Unstable Catholic Doesn't Want Gays Fostering Her Son

A woman suffers a mental breakdown after living in an abusive marriage and subsequently can't take care of her young son. She seeks help in finding a good home where her son will be raised in a loving environment and goes through an agency that places children in homes that have been screened and cleared as safe. The child is placed in a home that is part of a hotel owned by the couple who will raise the boy. The problem, at least how the mother sees it? The couple is gay.

This woman, a devout Catholic, doesn't believe in homosexuality (as taught by her church) and feels that these two men, who own a business and have volunteered to open their home and their lives to this child, aren't capable of raising him because they're gay.

So a gay couple who have a seemingly successful business in the seaside town of Brighton, England, who live a committed life and are members of their community are less capable of raising a child in a good, healthy, positive environment than this woman who isn't mentally or emotionally able to care for her own child?

Situations like this seem to arise not only in the UK but here in America. Many states have laws that forbid gay couples from adopting, however any dipshit who can drop his load into a willing vessel can all of a sudden (well, nine months later) become a father. And that woman a mother. Whether they're able to bring that child into a safe, caring environment where the kid will be given all that he or she needs from food, clothing, shelter, toys, education—the list goes on—doesn't ever come into consideration because, according to so many Bible-thumping religious folk, it's God's will. Men and women are meant to procreate. It's what God wants. But God forbid a same-sex couple who physically can't conceive a child in the traditional sense wants to help a child in need? They say no way.

Now this mentally unstable woman in England is now suing to take her child away from those horrible, corrupting gay men (who have cared for him for a year already), and is being assisted by Thomas More Legal Centre, a Catholic legal charity, to have the boy placed "with a family that reflects traditional Catholic values." I'm not saying that this woman doesn't have the right to choose who her child is raised by. That's what wills are for and why people sign documents assigning that right to someone they've chosen at the child's birth. It's called a godparent or legal guardian. But since child services stepped in to place the boy in a foster home, it seems that his parents didn't make arrangements for him if a situation arose that they couldn't care for him anymore. Where is her family? Her friends?

What bothers me is that this woman is not even giving the gay couple the chance to help her in her time of need. She won't consider they're able to offer the boy love and support and food and clothes and help doing his homework, simply because they're gay. There are too many people who are close-minded and who believe everything they are taught or read instead of allowing themselves to open up to experience and see that there are things outside their blinders. These men may be a great solution for this child. The child might otherwise be placed in a home with "good family values" and end up being ignored or abused. Who knows?

We need to stop judging people on labels and whether they attend Church or by what school they attended. We have to start getting to know people for who they are and then make a judgment call. Then, and only then, can this woman really say if this is, in fact, the right or wrong home where her son can grow up.

(Image courtesy of Getty)

Comments

[karol]

Lunatics running the asylum.

Ottawa shrink on trial for bizarre homosexual acts with his patient.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/06/13/9786821-sun.html
Married Doc had sex with HIV-positive patient, court told

By SHANE ROSS, SUN MEDIA

The Ottawa Sun

OTTAWA - A married Ottawa psychiatrist continued to have unprotected sex in his office with a homosexual patient even after the patient told the doctor he was HIV-positive, court heard yesterday.

The 45-year-old complainant, testifying behind a privacy screen in the sexual assault trial of Dr. Juan Tejeda, said he remained in the sexual relationship, which lasted more than 10 years, because he was "terrified" Tejeda would reject him as a patient.

Tejeda, 65, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual assault with a weapon. The charges involve two complainants dating back to the early 1990s.

The second complainant testified yesterday he began seeing Tejeda in the early 1990s for a variety of anxiety issues, including depression and promiscuity. During counselling sessions, the man said Tejeda asked him what he liked during sex.

He said the doctor used that information a year later to seduce him.

"He did everything perfectly, just as I told him a year prior," he said. "I was amazed. Here's my psychiatrist loving me. I was in heaven."

The man, who was on welfare, said Tejeda was billing OHIP for the sessions. He said Tejeda would ask, "Do you want to have sex now or after we talk?

The man said he grew increasingly uncomfortable as Tejeda became more aggressive and experimented with other sexual fantasies. He said Tejeda, a horseback riding enthusiast, would tie a horsewhip around his genitals and lead him around the office. The horsewhip was introduced into evidence.

The man also said he suffered permanent eye damage when he blacked out after Tejeda put a garbage bag over his head and choked him while performing a sex act, which he had agreed to.

"It was like on the Simpsons, when Homer would grab Bart by the throat and Bart's eyes would bulge out," the man testified.

In September 2004, the man, who continued to have other sexual partners, became HIV-positive. He said he told Tejeda, but Tejeda did not take it seriously.

The trial continues on Monday.

SHANE.ROSS@SUNMEDIA.CA