From the UK Daily Mail:
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.
They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.
With no previous convictions, they came across as respectable men who simply wanted to help boys with a variety of problems.
In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.
Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men's explanations and did nothing.
Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.
No wonder the social worker was afraid of being branded a "homophobe;" you can get a visit from the police in England just for reiterating the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.
It's not a stretch to consider it possible that people who are willing to ignore one sexual norm (heterosexuality) might also be willing to ignore other sexual norms (pedophilia).
Isn't it wonderful how "hate crimes" legislation protects innocent children?
5 comments:
Actually, it is a stretch to assume that all homosexuals are pedophiles. It's not only a stretch, but saying that is also wrong and immoral. I'm disappointed you would write such a horrible thing.
But, in the case of Faunch and Wathey, if they've been accused of hurting the kids under their care, it should at least be looked into more than the officials have done. I believe that every single accusation like that, even if it's completely made up, needs to be looked into. Political correctness can be placed to the side for a moment to make sure nothing bad is happening to the kids.
But, if the accusation of sexual abuse is only due to them being gay, then the accuser has no legs to stand on.
Because obviously, heterosexual foster parents never abuse the children in their care. NEVER EVER!!!
Tom, I didn't say all homosexuals are pedophiles. But if someone is willing to cross one boundary of sexual morality, isn't it reasonable to conclude that they might be more likely to cross other boundaries of sexual morality? Sin and criminal behavior is usually a progressive behavior, isn't it?
I agree that if the basis for the accusation is based only on their homosexuality, then there is nothing substantive to go on. However, in this case, the very fact that they were homosexuals--and our public environment has become so charged with political correctness and actual "hate crime" laws--has clearly resulted in a situation where innocent children were left to the wolves because social workers were afraid to do their job, lest they be branded "homophobes"...or worse, prosecuted for a "hate crime."
Anonymous, did anyone say heterosexuals don't abuse children? Such a statement is neither expressed nor implicit in either the article or my post. Please re-read both to get the point.
You brought up an important point, Tom. Thanks for the clarification.
"But if someone is willing to cross one boundary of sexual morality, isn't it reasonable to conclude that they might be more likely to cross other boundaries of sexual morality?"
No, I don't believe that's reasonable at all. Most homosexuals strongly feel that their relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships (aside from gender). So I think they are as likely to "cross that boundary" as much as heterosexuals.
If they viewed their relationships as sexually immoral like you do, then I could see them having no problem with "crossing boundaries." But, like I said, most don't see their relationships as sexually immoral.
I follow what you're saying, Tom. However, it doesn't matter what we feel. A drunk might feel it's morally acceptable to drink to excess, and so might a prostitute and so might even a rapist; in fact, I think there's a certain element of that belief based on feeling any time we cross a moral boundary--it's part of how we justify that move (remember that Adam and Eve felt morally justified in committing the original sin?).
When it comes to right and wrong, our feelings are irrelevant. We might feel 2+2=6, but that doesn't change the correct answer. The Bible says our hearts are desperately wicked and deceptive; we can't trust feelings, but we can trust absolute truth.
And I think even homosexuals know that they are crossing a boundary, at least in the beginning. The Bible does indicate that over time, our consciences become seared and calloused (by repeatedly ignoring what it's telling us) to the point that we no longer feel the crossing of that boundary in an acute way. I recall that happening when I was a drunk and was heterosexually immoral.
And when we get used to crossing those boundaries, and our consciences get progressively number, it becomes easier to cross that next moral boundary, which puts us and those around us at more risk.
Post a Comment