast that they believed to be somewhat exclusive in some respect. For example, I doubt too many gay people want to share a clothing optional pool in Key West with uptight people.

    And in the US, most small owner occupied residences are indeed exempt from anti-discrimination laws the last time I checked. Obviously, one cannot enjoy this exemption across the board. There is no reason for Marriott to be able to exclude gays, blacks, or mixed couples and at one time they probably would have, in addition perhaps to Jews.

    All of which is quite different from putting children who might well already be abused into a household where the parents are so intent on "teaching" their prejudices that they would express a need to do so to a social worker and a court.

    I would add that if these are Jamaican people, we might well be talking about considerably more than an opinion. I have read some incredible stuff from Jamaicans on the subject of homosexuality. They make Jerry Falwell seem almost intelligent and rational on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    spin spin spin spin spin spin spin
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •