Why Are Border Force Assisting The...
News2 mins ago
Further to bye, bye Britain
57 Answers
This question attracted very much interest when posted earlier.
It has now been reported that a millionaire is to fund legal services on behalf of the Grandparent.
Peter Hitchins sums the whole matter up regarding how we are now expected to accept homosexuality, regardless of one's personal feelings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1133 033/PETER-HITCHENS-We-tolerance-gays-tyranny-r eturn.html
It has now been reported that a millionaire is to fund legal services on behalf of the Grandparent.
Peter Hitchins sums the whole matter up regarding how we are now expected to accept homosexuality, regardless of one's personal feelings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1133 033/PETER-HITCHENS-We-tolerance-gays-tyranny-r eturn.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sometimes I just have to accept the existence of Jews, regardless of my personal feelings. And blacks. Of course Hitler, and the KKK, didn't see why they should have to do so. (The Nazis sent gays to concentration camps too.) But other people think that to make society work, a bit of old-fashioned English tolerance is required.
Peter Hitchins sums the whole matter up regarding how we are now expected to accept homosexuality, regardless of one's personal feelings.
Yes, a bit like the rest of us have to accept old people regardless of our personal feelings.
Are you trying to imply that homosexual people are somehow sub human or shouldn't be given equal rights?
Yes, a bit like the rest of us have to accept old people regardless of our personal feelings.
Are you trying to imply that homosexual people are somehow sub human or shouldn't be given equal rights?
I don't particuarly agree with gay adoption, I personally feel that the parents of the child to be adopted should be allowed to state their objection prior to the adoption and for those wishes to accepted.
In this story though is the issue that the child has gone to a gay couple, or that the grand parents were deemed unfit to care for them?
In this story though is the issue that the child has gone to a gay couple, or that the grand parents were deemed unfit to care for them?
I'm overjoyed we live in a country which promotes gay rights and overjoyed that eventually people live Peter Hitchins is annoyed by it. Gay men have fought long and hard for equality. No-one is going to force gays back in the closet.
It's exactly the same thing the women has to fight for in the sixties.
It's exactly the same thing the women has to fight for in the sixties.
I personally feel, what happens in the bedroom, should stay there, it is all about respect for others and self respect. If gays have been vetted and would make good parents then fine. I OBJECT to anyone gay or heterosexual being chosen over family who are quite capable of caring for the children. This family were bullied and intimidated, threatened and blackmailed to give up the children by a politically correct social service more interested in ticking boxes and meeting targets than the welfare of the poor children! There age and minor health problems were just an excuse. If this was the reason then half the country should beware that the social stasi may take their children away. I am glad this businessman has agreed to fund them. The secrecy of these family courts should be contested as well. They are not secret just for the childrens sake but also so that you can be bullied and terrified into allowing the state to take over your children. I thank god my children were brought up in another country where you did not have to live in fear of losing the children. Good luck and god bless to this grandparents.
" accept homosexuality regardless of one's personal feelings" That presupposes that one's personal feelings are right !
.
I'm rather with sukkie. Whilst the social services are highly unlikely to have some quota of placing children with gay couples, the cynic in me thinks that there's a fair chance that one or more of the social workers involved is gay ! There may be a little bias involved.It would be interesting to know just how, or how much, better this gay couple was than other, mixed sex, couples who were seen.
When all is said and done, the normal arrangement is that gay men or women have never been parents and where childless couples are concerned, the normal arrangement , that which children have is one parent of each sex.It seems desirable, to me, to replicate that arrangement. Since gay couples cannot be natural parents as a couple, the child who is adopted by a gay couple is instantly put in a family unlike that of any, or almost any, of its peers.
Now , social services are very careful to place a black child in a black family , if they can.If that policy is based on putting a child in what would be expected and what it would see in its black peers' families, then , presumably, similar thinking should apply here.
Of course, it may be that this gay couple is ideal, but we can't know how other couples fell short.
.
I'm rather with sukkie. Whilst the social services are highly unlikely to have some quota of placing children with gay couples, the cynic in me thinks that there's a fair chance that one or more of the social workers involved is gay ! There may be a little bias involved.It would be interesting to know just how, or how much, better this gay couple was than other, mixed sex, couples who were seen.
When all is said and done, the normal arrangement is that gay men or women have never been parents and where childless couples are concerned, the normal arrangement , that which children have is one parent of each sex.It seems desirable, to me, to replicate that arrangement. Since gay couples cannot be natural parents as a couple, the child who is adopted by a gay couple is instantly put in a family unlike that of any, or almost any, of its peers.
Now , social services are very careful to place a black child in a black family , if they can.If that policy is based on putting a child in what would be expected and what it would see in its black peers' families, then , presumably, similar thinking should apply here.
Of course, it may be that this gay couple is ideal, but we can't know how other couples fell short.
a loving couple is a loving couple. The fact that they are gay is a red herring here designed to play on the homophobia of certain people.
The story here is that strangers are being chosen over family, despite the family being more than happy to step forward. That will be lost though in the anxious furore that the mail is (typically) trying to stir up.
The story here is that strangers are being chosen over family, despite the family being more than happy to step forward. That will be lost though in the anxious furore that the mail is (typically) trying to stir up.
I don't believe it is homophobia to suggest a child would be better served being brought up by a heterosexual couple than they would a homosexual couple.
To suggest such is to misunderstand what homophobia is.
I do believe that if this hasn't been a quota filling exercise then it most certainly has been an exercise in the Edinburgh social services in general and the individual social worker in particular actively placing these children with a gay couple, for 'progressive' reasons, at the expense of the heterosexual couples and, more importantly, the grandparents.
On the assumption the hetersexual couples were perfectly capable of giving these kids a loving home, and as they made it so far in the process it is a fair assumption they could, then I would like to know why the gay couple were chosen.
As somebody has already mentioned, the above is pretty much a red herring - the real story here is why have the children, against their wishes, been taken from their loving grandparents, and why have the Edinburgh social services been so brutal?
To suggest such is to misunderstand what homophobia is.
I do believe that if this hasn't been a quota filling exercise then it most certainly has been an exercise in the Edinburgh social services in general and the individual social worker in particular actively placing these children with a gay couple, for 'progressive' reasons, at the expense of the heterosexual couples and, more importantly, the grandparents.
On the assumption the hetersexual couples were perfectly capable of giving these kids a loving home, and as they made it so far in the process it is a fair assumption they could, then I would like to know why the gay couple were chosen.
As somebody has already mentioned, the above is pretty much a red herring - the real story here is why have the children, against their wishes, been taken from their loving grandparents, and why have the Edinburgh social services been so brutal?
-- answer removed --
Mani, you think that the homosexuals are the paedophiles do you? And of what sexuality do you think the rest of the paedophiles are? Have you any evidence at all that homosexuals are more disposed to molesting children that heterosexuals are? No, of course you haven't and it's nonsense to say otherwise.
What will happen is that homosexual men who have an unhealthy interest in male children will get themselves into jobs where that interest can be satisfied: scout masters,school masters in boys' schools, choirmasters etc
What will happen is that homosexual men who have an unhealthy interest in male children will get themselves into jobs where that interest can be satisfied: scout masters,school masters in boys' schools, choirmasters etc
flip_flop, isn't a lot of what we're saying and thinking based on pure guess work? I mean, none of us know any details apart from those supplied by the grandparents?
The council have rightly said they cannot comment, so it makes it difficult to really understand anyone's motivations.
Mani - a mate of mine from Birmingham does drugs and drinks too much. I wouldn't judge everyone from Birmingham based on this.
The council have rightly said they cannot comment, so it makes it difficult to really understand anyone's motivations.
Mani - a mate of mine from Birmingham does drugs and drinks too much. I wouldn't judge everyone from Birmingham based on this.
fredpuli47
Can't quite see where you are coming from, your second paragraph seems to contradict your first.
I would have thought that any male who has an unhealthy interest in male children, must be a homosexual as well as a paedophile.
Therefore one would have thought that it is not at all wise to allow two homosexual males to bring up a male child?
Just as it would not be wise to let two heterosexual males to bring up a female child.
Can't quite see where you are coming from, your second paragraph seems to contradict your first.
I would have thought that any male who has an unhealthy interest in male children, must be a homosexual as well as a paedophile.
Therefore one would have thought that it is not at all wise to allow two homosexual males to bring up a male child?
Just as it would not be wise to let two heterosexual males to bring up a female child.
AOG, Fred's answer made perfect sense. From what you've said, it seems you assume that everyone is a paedophile. Homosexual males prefer a male partner, but that doesn't make them paedophiles, no more than you preferring, I presume, a female partner, means that you would molest a little girl. That's just nonsense.
sp1814
Gay men have fought long and hard for equality. No-one is going to force gays back in the closet.
That's fair enough, if not a little sexist since you did not mention Lesbian equality.
I see nothing wrong with gays having equal rights, as long as these rights don't infringe on the way I wish to conduct my life.
But the problem today with all minority groups is that they are forever thrusting their way of life into our faces, and classing anyone who doesn't agree with their life style, unlawful and something of an oddity.
Yet it is quite acceptable to object to various religious groups pressing their beliefs upon others.Objecting to one particular religion does not make one a heathen.
Gay men have fought long and hard for equality. No-one is going to force gays back in the closet.
That's fair enough, if not a little sexist since you did not mention Lesbian equality.
I see nothing wrong with gays having equal rights, as long as these rights don't infringe on the way I wish to conduct my life.
But the problem today with all minority groups is that they are forever thrusting their way of life into our faces, and classing anyone who doesn't agree with their life style, unlawful and something of an oddity.
Yet it is quite acceptable to object to various religious groups pressing their beliefs upon others.Objecting to one particular religion does not make one a heathen.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Can Someone Tell Me Why There Sre So...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.