View Full Version : Homosexual 'couple' preferred to Grandparents..
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 18:38
A pair of male homosexuals have been allowed to adopt two children.
The kids were the son and daughter of a woman who has drug problems.
The womans parents - aged 59 & 46 have expressed a willingness to adopt the children and care for them He has angina - she has diabetes - Social Services have deemed them 'unsuitable'
The Mother has expressed strong disaproval at the placement with a 'gay' couple - she wants her Mum & Dad to have the kids saying 'they'll do a brilliant job.' (though some might say they appear to have screwed up with her to an extent)
The Grandparents have objected too - saying if they cannot adopt them then they want them to go to a heterosexual couple - of which several have expressed a desire to adopt these children.
The little girl - who is four, I think - is rather apprehensive of men. The boy , who is a little older is said to be deseprate to go to his Grandparents.
Social Services have told the Grandparents that unless they drop their objections to the chosen Mr & Mr idea they will never be allowed to see their Grandchildren.
This decision is bordering on the obscene. It is a sickening assault on family values. Children should always be placed with heterosexual couples if they are in plentiful supply. Homosexuals? They should go to the back of the queue.
You might not be surprised that in England (this is happening in Edinburgh) the Daily Mail has taken up the case and I really hope there is a reconsideration here.
Has anyone else been disturbed by this story?
ShelleyCowie
29-Jan-09, 18:43
I see absolutely no problem with homosexual people adopting. In this case the grandparents obviously more than willing to take the kids on themselves. Which in a way yes maybe the kids should have gone to them but as said the grandparents are unwell.
Why should homosexual couples go to the back of the queue? What is their against them?? :confused
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 19:17
Many people lead relatively normal lives with both diabetes and angina.
Homosexual couples should be the last resort in my opinion - especially males.
As a Grandparent myself, who might well be deemed too 'old' at 57 or unwell (diet controlled diabetes and no! I've never been 'obese' oh! and arthritis) I find this case extremely worrying.
Quite why anyone would want their children, or indeed any children homed with homosexuals when there are heterosexual men and women queuing up is beyond me.
Of course this will split the org. board, and divide the nation...with the usual suspects championing 'gay' rights.
Well, I happen to think the children's right to as 'normal' an upbringing as possible takes precedence over social workers who wish to tick boxes and appease their liberal bosses...and precedence also over two blokes who appear unable, or unwilling to face the challenges of conventional breeeding
The so called professionals who are behind this ludicrous decision should be outed, routed and sacked. Primarily for the 'blackmail' threat to the Grandparents.
I accept 'gay' adoption is here to stay . I see this as an enormous privilege and concession to to this abnormal (but natural) condition I do honestly think they should be prepared to wait...and wait....if necessary.
The homosexual family should never, in my opinion take precedence over the normal, conventional family with a mother and father - one of each gender. Much less should they override the right sof blood relatives where the latter are willing and able to offer a home, subject to certain checks. Age- within reason, and also manageable health conditions notwithstanding.
Sometimes I feel the world really is going mad but this takes the insanity to new heights.
how can you say a hetro family is any more normal that a homo family?
whos to say that the "father" in a hetro family is not going to do things that should not be done?
whos to say that having a female figure in the mix will make a dif?
in my experiance, the "normal" families are the ones with the most hangs ups and supressed violence that you will ever see!
you see same sex couples adopting children or having children all the time.
and in most cases (i dont know stats here but would love to see them) they are loving, well balanced family enviroments.
in fact i know a boy, whos father was gay.. (didnt realise or come out, (never asked) until after years of marrige. well, he and his partner raised his son, and his son is now a grown man with a wife and family of his own.
and nope he never needed psyc. help or had issues..
jeff and dave were like any other couple... they joked, they laughed, they argued, and basically id everything a "normal" family does..
i have to admit... in all the years i have known them... i have never seen them behave inaproprietly.. never seen any sexual behaviour in public... and def. never in front of kids
a hug here and there, or a look that just made you say.. awwww, wish someone would look at me like that!
but thats about it!
its not like they will be having sex in front of the kids!
and as a parent of two young children, if God forbid, something were ever to happen to me and hubby... and a gay couple who were loving, and kind, tolerant open minded and open hearted people... were willing to open their homes to my boys and give them a life i no longer could... well then, i would be shouting down from my cloud, saying!! YEAH! way to go boys! you so lucked out!
as for the grandparents, there is allways more to a story than what you hear..
as it is very rare that social services will nearly allways try and put children with family before anything else.. and they would have been in foster care for a while if they have reached the point of addoption
Penelope Pitstop
29-Jan-09, 20:15
A pair of male homosexuals have been allowed to adopt two children.
The kids were the son and daughter of a woman who has drug problems.
The womans parents - aged 59 & 46 have expressed a willingness to adopt the children and care for them He has angina - she has diabetes - Social Services have deemed them 'unsuitable'
This seems out of order by social services. At 46 the grandmother is still in her prime :) diabetes is very controllable these days so I would find that hard to take as an excuse.
Sounds like yet another problem within social services? ....Or perhaps a gay social worker made the recommendations? Whatever it's just not right. Poor kiddies wanting to go and stay with their grandparents .....
I'm with you on this one percy if there is a hetrosexual couple wanting the children why opt for the unconventional gay couple....
I make no excuse for not being one of the PC brigade.[lol]
I agree, Percy. I have no problem with gay people adopting, but if members of their own family, people they know, are willing to take them, I'm of the opinion that, unless morally unsuitable, that it is a better option than adoption by any stranger.
I'm of the opinion that the adoption and foster agencies have taken PC to new heights. If the mother had died of her drug problems, the grandparents would have looked after the children pretty well automatically....regardless of their health problems.
Why on earth do they insist on denying children loving homes because the putative adopters have just the same kinds of problems as many natural parents.
Is the next step going to be taking children away from their parents and having them adopted by perfect people because the parents are obese, or smokers or have a manageable illness?
Don't know why I'm bothering to post except to support brandy whose post says it all. What children need is love, stability and security - it doesn't matter who gives it. There must be more to the family background than we know. Open your mind Percy and don't be so prejudiced against people you know nothing about.
how can you say a hetro family is any more normal that a homo family?
whos to say that the "father" in a hetro family is not going to do things that should not be done?
whos to say that having a female figure in the mix will make a dif?
in my experiance, the "normal" families are the ones with the most hangs ups and supressed violence that you will ever see!
you see same sex couples adopting children or having children all the time.
and in most cases (i dont know stats here but would love to see them) they are loving, well balanced family enviroments.
in fact i know a boy, whos father was gay.. (didnt realise or come out, (never asked) until after years of marrige. well, he and his partner raised his son, and his son is now a grown man with a wife and family of his own.
and nope he never needed psyc. help or had issues..
jeff and dave were like any other couple... they joked, they laughed, they argued, and basically id everything a "normal" family does..
i have to admit... in all the years i have known them... i have never seen them behave inaproprietly.. never seen any sexual behaviour in public... and def. never in front of kids
a hug here and there, or a look that just made you say.. awwww, wish someone would look at me like that!
but thats about it!
its not like they will be having sex in front of the kids!
and as a parent of two young children, if God forbid, something were ever to happen to me and hubby... and a gay couple who were loving, and kind, tolerant open minded and open hearted people... were willing to open their homes to my boys and give them a life i no longer could... well then, i would be shouting down from my cloud, saying!! YEAH! way to go boys! you so lucked out!
as for the grandparents, there is allways more to a story than what you hear..
as it is very rare that social services will nearly allways try and put children with family before anything else.. and they would have been in foster care for a while if they have reached the point of addoption
There is a difference between a gay couple bringing up the natural children of one of them, or a gay couple adopting a child where the child has no other place to go.....but in this case, the children have family to take them.
Would you prefer your children were adopted by a gay couple if a member of yours or your husband's family were able and willing to look after them......and they wanted to live with them?
I'd be against this adoption if the couple were not gay....it isn't the sexual proclivities of the couple which bothers me...it is the fact of not allowing the grandparents to have them for no good reason, as far as I can see.
This is yet another adoption too far.
Definitely a "jobsworth" adoption agency! According to the newspaper report
The children have been in foster care for two years while their grandparents battled the social services department in court.
However, the cost of legal bills forced them to drop the case and relinquish their rights.
So it is better to put small children into foster care than allow them to live with family?
Sorry but any adoption by any couple is wrong in these circumstances.
Social services don't always get things right and if there is no problem with the grandparents other than minor health, then I agree they should not be adopted by anyone. However I suspect we may not know the whole story and probably never will. I hope the right decision has been made for all the right reasons.
[quote=percy toboggan;492441]
Homosexual couples should be the last resort in my opinion - especially males.
Quite why anyone would want their children, or indeed any children homed with homosexuals when there are heterosexual men and women queuing up is beyond me.
Fair enough that the children should've gone to their grandparents but your view is severely outdated.
So what if two men or two women wish to adopt a child? As long as a child is with people that will give them uncondional love, care, suport and the opportunity for stimulation and learning it doesn't matter what the gender of "parents" is.
What strike me, Percy, is that you know nothing about this particular case - in fact you know less than nothing. But it's an opportunity for a rant....
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:05
What strike me, Percy, is that you know nothing about this particular case - in fact you know less than nothing. But it's an opportunity for a rant....
I know as much as most...
Even the bare bones of it scream outrage.
What strikes me about you might get me lifted off this forum were I to go into it.
Posts like Brandy's remind me the inmates are in danger of taking over the whole shebang....in the case of social services they already have.
To suggest 'gays' are normal ...well we've been here before haven't we.
How the heck are two homo blokes going to assist a young girl growing up. First bra,menstruation,fashions first sign of hormones etc.etc.....a girl needs a mother for Gawd's sake...and boys do not need to see two grown men holding hands and cuddling up on the sofa...it maks my stomach churn. Take it, leave it or rail against it...I know the majority are with me...but as I said the loonies have taken over the new SS....and it's almost as dangerous as the old one!
I pray common sense prevails and the Mail's campaign gains momentum.
Let the homos have the forgotten, the unwanted and the desperate. Not Nan and Grandad's pride and joy.
If they are that keen to buck nature then they'll settle for anything with two legs and one head.
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:08
This decision is bordering on the obscene. It is a sickening assault on family values. Children should always be placed with heterosexual couples if they are in plentiful supply. Homosexuals? They should go to the back of the queue.
...
Has anyone else been disturbed by this story?
Are you bloody serious? Keep your bigotry to yourself and go climb back into the cave you must have came out of. This is the 21st century. How can idiots with this point of view still exist?
What strikes me is that Percy often posts on whatever TV/Cinema production which grabs his fancy at the time.
I won't be giving the "story" any thought until I've read it/seen it for myself.
personally, nope there is no one in my immediate family i would want to raise my children.
i would not trust my children with my brothers to save my life.
i love them, but i would never trust them with the welfare and well being of my children, simply because i feel it would not be in the kids best intrests... my mum is not able to care for herself, much less anyone else... same goes for my aunt as well, as they are both unhealthy.
when my real mother died, i was 17 and my youngest sister was 5, her dad took off with her, and even though he had a criminal record 8 pages long and never showed up in court for a custody hearing he still got her.
a few months later she went into foster care, as he was once again arrested.
we were not offered the choice to get her back.
when i went to a layer at the age of 18, to try and get custody, and quickly shot down, as only a half sister, a 18 year old and considered to young to care for a young child properly, i thought my world was ending.
kara was so so lucky... she was adopted by a wonderful family... a police officer and his wife, and has lived with them since she was about 8 years old. she is now off at university, a sucessful memeber of society, has a very loving supportive adoptive family, and knows her blood family. (well mothers side anyway)
she did not have to beg and fight for every scrap she had, live in poverty or end up just another teen statistic which could easily have happened if i had been given custody.
hind sight is a great thing... i would have loved her and given her everything i could.. but lets face it... what could i really offer her at the end of the day, when i worked two jobs just to pay for a roof over my head and my tuition for university.
the rest of the family made horrible noises about the injustice of it at the time, and how they would take her in, ect...ect... even though they really wasnt any extra room in anyones homes, the kids had already been split up... just to keep the family together.. all but kara. we kept in touch, she has a wonderful memory book of her real mum, and lots of keepsakes from that time in her life. but our family accepts now that she has made it the best of all the boys, has wonderful parents, and a great life.
and best of all... she is still part of our family as well..
and why?
because we all got along, so that what was best for her... was actually what we were trying to achieve. not who at the end of the day got to say, HA! ive got her, and because im blood thats all that matters.
something, i did learn... if this is in the states.. granparents have NO legal rights when it comes to children.
BTW where are the childrens father?
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:13
Yes, actually I'm deadly serious. If I've rattled your cage be prepared for more of the same.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:15
I know the majority are with me...
That's quite an assumption. Do you ever re read your post? I mean seriously, how can you read them and not realise how much of bigot you sound. Christ sake.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:15
personally, nope there is no one in my immediate family i would want to raise my children......
So you assume everyones experience of family is as negative as your own experiences.
you qualified by saying it was a personal view...it's all any of us have.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:20
That's quite an assumption. Do you ever re read your post? I mean seriously, how can you read them and not realise how much of bigot you sound. Christ sake.
Yep...I re-read, and I speak with conviction. Quite probably for the silent majority who have been cowed by you and your ilk.
I 'sound like a bigot' blimey!
How many 'bigots' do you know who will condone homosexual adoption?
You sound like a numpty but thanks for responding anyway.
(personally I'd rather be considered a bigot than a numpty)
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:21
That's quite an assumption. Do you ever re read your post? I mean seriously, how can you read them and not realise how much of bigot you sound. Christ sake.
Why did you bring him into it ?
in my experiance, the "normal" families are the ones with the most hangs ups and supressed violence that you will ever see!
Just wondering if thats because the vast majority are "normal" families?
I think this is something we cannot pass judgement on without all the facts. But we will never get all the facts.
There must be something else going on with the family concerned.
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:27
Yep...I re-read, and I speak with conviction. Quite probably for the silent majority who have been cowed by you and your ilk.
I 'sound like a bigot' blimey!
How many 'bigots' do you know who will condone homosexual adoption?
You sound like a numpty but thanks for responding anyway.
(personally I'd rather be considered a bigot than a numpty)
So you condone homosexual adoption, yet at least three times you called homosexuals abnormal. And I'm the numpty!
And why would you empathise sound. Surely you would make more sense.
And which him are you talking about? The one in that book called "the bible" that can be found under "ridiculous attempt at literature" in the library?
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:31
My initial instinct was to ownder why the Grandparents had not looked after the two children for two years. They have been in Foster care.
Agreed - that's dodgy. Wouldn't happen here. Maybe the old fella's illness was to blame I don't know.
WQhatever the rationale here and the ind and out we have several normal couples wanting to offer these kids a loving home with a Mum & Dad. Thse should be given preferenc eover homosexuals because it is only fait to the children.
Homosexuals can and do make good foster/adoptive parents...especially Lesbians but the bloke thing I cannot really support unless the only other option is year after years in a council care home.
This is my view...it's only one view... but if it upsets you thats tough. It's every bit as valid as your own view so learn to live with it. If I'm the prehistoric neanderthal nerd some of you think then will get the nod....I have my doubts. There's a head of steam building and some of it is issuing forth from my own ears.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:35
So you condone homosexual adoption, yet at least three times you called homosexuals abnormal. And I'm the numpty!
And why would you empathise sound. Surely you would make more sense.
And which him are you talking about? The one in that book called "the bible" that can be found under "ridiculous attempt at literature" in the library?
You might have noticed I spelt 'him' with a small aitch. I'm not a practicing Christian''although I don't knock Christianity. I just wondered why 'Christ' was your chosen word to express shock...Christians might find it offensive !
'Abnormal' means 'not normal. Homosexuality is usually natural but certainly not normal - otherwise far more people would adopt its practices - ie 51% might make it 'normal'
The conclusion you reached in your second sentence is correct however.
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:37
You think a lot of yourself if you think you have "upset" people. Come on man, how can you truly think that gay male couples are going to be a worse parent that a man and his wife? If they truly love the child, then they are going to be just as good as a husband and wife.
Percy I too was horrified at this story today as were my workmates sitting with me. No matter who the adopting couple are, the pure fact is these young children have been taken away from their own willing grandparents.
People with angina and diabetes are looking after children all over the country, and I believe children should always be kept by willing family members unless they pose a threat to the children. I also cannot believe they are being put up for adoption either, as who is to say their mother may not enter rehab in the future and become fit to look after them again.
You cannot say for sure either that the grandparents are to blame for their daughter becoming an addict, this happens all the time to people who have given their children loving stable homes.
For the record I am not in favour of gay couples adopting, but have nothing against gay couples at all, however I believe they make their own decisions about not to being able to have children of their own due to their relationship, and think couples who cannot have children for medical reasons should always come first.
If anything happened to my OH and myself I would like my kids to be adopted/fostered by, in the following order.
1. Family members.
2. Hetero couple.
3. Gay couple.
4. Gary Glitter.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:41
You think a lot of yourself if you think you have "upset" people. Come on man, how can you truly think that gay male couples are going to be a worse parent that a man and his wife? If they truly love the child, then they are going to be just as good as a husband and wife.
Your first assumption is entirely correct.
I refer you to your previous admission (you said -'And I'm a numpty! )
and I concur fully, given the drivel you have posted above.
You clearly do not distinguish the difference between 'normal' and 'natural' either, which makes further exchanges virtually pointless.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:44
If anything happened to my OH and myself I would like my kids to be adopted/fostered by, in the following order.
1. Family members.
2. Hetero couple.
3. Gay couple.
4. Gary Glitter.
I'd add - climbing at number three a Lesbian couple followed by at 4..assexual spinsters...at five....that elderly lady at number sixteen...coming in at six...two homosexual blokes.Who to me are a bit like Southport.*
so long pop pickers.
*the last resort
after reading the article, i can not belive the mother is not in jail for criminal child abuse.
not only is she a drug addict, but the children were taken away from her because of horrendous treatment.
the one child was extremly malnutritioned.
there is no telling how badly she abused them, yet she has the gall to get up and say that she loves her children, and only wants the best for them.
hello, pot meet kettle.
obviously, the mother can not be allowed near the children ever!
and i can not see the grandparents keeping her away from the children.
which im sure this was taken into account.
also, from what little i could read from the article, the children are not upset about the move. and the little girl quite excited about her room.
and it was not begging to go home with granny and grandad... but little boy asked to go live with mum. gran and grandad..
children, will take any abuses, to the point of death... out of a sence of love and loyalty.
as responsible adults we have to make the hard decisions on what will be best.
i personally, from what i have read... and this is not knowing the whole story, including histories and backstories. would not have given the children to the grandparents either if i were a social worker, as i could not guarente the mother and father would have no acess to them.
very little is mentioned of the older to children, would like to knw where they are now, and how they have fared.
there is a whole lot to take into consideration.
on another note... when i said "normal" i meant that very sarcastically... as sometime, what we percive to be normal... as the classic rockafella family.. isnt always as it seems.
each situation is dif, and i honestly see nothing wrong with a gay couple adopting.
as for the little girl needing a mother... well shes never had one yet...
and what about all the single dads out there that are raising their daughters? whos wives have died or left their children behind?
not all children have a mummy and a daddy, or ever one or the other.
i had much rather see them in a safe enviroment where they are cared for and cherished than lost in the system, or given back into a situation that is just going to end up another headline.... 2 children found dead... social services blamed......
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:44
You might have noticed I spelt 'him' with a small aitch. I'm not a practicing Christian''although I don't knock Christianity. I just wondered why 'Christ' was your chosen word to express shock...Christians might find it offensive !
'Abnormal' means 'not normal. Homosexuality is usually natural but certainly not normal - otherwise far more people would adopt its practices - ie 51% might make it 'normal'
The conclusion you reached in your second sentence is correct however.
Well I'm glad we're debating this more like adults than some people I have debated with in the past.
I don't agree with you that you need a majority for it to be normal. I mean more than 51% of Germans agree with Hitler when he was in power, so does that make what he did "normal"? Obviously not.
And just because a minority does it, it doesn't make it abnormal. You say you are not Christian, but your views seem to be very Christian. Homosexuality is not abnormal just because more than half of men don't do it. In your eyes it is abnormal because you find it repulsive. That doesn't mean we all should.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:46
You think a lot of yourself if you think you have "upset" people. Come on man, how can you truly think that gay male couples are going to be a worse parent that a man and his wife? If they truly love the child, then they are going to be just as good as a husband and wife.
Do you honestly think any newly adoptive parents 'truly love the child'
I think this statement more than any other you have made suggests a naivety which precludes further discourse. You're fairly new here but you need to shape up on heavyweight matters and serious subjects. This is an intelligent forum.
I'd add - climbing at number three a Lesbian couple followed by at 4..assexual spinsters...at five....that elderly lady at number sixteen...coming in at six...two homosexual blokes.Who to me are a bit like Southport.*
so long pop pickers.
*the last resort
Guess youve never been to Rhyl Percy.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:50
It's Hitler now is it?
I'd say what he did was perfectly normal for a meggolomaniac with a sadistic, unhinged approach to power and thirst for world domination. Some might even say it was entirely natural for the German people to vote for him.
Goodnight.
(work on your reasoning and get back to me when I've not had three pints...I need at least six to cope with this Celtic.)
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:51
Guess youve never been to Rhyl Percy.
Every year 1955-1960 for a fortnight when I was little.
I agree it's now a trifle grim - but used to be fab.
Do you honestly think any newly adoptive parents 'truly love the child'
.......
What on earth does this have to do with your original post, Percy, or are you deliberately trying to muddy the waters?
BTW, the link you eventually posted (Post No 16) is not working, so I've still not read the original story.
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:55
Do you honestly think any newly adoptive parents 'truly love the child'
I think this statement more than any other you have made suggests a naivety which precludes further discourse. You're fairly new here but you need to shape up on heavyweight matters and serious subjects. This is an intelligent forum.
I never said that newly adoptive parents truly love the child. I was talking more generally, saying that if a gay couple love the child is it not as a good a love as a straight couples? And I've been here for quite a while, I just have better things to do than post on it loads of time a day.
"This is an intelligent forum." The way you go around calling gay people abnormal makes me doubt that statement. I think "intelligent forum" is a bit over the top as well. This is mainly just a place for people to gossip and winge about things behind pseudonyms.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:57
[quote=brandy;492633]
...not all children have a mummy and a daddy...
quote]
I know this all too well. Even fewer have a Daddy and a Daddy. I have no quarrel with you and I hope you share the same desire for a reasonably intelligent debate. We are in differentr camps on this, conditioned by life experience , perhaps generational differences and political outlook.
I fear no end of discourse will reconcile our differing views but I thank you for your tone and your attitude toward the debate.
Goodnight.
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 22:59
...meggolomaniac...
(work on your reasoning and get back to me when I've not had three pints...I need at least six to cope with this Celtic.)
Why does nobody on here use a spell checker.
And my reasoning was perfectly fine. You said have a 51% majority in support of something made it normal. I said Hitler had more than that majority, therefore by your reasoning he was normal. Seems logical to me, but I doubt you'll agree with it.
percy toboggan
29-Jan-09, 22:59
I just have better things to do than post on it loads of time a day.
.
Then come back when you have less time :lol:
Now I really must be off to me kip -
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 23:01
Then come back when you have less time :lol:
Now I really must be off to me kip -
Hopefully you will have an epiphany in your dreams and realise the error of your ways. Enjoy your nap :D.
after reading the article, i can not belive the mother is not in jail for criminal child abuse.
not only is she a drug addict, but the children were taken away from her because of horrendous treatment.
the one child was extremly malnutritioned.
there is no telling how badly she abused them, yet she has the gall to get up and say that she loves her children, and only wants the best for them.
hello, pot meet kettle.
obviously, the mother can not be allowed near the children ever!
and i can not see the grandparents keeping her away from the children.
which im sure this was taken into account.
also, from what little i could read from the article, the children are not upset about the move. and the little girl quite excited about her room.
and it was not begging to go home with granny and grandad... but little boy asked to go live with mum. gran and grandad..
children, will take any abuses, to the point of death... out of a sence of love and loyalty.
as responsible adults we have to make the hard decisions on what will be best.
i personally, from what i have read... and this is not knowing the whole story, including histories and backstories. would not have given the children to the grandparents either if i were a social worker, as i could not guarente the mother and father would have no acess to them.
very little is mentioned of the older to children, would like to knw where they are now, and how they have fared.
there is a whole lot to take into consideration.
on another note... when i said "normal" i meant that very sarcastically... as sometime, what we percive to be normal... as the classic rockafella family.. isnt always as it seems.
each situation is dif, and i honestly see nothing wrong with a gay couple adopting.
as for the little girl needing a mother... well shes never had one yet...
and what about all the single dads out there that are raising their daughters? whos wives have died or left their children behind?
not all children have a mummy and a daddy, or ever one or the other.
i had much rather see them in a safe environment where they are cared for and cherished than lost in the system, or given back into a situation that is just going to end up another headline.... 2 children found dead... social services blamed......
Go back and read it again, brandy. There are many separate families on that page, and you are not talking about the one under discussion.:roll:
And nowhere do any of the articles say the grandparents were unfit to bring up their grandchildren.
You would almost think that there were not enough children who genuinely have no option but adoption and the adoption services are making sure they keep themselves in work.
Btw.how do you read excitement into The men are giving them a bedroom each – and the girl’s has been decked out with a ‘princess’ bedspread. The children have also been shown the wellington boots waiting for them at the back door when they want to play outside.
i didnt say ( i dont think i did) that the grandparents were unfit.
just questioned their abilitiy to keep the mother away from the children.
will go back and re read the article... but i read that this is the woman of the 4 children, who were terribly mistreated by mum and dad. and that one of the girls was near starved, she was so underweight.
if the grandparents have reg. contact with the daughter which they seem to, then how will they keep the children away from mother, and at the end of the day would they try.
not out of badness, but out of misguided love.
its hard as a parent to understand that someone could ever hurt their children, expecially when the one that did the hurting is ones own child.
you tend to see the face of the babe you held in your arms, or the laughter or the child growing up..
not the strung out heroin addict, that will do anything, and i do mean anything for thier next fix.
when the rage comes over them and they break their children... and then their minds clear enought to be sorry and regretfull, unfortunatly the damage is done.
in these cases i can easily understand social services view point,
its hard to understand, but at the end of the day we have to look at the big picture.
the question that i find myself asking ... if it had been Mr. and Mrs Smith who loves children and small animals.. but sadly were not blessed with the wonderous ability to have children, and so humbly opened up their homes to these poor unfortunate angels, who have had to live untold horrors with an herroin addict for a mother... would there have been an uproar at all?
would here have been the heated debate of the grandparents not getting custody after a two year battle?
is any one even thinking about the emotional entanglments of the adoptive parents?
other that the fact of their sexual preferances?
why are they wanting to adopt?
could it be for the same reasons as Mr and Mrs. Smith?
that because of their pref. they cant have children of thier own.
they are able and willing to give a stable family enviroment to children who up to this point has never
known one?
i could care less if someone is male, female, hetrosexual, homsexual, black, white blue purple... if they are good parents and are willing to give the care and heartache that it takes to be a parent, and be a good parent then they have my 100 percent approval.
something i was always told, that i guess could be used in ref. to this in a round about way.
any boy can help make a baby,but it takes a real man to be a father.
Why does nobody on here use a spell checker.
Stab in the dark here. Probably because it's a forum and not an English exam. Btw you missed the question mark.
Mr Pedantic,
Tonbridge.;)
celtic 302
29-Jan-09, 23:35
It may be a forum, but I like to understand what people are saying. And "Btw" should be all capitals. It is an acronym after all.
I am with Percy on this one, Homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty childless couples out there who would desperately love to adopt children if family members are not able to step in and take over.
I see absolutely no problem with homosexual people adopting. In this case the grandparents obviously more than willing to take the kids on themselves. Which in a way yes maybe the kids should have gone to them but as said the grandparents are unwell.
Why should homosexual couples go to the back of the queue? What is their against them?? :confusedOne has angina, the other has diabetes, hardly a death sentence in this day and age.
The Pepsi Challenge
30-Jan-09, 00:52
Gee, is this thread not at 10 pages yet? Seems the homophobia is as rampant as the sexism and racism in here. Next you'll be quoting from Love Thy Neighbour, Perc'.
but have nothing against gay couples at all, however I believe they make their own decisions about not to being able to have children.....
Wow, thats an old one. And unbelievably ignorant. So you are saying they have a choice. You believe homosexuality is a choice. Did you choose to be straight?
You know what, views like this are still very common in caithness. Its one of the main reasons that many inteligent, creative, open minded young people leave the area at the earliest opertunity and whats left behind consist largly of the mouth breathing bigots who perpetuate the problem.
i didnt say ( i dont think i did) that the grandparents were unfit.
just questioned their abilitiy to keep the mother away from the children.
will go back and re read the article... but i read that this is the woman of the 4 children, who were terribly mistreated by mum and dad. and that one of the girls was near starved, she was so underweight.
if the grandparents have reg. contact with the daughter which they seem to, then how will they keep the children away from mother, and at the end of the day would they try.
not out of badness, but out of misguided love.
its hard as a parent to understand that someone could ever hurt their children, expecially when the one that did the hurting is ones own child.
you tend to see the face of the babe you held in your arms, or the laughter or the child growing up..
not the strung out heroin addict, that will do anything, and i do mean anything for thier next fix.
There has been no indication as far as I'm aware that the mother of the 2 children has ever hurt them. In fact the grandparents not fit to look after them did so practically from birth because they were aware the mother was not capable of doing so.
As the adoption services have decided they are too old and unfit to take care of their grandchildren with the help of their family still at home, when are they going to remove their own two children who are still of school age, I wonder?
I see no reason why the children's mother should not be able to see them provided she is properly supervised until she is fully recovered. After all, she was allowed to take them out under supervision to say goodbye to them.
Wow, thats an old one. And unbelievably ignorant. So you are saying they have a choice. You believe homosexuality is a choice. Did you choose to be straight?
You know what, views like this are still very common in caithness. Its one of the main reasons that many inteligent, creative, open minded young people leave the area at the earliest opertunity and whats left behind consist largly of the mouth breathing bigots who perpetuate the problem.
It is certainly not a choice........but it is a fact that two men are unable to have children together. You would have thought that the simple fact of the lack of one womb between them would have made this obvious.
They are not, however incapable of fathering children...so for any gay in the village who wants family.....why not rent a womb and a large syringe?
I am not anti-gay..or even particularly anti-gay adoptions.......but I resent the implication the holier than thou crowd promote that anyone who thinks the grandparents should have been the first and only choice to look after the children are homophobic.
As far as I'm concerned, the first best option is to place a child with someone suitable in their own family.......and they have to have a better reason than the age/medical condition of the putative adopters to refuse.....and , imo, a better reason than the grandparents refusal to cut off contact with their daughter when proper supervision would remove any possible risk to the children.
If it is a choice between living in care until adulthood, and being adopted by any stranger deemed suitable, then by all means go for adoption by strangers...but forgive me if I think the best thing for any child, where possible, is to remain within the family circle.
Wow, thats an old one. And unbelievably ignorant. So you are saying they have a choice. You believe homosexuality is a choice. Did you choose to be straight?
You know what, views like this are still very common in caithness. Its one of the main reasons that many inteligent, creative, open minded young people leave the area at the earliest opertunity and whats left behind consist largly of the mouth breathing bigots who perpetuate the problem.
Homosexuality may not be a choice, I dont think it is, I believe folk are born that way inclined. However nature made the decision that 2 male humans are not able to reproduce. If you are homosexual you should accept that you cannot reproduce and therefore cannot have children. Preference for adoption should be given to heterosexual couples.
brokencross
30-Jan-09, 10:51
I am not anti-gay..or even particularly anti-gay adoptions.......but I resent the implication the holier than thou crowd promote that anyone who thinks the grandparents should have been the first and only choice to look after the children are homophobic.
About the most sensible post in the thread.
Just reading the headline in todays Edinburgh Evening News, that Social Services are threatening to deny the Grandparents access to their Grandchildren because they alerted the media. How Big Brother is that?
weeboyagee
30-Jan-09, 11:22
I can't see how the balance in life is best offered to these kids by setting them up for adoption this way. Love, kindness etc are all available from many people of different backgrounds but surely what is really important in this life is to offer an view of life that is from a balanced outlook point - society owes it to the kids methinks. Although social services may think this is in the kids best interests I can't help but think that it is not in their best interests and that, with other options available, there is an element of political correctness being exacted in this situation.
This thread was not what I would normally have expected to have come across over my cup of coffee this morning!
WBG :cool:
YummyMummy
30-Jan-09, 11:49
OK, for the record:
100.000's of children and young people in the UK live with parental substance misuse. The consequences can be devastating and often fatal. Many children and young people die at the hands of their parents and carers in the UK (currently about 1-2 children per week, on average).
Not all children and young people are given the option of substitute local authority care (this includes placement with friends or relatives as well as foster care). When the risk become too high - different living arrangements are sought. All policies and procedures in Scotland, England and Wales stipulate that it is usually in the child's best interests to reside with friends and relatives. This is regular paractice and many children and young people live with their grandparents on a temporary as well as long term basis.
Adoption is a last resort and Adoption Orders will only be sought if permanent arrangements (i.e. local authoriy care, including foster care) are not an option. The courts make decisions for children and young people to be adopted, NOT the social work service. Strict criteria have to be met and if a Judge/Sherrif is not convinced that this is in the child's best interests, then in no way will an Adoption Order be granted. The courts would have to be convinced that the child's well-being is the paramount consideration in granting an Order as well as suitable arrangements put in place as to where the child should reside (i.e. adoptive carers).
It is highly unlikely that in the (very lengthy and thorough) assessment process that the Grandparents would not have been considered to look after the children on a long term basis. [This happens all the time, up and down the UK many Grandparents are caring for their grandchildren]. It is reasonable to conclude that the multi-agency risk assessment pointed to the unsuitability of the Grandparents on the grounds that it would not be in the children's best interests, NOT merely on health grounds - it's reasonable, as many other orgers have pointed out, that there is more to this story, other than that being reported - interestingly, by the Grandparents themselves.
Every adoption is treated with sensitivity, with the children's well-being placed at the centre of ALL decision-making (several adopters would be shortlisted initially) and it would have been considered and on these grounds that the children would be placed with this particular couple.
Homosexuals adopting children is both legal and ethical and often entirely suitable for children and young people who are in need of a nurturing and loving family environment.
Finally, I rarely get involved in these types of posts, as I find it disappointing that deliberate attempts are made to stir homophobia and racism amongst my decent fellow orgers, who inadvertantly get involved in commenting on a perfectly legitimate and thought-provoking topic, only for it to be used as an opportunity for a racist/homophobic rant.
That is the "official" and theoretical version, but in effect it is not generally how it happens in reality.
Even as a relative if you do not comply with the Social Services "criteria", which are very fluid and are changed at their whim, they will object to the relative caring for the child.
The hearings are in closed court, the proceedings are not, and cannot, be reported or even made public in any manner. This is allegedly for the protection of the child but there are now many kinds of criminal cases where the identity of the victim is kept very well guarded and in some cases the identity of the defendant.
It is a usual procedure for Social Services to make threats that if you do not comply with their wishes you will never be allowed to see the child again.
The usual procedure with adoption is to inform the relative that if they agree to the adoption taking place then visits will be arranged once the child is settled. That invariably does not occur with any number of "reasons" being given.
The courts will, invariably, find in favour of Social Services who will make the claim that "it is in the child's best interests", and few Courts will disregard that claim.
Should the relative make waves the Social Services will immediately apply for a "Gagging Order" which prevents the relative/guardian from giving out any further information under threat of imprisonment. There is, invariably, a Gagging Order preventing making the Gagging Order public.
No further details being forthcoming the conclusion people are left with is that there must be more to the story that the relative/guardian is saying.
The Social Services are professionals and are very, very good at what they do.
In this case the "reason" the Social Services will no doubt use is that if the child is allowed to stay with the grandparents there is a high likelihood that the mother will have more access to the children than is deemed, by Social Services, to be to the children's advantage and may impinge on their safety.
I am very surprised that the grandparents have been given even a hint of who or ever where the proposed adoptive people are by Social Services, at least officially.
I would suspect that that information has been made known by other means.
The Social Services will now do their absolute best to ensure that, no matter what, the children do not go to the grandparents, even if that means they end up staying for a long period in Children's Homes.
The reason for that is quite simple, it sends a very strong message to other people not to publicly challenge the wishes of Social Services or they will suffer the consequences and never see their children again.
The children, especially if they are fairly young, will invariably be told the reason their parents/grandparents etc are not seeing them is because they either don’t care about them any more or simply haven’t bothered to make the effort, the intention being to break the bond between the children and their family.
At the end of the day, Social Services, as with most people, will do what they consider is best/easiest for them in the long term.
Does anybody know if the Social Service budgets are still benefiting from fulfilling targets for the percentage of children taken into care who are successfully placed for adoption? The higher the number of successful adoptions counting towards the set target attracting a proportionate increase in their budget.
cuddlepop
30-Jan-09, 15:57
As has been said before there is alot more going on in this case than has been reported in the press but what has been reported leaves a feeling of "Big Brither" at its worst.
Its political tick boxing and performance targets by anyother means.
In my experience and that of fellow carers unless you "abide" by social work agenda then god help you........:~((because no one else will)
My feelings are so strong towards childrens social workers that I dont want my eldest daughter becoming one.[disgust]
Don't know why I'm bothering to post except to support brandy whose post says it all. What children need is love, stability and security - it doesn't matter who gives it. There must be more to the family background than we know. Open your mind Percy and don't be so prejudiced against people you know nothing about.
agree with you 100% here, the thinking behind the social work mayby is that the mother could still get access to these kids, plus their ill health aswell. why should it be a "straight couple" who brings up children, i am sure these to men will provide a loving, safe and caring enviroment for these kids, and thats what should really matter.
At last common sense has prevailed I hope. Social Services are having a re think
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Gay-adoption-set-to-be.4930358.jp
One lesson to learn from all this....never go to Social Services for help, however desperate you are.
celtic 302
30-Jan-09, 17:15
It's not an acronym.
Ding! That is the sound I make when someone is wrong.
One lesson to learn from all this....never go to Social Services for help, however desperate you are. I have to agree with that.
There is a site which throws some light on how the system works in England and Wales, but I suspect the methods used will be exactly the same here.
Be advised though that it is from a news source well know for it's hysterical overreaction and tawdry scandal mongering pandering to the unthinking masses.
It was once commonly known as The Thunderer by most will know it as The Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/system/topicRoot/Family_Courts/
Bringing Christ into it is rather helpful. Didn't he say something about let he who is without sin fling the first stone. ? And there was another thing he said about charity.
Perhaps you need to go and consult the sermon on the mount.
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 17:40
Why does nobody on here use a spell checker.
And my reasoning was perfectly fine. You said have a 51% majority in support of something made it normal. I said Hitler had more than that majority, therefore by your reasoning he was normal. Seems logical to me, but I doubt you'll agree with it.
I don't use a spellchecker but I'm sure some do. I suffer the odd lapse but in English I think I spell the vast marojity of words perfectly well.
My French though is la bobbins. As a certain Madamwazzell will confirm :D
Your logic re:Hitler is flawed. And yes, your final summation is correct. I do not agree. You mean well Celtic and are probably a very nice chap.
I hope one day we might find some common ground.
cuddlepop
30-Jan-09, 17:41
One lesson to learn from all this....never go to Social Services for help, however desperate you are.
Unfortunatly I have friends who have found this out by bitter experience.
Indeed an MP had to be informed as to what was going on. As a result of this the process was stopped.
She will never pick up the phone to social work every again and that is what the head of children services said to her.
" you.ll never phone us again,no matter how bad things get...will you?":(
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 17:44
any boy can help make a baby,but it takes a real man to be a father.
I heard it slightly differently...
"any man can be a father but it takes a special man to be a Dad."
That was the verse on my last birthday card from my daughter anyway.
I see absolutely no problem with homosexual people adopting. In this case the grandparents obviously more than willing to take the kids on themselves. Which in a way yes maybe the kids should have gone to them but as said the grandparents are unwell.
Why should homosexual couples go to the back of the queue? What is their against them?? :confused
well said shelley.
I do think the children should be kept in the family wherever possible - and obviously safe for the children.
But i have NO objections whatsoever to suitable homosexual people adopting children.
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 17:49
I am with Percy on this one, Homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt no matter what the circumstances. There are plenty childless couples out there who would desperately love to adopt children if family members are not able to step in and take over.
Mmm...Sorry, but I don't go that far. As I stated I think they can make good parents, if the child is the right child - older....and they should be prepared to wait a long time and settle for those hard to place anywhere else.
I also feel Lesbian women can offer much more to young children than male 'couples'. It's about insight, femininity and maternal longing.
Maternal longing is , in my opinion a far more heavyweight emotion than paternal longing. It's the biology that does it, and the psychological need.
Most men would get over the angst and go to a match ,or for a few pints....compartmentalising it in their minds. For women it can be all consuming.
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 17:52
Gee, is this thread not at 10 pages yet? Seems the homophobia is as rampant as the sexism and racism in here. Next you'll be quoting from Love Thy Neighbour, Perc'.
I have the dvd - only a couple of episodes. Would you like to borrow it?
I've only watched it the once but it made me laugh ocassionally...made me smile more often..and actually made me wince a couple of times.
I am not anti-gay..or even particularly anti-gay adoptions.......but I resent the implication the holier than thou crowd promote that anyone who thinks the grandparents should have been the first and only choice to look after the children are homophobic. Exactly. I would certainly feel the same had the they been a mixed sex couple.
My irritation lies with the heavy handed, arrogant, deceitful and, quite frankly, out of control methods often employed by Social Services. All of which they will immediately deny, naturally, but to accept that you have to believe that totally unconnected people throughout Britain all invent virtually identical lies.
Given your latest outburst of homophobia and general intolerence, the good book has some advioce for you. It is:
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
" Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. "
Just helping! Best wishes!
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 18:11
......You know what, views like this are still very common in caithness. Its one of the main reasons that many inteligent, creative, open minded young people leave the area at the earliest opertunity and whats left behind consist largly of the mouth breathing bigots who perpetuate the problem.
If you're an example of this creative and intelligent exodus then Caithness might be breathing a sigh of relief. Or are you beoming over excited?
'Mouth breathing bigots?'
Fair play though....as cutting remarks go this is well above average, Average.
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 18:18
...... only for it to be used as an opportunity for a racist/homophobic rant.
I see no rants.
Why is a carefully constructed and forcefully lodged argument automatically described as a 'rant'?
Shorthand for you disagree perhaps.
I consider a 'rant' to be ill informed hysterical shouting and berserk, hysterical semi-intelligible mouthing off.
ShelleyCowie
30-Jan-09, 18:24
Maybe there are some people that have posted on this thread need to think before they "type"!
What if there are homosexual people reading this. (No not me) But maybe take in their feelings into consideration here.
I know quite alot of homosexual people and they are some of the nicest people i know. Good listeners and always there to give "boyfriend advice" :D
So please can we all take into consideration what other people are thinking when reading some of these posts! :confused
(Sorry to go off subject here but Percy...the toboggan part of your name there...obviously i know what toboggan is but i was watching Billy Connoly and he was talking about toboggans. :lol: Now my OH laughs every time he see's your name on here!! )
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 18:28
And now folks...anyone who thinks Mum and Dad are best are intolerant bigots !
The brave new world.
Nan and GRandad - forget 'em....their hair is grey, their bones creak.
This might have been in the mind of the case worker who set up all this nonsense.
She was photographed in my newspaper this morning. Chubby chops and a double chin. Blimey! is she obese?...how very dare she....Apparently she has two children by different fathers....nothing to be ashamed of either but one more by a passing stranger might be - in my book anyway.She should keep moving.
I'll not name the woman let's call her Ms.Itgrowsonscottishhillsides Exlliverpoolstrikerian...she adopted really threatening tones when admonishing the family for reporting matters to the press. I hope she gets the bullet from her overpaid featherbedded job.
My newspaper this morning headed the front page with 'what kind of monsters can steal children from their grandparents and give them to two gay men?'
Richard Littlejohn - who often latches on to my ideas spoke far more eloquently than I can of this outrage. The head of steam I mentioned earlier in the thread might well stop this madness.
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 18:32
Maybe there are some people that have posted on this thread need to think before they "type"!
What if there are homosexual people reading this. (No not me) But maybe take in their feelings into consideration here.
I know quite alot of homosexual people and they are some of the nicest people i know. Good listeners and always there to give "boyfriend advice" :D
So please can we all take into consideration what other people are thinking when reading some of these posts! :confused
(Sorry to go off subject here but Percy...the toboggan part of your name there...obviously i know what toboggan is but i was watching Billy Connoly and he was talking about toboggans. :lol: Now my OH laughs every time he see's your name on here!! )
I know the Connolly routine - it's classic - glad your 'OH' has a laugh.
I mean no ill will to homosexual men or 'couples' unless they seek to seperate children from their family, or prospective heterosexual couples in some attempt to normalise their status or fulfil some longing which nature has precluded.
percy toboggan
30-Jan-09, 18:38
Given your latest outburst of homophobia and general intolerence, the good book has some advioce for you. It is:
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
" Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. "
Just helping! Best wishes!
Well I do like a 'good book'
I've heard it all before...and now I know you're a God-botherer.
There is some sense to the words but I bet the bloke who wrote them never envisaged the abberation described in these pages.
Anyone denying me the right to raise my own Grandchild would find much more than a log in their eye old Son.
Why do your good wishes sound so insincere ? Oh yes...you're a God-botherer.:roll:
Do you believe in creationism too? With so much faith in the 'good book' I suppose you must.
(with apologies to those who follow organised religion but do not quote chapter and verse in an attempt to cow and cajole)
Can we dispose of a few myths here?
Being a Christian does not make you homophobic. Some are (regrettably) many are not - like most of the population.
Having faith in the Bible does not make you a creationist.
Homosexuals are people - they did not choose to be born able only to love someone of the same gender any more than anyone chooses to be born with red hair. It's just one of those things. Not so long ago black people were considered inferior and ineducable; mixed marriages were regarded with strong disapproval. Now we know better.
Maybe, just maybe, all these ridiculous assumptions and labels will one day be forgotten. Until then, as ShelleyBain said, a little consideration for feelings would be good.
Can we dispose of a few myths here?
Being a Christian does not make you homophobic. Some are (regrettably) many are not - like most of the population.
Having faith in the Bible does not make you a creationist.
Homosexuals are people - they did not choose to be born able only to love someone of the same gender any more than anyone chooses to be born with red hair. It's just one of those things. Not so long ago black people were considered inferior and ineducable; mixed marriages were regarded with strong disapproval. Now we know better.
Maybe, just maybe, all these ridiculous assumptions and labels will one day be forgotten. Until then, as ShelleyBain said, a little consideration for feelings would be good.
very well put!!
One has angina, the other has diabetes,
Which is one angina more than he two gay gentlemen have got.
Which is one angina more than he two gay gentlemen have got.
or one more than they are admitting to? Do the Adoption Services make prospective adopters undergo a full medical?
Which is one angina more than he two gay gentlemen have got.Angina is not a death sentence, you chose to omit that part. What the two gay gentlemen will provide is a recipe for years of psychological and possibly physical bullying.
Angina is not a death sentence, you chose to omit that part. What the two gay gentlemen will provide is a recipe for years of psychological and possibly physical bullying.
Whooooosssshhhh!!!!
Whooooosssshhhh!!!!Now you mention it.
I just didn't expect it.
M.Funkenstein
30-Jan-09, 21:21
I'm sorry if this is a little off topic to the current mind of discussion, but here goes;
The 2 gay gents have every right to adopt a child BUT (and there are a few) I know this sounds horrible but in nearly all cases it wont be in the child's best interests to be honest, kids and teenagers are cruel, and like TBH says; they would indeed be in store for YEARS of psychological and more than likely, physical abuse because of their parents. I think any gay gents should understand this and think of the CHILD'S interests rather than theirs.
Especially in this case, the kids have stated they'd rather live with their Grandparents, especially the young guy. Because I'm sure he knows fine well the amount of abuse he'd get because of it. Now 59 & 46 aren't that old at all, I'm almost 18 and my parent's are around that age. So i'm sure they're more than capable.
I hope that doesn't come across as homophobic or anything and just say what everyone else has for 4 pages, but I though i'd give my two cents.
I'm sorry if this is a little off topic to the current mind of discussion, but here goes;
The 2 gay gents have every right to adopt a child BUT (and there are a few) I know this sounds horrible but in nearly all cases it wont be in the child's best interests to be honest, kids and teenagers are cruel, and like TBH says; they would indeed be in store for YEARS of psychological and more than likely, physical abuse because of their parents. I think any gay gents should understand this and think of the CHILD'S interests rather than theirs.
Especially in this case, the kids have stated they'd rather live with their Grandparents, especially the young guy. Because I'm sure he knows fine well the amount of abuse he'd get because of it. Now 59 & 46 aren't that old at all, I'm almost 18 and my parent's are around that age. So i'm sure they're more than capable.
I hope that doesn't come across as homophobic or anything and just say what everyone else has for 4 pages, but I though i'd give my two cents.You can say what you like within reason but you will still be shot down as being homophobic, that's the way some people operate.
Percy if your parenting style is anything like your style of argument I should think the bairns would have packed their suitcases and been gone long ago....
George Brims
30-Jan-09, 22:05
This whole thread is so depressing. Don't some of you people have calendars? It's 2009 people not 1609. Percy claiming he isn't bigoted, when he puts quotes around the word "couple" in the title of the thread, takes my breath away.
This whole thread is so depressing. Don't some of you people have calendars? It's 2009 people not 1609. Percy claiming he isn't bigoted, when he puts quotes around the word "couple" in the title of the thread, takes my breath away.The point is that these children should be with their Grandparents, not adopted out to total strangers.
The fact that it is a homosexual couple that are adopting the children is perhaps a side issue as to the complications of being brought up in that environment and the bullying that will surely ensue.
ShelleyCowie
30-Jan-09, 22:48
Children are bullied daily, for the clothes they wear, not having the latest trainers, not having a "celeb" hair style! Being bullied for having homosexual parents is barbaric (spelling sorry) but obviously yes kids are very cruel!
Bullying is serious! It is torture and abusive! If i had homosexual parents and they raised me with respect, values and manners then i would thank them for raising me so good! and by the looks of this story the homosexual couple are going to look after these kids well.
And talk of the girl when she comes into puberty. Its just like talking to a dad about it! I am sure there are a few women on here that had to speak to their dads about it if mum was away. But puberty is a natural thing and we ALL go through it at some point. So im sure the couple will handle it fine!
Children are bullied daily, for the clothes they wear, not having the latest trainers, not having a "celeb" hair style! Being bullied for having homosexual parents is barbaric (spelling sorry) but obviously yes kids are very cruel!
Bullying is serious! It is torture and abusive! If i had homosexual parents and they raised me with respect, values and manners then i would thank them for raising me so good! and by the looks of this story the homosexual couple are going to look after these kids well.
And talk of the girl when she comes into puberty. Its just like talking to a dad about it! I am sure there are a few women on here that had to speak to their dads about it if mum was away. But puberty is a natural thing and we ALL go through it at some point. So im sure the couple will handle it fine!Yes, I am aware that kids are bullied for a multitude of reasons but is there really any need to add to their woes?
cuddlepop
30-Jan-09, 22:56
The bullying these kids will suffer is avoidable if they dont place them with this gay couple.
surely its better to prevent a situation from arising rather than walking straight into it.
My own kids love their aunti dearly but are embarassed when introducing her "wife".
They're all grown up now but have said its just too "strange" living with them even now.
Broadly speaking society is just not ready for this kind of acceptance.:(
This seems crazy. I have no problem with gay couples adopting, but the fact that there were family members willing to take on the children, and they wanted to go, the kids should have gone to them.
The bullying these kids will suffer is avoidable if they dont place them with this gay couple.
surely its better to prevent a situation from arising rather than walking straight into it.
My own kids love their aunti dearly but are embarassed when introducing her "wife".
They're all grown up now but have said its just too "strange" living with them even now.
Broadly speaking society is just not ready for this kind of acceptance.:(I agree totally, these kids should either be with their grandparents or worst case scenario, a heterosexual couple.
Are you bloody serious? Keep your bigotry to yourself and go climb back into the cave you must have came out of. This is the 21st century. How can idiots with this point of view still exist?
I am also a bigot, if you like, and still regard the norm as a man a woman and their children.
I still regard, and always will, that the homosexual side of the human race is wrong, distasteful, and should never be considered for adoptive parents.
If you don't like it - Tough. You will find that the majority of "normal" people agree with me.
I am also a bigot, if you like, and still regard the norm as a man a woman and their children.
I still regard, and always will, that the homosexual side of the human race is wrong, distasteful, and should never be considered for adoptive parents.
If you don't like it - Tough. You will find that the majority of "normal" people agree with me.You regard it as normal because it is normal.
Men and women are designed to be together, only then can the human race survive.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 00:18
I am also a bigot, if you like, and still regard the norm as a man a woman and their children.
I still regard, and always will, that the homosexual side of the human race is wrong, distasteful, and should never be considered for adoptive parents.
If you don't like it - Tough. You will find that the majority of "normal" people agree with me.
Why do all homophobes make the assumption that all straight people agree with them? How can you call homosexuality wrong? Can you please tell me at what point in your life you choose to be heterosexual? It is the same thing with homosexual people. They don't choose to be gay. It wasn't as if they woke up one day and decided they wanted to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.
I just don't understand why people like you think that gay people need to fight for the basic human rights that we have. Gay Marriage. Boo! Gay Adoption. Boo! No. Being gay doesn't make you abnormal, it just makes you different from me. Not less of a human than me. Just different. The same way that Obama is different than me because he is black. Not better or worse than me. Just different.
And damn right you're a bigot. Anyone who considers homosexual's abnormal, and then considers heterosexual's normal is a bigot.
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 00:24
Homosexuality is not abnormal! :eek: How can anybody say that?! Dont tell me we are all thinking the Adam and Eve story here!
As said on the previous post, these people do not just wake up and think that they are going to be gay! Saying you are a homosexual and being one is totally different!
Do we call people abnormal because they are different in any way, my mate has blonde hair is she abnormal?! Thats being different....right?!
butterfly
31-Jan-09, 00:25
I am also a bigot, if you like, and still regard the norm as a man a woman and their children.
I still regard, and always will, that the homosexual side of the human race is wrong, distasteful, and should never be considered for adoptive parents.
If you don't like it - Tough. You will find that the majority of "normal" people agree with me.
completely agree with you
Why do all homophobes make the assumption that all straight people agree with them? How can you call homosexuality wrong? Can you please tell me at what point in your life you choose to be heterosexual? It is the same thing with homosexual people. They don't choose to be gay. It wasn't as if they woke up one day and decided they wanted to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.
I just don't understand why people like you think that gay people need to fight for the basic human rights that we have. Gay Marriage. Boo! Gay Adoption. Boo! No. Being gay doesn't make you abnormal, it just makes you different from me. Not less of a human than me. Just different. The same way that Obama is different than me because he is black. Not better or worse than me. Just different.
And damn right you're a bigot. Anyone who considers homosexual's abnormal, and then considers heterosexual's normal is a bigot.Homosexuality is not normal, if it was the human race would have died out long ago.
You compare homosexuality to the colour of ones skin. Skin colour serves it purpose depending on which part of the world you live in, homosexuality serves no purpose.
Why do all homophobes make the assumption that all straight people agree with them? How can you call homosexuality wrong? Can you please tell me at what point in your life you choose to be heterosexual? It is the same thing with homosexual people. They don't choose to be gay. It wasn't as if they woke up one day and decided they wanted to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.
I just don't understand why people like you think that gay people need to fight for the basic human rights that we have. Gay Marriage. Boo! Gay Adoption. Boo! No. Being gay doesn't make you abnormal, it just makes you different from me. Not less of a human than me. Just different. The same way that Obama is different than me because he is black. Not better or worse than me. Just different.
And damn right you're a bigot. Anyone who considers homosexual's abnormal, and then considers heterosexual's normal is a bigot.
There is no right to have children....whether you are gay, a lesbian or a heterosexual person.
If there was a "right" to have children, then the obese, the smokers, those not in perfect health who have been unable to have their own are being discriminated against.....while those who could have their own with a little bit of inconvenience are being favoured over them.
Doesn't seem fair and equitable to me.
What I would consider as abnormal here is same sex parents looking after children. I'd like to hear the proper story about the grand parents before I make up my mind. We are all PC correct now.....;)
There is no right to have children....whether you are gay, a lesbian or a heterosexual person.
If there was a "right" to have children, then the obese, the smokers, those not in perfect health who have been unable to have their own are being discriminated against.....while those who could have their own with a little bit of inconvenience are being favoured over them.
Doesn't seem fair and equitable to me.It's not a right as such Oddquine but you have more chance of procreating if you pick someone of the oppposite sex.
It's not a right as such Oddquine but you have more chance of procreating if you pick someone of the oppposite sex.
You don't say!;)
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 00:31
Homosexuality is not normal, if it was the human race would have died out long ago.
You compare homosexuality to the colour of ones skin. Skin colour serves it purpose depending on which part of the world you live in, homosexuality serves no purpose.
Homosexuality defines a personality. Well thats what i think anyways. Obviously there are homophobic people here but i am not one of them! I will never discriminate against them!
My partner attended the first gay wedding held in the highlands. I unfortunately could not attend. But the 2 men are very very nice people who i got on with very well.
Homosexuality defines a personality. Well thats what i think anyways. Obviously there are homophobic people here but i am not one of them! I will never discriminate against them!
My partner attended the first gay wedding held in the highlands. I unfortunately could not attend. But the 2 men are very very nice people who i got on with very well.Personalities are aquired by your life experience and perhaps some hereditary traits so you are right in some respects. Can someone be against homosexuals being afforded the right to adopt without being homophobic.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 00:43
Homosexuality is not normal, if it was the human race would have died out long ago.
You compare homosexuality to the colour of ones skin. Skin colour serves it purpose depending on which part of the world you live in, homosexuality serves no purpose.
So heterosexuality is only around to continue the human race? Never mind love or any of that fantasy crap, we only have sex to further the human race. What a crappy outlook on life you have. How have you not killed yourself because of depression yet?
This is probably my last post on this thread, and don't get it into your head that it is because you have won and scared me off. I just can't see the point in arguing with someone so set in there ways, and unwilling to change or even think about another point of view.
Personalities are aquired by your life experience and perhaps some hereditary traits so you are right in some respects. Can someone be against homosexuals being afforded the right to adopt without being homophobic.
My sentiments too.Got mates who are gay but would never trust them with bairns.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 00:49
There is no right to have children...
Semantics. There may be no right to have children, but my point really was that I don't hear you yelling from the roof tops when an obese couple want to adopt a child. That is because although you may find obesity disgusting, you don't find it morally wrong, yet somehow you find same sex adoption morally wrong.
So heterosexuality is only around to continue the human race? Never mind love or any of that fantasy crap, we only have sex to further the human race. What a crappy outlook on life you have. How have you not killed yourself because of depression yet?
This is probably my last post on this thread, and don't get it into your head that it is because you have won and scared me off. I just can't see the point in arguing with someone so set in there ways, and unwilling to change or even think about another point of view.Heterosexuality is around because that is the only natural way to procreate, which part of that do you have trouble understanding?
I haven't killed myself through depression because I don't have the misfortune to suffer from that condition.
You haven't got a point of view, that is the problem. You fail to see what is right in front of your nose, homosexuality, if it was normal would spell the end of humanity. Love doesn't come into it albeit an attraction between a man and a woman which ends in procreation, a means to an end product which homosexuality will never fulfill.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 00:50
My sentiments too.Got mates who are gay but would never trust them with bairns.
"never trust them with bairns"? What a strange way of phrasing that...
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 00:50
Ok so what about this, in the TV series Friends. Ross is married to Carol. She is pregnant but she decides she is actually a lesbian so has a girlfriend Susan.
So in this case the child was born into a gay enviroment. (I know its a tv series but it can obviously happen im just using it as example)
"never trust them with bairns"? What a strange way of phrasing that...
just that they like to drink and have a good time so wouldn't be my ideal choice for parents.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 00:59
just that they like to drink and have a good time so wouldn't be my ideal choice for parents.
Fair enough.
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 01:04
just that they like to drink and have a good time so wouldn't be my ideal choice for parents.
Thats all fair and well! I would not trust my son with ANY person who was inclined to a drink so much. Homosexual or heterosexual!
But not all homosexual people are just party go-ers! They want to have the same life as anybody else!
Does everybody think that homosexual people go through the pain and torture whilst growing up showing they are not completely heterosexual. Going through the thoughts that they know they are not like the other boys in their class. They go through that pain because its who they are!!
Why should they change to meet the needs of homophobic people? Weather changes...people dont!
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 01:06
Weather changes...people dont!
I'm glad there is one person on here who has some common sense. Do you not just get the feeling your banging your head against a brick wall Shelley?
WickLad08
31-Jan-09, 01:10
Oh I love this post - Gimme more - btw any nice guys on here fancy a date gimme a pvt hehe xxx
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 01:15
Oh I love this post - Gimme more - btw any nice guys on here fancy a date gimme a pvt hehe xxx
If, as your name suggests, your a guy who wants a date with another guy, then I'd get away from here before you are lynched... at best!
So heterosexuality is only around to continue the human race? Never mind love or any of that fantasy crap, we only have sex to further the human race. What a crappy outlook on life you have. How have you not killed yourself because of depression yet?
Well......yes....that's what it is all about isn't it? The love part of it is an added extra to make us feel good......nearly as good as chocolate does.....but I'm pretty sure that it would be better to have loveless sex (as so many do) and produce offspring rather than have the human race die out.
Did you ever consider maybe homosexuality is God's way of trying to reduce the world population? Pity he/she didn't also reduce the number of child bearing years for women into the bargain.
This is probably my last post on this thread, and don't get it into your head that it is because you have won and scared me off. I just can't see the point in arguing with someone so set in there ways, and unwilling to change or even think about another point of view.
But what is your problem with other people's points of view? Do you want me to C and P a few comments by gays, from remarks left on newspaper message boards, who agree that being adopted by gays is not in the best interests of the children and their lives are liable to be harder than necessary. because there is a difference between accepting the law and accepting homosexuality
The law can't make you like anything, you know........it doesn't change attitudes.....just makes some expressions of those attitudes illegal........it just makes it so you can't thump homosexuals or refuse them jobs etc.
We are allowed not to like something aren't we....and to say so?
And at the risk of being called a latent homophobe after the above, I honestly have no problem with gays....in fact, I don't even know if I know any.....and likely would have no idea unless they told me........but I simply believe, like Percy that they are the last best option for getting children out of care unless those children are old enough to understand and accept the two father situation.
I really don't think it is fair on two very young children to deliberately put them in the position of future bullying problems etc..........and I think little of either the social work who have done it...or the gay adopters who have had more consideration for their own needs than for the welfare of two children who have expressed an expectation of at least having a mummy and daddy if they can't stay with granny and grandad.
If, as your name suggests, your a guy who wants a date with another guy, then I'd get away from here before you are lynched... at best!
Am I missing something? How does his name suggest that?
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 01:28
1)Did you ever consider maybe homosexuality is God's way of trying to reduce the world population?
2)But what is your problem with other people's points of view?
1) No. That is just bloody ridiculous. I seriously hope that was a joke, otherwise you are a lot stupider than I thought.
2) I don't have a problem with other people's points of view. The difference between me and you however, is that I am willing to listen to your ideas, and then counter them. However people like percy just stick with the "abnormal" routine. No change. That is bloody annoying.
Now. I am seriously off. An episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! on gay adoption, then bed. Good night all.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 01:29
Am I missing something? How does his name suggest that?
That should have read: as your name suggests, you're a guy, who wants...
I was trying to say his name suggested he is male. Not that he is gay.
Semantics. There may be no right to have children, but my point really was that I don't hear you yelling from the roof tops when an obese couple want to adopt a child. That is because although you may find obesity disgusting, you don't find it morally wrong, yet somehow you find same sex adoption morally wrong.
Well...no.......and if I were to shout, I'd be incandescent because Social Workers are applying criteria which prevents children in care with no other options from having families to bring them up.
I don't find same sex adoption morally wrong....what gave you that idea........but I do not, and will never, accept that it is appropriate that very young children who do not understand heterosexuality or homosexuality are placed in a situation which may produce as many problems for them in their daily lives as it solves.
I have no problem with same sex adoption of older children who are aware of the situation they are being moved into.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 01:31
Oddquine, I have no doubt that you are an all round good guy, but we're never going to agree. Now stop posting so that my curiosity can leave and I can follow it.
Thats all fair and well! I would not trust my son with ANY person who was inclined to a drink so much. Homosexual or heterosexual!
But not all homosexual people are just party go-ers! They want to have the same life as anybody else!
Does everybody think that homosexual people go through the pain and torture whilst growing up showing they are not completely heterosexual. Going through the thoughts that they know they are not like the other boys in their class. They go through that pain because its who they are!!
Why should they change to meet the needs of homophobic people? Weather changes...people dont!
I agree with you........but equally, why should homophobic people change their attitudes? They are legally obliged to change their actions......but with the best will in the world, the government can't legislate to change attitudes.
How long have non-whites been in this country? And are they completely accepted even yet? So why should homosexuals expect that laws will do for them immediately what they have never done for any other previously downtrodden group in society?
A change in law takes months..a change in attitudes will take, on present indications in other areas at least a generation, if not more.....and it is the attitude that counts....especially on forums.
Oddquine, I have no doubt that you are an all round good guy, but we're never going to agree. Now stop posting so that my curiosity can leave and I can follow it.
Erm.I'm not a guy........I'm an auld wifie. :D
butterfly
31-Jan-09, 01:43
i have nothing against gays and as for obese people,well if they want to overeat knowing their killing themselves thats up to them but i am against same sex adoption because of the effects it could have on children but thats just my opinion and i am sticking with it
Aaldtimer
31-Jan-09, 04:36
My sentiments too.Got mates who are gay but would never trust them with bairns.
Your predudice is clearly stated! All gays are paedophiles!:(
That is unforgiveable!
Your predudice is clearly stated! All gays are paedophiles!:(
That is unforgiveable!
That is a surprisingly common thought amongst folk of my mothers age group.
I am against gay adoption but I do not assume that a gay person is a paedophile any more than I would think a heterosexual person was likely to be a paedophile.
Gay or straight is utterly irrelevant - it's careful assessment of which would do the best job in bringing up the children. Fact. why are some people on here getting so worked up???
Ding! That is the sound I make when someone is wrong.
Well you should have dinged yourself when you posted it.
Btw is an abbreviation, words such as ASLEF, NATO, UNICEF etc are acronyms, artificial words that are made up of initials of other words
and are pronouncable.
Mr. Pedantic again,
Tonbridge again.
Btw, apologies for the delay.
(Thats poetry)
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 11:20
Why are people judged for being different?!
Obese people, goths, transvestites, gays, people who are too tall or short! We are judged for everything!
How many stories do we hear of in the news about people getting bullied, battered or stabbed for being different! Just because they chose to have a different outlook on what they want to be like. And because they dont want to be what we call "normal" then we should not judge them.
What is normal anyway?! Im not normal, im a tomboy, complete geek and into computer games and model building. So im not a normal woman i would say! I dot enjoy wearing dresses, skirts or high heels!
Am i normal? :confused
brokencross
31-Jan-09, 11:20
- it's careful assessment of which would do the best job in bringing up the children.
Sorry, but more like compliance to satisfy some PC quota set up by some PC mad council officials.
weeboyagee
31-Jan-09, 12:11
Sorry, but more like compliance to satisfy some PC quota set up by some PC mad council officials.
Smack bang on. I don't believe that this issue is anything to do with who was best to bring up the kids or have them take care of them - this is to do with meeting quotas and being a public body that is "cool". Lives are not property or statistics for public bodies to play with, but in this case it smacks of both.
WBG :cool:
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 15:51
[quote=badger;493170]Can we dispose of a few myths here?
Being a Christian does not make you homophobic. Some are (regrettably) many are not - like most of the population....
...Having faith in the Bible does not make you a creationist.
quote]
So you don't have faith in the first bit? I believe it's called the old testament?
Nor does disliking the idea of preferential adoption for homosexuals, having an innate distaste for the 'mechanics' of homosexuality does not make you 'homophobic'. :confused well, I think not anyway but....
...could you furnish a definition of homophobia? It's often bandied about as a stick to beat people like me with.
Black and white badger please, no grey areas...just what does it mean?
At last common sense has prevailed I hope. Social Services are having a re think
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Gay-adoption-set-to-be.4930358.jp
I wonder how many posters on this thread actually read this article in its entirety. The first part is typical local rag journalism, but the bit following
Grandparents reveal heartbreak at decision that's set to put youngsters into the hands of gay couple
gives what seems to be a reasonably detached history of the sad story. One bit that seems to have been missed or played down by many contributors to this thread is that the grandparents called in Social Services because they couldn't cope.
Instead, they did what any loving grandparents would do in such desperate circumstances, took the two-year-old boy and his one-year-old younger sister into their own home.
But it was proving to be harder to raise the pair, alongside their own large family, than the 59-year-old farm worker and his 46-year-old wife had counted on.
So, three years ago, they took the fateful decision they would come to bitterly regret – they turned to social services to ask for support.
As they told social workers in their Edinburgh home about their daily struggles, they can have had no idea of the chain of events they were triggering.What surprises me is that social services are not taking into account the wishes of the grandparents when it comes to choosing the adoptive parents.
I have some good friends from near Glasgow who adopted a child about 15 years ago. They did it through an adoption agency or services, I'm not sure which, in Edinburgh. The child's family were heavily involved in the adoption process and there were many meetings between my friends and the child's family, including her mother, who I think had some say in whether my friends were going to adopt her daughter. The entire process was well organised and was conducted on a bilateral consensual basis. I think the protagonists in the current crisis might learn something from this.
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 15:57
I'm sorry if this is a little off topic to the current mind of discussion, but here goes;
The 2 gay gents have every right to adopt a child BUT (and there are a few) I know this sounds horrible but in nearly all cases it wont be in the child's best interests to be honest, kids and teenagers are cruel, and like TBH says; they would indeed be in store for YEARS of psychological and more than likely, physical abuse because of their parents. I think any gay gents should understand this and think of the CHILD'S interests rather than theirs.
Especially in this case, the kids have stated they'd rather live with their Grandparents, especially the young guy. Because I'm sure he knows fine well the amount of abuse he'd get because of it. Now 59 & 46 aren't that old at all, I'm almost 18 and my parent's are around that age. So i'm sure they're more than capable.
I hope that doesn't come across as homophobic or anything and just say what everyone else has for 4 pages, but I though i'd give my two cents.
The very fact you felt it necessary to add that last sentence demonstrates the fuzziness around the word 'homophobic' it's over worked and over egged. You said they had every right to adopt so how could you be accused of the phobe thing?
Th eother points you make are bang on. Kids pick up on difference, and can be cruel. It's a cruel world ! Common sense should tell these two geezers to back off anyway now. Cats out of bag and as the Mail - guardians of pubic morality ;) - will be looking for every angle to discredit them and this process they'd be better of out of it.
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 16:03
Homosexuality is not abnormal! :eek: How can anybody say that?! ! Thats being different....right?!
Er no Shelley.
Not different. It means nothing more than 'not normal' or in the minority...I don't think anyone has done a headcount of blondes in Europe but I'd not refer to fair hair as 'abnormal' because it isn't different....it's still hair. If your mates hair had the texture of rope, or a spiders web then it would be 'abnormal' I'm sure it hasn't.
"Abnormal"....perhaps you've been conditioned to see the word as perjorative.
If you see a sign on a very wide wagon saying 'abnormal load' it just means its out of the ordinary in size...not that it's nasty, or obnoxious necessarily. As those men who like to snuggle up to other men are out of the ordinary in terms of men. They are not necessarily obnoxious or nasty and can be naturally drawn to one another but.....it's not 'normal'
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 16:06
Homosexuality defines a personality. Well thats what i think anyways. Obviously there are homophobic people here but i am not one of them! I will never discriminate against them!
My partner attended the first gay wedding held in the highlands....
I don't think sexuality 'defines' a personality at all.
Neither do I think the term 'gay wedding' anything other than an oxymoron.
Civil partnerships are fine....even dandy!
Please do not demean the traditional value, reasons behind and time honoured sanctity of marriage by referring to 'gay weddings'
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 16:10
Ok so what about this, in the TV series Friends. Ross is married to Carol. She is pregnant but she decides she is actually a lesbian so has a girlfriend Susan.
So in this case the child was born into a gay enviroment. (I know its a tv series but it can obviously happen im just using it as example)
I've just stopped taking you seriously - sorry
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 16:19
Well you should have dinged yourself when you posted it.
Btw is an abbreviation, words such as ASLEF, NATO, UNICEF etc are acronyms, artificial words that are made up of initials of other words
and are pronouncable.
Mr. Pedantic again,
Tonbridge again.
Correct - an acronym has to sound like a word...such as the example above.
BBC for instance is not an acronym it's an abbreviation.
I shot an English lecturer down in flames eight years ago on the same subject.
Incidentally....some words are homophones..or homophonic... such as bear and bare...though neither are homophobic!
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 16:23
Why are people judged for being different?!
Obese people, goths, transvestites, gays, people who are too tall or short! We are judged for everything!
How many stories do we hear of in the news about people getting bullied, battered or stabbed for being different! Just because they chose to have a different outlook on what they want to be like. And because they dont want to be what we call "normal" then we should not judge them.
What is normal anyway?! Im not normal, im a tomboy, complete geek and into computer games and model building. So im not a normal woman i would say! I dot enjoy wearing dresses, skirts or high heels!
Am i normal? :confused
Not by the sound of it know, though I'd probably like you if I could persuade you to ditch the computer games. As I'm no longer taking you seriously I don't expect you to reciprocate :D...
'Normal' people can be intensely dull and predictable because they are like so many others, you see....
you'll have to make your own mind up as to whether I'm normal or not. I hope it's a negative answer. I quite enjoy an element of abnormality.
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 16:29
I have looked up 'homophobia' in the dictionary...
"An intense fear or hatred of homosexuals"
I can now honestly say I'm not homophobic.
I even quite like the female variety as they display impeccable taste.
Too each their own...keep yerself to yerself...don't be evangelical about it or creep around public places late at night and fine...society, and myself have accepted homosexuality. If not clutched it to uz bosoms. It's rightly out of the closet and here to stay. Just please send them to the back of the queue if they want to adopt children.
People should never be afraid to speak out. Others will debate, but some will immediately condemn in tired, unimaginative & formulaic ways, using words they seldom understand. The blinkered and the ultra-defensive are plain for all to see.
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 17:16
Not by the sound of it know, though I'd probably like you if I could persuade you to ditch the computer games. As I'm no longer taking you seriously I don't expect you to reciprocate :D...
'Normal' people can be intensely dull and predictable because they are like so many others, you see....
you'll have to make your own mind up as to whether I'm normal or not. I hope it's a negative answer. I quite enjoy an element of abnormality.
Nobody can persuade me to ditch computer games! They stimulate my brain and i enjoy problem solving. :) It keeps me busy and would rather be challenging myself than sitting twiddling my thumbs! Lol!
Im 20 years old so i would rather not have the stereotype to have to go to the pub every weekend and be in skinandis! I would rather put pins in my eyes!!
Im not going to be negative. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and is entitled to have their opinion heard! Not as if caithness.org is going to change the minds of social services in this case of the children! We cant change the minds of parliament.
But we can change the way we think and maybe have a wider outlook onto different situations.
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 17:19
I've just stopped taking you seriously - sorry
Thats ok. You are one person. Im sure plenty other people agree with my views. I dont take you seriously. Infact sometimes i dont know why i read the posts you put on because they can be very 1 sided. But thats my opinion!
Maybe you have stopped taking me seriously because you dont appreciate other people disagreeing with you. Im sticking to my guns.
I know for a fact i am very sensible. Can act my age when i need to though.
And they say the younger generations is the menace to society! :roll:
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 17:47
Thats ok. You are one person. Im sure plenty other people agree with my views. I dont take you seriously.....
That's fine by me.
It was your reference to 'Friends' which I found a little awry.
We must agree to differ...and perhaps give each other a wider berth.
Incidentally.....we can change the minds IN 'parliament'. It's called voting, lobbying and democracy.
Fare thee well.
ShelleyCowie
31-Jan-09, 17:54
That's fine by me.
It was your reference to 'Friends' which I found a little awry.
We must agree to differ...and perhaps give each other a wider berth.
Incidentally.....we can change the minds IN 'parliament'. It's called voting, lobbying and democracy.
Fare thee well.
I was making a referance to a situation maybe some people may have been familiar with! Am i not allowed to use references in my english exam sir?! :roll:
[quote=badger;493170]Can we dispose of a few myths here?
Being a Christian does not make you homophobic. Some are (regrettably) many are not - like most of the population....
...Having faith in the Bible does not make you a creationist.
quote]
So you don't have faith in the first bit? I believe it's called the old testament?
Nor does disliking the idea of preferential adoption for homosexuals, having an innate distaste for the 'mechanics' of homosexuality does not make you 'homophobic'. :confused well, I think not anyway but....
...could you furnish a definition of homophobia? It's often bandied about as a stick to beat people like me with.
Black and white badger please, no grey areas...just what does it mean?
I'd opted out of this as it seems to be getting nowhere except round in circles but, since you've asked -
The OT is not Christian. What is more it recommends all kinds of appalling things that we would not even consider doing today. The various stories of the Creation were made up to explain something they did not understand in those days. They are not history.
Many people, like many animals incidentally, are born homosexual - it is not a choice. You may dislike what they do but is that a reason to condemn them to celibacy? I know gay Christian couples who have been together for years, longer than many "straight" marriages last these days.
My definition of homophobia? An irrational, uninformed prejudice against members of society who don't happen to fit your idea of what is normal in that society. What is normal? There have been other societies (maybe still are) where love between men was the norm. and women were only for child-bearing, keeping house etc. We will only be truly civilised when we stop sticking labels on individuals and see them as people.
and to reply to Sweetpea -
Homosexuals are not the same as paedophiles, as you would know if you knew anything about them. The majority of child abuse in this country is carried out by heterosexuals, usually parents or close family members. Fathers have abused their daughters for years. I cannot recall ever hearing of a case of a gay couple abusing an adopted child.
If children are bullied at school it is due to the prejudices and attitudes of their parents. Children are born without prejudice of any kind - they learn it from adults.
Why do all homophobes make the assumption that all straight people agree with them? How can you call homosexuality wrong? Can you please tell me at what point in your life you choose to be heterosexual? It is the same thing with homosexual people. They don't choose to be gay. It wasn't as if they woke up one day and decided they wanted to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.
I just don't understand why people like you think that gay people need to fight for the basic human rights that we have. Gay Marriage. Boo! Gay Adoption. Boo! No. Being gay doesn't make you abnormal, it just makes you different from me. Not less of a human than me. Just different. The same way that Obama is different than me because he is black. Not better or worse than me. Just different.
And damn right you're a bigot. Anyone who considers homosexual's abnormal, and then considers heterosexual's normal is a bigot.
And long may I be so!! It IS abnormal, I would like to see them have offspring, which is the only reason I know that nature needs one of each with few exceptions.
What I said I meant, and regardless of what you think you know, nature knows different.
I might add, that on this subject, I would normally have given you a one word answer, but I would have been banned.
celtic 302
31-Jan-09, 20:32
And long may I be so!! It IS abnormal, I would like to see them have offspring, which is the only reason I know that nature needs one of each with few exceptions.
What I said I meant, and regardless of what you think you know, nature knows different.
I might add, that on this subject, I would normally have given you a one word answer, but I would have been banned.
It is not abnormal. It really just down to the fact that we have different definitions of normal. You see normal as having the final result of reproduction. I don't.
Being gay is normal. As I've said before, they didn't wake up one day and decided to be gay. They always have been, always will. It is normal for them to be gay. The same way it is normal for you and me to be heterosexual. That may be what is required to keep the species going, but it doesn't define what is normal.
It is not abnormal. It really just down to the fact that we have different definitions of normal. You see normal as having the final result of reproduction. I don't.
Being gay is normal. As I've said before, they didn't wake up one day and decided to be gay. They always have been, always will. It is normal for them to be gay. The same way it is normal for you and me to be heterosexual. That may be what is required to keep the species going, but it doesn't define what is normal.
Homosexual is NOT Gay. Gay is an old english word meaning something very different. The old word for homosexual was Queer, that is abnormal. Not straight, bent, call it what you will, and for saying what I, and THE MAJORITY, of NORMAL folk think, I shall probably get my arse kicked by the censors.
It is not abnormal. It really just down to the fact that we have different definitions of normal. You see normal as having the final result of reproduction. I don't.
Being gay is normal. As I've said before, they didn't wake up one day and decided to be gay. They always have been, always will. It is normal for them to be gay. The same way it is normal for you and me to be heterosexual. That may be what is required to keep the species going, but it doesn't define what is normal.
Being gay is not a choice, admittedly, and is natural. But with the best will in the world it is not normal.
Normal is defined as the majority want to define it, regardless of dictionaries, and so normal would mean more than half of a population doing something...........less than half of a population doing something is abnormal.....which sounds bad but simply means not normal.
People may well do things which the majority of others find hard to come to terms with........but while that does not make them bad or abhorrent, equally it does not make them normal, except to the people who normally do whatever it is.
Until homosexuality is practised by more than 50% of a population it is not normal to anyone but homosexuals.........however it is natural and not a choice so they should not be condemned because of what they can't help.
But normal in this world at the moment, and for the foreseeable future, IS the ability to reproduce....and if that ability was lost.........so would homosexuals die out. Ergo, if they cannot replicate and continue the human race...they are not normal.
I don't think sexuality 'defines' a personality at all.
Neither do I think the term 'gay wedding' anything other than an oxymoron.
Civil partnerships are fine....even dandy!
Please do not demean the traditional value, reasons behind and time honoured sanctity of marriage by referring to 'gay weddings'
Percy, if people want to call civil partnerships Gay Weddings.....why should they not?
After all, at one time weddings were solely church ceremonies, but over time have come to include registry office ceremonies as well.
What else is a civil partnership but a variation on a registry "wedding"?
Correct - an acronym has to sound like a word...such as the example above.
BBC for instance is not an acronym it's an abbreviation.
I shot an English lecturer down in flames eight years ago on the same subject.
Incidentally....some words are homophones..or homophonic... such as bear and bare...though neither are homophobic!The moral of the story is that all acronyms are abbreviations, but all abbreviations are not acronyms.
The moral of the story is that all acronyms are abbreviations, but all abbreviations are not acronyms.
Wrong! The moral of this story is all homosexuals are queer but not all queers are homosexual.
sassylass
31-Jan-09, 23:41
Wrong! The moral of this story is all homosexuals are queer but not all queers are homosexual.
You surprise me gleeber. You're the last person I'd think would generalize ;)
Wrong! The moral of this story is all homosexuals are queer but not all queers are homosexual.Thank heavens for that, Gleeber. My old granny had the habit of saying people looked a little queer when she thought they looked a little off colour.
I always wonder if that was what she really meant but you have finally set my mind at rest. ;)
Homosexual is NOT Gay. Gay is an old english word meaning something very different. The old word for homosexual was Queer, that is abnormal. Not straight, bent, call it what you will, and for saying what I, and THE MAJORITY, of NORMAL folk think, I shall probably get my arse kicked by the censors.
aye gay used to mean happy, its all just to pc, mind the gay gordons dance, well when the kids were doing scottish dancing at school for last syt andrews day, they werent allowed to refer to it as the gay gotdons but the happy gordons, laughable really dont you think.
Wrong! The moral of this story is all homosexuals are queer but not all queers are homosexual.
Hear Hear!!
well my opoinon is with brandy there and some people are right that social workers dont know whats always right i know that for a fact!!!i think there is nothing wrong with gay people they are jst like us normal people well said brandy x
percy toboggan
31-Jan-09, 23:59
.... The same way it is normal for you and me to be heterosexual.....
Masking a swear word once got me a months ban from this forum!
Have times changed? If so I'd like to know, becaus ethere are a few times I'd like a good cuss, but always refrain.
percy toboggan
01-Feb-09, 00:09
[quote=Oddquine;494027]Percy, if people want to call civil partnerships Gay Weddings.....why should they not? ........
quote]
Because it's very, very silly to do so.
Some of 'em seem to want everything that being heterosexual brings...marriage, children etc. As far as I'm concerned they can take a hike.
I'm also sure that a minority of homo's are not born that way but take it up for various reason (no pun) because they are socially inept, or they are forced by circumstance to spend time exclusively in a male environment.
There are times...such as was portrayed in the film 'Midnight Express' and in H.M. Prisons where human beings look for affection wherever they can get it. I do not condemn these dalliances but more likely hold an open mind and understand just what is going on - so long as it's not forcefully perpetrated by one party or the other. Such trysts are not natural but borne of circumstance and I will not condemn them. I wouldn't want to watch it but there we are....the human condition is wide and varied.
If any numpty calls me 'homophobic' after that paragraph then so be it.
If, however anyone invited me to a homsexual wedding - I'd tell them to go to hell. Whereas I'd probably attend a partnership ceremony...although unless a few on this board invite me along to theirs , it's not going to happen.......thankfully.
percy toboggan
01-Feb-09, 00:25
Wrong! The moral of this story is all homosexuals are queer but not all queers are homosexual.
Splendidly put...incisive and well reasoned....and if we're talking non-colloquial English very, very true.
As you're talking morals now Gleeber what do you think of the adoption?
magtomich
01-Feb-09, 00:41
I think these children should go where they want to go, and surely that should be with their own family, regardless of medical condition of grandmother, I am coming to my three score and ten if any of my grandchildren were in a similar position I would fight tooth and nail to adopt them. i know I would have the backing of all of my family.
I think these children should go where they want to go, and surely that should be with their own family, regardless of medical condition of grandmother, I am coming to my three score and ten if any of my grandchildren were in a similar position I would fight tooth and nail to adopt them. i know I would have the backing of all of my family.
You may have the backing of your family but as has been proved, social services would choose where the child/ren go, not you or your family.
Just different. The same way that Obama is different than me because he is black.
He is not black. His mother is white. His father is black.
Wrong! The moral of this story is all homosexuals are queer but not all queers are homosexual.
Im going cross eyed thinking about that:confused
What if social workers want to adopt.......Who checks them out?....Grandparents or gay couples?
Moderator
01-Feb-09, 01:39
As this thread had deteriorated into personal insults, it has now been closed and several posts removed.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.