Christians Can't Adopt, but Gays Can
#1
Everything is inverted. Homosexuality used to be seen for what it is, a mental disorder, and acting on it a sin. Now, they're great, fine, wonderful -- and can "marry" and adopt kids. Christians -- well, they're now the sick ones who can't adopt. From ctvnews.ca:


Evangelical couple says adoption application was scrapped over their views on LGBT

John Cotter, The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, November 7, 2017 2:57PM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, November 7, 2017 6:28PM EST

EDMONTON -- An evangelical Christian couple is accusing Alberta of discrimination, claiming their application to adopt a child was rejected over their religious views on gay marriage and homosexuality.

The Edmonton married couple say they submitted their application last year and passed a required course for potential adoptive parents.

But during a followup by officials this year, the couple say they ran into trouble when they answered questions about sexuality.

The couple say they accept that same-sex marriage is a legal reality, but they don't support it and believe that homosexuality is wrong.

"The casework supervisor explained that our religious beliefs regarding sexuality were incompatible with the adoption process," says an affidavit filed in support of an application for a judicial review of the government's decision.

"The casework supervisor said this stance was the 'official position of the Alberta government."'

Quote:I wonder what else a person can't think up there in Canada.
 
The couple said they were also asked how they would deal with a child who was questioning his or her sexuality. They told officials that children should be taught that sexuality should not be experienced or explored until a person is an adult and is married.
 
The couple, who aren't named in the legal documents, said they treat all people with respect and their views on sexuality would have no bearing on their ability to provide a loving, secure and happy home to a child.

They said they never dreamed they would be disqualified from helping children in need because of their religious beliefs.

Quote:Where have they been living, for crying out loud?
  
Aaron Manton, press secretary for Children's Services Minister Danielle Larivee, defended the government's adoption process protocols.

"Our government believes that every adoptive child deserves a safe, healthy, loving and inclusive home," Manton said in an emailed statement.

Quote:"Safe, healthy, loving, and inclusive homes" -- like the homes of Satanists and atheists and AIDS patients. (and yes, obviously, I know that not all AIDS patients got the disease from homosexual sex. Or needles. Just making a point here.)
 
"We want to ensure that, in all cases, the adoption process gives both children and parents the best possible outcomes, which is why the application process is thorough and rigorous."

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has filed a court application for a judicial review of the decision on behalf of the couple.

In the application, the centre says the government is requiring prospective adoptive parents to discard their sincerely held religious beliefs without providing any evidence that their beliefs would negatively affect adopted children.

"The respondent (Alberta) requires citizens to profess agreement with and support for its state-sanctioned beliefs in sexuality and gender."

It notes the couple's views are shared by Catholics, other Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

John Carpay, the organization's president, said it will argue that the decision violates the couple's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Making determinations about who is suitable to adopt on the basis of their sincere religious beliefs violates this couple's right to religious freedom and equality under the law," Carpay said from Calgary.

Carpay doesn't expect the case will be heard until next fall.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#2
[Image: DOWyxMcX0AIvlfJ.jpg:small]

and those sacrifices were for Homo adoptions apparently, as well......
"The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the Second Vatican Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to salvation, the Faith loses its foundation." -Benedict XVI, Avvenire interview, March 16th, 2016
Reply
#3
From LifeSite News on the same story. And check out the author's excellent website The Bridgehead.

Liberals now claim Christian parents are dangerous. This is an existential threat we can’t ignore.

November 10, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – Over the past two decades, it has slowly dawned on Christians that the implications of same-sex “marriage” are far greater for those who still believe in the traditional understanding of marriage than even the cynics first thought possible. The politicians, the academics, and the media have reached the collective conclusion that if gay “marriage” is a civil right, those who oppose it are not simply dissenters holding to a two-thousand-year-old tradition, but ugly bigots who deserve to be marginalized for their discriminatory views. Thus, “live and let live” turned into “you will be forced to participate and approve,” with bakers, florists, property owners, and adoption agencies finding themselves to be the targets of gay activists who show a shocking ruthlessness in their enthusiasm for prosecuting supposed thought crimes.

None of this will be news to most of you, but the impact of radical reinvention of our social structures is beginning to impact Christian communities in ways that are striking even closer to home. There is the fact that public schools across Canada (and many places in the United States) are beginning to implement sex education that runs directly contrary to the beliefs of many traditionalist communities—and governments are beginning to eye Christian and private schools as unwelcome havens of dissenting thought and education. And worse: Christian parents and foster parents are increasingly finding themselves “disqualified” from adopting children or taking children into their homes because of their views.

I’ve spoken to many prospective parents and foster parents over the last several years who were either overtly rejected as a result of their views on sexuality, or otherwise found that they were suddenly and abruptly rejected when their views were made known. Often, direct questions are put to Christian parents to find out if they still hold to Christian principles, with the obvious insinuation that answers not fitting with the current progressive ideology will render them unfit to care for children.

Considering the massive shortage of willing foster parents across Canada, this is a rather shocking and blunt move on the part of those in charge of the process: Essentially, Christian parents are being told that their views render them so dangerous that it is better that children desperate for a loving home are still shuffled from place to place rather than come into contact with views that were nearly universal only short decades ago. Such stories are now just beginning to surface in the mainstream media, with an Edmonton, Alberta couple being the latest example.

[The article continues here with the story Vox posted above]

You’ll notice that the initial myths propagated by those who advocated for the reinvention of marriage are crumbling away. The government does not take a neutral position—after all, it is not only evangelicals who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage. Sikhs, Muslims, mainstream Mormons, Catholics, and Orthodox Jews also reject the progressive reinvention of marriage. Of course, it is so far only Catholics and evangelicals who have found themselves in the crosshairs, and so politicians feel perfectly comfortable smearing and bashing these communities as bigots without feeling as if they are undermining their vacuous virtue-signalling on multiculturalism and immigration. There is now an official “government position,” and those who do not hold it are rapidly becoming second-class citizens.

As I mentioned, I’ve heard many versions of this story over the past several years, and I expect that this will only increase in the coming years. But what is important for Christians to note here is that they are being demonized in a very, very dangerous way. The government’s rejection of Christian homes as loving environments for children is an implicit statement: They are stating that Christians are not fit to raise children—because they are Christian. This is why provincial governments across Canada are making moves to force Christian schools to change thousands of years of doctrine, and this is why Christians must be alert and aware of what is taking place, and engaged in the political process.

After all, if Christian parents are deemed unfit to care for children with nowhere else to go, how long will it be before the government decides that they are unfit to care for any children? What if they decide that any educational institution or homeschooling group that does not adhere to the “government position” can no longer be entrusted with children? What if they decide that parents who hold to Christian principles are damaging their own children because of those principles?

Listen closely to the rhetoric that is being used, and look carefully at the justification politicians like Alberta Premier Rachel Notley are using to make it illegal for parents to be told what their children are doing while at school in the care of government employees. They are already making the case that Christian parents are dangerous. And that, for Christian parents and their children, could turn into an existential threat. It is time that communities that still believe parents have the right to educate their children and pass on their own values to stand up and pay attention. If we don’t, things could get even worse very quickly. 
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)