Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case

but! they were gona foster lil kids that's got nowt to do with sexuality!

and they just didnt need to foster any teenager homosexual.

and the state then complain of lack of foster carers...

well if you gona be picky...

put them all in buckingham palace then! next door to Mr and MRs. USA when they come over.

The decision also suggests that the only people suitable for be foster parents will be those who are ok with homosexuality.

Now if that doesn't have consequences, what will?

isnt this like..hmm...bullying ( i meant discriminating) people for their beliefs? however you say it, there's being judged on their beliefs. beliefs go both way. there shouldnt be best or worst in a FREE, EQUAL society. its just a BELIEF

eg: belief in God, belief in no God.

State-approved adoption poses loads of interesting moral and philosophical questions. State-controlled anything, mind you.

[quote=Lilly]but! they were gona foster lil kids that's got nowt to do with sexuality!

and they just didnt need to foster any teenager homosexual.

[/quote]

If you travel you can see very positive things about British political correctness, you see casual injustice that you are not accustomed to, and objecting you might feel on your own. Sacrosanct codes of conduct, say towards women, are still mocked. Gays are feared and hated.

The prevailing view here holds that gays are born gay. Hence a parent shouldn't harbour a prejudice. (Even if people are not born gay parents should be sensitive.)

It is not wrong for the judges to uphold these guidelines, because the UK adoption system does not want to be responsible for future bullying. It does again raise the issue of how much an adopted family can plainly not resemble an average or successful traditional family, such as the one that in this case was excluded from the process. In other cases gay couples are specifically included. Sooner or later politicians will have to wade into that political minefield and discuss it as calmly and respectfully as they can.

Heh. More equality.

Nick and Emma are twins. They are 18 years old, so they suffer from the highest insurance rates.

More than that, they each had three attempts at the driving test before passing. And they succeeded within weeks of each other.

They are as similar as drivers can be, apart from the difference in sex.

Yet when they fed their details into an online price comparison site, Nick's motor insurance quote was twice as high.

Heard on the radio today that insurers now have to (or may have to - can't remember which one) stop giving women cheaper insurance as its been called sexist.

Why do they have cheaper insurance? I mean I'm happy but it does seem very sexist and unfair. And if the women can get cheaper insurance then surely the same price can be given to guys.

Is it to do with guys potentially having more accidents due to their habits of driving?

Apparently women have less accidents.

I would think its equalled out - men can be crazy drivers and women can be worse drivers than men.

in UK Homosexuality is considered nature?! like, "the gay gene" thing?! i thought...euh..what did i think again?...i thought the gay gene theory had been disproved?!

[quote=Lilly]in UK Homosexuality is considered nature?! ...i thought the gay gene theory had been disproved?![/quote]

I don't think there is a majority view for one or other...?

[quote=ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE][quote=Lilly]in UK Homosexuality is considered nature?! ...i thought the gay gene theory had been disproved?![/quote]

I don't think there is a majority view for one or other...?[/quote]

its not a "view" it's scientific evidence.

Based on what? Researched by who?

thank you Ocean!

yep, the stuff about belief, i meant (should have made it clearer) the belief that homosexuality is/isnt wrong.

im too tired to understand the nature part..need to re-read this...sometimes soon..when i have all my mind *Checks for typos*