HOW FECKING UNBELIEVABLE IS THAT
Words fail me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130066/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-workers-hand-siblings-gay-men-adoption.html
HOW FECKING UNBELIEVABLE IS THAT
to old at 46?!?!?!? thats ridiculous who on earth gives these ppl the authority to rule such decisions, surely they are better off with family, and
the bit that really annoys me is that the social know that the little girl is "wary of men" but still are going to let 2 men adopt them, and
thats supposed to be better than with there grandparents!!!!!
the world has gone mad!
There must be more to it than that. More balanced and informed Mail journalism....
David
OMG
Phil
quote:
Originally posted by omega 24 v6
What a sensationalist piece of right wing cr@p.
The judgement against the grandparents wasn't only based on their age but also on their health issues and there is no reason to believe that the
couple picked aren't the best couple to adopt these children. Also, it's probably best that a homophobic or otherwise similarly small minded
couple, like the grandparents, do not get custody of the children.
One would hope (and expect) that a reasonable amount of thought and research went into deciding which couple were most suited and no, being a
heterosexual couple does not automatically make you more suitable.
I'd like to comment but I feel I'm not allowed to in this new age of equality !!
quote:
Originally posted by RoadkillUK
I'd like to comment but I feel I'm not allowed to in this new age of equality !!
When I turn 46 my son will be 18... Maybe the wrong side to argue...
No problem in principle in gay parents but there must be something more important than being too old. For Christ's sakes they don't say
anything about 70 year old fathers!
hey, i,m 45 yrs old/young & i have a 19month old son, does that mean that when i turn 46 i,ll be deemed too old to be a parent of one so young???
considering the ages of those kids that this case is about,
i,m sorry but IMHO this is probably more to do with political correctness & "being aware of how social acceptance" has to be shown,
i have no negative views on same sex relationships at all, each to their own, live & let live ,
but i,d bet my last penny that this decision was based more on social attitudes of today rather than what was best for those kids. look at the threat
the grandparents were given..... shut up & accept it or you won,t see the kids again???????????
OUT BLOODY RAGOUS
[Edited on 1/2/09 by handyandy]
They made such a good job of bringing up thier daughter she up ended up an addict!
its a tough issue this one. In a perfect world, no kids would need adopting. And id agree that a good gay could would be as good as a good regular
couple (assuming regular is still hetro these days...).
In this instance i find myself more annoyed with kids being adopted when direct blood relatives want to help, than the fact they are gay.
I will admit i have reservations about how a child will be affected by being raised by a gay couple, and i VERY much doubt the ability of a modern day
council to judge suitability in a competent manner, especially under the watchful eye of the biggoted PC brigade.
How can a gay couple provide the correct role models for young children?
I'm not suggesting that kids of a gay person conceived through other heterosexual relationships shouldn't be with their natural paternal
parent, but come on, why on earth when other heterosexual couples want to adopt can a gay couple be seen as the best option???
Undermines the fabric of society and is totaly wrong!
As I said before I think there's more to the story than is written in that article. And its just a sensationalist Mail article.
It all depends whether or not you believe a persons upbringing affects their sexuality or not.
Personally I dont think that it does, I believe being LGBT is a just how someone is, you cant program it in or out. Therefore what difference does it
make if the adopting couple are homosexual or heterosexual? Would you have the same opinion if it were a lesbian couple? Why should any LGBT couple be
treated any differently to a 'traditional' couple?
Sorry closed mindedness when it come to sexuality really gets me wound up. Some of the remarks I hear at work day in day out are unbelievable!
David
quote:
Originally posted by nasty
What a sensationalist piece of right wing cr@p.
The judgement against the grandparents wasn't only based on their age but also on their health issues and there is no reason to believe that the couple picked aren't the best couple to adopt these children. Also, it's probably best that a homophobic or otherwise similarly small minded couple, like the grandparents, do not get custody of the children.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
As I said before I think there's more to the story than is written in that article. And its just a sensationalist Mail article.
It all depends whether or not you believe a persons upbringing affects their sexuality or not.
Personally I dont think that it does, I believe being LGBT is a just how someone is, you cant program it in or out. Therefore what difference does it make if the adopting couple are homosexual or heterosexual? Would you have the same opinion if it were a lesbian couple? Why should any LGBT couple be treated any differently to a 'traditional' couple?
Sorry closed mindedness when it come to sexuality really gets me wound up. Some of the remarks I hear at work day in day out are unbelievable!
David
LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bi or Transex
A lot of the arguments only come about because of closed mindedness in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with being LGBT, personal choice and all that. The social hangups/opinions are still around from the victorians and bred in to
so many people.
The kids will only suffer abuse at school if the teachers are ignorant enough to ignore it.
It is written in law that if you are LGBT you are given the same rights as anyone else. Why shouldnt you be? This goes for anything you care to think
of, be it medical treatment, employment, discrimination or adoption of children.
Do you find it so hard to believe that a couple of the same sex cannot be a loving family unit?
This has nothing to do with evolution or anything like that. People are born the way they are. There is no 'gay gene' as such but it is
possible for people to be born XXY rather than XX or XY. This is only a small minority though. For others its something that cannot be explained
further than that's just the way they are.
Back in times of the Romans it was considered perfectly normal to have same sex relationships and in some cases they were even encouraged. Somewhere
along the way we took a step backward in our views of relationships and what constitutes 'love'.
There are an awful lot of people who go their whole lives living in denial and misery because of the way society treats people who are different (be
that sexuality or any other way).
David
Does sexuality matter more than being there? Once breast feeding is done then anyone can do the really important stuff, you know sorting out grazed knees, taxi service, bank account, advice from your own years, attending baseball games etc... I should know I'm doing it now and to be honest it'd be harder having one leg than a tendence toward men
Pretty much every study done on the subject shows that children grow up better in a family environment with a mother and father figure than any other
household type. (caveat for loving and non-violent household of all types). Single parents, same sex couples, serial changes of one partner or other
are inferior in every measure of success or happiness.
If the child were the centre of adoption policy then all children being adopted would go to heterosexual couples in stable relationships until all of
those adopters were used up, then they would go to other adopters.
As usual in family law, the children are bottom of the heap. The "rights" of the adopters to adopt over rule the best interests of the
children. The same thing goes for divorce in too many cases. The law enacted states that adopters cannot be chosen on grounds of sexuality so the
council has to place children with them if they meet the criteria applies to everyone else. Great for the adopters but less than ideal for the
children, as usual.
As for this particular case, the daily mail is full of sh*te and I would generally prefer to belive the opposite of what they say in most cases. It
seems fairly clear that the health of the grand parents is too bad to look after the child. Instead the mail prefers to rant against minorities and
government agencies than in any way try to accurately report the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
LGBT = Lesbian, Gay, Bi or Transex
A lot of the arguments only come about because of closed mindedness in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with being LGBT, personal choice and all that. The social hangups/opinions are still around from the victorians and bred in to so many people.
The kids will only suffer abuse at school if the teachers are ignorant enough to ignore it.
It is written in law that if you are LGBT you are given the same rights as anyone else. Why shouldnt you be? This goes for anything you care to think of, be it medical treatment, employment, discrimination or adoption of children.
Do you find it so hard to believe that a couple of the same sex cannot be a loving family unit?
This has nothing to do with evolution or anything like that. People are born the way they are. There is no 'gay gene' as such but it is possible for people to be born XXY rather than XX or XY. This is only a small minority though. For others its something that cannot be explained further than that's just the way they are.
Back in times of the Romans it was considered perfectly normal to have same sex relationships and in some cases they were even encouraged. Somewhere along the way we took a step backward in our views of relationships and what constitutes 'love'.
There are an awful lot of people who go their whole lives living in denial and misery because of the way society treats people who are different (be that sexuality or any other way).
David
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Pretty much every study done on the subject shows that children grow up better in a family environment with a mother and father figure than any other household type. (caveat for loving and non-violent household of all types). Single parents, same sex couples, serial changes of one partner or other are inferior in every measure of success or happiness.
If the child were the centre of adoption policy then all children being adopted would go to heterosexual couples in stable relationships until all of those adopters were used up, then they would go to other adopters.
As usual in family law, the children are bottom of the heap. The "rights" of the adopters to adopt over rule the best interests of the children. The same thing goes for divorce in too many cases. The law enacted states that adopters cannot be chosen on grounds of sexuality so the council has to place children with them if they meet the criteria applies to everyone else. Great for the adopters but less than ideal for the children, as usual.
As for this particular case, the daily mail is full of sh*te and I would generally prefer to belive the opposite of what they say in most cases. It seems fairly clear that the health of the grand parents is too bad to look after the child. Instead the mail prefers to rant against minorities and government agencies than in any way try
to accurately report the truth.
God created Adam and Eve........ not Adam and Steve 
(hard hat on and ducking for cover........)
Phil
I'm not having a dig at anyone BTW. Just expressing my opinions. Each to their own....
My main point is about how the world would be a better place if people were accepted for who they are. Simple as that. I am obviously in the open
minded minority, which is a sad thing as far as I am concerned.
Whatever I say wont change anyones mind obviously, peoples opinions and thoughts are usually too deep rooted for that.
I still dont believe that a child raised by a same sex couple (male or female) is in any way going to be less 'better to cope with life in
general'.
Then I am obviously in the minority so I'll shut up now and keep my thoughts to myself.
David
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
As for this particular case, the daily mail is full of sh*te and I would generally prefer to belive the opposite of what they say in most cases. It seems fairly clear that the health of the grand parents is too bad to look after the child. Instead the mail prefers to rant against minorities and government agencies than in any way try to accurately report the truth.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
I still dont believe that a child raised by a same sex couple (male or female) is in any way going to be less 'better to cope with life in general'.
Totally against it. I'm not a homophobe whatever floats your boat is up to you.
BUT No way on this earth can that be the right decision NO WAY. I mean there is no way these kids are going to get through school without getting
going through absolute hell. They'll be name called and victimised beyond belief by the other kids ( rightly or wrongly it WILL happen). How can
this be best for the kids?? They'll grow up victimised and goodness only knows how they'll turn out. It might make them stronger but
I'd doubt it.
IMHO it'll make them quiet and withdrawn with no social skills at all.
There must surely be a better placed couple to bring them up.
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
Pretty much every study done on the subject shows that children grow up better in a family environment with a mother and father figure than any other household type. (caveat for loving and non-violent household of all types). Single parents, same sex couples, serial changes of one partner or other are inferior in every measure of success or happiness.
If the child were the centre of adoption policy then all children being adopted would go to heterosexual couples in stable relationships until all of those adopters were used up, then they would go to other adopters.
As usual in family law, the children are bottom of the heap. The "rights" of the adopters to adopt over rule the best interests of the children. The same thing goes for divorce in too many cases. The law enacted states that adopters cannot be chosen on grounds of sexuality so the council has to place children with them if they meet the criteria applies to everyone else. Great for the adopters but less than ideal for the children, as usual.
As for this particular case, the daily mail is full of sh*te and I would generally prefer to belive the opposite of what they say in most cases. It seems fairly clear that the health of the grand parents is too bad to look after the child. Instead the mail prefers to rant against minorities and government agencies than in any way try
to accurately report the truth.
A very well written input. I am 100% with all the views you express!
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
I still dont believe that a child raised by a same sex couple (male or female) is in any way going to be less 'better to cope with life in general'.
Can I suggest you look up the studies that have been done on children's life outcomes versus family background. You might find the results quite interesting.
The problem on this thread is that some people are viewing the posts as somehow having a bit of a 'dig' at homosexuals. That is not the
intention on my part. As I have said in other posts, live and let live etc!
The original post was about a gay relationship being chosen over a heterosexual relationship (also the grandparents) as being the best environment for
kids to grow up. I, along with many of the posters on here, simply believe that to be wholly inaccurate and inappropriate. The simple fact is that
children will have a better start in life if they experience a 'normal' family setting! I don't see how anyone can dispute this or
defend how a gay 'partnership' can be chosen to provide the best environment for a child to grow up! Simple logic really!
[Edited on 3/2/09 by carpmart]
[Edited on 3/2/09 by carpmart]
Seeing as it appears the general consensus is children will grow up socially inadequate without a mother and father (oh mine were both there btw...
but hey there'll always be exceptions) then how about these situations?
There are "normal" families out there who work so many hours that their children are in daycare from 7am to 6pm. The ones that go to school
are in school, childminder, homework, bed. Is this a good standard?
Is it better to have two dads or to have a mum and dad that doesn't give a cr@p?
Doesn't matter what anyone says I'd rather have a loving family no matter what someone has decided is normal
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
...
The original post was about a gay relationship being chosen over a heterosexual relationship (also the grandparents) as being the best environment for kids to grow up. I, along with many of the posters on here, simply believe that to be wholly inaccurate and inappropriate. The simple fact is that children will have a better start in life if they experience a 'normal' family setting! I don't see how anyone can dispute this or defend how a gay 'partnership' can be chosen to provide the best environment for a child to grow up! Simple logic really!
[Edited on 3/2/09 by carpmart]
[Edited on 3/2/09 by carpmart]
quote:
Originally posted by nasty
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
...
The original post was about a gay relationship being chosen over a heterosexual relationship (also the grandparents) as being the best environment for kids to grow up. I, along with many of the posters on here, simply believe that to be wholly inaccurate and inappropriate. The simple fact is that children will have a better start in life if they experience a 'normal' family setting! I don't see how anyone can dispute this or defend how a gay 'partnership' can be chosen to provide the best environment for a child to grow up! Simple logic really!
[Edited on 3/2/09 by carpmart]
[Edited on 3/2/09 by carpmart]
Actually, I had a discussion on this issue with my fiancée who is a child welfare professional and has written a research paper on this topic and found that this belief is not supported by scientific research. The majority of scientifically robust research show results that suggest that children brought up by homosexuals do as well, are as happy and by all measures as well off as those brought up by heterosexuals.
Would never normally read the Mail as it's written for old people and Nazis but atleast it meant I heard about this TV program:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1135379/How-earth-respectable-parents-let-children-enter-Channel-4s-cruel-experiment.html
Child torture on TV...Genius!
Pity there wasn't a 'control' house with mixed girls and boys to see how they got on. Bet there'd have been less violence between
the boys and less bitchiness between the girls!
Cheers!
James
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
quote:
Originally posted by nasty
...
Actually, I had a discussion on this issue with my fiancée who is a child welfare professional and has written a research paper on this topic and found that this belief is not supported by scientific research. The majority of scientifically robust research show results that suggest that children brought up by homosexuals do as well, are as happy and by all measures as well off as those brought up by heterosexuals.
Sorry but I don't buy that!
quote:
Originally posted by nasty
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
quote:
Originally posted by nasty
...
Actually, I had a discussion on this issue with my fiancée who is a child welfare professional and has written a research paper on this topic and found that this belief is not supported by scientific research. The majority of scientifically robust research show results that suggest that children brought up by homosexuals do as well, are as happy and by all measures as well off as those brought up by heterosexuals.
Sorry but I don't buy that!
Well, I don't know if you're calling me a liar, or just questioning her research. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
It ultimately matters little, many child welfare agencies disagree with you and both follow and support her findings, so in much the same way that I trust a doctor's diagnosis more than some guy I meet on the street, I tend to trust the professionals in this case and not just the gut feelings of some random bloke.
Anyway in the end, it's all healthy debate and so long as we continue to put the needs of the children ahead of all others, things will be much better for all.
BTW, I'd personally love to see them stay with their grandparents (despite the obvious homophobia they display), but only if they were provided a proper support network so that were they ever unable to take care of the children, that they could rest easy knowing that someone else will help out until they are back on their feet.
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
[With regards to the research, I am sure that the data would exist for me to write a paper on the exact same subject as your fiancée and find the data to support my view as opposed to her findings. Thats the way these things work!
i've been reading this debate and wondering how involved i should get.
I really can't be bothered getting into the argument but I'm with Flak Monkey & Martin_16v on this one.
Now shall we get back to talking about cars before people fall out?
[Edited on 5/2/09 by MikeR]
just my 2 pen'orth.
I am not homophobic but am hetero sexual i say live and let live as someone else on here said what I am trying to get my head around is NOT the
homosexual couple issue but the fact that they placed them with a male homosexual couple when supposedly the child was "less happy" when
around men.
Now i will probably get lambasted and blasted for this but if they felt they had to place them with a homosexual couple then surely for the happiness
of the child it would have been better to find a female couple as this would appear to be where the child was most at ease
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
i've been reading this debate and wondering how involved i should get.
I really can't be bothered getting into the argument but I'm with Flak Monkey & Martin_16v on this one.
Now shall we get back to talking about cars before people fall out?
[Edited on 5/2/09 by MikeR]
I'd just like to add that this is the most posted thread I have ever kept bothering to read, so it's all good as far as debate is concerned
quote:
Originally posted by carpmart
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
[but cut]
Now shall we get back to talking about cars before people fall out?
[Edited on 5/2/09 by MikeR]
Interesting post!
I can't see where you can asses that someone has fallen out? I see the 'debate' on this thread as being adult and objective and all-in-all good natured. Its important that people feel able to express their views and opinions without any negativity from the rest of the locost community. That is what has happened with this 'debate' and thats good!
Cars (car related topics) form 95% of what gets discussed but occasionally subjects which provoke polar opposite views also come up and I for one think this adds a welcome dimension.
MikeR - I for one think its a shame you 'can't be bothered' as I would have welcomed your input!