Bad Parents

A quote from the Daily Mail, 24 October 2007

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. 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. […]

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. 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. 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.” 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.

@ Amsterdamsky

You are just swimming at the bottom of the ocean...that's where all the whale manure is..!!


Amsterdamsky's comments always cheer me up, especially if they succeed in derailing discussions.


Though I enjoy sparring with you MarcFrans, not every thread is an excuse for a dissertation. Generally speaking, we are "all among friends here," so I think we can all enjoy the occaisional laugh. If Neo-National Socialists can enter synagogues and form relations with Jewish groups (in order to "steel" themselves) you can certainly leave poor Amsterdamsky alone.

Homosexuality is a real, medical problem

Now what have the gays done?

It's not their fault that some pro-"equal" chances, multi-kulti moron terrorises decent people with ridiculous laws meant to support them. Just like the idiotic, dangerous feminists hurt the rights of women in the end, the people "protecting" the rights of homosexuals just make their lives harder.

My belief is that it is none of society's business what one does in the privacy of his or her bed, as long as he or she doesn't bother anyone with it.


"My belief is that it is none of society's business what one does in the privacy of his or her bed, as long as he or she doesn't bother anyone with it."

Well, so long as they don't transgress laws (i.e. children), I do not believe in legally prosecuting homosexuals. However, I do not want their "lifestyle" jammed down our collective throats, and I certainly do not want them exposing their "lifestyle" to children. And I think certain sects of society (i.e. Boy Scouts, churches) have a right to exclude practicing homosexuals from their employ.

I suppose the government has decided

That Homosexuals are normal, they wont mind their sons or daughters marrying one.  What better practice for becoming a government taxpayer?  Or a government flunky.

The government does not care a whit about equal rights. Only keeping actual real normal people mute about egregious transgressions. 

I applaud Mr Matherick

Homosexuality is sin.

I applaud Mr Matherick and his wife for standing firm against this attempt by the state to force its political, social, and sexual agenda down their throats.

Confused mind......?



....or a shallow one?

What exactly, Amsterdamsky, is that "it" that children are supposed to learn from their local priest?  Could you clarify that for more serious readers than yourself?

Is it that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the world?  Or child abuse?  Or, more broadly, power abuse?  And, if the latter, do you think that particular problem is more prevalent among "local priests" than among Amsterdamsky-types, or any other types?

Or, does your "it" stand for forcing foster parents to indoctrinate young foster children in taking one particular stand in the ongoing culture war of 'sexual politics' of adults?   After all, raising foster children cannot be a simple and easy undertaking, requiring much emotional investment and practical sacrifice.  So, the number of suitable foster parents is always going to be very limited.   Perhaps you should think a bit about the long-term consequences of state power being applied to caregivers of defenseless children for the purpose of advancing a particular ideological agenda.   But, then, asking you to consider something seriously is perhaps asking a bit too much....