Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Foster Parents in Britain Disqualified
For Not Promoting Homosexual Lifestyles

When you live in a nanny state, you better mind your nanny!

From the Daily Mail.

They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.

But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.

To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.
Those darn Christians, always pushing their own agenda even when it hurts needy youths by depriving them from the ever important gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gendered lifestyle education. Sure, food and clothing are nice to have and so are clean sheets and a protected place to lay one's head at night, but, when an 11 year old gets horny, what good is a ham sandwich?
The 11-year-old boy, who has been in their care for two years, will be placed in a council hostel this week and the Mathericks will no longer be given children to look after.
One can only hope that the state can get a proper education started quickly for the boy so that his 11 year old sexual identity can begin to blossom. Oh, and he shouldn't hate either--like those loathsome Mathericks.
The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations 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.
And, as we all know, not counseling an 11 year old on the wonders of gay relationships is nearly the same thing as screaming "stone the faggot," like they do in Iran. (Stoning that is, I'm not sure what the appropriate slur is for homosexual in Farsi.)
They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

When the Mathericks objected, they were told they would be taken off the register of foster parents.

The Mathericks have decided to resign rather than face the humiliation of being expelled.

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: "I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

"We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God."
Hah! Got you, hater! Not promoting is the same thing as discriminating.
Mrs Matherick, 61, said they had asked if they could continue looking after their foster son until he is found a permanent home, but officials refused and he will be placed in a council hostel on Friday.

She said: "He was very upset to begin with. We are all very close, but he's a mature young man and he's dealing with it."
How does this help a child in need of a home? It seems to me that the people in charge have decided that this child's need to either explore his potential homosexuality or society's need for him not to hate homosexuals (though there is no evidence to support he was being taught to think of homsexuals one way or the other) transcends his need for a stable home at the age of 11.

Who benefits from this decision? It sure ain't the child.

h/t Brussels Journal

No comments: