“Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs children, and together they run a small business,”
What listed here makes these people qualified to take in foster children? I would argue that being a war veteran is more red flag than green. Especially if they are a fundamentalist Christian person of any sect, because there’s a lot of trauma involved and the religious tend to vilify secular and effective counseling and run toward religious prayer. He may be well adjusted, as I know they can be since my hubs is also an Gulf War vet who does not have issues related to it, but being a war vet is not a qualification for raising children.
Paraprofessionals sounds like they would be uniquely qualified for being foster parents, but they often do not have education and training requirements. They are not required to have a degree in teaching or special ed training. She does have experience with children though and I’ll give her that. But I question why she’s a former Paraprofessional considering her stated biases. Children who require special education considerations, especially those on the autism spectrum, have a higher rate of being LGBT than average. It’s possible, but I only have a speculation and not accusing her, that she left the job because she was required to be kind to them despite them being LGBT. Maybe a little accusing because she’s expressed this exact sentiment, but I can’t say the school or schools she worked for noticed anything. Anyway, this qualification only says she has been around children with difficulties.
Running a business isn’t a quality for much of anything. There’s no training required. I mean, Mike Lindell runs a business but I wouldn’t leave a plant in his care, let alone a child.
So please tell me how their qualifications are enough to make them good candidates for foster care when they’re willingly admitting to being a threat to a population of children more likely to be in their care.
The very religious are always very quick to claim they're being persecuted, and no group would be quicker to persecute others, given the opportunity. The Burkes are what you get when you delegate your thinking to others, in this case the Catholic Church. The folks who didn't have a problem with Nazis.
I mean...they *were* denied because of their Catholic faith. Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) is nothing but bigotry wrapped up in tradition and stupid costumes.
Plus, let's be real here, NO Catholic couple is a safe home for any child regardless of whether they're LGBTQ or not. Taking kids to the Catholic Church is fucking child endangerment.
Normalize excluding christians from everything, but ESPECIALLY anything that has to do with kids.
This is little more than a demand for additional privileges in the name of Jesus. Waaaaahhhhh, the state is enforcing anti-discrimination on us! Waaaaaahhhh, our faith says we have to be bigots, it's not our fault! Waaaaaahhhh, we want our privilege to treat people we don't like badly back! Nobody is telling this couple they can't be Catholic. Nobody is telling them they have to change their interpretation of their faith. The consequence of their interpretation of their faith is that the State of Massachusetts cannot allow them to be foster parents, since LBGTQA+ kids would not receive the same standard of care with them. None of this is the state's doing, this is all on the Burkes.
Suck it up, buttercup. Being religious does not mean you automatically get to foster kids and your just because your prejudice is faith-based doesn't mean you get to bypass the rules the rest of us have to play by. Cry that river if you want to, but you'll get zero sympathy from me; you're simply receiving the justified consequence of your own beliefs and actions.
Goody for them. Go to a private adoption agency. The state has criteria, you don't meet them, other Catholics do, thus not anti-Catholic discrimination.
Imagine it? Burkes could be planning to *actively seek out* trans foster kids to adopt. We know fundie Christians do this - seek out 'heathen' children to convert. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Burkes became aware of some gay or trans kid in the system and "felt a calling" to adopt them specifically in order to try and change them.
That line in Parker's article about catholics being the only group that can be diminished and penalized was utterly laughable, and I wanted to say something about another group we are all familiar with ("Hi there! Try being an atheist!"), but the comments were closed by the time I got around to reading it.
I would also submit that even the Burkes are not being "penalized" or "punished." They are simply not qualified, just as a family whose members have shown or declared racist attitudes would not be a safe place for a Black child.
But...but...but it is their *sincerely held belief* that they should be allowed to bully, intimidate, vilify and even torture children, even to the point of suicide! How horrible, how impious, how downright blasphemous is it for the state to prevent that? Catholics are pro-life, goddammit!
How dare any Catholic cite their ancestors coming over from Ireland to escape religious persecution then use their religion as a weapon against our most vulnerable children? No, this Christian martyrdom complex needs to stop or we need to show them what persecution looks like. I think that's what they are really afraid of - that the atheists and humanists will take over and show them the same discrimination they show us.
Because you can't do that with 0-4s who don't know their orientation or gender.
Because you can't do that with 5-12s who may not know, or may know but have trouble expressing it.
Because you can't do that *even with teens*, many of whom may be struggling to find themselves or express their feelings.
So sure, if a potential adoptive family wants to limit themselves to adopting well-adjusted self-realized 20-year-olds, I think your solution will work. But if someone comes into an adoption agency looking to adopt a kid, then they need to be able to say "yes, if a year or two years or ten years from now this kid comes out, we will still love them."
Massachusetts is focused on what is best for the child. The Burkes are focused on what they want.
Massachusetts is focused on the way things are. The Burkes are focused on the way they think things ought to be.
The child's sexuality is essentially immutable. The Burkes think they could change it if necessary.
The Burkes think they can't change their beliefs.. They could.
It is not possible to predict years beforehand what a baby's or very small child's sexuality will turn out to be. Permitting the Burkes to adopt a child with nothing but an unsupported hope that the child's immutable and as yet unpredictable sexuality will not be in serious conflict with the Burke's attitudes is not worth the gamble.
“Mike is an Iraq war veteran, Kitty is a former paraprofessional for special needs children, and together they run a small business,”
What listed here makes these people qualified to take in foster children? I would argue that being a war veteran is more red flag than green. Especially if they are a fundamentalist Christian person of any sect, because there’s a lot of trauma involved and the religious tend to vilify secular and effective counseling and run toward religious prayer. He may be well adjusted, as I know they can be since my hubs is also an Gulf War vet who does not have issues related to it, but being a war vet is not a qualification for raising children.
Paraprofessionals sounds like they would be uniquely qualified for being foster parents, but they often do not have education and training requirements. They are not required to have a degree in teaching or special ed training. She does have experience with children though and I’ll give her that. But I question why she’s a former Paraprofessional considering her stated biases. Children who require special education considerations, especially those on the autism spectrum, have a higher rate of being LGBT than average. It’s possible, but I only have a speculation and not accusing her, that she left the job because she was required to be kind to them despite them being LGBT. Maybe a little accusing because she’s expressed this exact sentiment, but I can’t say the school or schools she worked for noticed anything. Anyway, this qualification only says she has been around children with difficulties.
Running a business isn’t a quality for much of anything. There’s no training required. I mean, Mike Lindell runs a business but I wouldn’t leave a plant in his care, let alone a child.
So please tell me how their qualifications are enough to make them good candidates for foster care when they’re willingly admitting to being a threat to a population of children more likely to be in their care.
The very religious are always very quick to claim they're being persecuted, and no group would be quicker to persecute others, given the opportunity. The Burkes are what you get when you delegate your thinking to others, in this case the Catholic Church. The folks who didn't have a problem with Nazis.
I mean...they *were* denied because of their Catholic faith. Catholicism (and Christianity as a whole) is nothing but bigotry wrapped up in tradition and stupid costumes.
Plus, let's be real here, NO Catholic couple is a safe home for any child regardless of whether they're LGBTQ or not. Taking kids to the Catholic Church is fucking child endangerment.
Normalize excluding christians from everything, but ESPECIALLY anything that has to do with kids.
This is little more than a demand for additional privileges in the name of Jesus. Waaaaahhhhh, the state is enforcing anti-discrimination on us! Waaaaaahhhh, our faith says we have to be bigots, it's not our fault! Waaaaaahhhh, we want our privilege to treat people we don't like badly back! Nobody is telling this couple they can't be Catholic. Nobody is telling them they have to change their interpretation of their faith. The consequence of their interpretation of their faith is that the State of Massachusetts cannot allow them to be foster parents, since LBGTQA+ kids would not receive the same standard of care with them. None of this is the state's doing, this is all on the Burkes.
Suck it up, buttercup. Being religious does not mean you automatically get to foster kids and your just because your prejudice is faith-based doesn't mean you get to bypass the rules the rest of us have to play by. Cry that river if you want to, but you'll get zero sympathy from me; you're simply receiving the justified consequence of your own beliefs and actions.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑏𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑎 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑏 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑙𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒
Goody for them. Go to a private adoption agency. The state has criteria, you don't meet them, other Catholics do, thus not anti-Catholic discrimination.
𝐼𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑎 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑢𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑠’ ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑, 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑦 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓-ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑚.
Imagine it? Burkes could be planning to *actively seek out* trans foster kids to adopt. We know fundie Christians do this - seek out 'heathen' children to convert. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Burkes became aware of some gay or trans kid in the system and "felt a calling" to adopt them specifically in order to try and change them.
That line in Parker's article about catholics being the only group that can be diminished and penalized was utterly laughable, and I wanted to say something about another group we are all familiar with ("Hi there! Try being an atheist!"), but the comments were closed by the time I got around to reading it.
I would also submit that even the Burkes are not being "penalized" or "punished." They are simply not qualified, just as a family whose members have shown or declared racist attitudes would not be a safe place for a Black child.
Just my opinion, but the anti-LGBTQIA+ Jerks...er, Burkes would be bad parents for straight children as well.
Let them be childless for the sake of all children.
"There are no atheists in foxholes, we've always known."
No, you've always been wrong about that.
But...but...but it is their *sincerely held belief* that they should be allowed to bully, intimidate, vilify and even torture children, even to the point of suicide! How horrible, how impious, how downright blasphemous is it for the state to prevent that? Catholics are pro-life, goddammit!
They think they are being persecuted for worshipping Jesus but the reality is that they are being held to account for not emulating Jesus.
How dare any Catholic cite their ancestors coming over from Ireland to escape religious persecution then use their religion as a weapon against our most vulnerable children? No, this Christian martyrdom complex needs to stop or we need to show them what persecution looks like. I think that's what they are really afraid of - that the atheists and humanists will take over and show them the same discrimination they show us.
When enumerating Catholics in government don’t forget the six out of nine on the Supreme Court.
[This was supposed to be a reply to David Graf, but due to login snafus it posted separately]
𝑊ℎ𝑦 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝐿𝐺𝐵𝑇𝑄 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑤𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑘𝑖𝑑𝑠?
Because you can't do that with 0-4s who don't know their orientation or gender.
Because you can't do that with 5-12s who may not know, or may know but have trouble expressing it.
Because you can't do that *even with teens*, many of whom may be struggling to find themselves or express their feelings.
So sure, if a potential adoptive family wants to limit themselves to adopting well-adjusted self-realized 20-year-olds, I think your solution will work. But if someone comes into an adoption agency looking to adopt a kid, then they need to be able to say "yes, if a year or two years or ten years from now this kid comes out, we will still love them."
Massachusetts is focused on what is best for the child. The Burkes are focused on what they want.
Massachusetts is focused on the way things are. The Burkes are focused on the way they think things ought to be.
The child's sexuality is essentially immutable. The Burkes think they could change it if necessary.
The Burkes think they can't change their beliefs.. They could.
It is not possible to predict years beforehand what a baby's or very small child's sexuality will turn out to be. Permitting the Burkes to adopt a child with nothing but an unsupported hope that the child's immutable and as yet unpredictable sexuality will not be in serious conflict with the Burke's attitudes is not worth the gamble.
OT- Guys. 𝘐𝘵'𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. We're gonna get to live the dream! 𝘍𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘶𝘨𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘵𝘴!
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-report-atlanta-jail-face-charges-election-subversion-case-2023-08-24/
They've already published one of Ghouliani: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-ex-attorney-rudy-giuliani-heads-georgia-face-election-charges-2023-08-23/
And comparing Catholics to the witches *that the Catholic church itself tortured and killed* is just plain gobsmacking.