[RD] LGBTQ news

[NinjaCow64]

The actual policy of West Germany was that pedophiles were the best suited to take care of fostered children. Chilling.

I keep forgetting about this horror. Why is Germany?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Sorry I realise my post was unclear - I mean the sob story about JK Rowling being a single mother who was on welfare and lived in a paper bag in the middle of the road was an exaggeration.

You are entirely correct, she was in a privileged middle class European background which is likely in the top 1% globally.


How could anti-LGBT foster parents be more likely to abuse LGBT foster children? That's a real headscratcher.

Just as valid a question: Why do you simply assume that they will be?
I realize in this politically-charged era it is considered next to impossible to separate one's public outlooks from one's private actions, as that seems to be the premise driving your position. But as long as a foster parent doesn't demonstrate a danger to other children in toto, I see no reason why not to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. It should be encouraging enough to realize that certain parents would be able to set aside their politics about the larger world in order to help raise a child in need without concluding they're out to entrap them in some foster-home-as-concentration-camp ruse or whatever point Lexicus is making...

 

[EgonSpengler]

1) It is precisely about that. The summary of the bill [which is linked to in the news] says that it will prohibit "Requiring a current or prospective adoptive or foster parent ("parent") to affirm, accept, or support any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the parent's sincerely held religious or moral beliefs;" That is, in addition to what you just said. I really don't know what to to make of this than, otherwise, it would have been possible to deny adoption based on someone's political stance on an issue. (I don't know whether that has ever really happened; it's just a hypothetical)

Tennessee General Assembly Legislation

2) I don't know what point you're trying to make with that study. I imagine that saying a child's lifestyle isn't worthy (or what have you) will indeed hurt their development; however I don't see how that exactly translates from a foster parent disagreeing with the outlooks of the larger LGBTQ community or organizations as a whole. Does one need to always be imposing such outlooks onto a child? Is this some inevitability? I think people are reading into this what they want to see.

Thanks for pointing out the link. I didn't see it before. As to the text of the bill, parts 1 & 2 seem mainly about preventing the department of child services from forcing a family who hates queer people to adopt a queer kid. Okay. I'm always nervous about anything that places religious dogma above secular government policy, but in this case, I think the goal is to prevent a family that will harm a child from fostering that child, anyway. This puts the emphasis in the wrong place - the potential foster-family, rather than the child - but I guess it's accomplishing the same thing, in the end.

Part 3 is where I have to hit the brakes:

This bill [...]prohibits the department of children's services ("department") from[...]

(3) Establishing or enforcing a standard, rule, or policy that precludes consideration of a parent for a placement based, in whole or in part, upon the parent's sincerely held religious or moral beliefs regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. Such beliefs do not create a presumption that any particular placement is contrary to the best interest of the child.

"Such beliefs do not create a presumption that any particular placement is contrary to the best interest of the child"? They sure as [fork] do. Would Tennessee place a Black child with a family who are members of Patriot Front? I assume not, but maybe we can't assume such things about the state of Tennessee. Scary thought.

The amended bill, as signed into law, goes on to say,

However, this amendment does not preclude the department from considering the religious or moral beliefs of an adoptive or foster child or the child's family of origin, including in relation to the religious or moral beliefs of a prospective adoptive or foster parent, when determining the most appropriate placement for that child. Additionally, this amendment must be read in harmony with the duty of the department to make placements consistent with the best interests of the child.

Okay. If I trusted that Tennessee was relying on verifiable data to guide their evaluation of what's in the best interests of children, this might seem fine. But now I'm worried that the people making that determination are religious extremists who would genuinely believe that something like conversion therapy is in a queer kid's best interest. I'm not questioning their genuine beliefs. I don't really give a flying [fork] what a person's genuine beliefs are, when it comes to public policy. My philosophy (of governance) is more along the lines of "show me the data or stfu." I don't really care if a person's beliefs are 'sincerely held' or not. That's not for me or the government to judge, for good or for ill.

I also don't see why the parents' religious beliefs "must be read in harmony with the duty of the department to make placements consistent with the best interests of the child." No, I don't think they do. I think for a department of children's services, the best interests of the child ought to trump everything else. I guess a potential foster-parent's religious beliefs could be read in harmony with which sports teams they support, or what kind of music they listen to (which is to say, if there are any indicators in the sports teams they like or the music they listen to that they're ill-suited to fostering a particular child, then they'd be withdrawn from consideration). If I'm a social worker and I see The Turner Diaries on a foster family's bookshelf, I'm walking out. I'm not telling them they can't have the book, but I'm sure telling them they can't take in a child from a state-accredited foster agency.

 

[Gorbles]

Just as valid a question: Why do you simply assume that they will be?
I realize in this politically-charged era it is considered next to impossible to separate one's public outlooks from one's private actions, as that seems to be the premise driving your position. But as long as a foster parent doesn't demonstrate a danger to other children in toto, I see no reason why not to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. It should be encouraging enough to realize that certain parents would be able to set aside their politics about the larger world in order to help raise a child in need without concluding they're out to entrap them in some foster-home-as-concentration-camp ruse or whatever point Lexicus is making...

Someone's public outlook is also their private outlook. It's generally what the person believes. I appreciate you're trying really hard to make it seem like this is some easy mental compartmentalisation for a bigot to do, but that's your claim. It needs you to evidence it, because the default state for a bigot is to be bigoted.

"oh it's just a political stance they hold"

No, they're just bigots.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The actual policy of West Germany was that pedophiles were the best suited to take care of fostered children. Chilling.

Wut?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

We call these people bad faith actors

 

[Lexicus]

It should be encouraging enough to realize that certain parents would be able to set aside their politics about the larger world in order to help raise a child in need without concluding they're out to entrap them in some foster-home-as-concentration-camp ruse or whatever point Lexicus is making...

"Forcibly transferring children out of the group" is one of the five actions that counts as genocide. It is obvious that the TN bill is attempting to facilitate the "forcible transfer" of LGBTQ children into environments where their identities will be suppressed and denied, certainly through abuse and quite possibly through what amounts to torture.

The ICC has indicted Putin for the mass abduction of Ukrainian children for the purpose of suppressing/eliminating their Ukrainian identity, a genocidal policy.

The only thing to be said for the TN bill in comparison is that it doesn't do quite an airtight job of forcing orgs or agencies to foster LGBTQ children with anti-LGBTQ bigots.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Just as valid a question: Why do you simply assume that they will be?
I realize in this politically-charged era it is considered next to impossible to separate one's public outlooks from one's private actions, as that seems to be the premise driving your position. But as long as a foster parent doesn't demonstrate a danger to other children in toto, I see no reason why not to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. It should be encouraging enough to realize that certain parents would be able to set aside their politics about the larger world in order to help raise a child in need without concluding they're out to entrap them in some foster-home-as-concentration-camp ruse or whatever point Lexicus is making...

fwiw, if any of the anti-LGBTQ folks are Evangelical Christians, they literally have to push their beliefs on other people. Attacking religious liberty is a principle of their faith. That's why they found organizations like The Alliance Defending Freedom, demonstrate outside abortion clinics, and why they worked so hard to overturn Roe v. Wade. They can't not.

 

[Yeekim]

"Forcibly transferring children out of the group" is one of the five actions that counts as genocide. It is obvious that the TN bill is attempting to facilitate the "forcible transfer" of LGBTQ children into environments where their identities will be suppressed and denied, certainly through abuse and quite possibly through what amounts to torture.

A child old enough to identify as "LGBTQ" surely would get a say themselves about their prospective foster parents?

 

[Arakhor]

Do you think that only legal adults know that they're gay, bi or what have you? I don't know anything about the foster system, but I would be very surprised if minors get to make any major decisions about their lives.

 

[Yeekim]

Do you think that only legal adults know that they're gay, bi or what have you? I don't know anything about the foster system, but I would be very surprised if minors get to make any major decisions about their lives.

Obviously not. Anyway, legal adults aren't usually adopted either, at least since Roman times.

But what I know is that (at least over here) most kids get adopted straight out of maternity ward.

In case of older kids, a court would be obliged to hear an opinion of a child who is at least 10, and may decide to hear younger children as well. I can't imagine any court fostering a teenager against their will.

If that is different somewhere, that's what should be fixed, rather than "enforcing standards on religious beliefs of parents" or whatever.

 

[Crezth]

Yeah I’ll meet the traditionalists halfway on their whole “my children are my property they exist to aggrandize me and mine” but the exchange is that they have to shut the fudge up about what I want to do with my own life. And also we won’t pay for social security because their kids can see to that, surely, if they even care.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Do you think that only legal adults know that they're gay, bi or what have you? I don't know anything about the foster system, but I would be very surprised if minors get to make any major decisions about their lives.

It varies state to state. For instance, Tennessee requires a child’s consent to be adopted if the child is 14 or older. In Alaska it’s 10, in Arizona, 12, etc.

I’m unsure about Foster Care, and it’s hard to find resources that talk about this stuff from the child’s perspective. It looks like you don’t get much in the way of choice from what I see though, moreso the ability to impress on your caseworker or lawyer what you want and if you want to change, but not a “I do not consent find somewhere else” option.

Of course there’s also a fairly wide gap between what the law says, and what an individual cop, caseworker, lawyer, judge, etc. will actually abide by. It seems a component frequently missed by non-queer people, but just because something is “illegal” or “ethically prohibited” or “administratively unworkable” or “grounds for license revocation” does not mean that it isn’t the everyday de rigueur treatment of queer people everywhere, as any trans person (esp. woman) who has spent any time interacting with legal or medical institutions will tell you.

 

[Synobun]

A child old enough to identify as "LGBTQ" surely would get a say themselves about their prospective foster parents?

You say "surely" here like it's a no-brainer, but I can't fathom why you think a foster child gets a single say about where they end up. Do you really think they get to pick from a roster of parents? It doesn't work that way—anywhere. After a certain age, they can make their wishes known to the judge about whether or not they go to a relative or a foster family, and the judge has no obligation to listen. But there is no point where a child gets to say "no" to a foster family, even if the family is abusive. That has to go through an investigation process, which follows the same rules and standards as the police investigating themselves.

But what I know is that (at least over here) most kids get adopted straight out of maternity ward.

In case of older kids, a court would be obliged to hear an opinion of a child who is at least 10, and may decide to hear younger children as well. I can't imagine any court fostering a teenager against their will.

If that is different somewhere, that's what should be fixed, rather than "enforcing standards on religious beliefs of parents" or whatever.

I looked this up, and Estonia actually has a foster care crisis where there aren't enough families signed up to take care of all the kids who need it. So your imagination here has concocted an idyllic situation for kids in crisis that does not exist. All in the pursuit of some weird argument that you think an underage child who has no home and no support structure will have the ability to advocate for themselves and only allow good families to take them, and the law will listen.

 

[EgonSpengler]

fwiw, if any of the anti-LGBTQ folks are Evangelical Christians, they literally have to push their beliefs on other people. Attacking religious liberty is a principle of their faith. That's why they found organizations like The Alliance Defending Freedom, demonstrate outside abortion clinics, and why they worked so hard to overturn Roe v. Wade. They can't not.

Did a little reading on Evangelical Protestantism in the U.S. According to the National Association of Evangelicals,

Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

• Conversionism - the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus
• Activism - the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts
• Biblicism - a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
• Crucicentrism - a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

So we can see, in 'conversionism' and 'activism', that they can't separate their personal beliefs from their public or political convictions. It's literally against their faith to keep their faith to themselves. In their own words (well, in the words of someone they quote, to sum up their beliefs).

From the same website, the NAE "Statement of Faith":

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Emphasis mine, but again, this is their language, verbatim. (Well, another caveat, this is just one evangelical organization. I've no idea how many people it represents.)

Elsewhere, a 2014 Pew Research Center survey pegs Tennessee as the single-most evangelical state in the U.S., with 52% of survey respondents identifying that way.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Just as valid a question: Why do you simply assume that they will be?
I realize in this politically-charged era it is considered next to impossible to separate one's public outlooks from one's private actions, as that seems to be the premise driving your position. But as long as a foster parent doesn't demonstrate a danger to other children in toto, I see no reason why not to extend to them the benefit of the doubt. It should be encouraging enough to realize that certain parents would be able to set aside their politics about the larger world in order to help raise a child in need without concluding they're out to entrap them in some foster-home-as-concentration-camp ruse or whatever point Lexicus is making...

Oh, pull the other one why don’t you?

“I have the sincerely held belief that engaging in homosexual activities will send children to Hell and I have a duty to prevent others from going to Hell. But don’t worry liberals! I won’t try and force any children to stop being gay.” Yeah, right.

 

[Yeekim]

Do you really think they get to pick from a roster of parents?

No, but there is a choice between remaining in the substitute home or being fostered.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's like you're purposefully not getting the point being explained to you

 

[choxorn]

Its an exaggeration.

Like she wasn’t rich rich but the more fantastic ideas of her success being a rags to riches tale are more than a bit overblown.

Well that figures.

You are entirely correct, she was in a privileged middle class European background which is likely in the top 1% globally.

There's enough people in Europe + the rest of The West (TM), and enough global-top-percenters in other regions that "top 1%" is still a bit of an exaggeration, but yeah, point taken, a middle-class Brit is doing much better than the world's average, and Jowling Kowling even pre-HP could reasonably be argued to have had more things go right for her and more opportunities than a typical middle-class Westerner, even with the things in her exaggerated tragic backstory that went wrong.

 

[JohannaK]

Wut?

Helmut Kentler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Helmut Kentler (2 July 1928 – 9 July 2008) was a German psychologist, sexologist, pedophile and professor of social education at the University of Hannover. From the late 1960s until the early 1990s, with the authorization and financial support of the Berlin Senate, Kentler placed neglected youth as foster children in the homes of single pedophile fathers with the ostensible purpose of resocializing them, while explicitly encouraging sexual contact between them. This project was later dubbed the "Kentler Experiment" or the "Kentler Project." Kentler later changed his mind on pedophiles having sexual contact with children, and described pedophilia as a "sexual disorder".[1]

In a model experiment at the end of the 1960s, Kentler placed several neglected 13 to 15-year-old boys he considered "secondary mental defectives" with pedophiles he knew, claiming this would reintegrate them into society and allow them to grow into mature adults.[8] Due to the criminal offense associated with it, he made this public only after its statute of limitations had expired more than a decade later. Kentler claimed that the experiment would help the children to regain social stability through exposure to pedophiles. He was aware that the adults would most likely perform sexual acts on the minors. The scandal was publicly debated in 2015 and the Senate Youth Administration commissioned the political scientist Teresa Nentwig of the University of Göttingen to investigate the incident and forward her findings to the relevant authorities.[citation needed] Kentler eventually changed his mind on pedophiles having sexual contact with children, and described pedophilia as a "sexual disorder".[1]

At a factional hearing of the FDP in 1981 Kentler reported: "These people only endured these moronic boys because they were in love and infatuated with them."[9] In an expert opinion for the Senatsverwaltung für Familie, Frauen und Jugend he described the results of the 1988 trial as "a complete success".[8] At that time he did not have to fear any criminal consequences because of the statute of limitations. He also maintained contact with the abuse victims during his teaching activities in Hanover, and in an expert opinion for the Berlin Family Court in the early 1990s recommended that one of the abused youths remain with his pedophile foster father, whom he described as a pedagogical natural talent.[10]

The German Experiment That Placed Foster Children with Pedophiles

With the approval of the government, a renowned sexologist ran a dangerous program. How could this happen?

www.newyorker.com