Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says
Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over LGBTQ views, complaint says
Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.
Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is why LGBTQ rights is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a religious bigoted house?! That's what the GOP wants for kids.
That’s exactly what happened to me as a kid. As a bonus, these religious nutjobs sexually abused their actual kid, and because I was just a foster kid, I wasn’t believed. Thank god my mom was able to get me out of that hell hole, but the trauma it caused me was so deep I didn’t even recognize how deep it was for almost 20 years.
And now red states made it legal to kidnapping LGBTQ children from loving homes to traditional homes
Wait, they're allowing kids to be removed from foster/adoptive homes and transferred to a religious home? On what grounds and who's authority?
They are talking LGBTQ kids from their families because gender affirming care is illegal.
I don't know what to say. I'm so sorry you went through that.
Nah don’t be sorry, just be angry at a system that allows such things, and at a religion that shields such people. I came out okay in the end, because I have a family that loves me and helps support me through my traumas, but I don’t know what happened to their kid, or if they were ever stopped. That’s the part that bothers me. Knowing that those sickos could still be out there presenting themselves as righteous Christians while doing such things.
"This is why protecting traditional families is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a LGBT groomer house?! That's what the GOP wants for kids."
I literally just changed two things and it went 180 degrees on the other extremist side of the spectrum. Do with that info as you wish
And with such a simple change, you turned it into a disgusting and bigoted lie, when the person you responded to was completely accurate.
Someone who'd unironically say what I did would think the same
And they'd be wrong.
There's a common misconception that there are two sides to any issue. Sounds reasonable, right? Everyone loves compromise and meeting in the middle.
But homophobic and transphobic bigots are just wrong. They're provably, factually incorrect, and have an argument with reality itself. They're on the same level as Flat-Earthers or people who think 1 + 1 = 3. And yes, they'll say the same thing about me, and they'll be wrong and stupid when they do that. Why worry that the wrong, stupid, and hateful people think they're right? Why lend their hate even the veneer of credibility?
You can't "meet in the middle" with people who reject reality. 1 + 1 = 2.5 is just as incorrect as 1 + 1 = 3.
I can prove 1+1=2 by axioms, you can't prove the Earth is flat. Simple as
Someone crazy can tell you your actions are wrong. Someone crazy can insist on all kinds of things that are crazy, and insist that you are the crazy person. And by their standards, you can't disprove it.
So is there any point in arguing with such a person? Or lending any credence to their perspectives?
People who believe LGBTQ+ people are "groomers" or doing something unnatural are objectively wrong, and the fact that they believe they're right doesn't change that, nor does it obligate me to treat their mistaken beliefs as anything but the mistakes they are, and I won't pretend otherwise or grant their hate and bigotry any respect.
Why are they objectively wrong? I can't prove they are objectively right either but you seem confident that they are. So please, give me the info to shut their mouths off
Which angle would you like to look at it from?
Religious? Religions don't universally condemn homosexuality, and even if they did, there is no reason to believe any one religion is actually right about it (or anything else).
Nature? The existence of animals that engage in homosexual relationships is well known, and there are even animals that display the behaviors of the opposite sex, so it's not like there's a single leg for bigots to stand on scientifically.
"Grooming" children? That's not a thing with LGBTQ+ people. Sure you can find one or two examples here and there, but there's no evidence that a statistically significant portion of LGBTQ+ people abuse children. In fact, the opposite is true. There is zero evidence at all that a statistically large proportion of abusers are LGBTQ+. So the revolting "groomer" accusations are literally just made-up, disgusting garbage, and the people making that up are doing so strictly to hurt people who haven't hurt anyone else.
So yes, they are objectively wrong, by every conceivable measure.
But good luck convincing one. These are reality-challenged people, confidently asserting shit they know nothing about, and utterly impervious to learning that they are wrong.
Sometimes the only thing that actually can get through to someone like that is finding out their own beloved family members are gay. That sometimes works. But it's like they can't even conceptualize the idea that they're wrong until it happens to them.
I mean yeah, religions criticise lust and "casual sex" more than the gender of those involved
Oh the difference is that religious bigots exist. And in huge, huge numbers.
"LGBT groomers" are not a thing. It's a figurative Boogeyman you invented or someone convinced you exists in an attempt to create a dichotomy where one does not exist.
Or, to be more accurate, the Religious Right considers any talk of alternative lifestyles as "grooming" now, because they find the notion that kids might be born gay invalid, and every single kid that identifies differently was "made" that way because they talked with a "deviant".
Meanwhile, Catholic dioceses all over the country are declaring bankruptcy, in spite of their tax exempt status, just to gain an advantage in the lawsuits over the priests who were, quite literally, grooming kids (no scare quotes required).
Not that I'm trying to support Catholicism, but the Pope is out here saying "God loves all, yes even LGBT"
This Pope is a Jesuit from South America, though, and Jesuits tend to be a bit more liberal than other orders, if for no other reason that they are involved in education in a lot of poor countries. A fair amount of the most liberal Liberation Theology in South America and Latin America came from Jesuits.
But there are limits, even to what a Pope can do, to steer a 2000 year old institution. He may be saying that God loves everyone, but as long as the Church says that homosexuality is disordered, those people won't feel welcome, even if the Pope wants to hug them.
Oh I think we agree. I think our conversation speaks to just how broken the institution of religion is, as applied to a group of size 8,000,000,000+.
Still, it's better than having a USA-like pope rambling about how "sodomites" must be sent to conversion therapy
Yes, God loves everyone
Your Bible says otherwise.
"your"? Dude the Bible is for all humanity to read
Yes. Your. Most of humanity doesn't accept it as a work of any godly people or gods themselves. How insulting to say to a Hindu or atheist that the Bible is for them. The same Bible that says they're going to Hell for not believing in the characters therein.
It being accepted by them or not won't make the Bible any less readable by them
Your just intentionally misinterpreting what the person said to you in your response
Do with that info as you wish
You mean put it into proper context, look at the stats, and acknowledge you're full of shit? Sure thing! But you won't let facts get in the way of your feelings amirite?
Yeah, you can make anything sound bad when you just lie and make shit up.
Could say the same of you calling everyone that points out the dangers of dehumanising "bigots"
You can say anything, that doesn't make it correct. And it's funny how people call themselves out, because I only call people exhibiting bigotry bigots.
If you're being called a bigot, maybe examine your beliefs and actions. After all, if it smells like shit everywhere you go, it's probably you.
@Unaware7013 @MicroWave @NatakuNox @[email protected]
My block button is getting quite the workout these last 10 days or so.
Was there a mass migration I didn't hear about?
Good luck thinking looking the other way will make people who you disagree with disappear
If thinking having two halves of a country willing to kill each other to be insane makes people call you a bigot, maybe I'm not the one that stinks after all
No one thinks you're a bigot for that belief, climb down off your cross or just be honest about your actions.
Yet I'm being called one for it
“I think murderers are bad people.” “I think Asians are bad people.”
Hey guys, you won’t believe this, but did you know that when you use different words that meanings change? I know, right?
Oh sure, they're totally as comparable as the one I made (everyone knows how related murderers and Asians are) and it's totally not fallacy you made up to make my point sound more ridiculous
Exactly! Comparing two populations wherein one is defined by intrinsic, inborn characteristics whose expression has no bearing upon their moral bent versus a group whose willful admittance to and participation in said group is dependent upon making moral choices and deeming them the same is, in fact, completely ridiculous. I’m glad you agree with me.
Has anyone told you you're stubborn as hell?
I have siblings, yes.
You changed two things and into something imaginary. There is no such thing as an "LGBT groomer house." You can't force a child to be gay or trans no matter how much you want to.
You might as well say "only to be rehomed in a dragon's den." It would make about the same amount of sense.
Uhhhh what? One, "traditional families" aren't anti LGBTQ by default. Second, LGBTQ parents aren't groomers. (can LGBTQ individuals be terrible humans just like everyone else? Yes!) Third, asking a foster family if they hate LGBTQ people is critical for the safety of foster children because mathematically 10% will be LGBTQ. And since there's no "Gaydar" to tell you can't risk putting any child with them!
You didn't prove anything except how ignorant you are. Do with that info as you wish
Pendantic though it may be... 30 percent is more accurate for children in foster care to be LGBTQIA+. Many lose their homes of origin and support BECAUSE they are LGBTQIA+ so the instance is way higher.
Kind of a no brainer to have homo/transphobic foster parents struck from the rolls. It's enough to be traumatized once by having your authentic self rejected by a supposed safe haven. Twice is unconscionable.
These boneheads seem to mix up up supportive with grooming. I had a conversation at a bar the other day with some dipshit that said if you support your child coming out as gay or trans, you're effectively grooming them to be a sexual deviant. They fail to realize that grooming is an active nudge or conditioning in the direction of a desired behavior, whereas being supportive is unconditional love regardless of identity. My buddy's kid is identifying as a girl atm, and while he and I both think it's a phase (he's 15 and just an awkward kid in general), we are supportive of his/her choice.
On the other hand, there are parents out there that actively nudge their kids into being some brand of queer from a young age (not just in providing an open minded atmosphere, but almost to discerning them gay from a stupid young age) that, to me, begins to cross a line. In my mind, let be kids be kids that become teenagers and then adults, and just support them in their choices while guiding them to be the best person they can be.
Bro those aren't my actual opinions
Bro don't make ambiguous statements. Use your words more wisely so everyone knows exactly what you are saying
Ok, maybe I needed to say that dehumanising and treating other human beings as demonic monsters is tearing countries apart
Don’t be a demonic monster you won’t be treated like one.
To the others you're a demonic monster too, and until you realise that your country will sink down the drain
See the difference is that being tolerant and accepting of other people’s life choices that don’t impact my life is objectively not monster-esque, whereas imposing your beliefs and codifying hate and fear into laws that control what others can do with their lives is actually behaving like a monster.
Any examples of "imposing beliefs and codifying hate"?
I could definitely say that the constitution is nothing but a bunch of former British upper-class men who owned slaves and just wanted to evade taxes imposing their beliefs upon America and codifying it in a document