Christian couple lose battle to be foster carers over homosexuality views

According to last weeks BBC news , Eunice and Owen Johns, a Christian couple from Derby lost the battle to be foster carers.
Because they were unable to “tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing”. The thing which shocked me about this case is the realization I got of how complex this issue really is.

I mean, I’ve always believed that everyone should be free to follow any lifestyle they wish. This of course in terms of religion, sexuality, anything really. Till this point, backing this corner fighting for this freedom has been mostly applicable to homosexuality due to the hostility facing them in society. But here we see the freedom of religious practice under fire. It is still difficult for homosexuals to live their lives freely but what about this couple’s freedom to practice their religion?

A line needs to be drawn. A line which allows us all to live our lives freely, even if our choices are the opposite of what the person next door to us chooses. Right now, we run the risk of role reversal: the transition of homosexuality being forbidden to religious practice being forbidden.

We are taking one extreme to the other. The message I tried to prevail in my last blog is that the solution is to live our lives, do our own thing (whether it’s our sexual orientation or our religious beliefs) without intruding it or imposing it on other people. That way we can all live peacefully. Why is it such a difficult concept to put into practice? I standby what I said, I guess this case proves it’s not always that simple. My concept in some regards encourages segregation, but does it really?

Whilst thinking about this complexity in my mind, the saddest part hit me. Whilst we all struggle in trying to understand what the law states, our freedoms, our rights, there are children out there who need homes. First there’s no place for homosexuals within society, now we run the risk of their being no place for religion, but all this time there’s been no home for the children who need it. Where is the resolution for them? Who was this case fighting for? Was it even beneficial to anyone? There should be a place for everyone in society. There should be no competition, no conflict. I think we’ve lost sight of what’s important.

Another thing, the couple were told by the Equality and Human Rights commission that their “moral views may infect a child”. Does this apply to every aspect of religion? I mean religion has morals to guide us individually. We chose what to do and what no to do because of them. Is the Equality and Human Rights commission suggesting that religion can “infect a child”. Surely there’s something wrong here. What is becoming of religion in society?

I do not believe this particular couple are homophobic but have personal religious beliefs on the issue. It is not wrong of them to have these beliefs irrespective of whether or not we personally agree with them. However if this couple were to act upon their beliefs in a way which discriminates e.g. attempt to enforce their views on others, attack homosexuality, or deny certain children into their home because of it, then it would be a different matter entirely. But, they didn’t. According to the BBC, the couple said “We are prepared to love and accept any child”.

Let me put it in another perspective. In Hinduism, it is strictly forbidden to eat beef. For this reason a Hindu will not say that eating beef is moral as their religious beliefs do not in any way condone it. This does not mean that they are stopping other people from eating beef, nor does it mean that those people who do eat beef are prejudice against the religion. If someone likes/dislikes beef it does not make them prejudice. It is also for this reason that I do not believe this case proves beneficial to anyone. There is a difference between homophobia and having different personal views on a matter. We cannot say that anyone who cannot say that homosexuality is a good thing is homophobic, it just doesn’t work like that. If we do, then surely we’re automatically ruling out all Muslims, Christian and Jews from fostering children. Is that right?

This case by default holds massive precedent. It seems as though religion has taken a knock down but I don’t think sexual liberation has won. Turning homosexuality into a sensitive issue is not the solution.

It’s dangerous to push one group out of society whilst attempting to let another in. They’ll come a time where we all feel rejected, and we all feel hostile. That will not be a place I’d like to be in. I guess the world likes to run in circles.

Even I am lost on where I stand with this right now, but I know one thing for sure, and that is that no child should be without a loving home.


3 thoughts on “Christian couple lose battle to be foster carers over homosexuality views

  1. I think that although the couple were not inherently homophobic it ran the risk of them potentially fostering a child who may or may not turn out to be homosexual while also admitting homosexuality was “unacceptable”. This instantly brought them into disrepute because they did not, and could not ever choose to foster a child that was not gay or lesbian, therefore it put their capacity as foster carers at risk. There has been a recent spate of gay teen suicides in the US which link to homophobic bullying and unacceptance in society. Although they said they “We are prepared to love and accept any child”, imagine if they told a potentially suicidal foster child of teenage age that they did not believe homosexuality was unacceptable?. Your article was indeed neutral but I just wanted to make this point.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s